Yes it does. Beef cattle is cattle raised to be slaughtered to produce beef (as opposed to dairy cattle), so the conclusion exactly follows.
Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Go learn some English.
Unconditional conclusions drawn from conditional statements are always illogical.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
plague311
Great minds think...
It's been discussed, I already said I missed it because it wasn't part of their POLICY it was part of a PRINCIPLE, which is not the same thing, but whatever.
I assure you, I get what you righties are saying, I just don't read that into their statement. I view it as the same as most statements that say, "I'd like to see the world without x". It's saying "what a nice world it would be if people didn't murder, hate, and fight over something as simple as moving around the Earth". The entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ document has several sections detailing the changes they'd like to see to immigration while defining the system they'd like to use to make that happen. If the right needs to stick to that one sentence in the entire document that seems to uphold their point, cool! Good for you guys. A victory! I award 25 internet points a piece.
I made a mistake, I read the document before smartcooky's crying and just didn't see the rest. My fault, I apologize, but if we'd like to keep talking about it, I'm more than happy to. How would you like to proceed?
No, beef cattle are by definition raised for slaughter. There is no subset of beef cattle that are not raised for slaughter, because then they would not be beef cattle.
So saying that they want no livestock raised for slaughter means they want no beef cattle. If someone says that they wouldn't live in any landlocked country then you can assume they wouldn't live in Switzerland
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,638
More evidence of BBC bias.
Lembit Öpik
@lembitopik
Seems the BBC doesn’t consider giving any significant airtime to Russia’s perspective on the causes of Ukraine conflict. Presumably the BBC has decided the politics is settled. With such an attitude, the prospect of objective, balanced reporting is zero
Lembit Öpik
@lembitopik
Seems the BBC doesn’t consider giving any significant airtime to Russia’s perspective on the causes of Ukraine conflict. Presumably the BBC has decided the politics is settled. With such an attitude, the prospect of objective, balanced reporting is zero
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Enjoy those shiny kopeks, you irrelevant pillock (HNY).
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Understand missing it... moving on.
I have a different viewpoint than you (are you surprised?) in that principles are a statement of intention and goal, whereas policy is the means by which that goal will be sought.
The right wing has a whole lot of principles that I know you disagree with (so do I). They haven't made those principles into explicit policies, but there are policies they're seeking that arguably are interim steps to achieve their principles. For example, republicans have a principle of repealing ACA - they've been pretty clear that it's their long-term goal since before it was first passed in 2010. Many republicans however, understand that they can't accomplish that in one step - so they design policy that will move them toward that stated goal even if it doesn't completely accomplish it. I suspect you're not shy to point out that all of their policies on health care are intended to move the US closer to their stated principle?
Why would you think that Green party is NOT attempting to achieve their stated principle, and that this policy proposal is merely an interim step on their journey?
ETA:
Principles : Policy :: Objective : Strategy
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would assume that at least some beef cattle are raised for breeding? I am under the impression that the vast majority of what we eat comes from young steers (castrated male cattle), but that the overall category of "beef cattle" would include bulls and cows as well?
ETA: I'm being pedantic and I know it. No need to call me on it
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
What the holy hell does any of this have to do with perceived/alleged/proven/imagined bias in BBC news reporting? There's inevitable thread drift, and then there's this firehose of irrelevant beef-cattleshit and whataboutism.
For ◊◊◊◊'s sake.
For ◊◊◊◊'s sake.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I have no idea where the beef cattle came from. The green party stuff came from the at-this-point-unavoidable insinuation of some poster being "right wing" because they disagree with a progressive position on some specific topic... which of course unavoidably devolves into a discussion of whether the stated progressive position is a really-for-real position or a pie-in-the-sky-if-only-utopia position.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It's more that they are wearing it on their sleeve.
plague311
Great minds think...
You know what? Since it's holiday season and I'm feeling ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ jolly, let's analyze this then, shall we? We're two pretty bright people.
I don't have much to argue with when it comes to this statement here, but I think by the end we'll both agree that this was a throwaway sentence. A feel good phrase that doesn't really play into the whole "thE lEFt WAntZ oPeN BORdERz" nonsense.
To your point, lets see what the Green Party says:
Just as I, and others have said, they aren't speaking literally. They're saying "in an ideal world".
This plays into what you were saying with your comments on the GOP and the ACA. Here comes the key though, since they know it isn't an "ideal world"...
So they've already said they have a plan in place (we can't say the same thing about the GOP and the ACA. They have ◊◊◊◊ all and have said as much). This doesn't really appear to be working towards open borders though, does it? Seems to be a structured immigration process.
Again, doesn't really seem like they're working towards an open border since they're acknowledging the need for controls and the desire to restrict movement. Seems pretty...controlled.
Look at that? It also seems they're listening to the people. They even are going to *gasp* exclude people:
Given the context of their entire policy, and what they have stated as far as how to move forward it seems pretty clear that they aren't trying to do away with borders. It was merely a throw away sentence saying "In a perfect world we wouldn't need guns", right? That would be a perfect world, but since we aren't in a perfect world things have to be managed, controlled, monitored, but still respectful to those who are subject to them.
I see the statement for what it is...a feel good statement.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Meh. I don't think you provide the same level of tolerance to "feel good statements" based on "ideal world" desires to those you perceive as being opposition. But fine, it's nothing more than an expression of daydreaming wishes.
REgarding your line about excluding people... the only means they provide for exclusion is literally terrorists and major criminals. There's no means in their approach to deny anyone else. And since they're completely removing any requirements for income or language, it creates a situation where anyone who wants to become a UK citizen can do so simply because they want to, and the people and government of the UK has no means to shut the doors. Which makes it effectively an open border policy, with a teensy caveat to keep out a small number of people perhaps.
If that's what you want, if that's an approach that you personally support, then I can see how it would be very easy to handwave away the open border principles as just being wishfulness and just kind of wink-wink-nudge-nudge that their proposed policies are meaningfully different from that. I don't see a meaningful difference though - a set of policies that results in anyone who wants to immigrate being supported and allowed to emigrate (unless they're already a really bad criminal) and also get full access to voting rights, health care rights, social safety nets, and everything else even if they're not officially a citizen yet seems like window dressing trying to pretend it's not an open border.
Go learn some English yourself. The conclusion is conditional, as jimbob explained; 'beef' is a conditional in this case, matching the 'raised for food'.
True but irrelevant. A) it's an analogy to illustrate a point so isn't going to be perfect, and B) the point was specifically raising the cattle to be meat, not that they weren't going to be slaughtered at some point.
plague311
Great minds think...
They can deny anyone they want for any reason they want. They haven't specified that they can't, it's just that they aren't using that as their default policy. They want to treat people like they are citizens to encourage people to live there, productively.
There are visas and rules to follow, and so on, but you're right. We won't agree.
Cool. I can't think of a reason why people living in a country, working in that country, and paying taxes in that country shouldn't have full access to rights, but I'm not a right-winger. Lots of ◊◊◊◊ I don't get about right-wing ideology.
Last edited:
I'm fine with people going "their utopia would have open borders and I don't respect that at all" the same way I'd go "their utopia would not allow abortions and I don't respect that at all."
Where I'm getting hung up is "so the other stuff they say they want in the interim is fake." Not even "I think it's a bad idea" or "it's a dishonest wedge" but the rest of the document isn't even up for discussion.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, not fake. Its what they say they will do in the interim on the path to achieving their stated goal. I think even they are smart enough to know they aren't going to disappear borders overnight, so they would work towards disappearing them gradually... by stealth.
Its rather like the introduction of digital ID Labour politicians seem to have a hard-on for. They have ZERO mandate to do this because it wasn't in their manifesto... so no-one voted for it. At the moment, they are claiming people will be able to opt out, but anyone with a brain knows that is false in the long term... If digital ID is introduced, there must come a time in the future when you won't be able to exist in society without it. You will be shut out. Without digital ID, you won't have access to your own money in the bank, you wont be able to get a driver's license, you won't be able to get a job, or benefits if you don't have a job. You wont be able to apply for a passport. And then there are the hackers and cybersecurity breaches.
Who remembers the 2007 HMRC leak of 25 million records?
Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing
· Mass fraud fear as personal details of 7m families mislaid · Inland Revenue chief resigns following 'substantial failure' · Tories claim blunder is 'nail in coffin' of ID cards scheme
www.theguardian.com
What about the 2023 (Met Police): 47,000 records lost thanks to a cock-up by a contractor?
Met Police investigating suspected data breach
Scotland Yard says it was been made aware of "unauthorised access" to data held by an outside company.
www.bbc.com
What about the 2023 data breach relating to Afghanis working for the British military?
UK defence ministry fined for Afghan data breach during Taliban takeover
The British data regulator said on Wednesday it had fined the defence ministry for a series of email data breaches that revealed details of over 265 Afghans who were seeking relocation to Britain after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan.
www.reuters.com
Do any of you here really trust your government (of ANY stripe) to keep your data safe from hackers?
Last edited: