This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sorry for the sensationalist title - actually it seems that Brexiteers say that pets are sentient, but that no other animals can feel emotion or pain. The implications for animal welfare appear to be very serious indeed.
"MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of a crucial clause that would transfer the recognition of animal sentience into UK law post Brexit in an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill (15 November)."
https://www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/newsroom/news-releases/bva-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-se...
Of all the Brexit bad news stories, this is the one that makes me most uneasy. Just how far are we going to fall?
"MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of a crucial clause that would transfer the recognition of animal sentience into UK law post Brexit in an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill (15 November)."
https://www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/newsroom/news-releases/bva-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-se...
Of all the Brexit bad news stories, this is the one that makes me most uneasy. Just how far are we going to fall?
25
9
19
18
In reply to Wicamoi:
Seems some very emotive chat on the veterinary facebook pages, 2006 AWA and ASPA probably cover most bases already?
I've just had a read of the transcript of the debate, quite interesting.
Seems some very emotive chat on the veterinary facebook pages, 2006 AWA and ASPA probably cover most bases already?
I've just had a read of the transcript of the debate, quite interesting.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
No, it would be Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty:
"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."
That the EU has not banned bull-fighting in Spain is surely evidence that the EU does not dictate to its member states. That the UK government removes reference to animals being sentient while transposing EU law to UK law is surely evidence of a willingness to accommodate lower welfare standards.
Are you happy with this?
No, it would be Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty:
"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."
That the EU has not banned bull-fighting in Spain is surely evidence that the EU does not dictate to its member states. That the UK government removes reference to animals being sentient while transposing EU law to UK law is surely evidence of a willingness to accommodate lower welfare standards.
Are you happy with this?
63
2
In reply to Wicamoi:
Show you how stupid are British MPs or just 313 of these MPs are I suggest they are the
ones who are not the sentient beings.
Show you how stupid are British MPs or just 313 of these MPs are I suggest they are the
ones who are not the sentient beings.
Post edited at 22:35
14
3
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Yes, my understanding is that in the UK we have AWA and other stuff, and the EU legislation would mainly duplicate some of the existing UK legislation so is unecessary, but on the other hand there is no real reason NOT to adopt the EU version other than the political message that "we're not just transferring all the EU regs post Brexit".
This one may have backfired though as there seems to be a lot of adverse coverage, including from within the veterinary hierarchy.
Yes, my understanding is that in the UK we have AWA and other stuff, and the EU legislation would mainly duplicate some of the existing UK legislation so is unecessary, but on the other hand there is no real reason NOT to adopt the EU version other than the political message that "we're not just transferring all the EU regs post Brexit".
This one may have backfired though as there seems to be a lot of adverse coverage, including from within the veterinary hierarchy.
6
1
In reply to Wicamoi:
Thin end of the wedge - look out for a 'sentience test' for those applying for benefits soon.
Thin end of the wedge - look out for a 'sentience test' for those applying for benefits soon.
18
4
In reply to Ron Rees Davies and Dr S.:
RSPCA seem to be saying that the AWA only covers domestic animals - are they mistaken?
RSPCA seem to be saying that the AWA only covers domestic animals - are they mistaken?
1
In reply to Wicamoi:
Aren't the government just systematically voting down all proposed amendments to the withdrawal bill, of which this was one?
Aren't the government just systematically voting down all proposed amendments to the withdrawal bill, of which this was one?
2
6
10
In reply to Wicamoi:
Doesn’t the EU sentience stuff only relate to domesticated animals? UK law covers this pretty well already. From farming to pets to animal experimentation.
Doesn’t the EU sentience stuff only relate to domesticated animals? UK law covers this pretty well already. From farming to pets to animal experimentation.
3
In reply to Wicamoi:
AWA was targeted at domesticated species. ASPA covers experimental stuff. Wild animals would not generally come under AWA but can come under ASPA in the right circumstances.
AWA was targeted at domesticated species. ASPA covers experimental stuff. Wild animals would not generally come under AWA but can come under ASPA in the right circumstances.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
OK, but it's quite obvious the Article 13 has a broad scope that - according to the BVA and RSPCA at least - is not covered by existing UK legislation. Fisheries and wild animals (excluding experimental work) for example. Furthermore, the Article is a commitment to *future* legislation and policy, which I don't think is otherwise enshrined in UK law.
So the question remains: why reject Article 13 if not because it is feared that it may not prove to be expedient?
OK, but it's quite obvious the Article 13 has a broad scope that - according to the BVA and RSPCA at least - is not covered by existing UK legislation. Fisheries and wild animals (excluding experimental work) for example. Furthermore, the Article is a commitment to *future* legislation and policy, which I don't think is otherwise enshrined in UK law.
So the question remains: why reject Article 13 if not because it is feared that it may not prove to be expedient?
1
2
In reply to Wicamoi:
Whether animals are sentient or not (even what sentient means) and whether they feel pain are different questions. I doubt there are many, if any, brexiteers who'd say dogs don't feel pain.
What's the point in this clause, why make it law?
Whether animals are sentient or not (even what sentient means) and whether they feel pain are different questions. I doubt there are many, if any, brexiteers who'd say dogs don't feel pain.
What's the point in this clause, why make it law?
3
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Human beings are sentient. They also die in the name of sport. When we ban boxing, then I'll start worrying about bulls.And please spare me any of the drivel about consent.
Human beings are sentient. They also die in the name of sport. When we ban boxing, then I'll start worrying about bulls.And please spare me any of the drivel about consent.
2
36
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Do you always get consent from the animals you are 'involved' with?
> And please spare me any of the drivel about consent.
Do you always get consent from the animals you are 'involved' with?
19
1
In reply to bouldery bits:
No.
None of the animals I have ever eaten have consented to me doing so.
The consent comment was actually an effort to forestall any attempt to defend the noble art on the grounds that both participants are consenting to the bout. Even if one should happen to kill the other.
No.
None of the animals I have ever eaten have consented to me doing so.
The consent comment was actually an effort to forestall any attempt to defend the noble art on the grounds that both participants are consenting to the bout. Even if one should happen to kill the other.
15
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Joke
Missed.
No banter for anyone today.
Although, playing devil's advocate, (cos I do that like) if you go mountaineering and it happens to kill you, is that cool?
Maybe we should ban mountaineering?
Or golf. You could die from golf. I'd die of boredoms from golf. Then again, I wouldn't consent to golf.
Joke
Missed.
No banter for anyone today.
Although, playing devil's advocate, (cos I do that like) if you go mountaineering and it happens to kill you, is that cool?
Maybe we should ban mountaineering?
Or golf. You could die from golf. I'd die of boredoms from golf. Then again, I wouldn't consent to golf.
17
1
In reply to bouldery bits:
I get the feeling you aren't taking the subject seriously.
Last I heard, the World Medical Association and the British Medical Association hadn't actually supported a ban on mountaineering or golf. Maybe it's because human beings don't actually kill each other in those sports.
But as I've said before, what do they know?
Doctors.
Bunch of f*cking do gooders.
I get the feeling you aren't taking the subject seriously.
Last I heard, the World Medical Association and the British Medical Association hadn't actually supported a ban on mountaineering or golf. Maybe it's because human beings don't actually kill each other in those sports.
But as I've said before, what do they know?
Doctors.
Bunch of f*cking do gooders.
1
18
In reply to Tom Valentine:
That's not like me at all!
> I get the feeling you aren't taking the subject seriously.
That's not like me at all!
2
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Congratulations on a fine piece of whataboutery.
> This would be the EU regulation which allows bullfighting to continue?
Congratulations on a fine piece of whataboutery.
32
4
In reply to john arran:
Congratulations on nothing.
This idea that adding a question into the debate, one on topic, can be dismissed as "whataboutery", just goes to show paucity of thought on the behalf of those using it.
Congratulations on nothing.
This idea that adding a question into the debate, one on topic, can be dismissed as "whataboutery", just goes to show paucity of thought on the behalf of those using it.
Post edited at 03:13
6
28
19
3
3
12
In reply to Wicamoi:
As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
11
3
5
In reply to Big Ger:
Come on BG, stop your virtue signalling for a bit :-p
> Not at all, Bullfighting is repulsive.
Come on BG, stop your virtue signalling for a bit :-p
16
2
In reply to Jim C:
Because until the next major political event Brexit will be blamed for everything that is less than perfect. It is the fall back excuse, instead of blaming poor planning, incompetence etc..
> As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
Because until the next major political event Brexit will be blamed for everything that is less than perfect. It is the fall back excuse, instead of blaming poor planning, incompetence etc..
4
7
In reply to summo:
and who've we got to represent us for the rest of the negotiations?
> Because until the next major political event Brexit will be blamed for everything that is less than perfect. It is the fall back excuse, instead of blaming poor planning, incompetence etc..
and who've we got to represent us for the rest of the negotiations?
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
I understand the term 'sentient' to include both perception and feeling (and feeling to include pain). I.e it's a conjunction rather than a disjunction (an 'and/both' not an 'either/or').
> Whether animals are sentient or not (even what sentient means) and whether they feel pain are different questions. I doubt there are many, if any, brexiteers who'd say dogs don't feel pain.
I understand the term 'sentient' to include both perception and feeling (and feeling to include pain). I.e it's a conjunction rather than a disjunction (an 'and/both' not an 'either/or').
2
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Whatever the definition it's not something that can be legislated for or against - it's either true or not. It's like trying to legislate that pi is four. Ridiculous.
Whatever the definition it's not something that can be legislated for or against - it's either true or not. It's like trying to legislate that pi is four. Ridiculous.
4
In reply to Jim C:
How can I put this politely? The reason that the Brexiteers are getting the blame for this situation is because it's the effing Brexit Bill! It's what the leavers voted for having, and what the remainers voted against having. The fact that a large number of natural remainers on the Tory benches are too craven (or perhaps too keen on fox-hunting?) to vote against the government is neither here nor there - the end result is that you voted for Brexit and you got a weakening of commitment to animal welfare - almost instantly and despite assurances to the contrary made by the Environment Secretary only a few months ago.
I'll ask you directly, as I asked Big Ger - are you happy about this?
For the avoidance of doubt I think it is perfectly possible to be a leaver and to be furious about this. But instead of burying your head in the sand (see Big Ger's response to my question) and tacitly accepting the government's position, get angry, write to your MP, let your voice be heard! It is probably only the leavers who have any chance of influencing the government right now. And this isn't about the blue team vs the red team any more - this is about a government blatantly electing to weaken the force of animal welfare legislation in the UK post-Brexit. This is about the common standards we accept - remainers and leavers both.
Here in the citadel, I am asking you to beware of the proud and beautiful stallion that Murdoch and Farage have given us - here is the first sandalled foot and glinting blade emerging from its belly.
> As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
How can I put this politely? The reason that the Brexiteers are getting the blame for this situation is because it's the effing Brexit Bill! It's what the leavers voted for having, and what the remainers voted against having. The fact that a large number of natural remainers on the Tory benches are too craven (or perhaps too keen on fox-hunting?) to vote against the government is neither here nor there - the end result is that you voted for Brexit and you got a weakening of commitment to animal welfare - almost instantly and despite assurances to the contrary made by the Environment Secretary only a few months ago.
I'll ask you directly, as I asked Big Ger - are you happy about this?
For the avoidance of doubt I think it is perfectly possible to be a leaver and to be furious about this. But instead of burying your head in the sand (see Big Ger's response to my question) and tacitly accepting the government's position, get angry, write to your MP, let your voice be heard! It is probably only the leavers who have any chance of influencing the government right now. And this isn't about the blue team vs the red team any more - this is about a government blatantly electing to weaken the force of animal welfare legislation in the UK post-Brexit. This is about the common standards we accept - remainers and leavers both.
Here in the citadel, I am asking you to beware of the proud and beautiful stallion that Murdoch and Farage have given us - here is the first sandalled foot and glinting blade emerging from its belly.
33
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Surely there is an englishxiter version of that, isn't there? We cannot possibly want to borrow anything from those pilfering, interfering continentals whether it be ideas, languages, and political frameworks now, would we?
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....
Surely there is an englishxiter version of that, isn't there? We cannot possibly want to borrow anything from those pilfering, interfering continentals whether it be ideas, languages, and political frameworks now, would we?
9
1
In reply to Jim C:
They wouldn’t be voting on it if it wasn’t for Brexit (oh look you have got some democracy back).
Effective three line whip (what was I saying about democracy!)
> As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
They wouldn’t be voting on it if it wasn’t for Brexit (oh look you have got some democracy back).
Effective three line whip (what was I saying about democracy!)
7
1
In reply to Wicamoi:
Wicamoi post of 11:21 is the one that resonates the most for me.
Beyond personal inconvenience (I am but a lowly EU citizen residing in this country still awaiting for my permanent leave to remain ticket), my main issue, isn't money, it is not even about narrowing minds. These are very important factors in why I consider the UK leaving the EU a catastrophe, don't get me wrong.
No, my main issue with the whole gambit, it is way beyond leaving/remaining that the worst consequences lie IMO. Brexiting is the tip of the iceberg of ideologies I find abhorrent. The EU was (for the UK)/ is (fro the remaining 27) full of faults but it attempted to limit some excesses. It had/has lost its moral compass on certain sectors, yes! But it had legislation that I feel were attempting to make the world a better place. Sure some bureaucrats and canny rich folks found loopholes.
The UK government in place is now using the "new" opportunity that brexit offers to re-calibrate the system, supposedly to suit the "will of the people" but more balatantly to suit the commercial needs of the ruling elite. In the process, it discards "annoying" legislation and beats the drum about this one all-pertaining mantra of theirs: "when we are richer, so will you...as there will be more crumbs falling off the table for you to pick".
I like crumbs...I'll take them when I can but not if the process of making more crumbs has been more immoral than the previous one.
Animal welfare, people right to fairness, social welfare, civil liberties... are all more in danger now then they were before. This is obviously my personal interpretation and Big G may well put forward compelling evidence to the contrary.
BTW, I have pet hates about the EU. But I much prefer a pernickety bureaucrat over an entitled, disconnected rich aristocrat (even though it may happen that sometime they are the same?)
Wicamoi post of 11:21 is the one that resonates the most for me.
Beyond personal inconvenience (I am but a lowly EU citizen residing in this country still awaiting for my permanent leave to remain ticket), my main issue, isn't money, it is not even about narrowing minds. These are very important factors in why I consider the UK leaving the EU a catastrophe, don't get me wrong.
No, my main issue with the whole gambit, it is way beyond leaving/remaining that the worst consequences lie IMO. Brexiting is the tip of the iceberg of ideologies I find abhorrent. The EU was (for the UK)/ is (fro the remaining 27) full of faults but it attempted to limit some excesses. It had/has lost its moral compass on certain sectors, yes! But it had legislation that I feel were attempting to make the world a better place. Sure some bureaucrats and canny rich folks found loopholes.
The UK government in place is now using the "new" opportunity that brexit offers to re-calibrate the system, supposedly to suit the "will of the people" but more balatantly to suit the commercial needs of the ruling elite. In the process, it discards "annoying" legislation and beats the drum about this one all-pertaining mantra of theirs: "when we are richer, so will you...as there will be more crumbs falling off the table for you to pick".
I like crumbs...I'll take them when I can but not if the process of making more crumbs has been more immoral than the previous one.
Animal welfare, people right to fairness, social welfare, civil liberties... are all more in danger now then they were before. This is obviously my personal interpretation and Big G may well put forward compelling evidence to the contrary.
BTW, I have pet hates about the EU. But I much prefer a pernickety bureaucrat over an entitled, disconnected rich aristocrat (even though it may happen that sometime they are the same?)
24
2
In reply to Wicamoi:
Good little rant, but can you explain how this weakens our protection of animals at all? Looks like a load of hot air to me.
Good little rant, but can you explain how this weakens our protection of animals at all? Looks like a load of hot air to me.
2
6
In reply to thomasadixon:
Thanks man, you're too kind.
I'll be honest, I'm no expert on the law, but as far as I can tell Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty commits EU member states to the consideration of animal welfare, specifically based on the understanding that animals are sentient, in the development of all future policies.
Granted the UK already has legal protection for animals (the Animal Welfare Act 2006 giving some protection to domesticated animals, and the ASPA legislation governing scientific procedures on wild animals). Now, I don't know the level of protection that AWA and ASPA actually specify, but even assuming it is entirely consistent with the demands of Article 13, there appears to me a gap in the law which would render the welfare of wild animals no longer guaranteed under UK law. The cynic may wonder how fox-hunting might be effected in the future, now that foxes are no longer sentient.
Furthermore the removal of a general precept about policies which affect animals that Article 13 enshrines, effectively allows the UK to undercut future EU policies which develop under the aegis of article 13 - say governing fisheries. Yet we had specific assurances from Gove stating this would not happen. Without putting anything else in its place, I really don't see how voting down Article 13 can be regarded as anything other a lowering of our welfare standards.
I could be mistaken, as I say I'm no expert on the law, and you mustn't take my word for it, but here's what Gudrun Ravetz, Senior Vice President of the British Veterinary Association, had to say:
“It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.
“As an animal welfare-led profession, BVA has been calling on government to at least maintain current standards of animal health and welfare and public health. Yet actions speak louder than words, and this action undermines the Government’s previous promises that the UK will continue to be known for our high standards of animal health and welfare post-Brexit.
“There is now an urgent need for clarity from Government on how the provisions in Article 13 will be enshrined in UK law to ensure we do not fall short of the high standards we expect as a nation of animal lovers.”
It's really the last paragraph that is the important one so far as I'm concerned - if you are angry, worried or even just bemused that we should specifically exclude Article 13 from the Brexit bill, then it is time to put pressure on the government to do something about it. Don't just sit there like a lemon thinking "I am a Brexiteer so I have to support the government on the Brexit Bill." It's time for Brexiteers to take responsibility for the sort of Brexit they want. Bull-fighting isn't our concern any more - we voted ourselves out of having any responsibility on that matter - our concern must be for the standards we want in our own country now.
Thanks man, you're too kind.
I'll be honest, I'm no expert on the law, but as far as I can tell Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty commits EU member states to the consideration of animal welfare, specifically based on the understanding that animals are sentient, in the development of all future policies.
Granted the UK already has legal protection for animals (the Animal Welfare Act 2006 giving some protection to domesticated animals, and the ASPA legislation governing scientific procedures on wild animals). Now, I don't know the level of protection that AWA and ASPA actually specify, but even assuming it is entirely consistent with the demands of Article 13, there appears to me a gap in the law which would render the welfare of wild animals no longer guaranteed under UK law. The cynic may wonder how fox-hunting might be effected in the future, now that foxes are no longer sentient.
Furthermore the removal of a general precept about policies which affect animals that Article 13 enshrines, effectively allows the UK to undercut future EU policies which develop under the aegis of article 13 - say governing fisheries. Yet we had specific assurances from Gove stating this would not happen. Without putting anything else in its place, I really don't see how voting down Article 13 can be regarded as anything other a lowering of our welfare standards.
I could be mistaken, as I say I'm no expert on the law, and you mustn't take my word for it, but here's what Gudrun Ravetz, Senior Vice President of the British Veterinary Association, had to say:
“It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.
“As an animal welfare-led profession, BVA has been calling on government to at least maintain current standards of animal health and welfare and public health. Yet actions speak louder than words, and this action undermines the Government’s previous promises that the UK will continue to be known for our high standards of animal health and welfare post-Brexit.
“There is now an urgent need for clarity from Government on how the provisions in Article 13 will be enshrined in UK law to ensure we do not fall short of the high standards we expect as a nation of animal lovers.”
It's really the last paragraph that is the important one so far as I'm concerned - if you are angry, worried or even just bemused that we should specifically exclude Article 13 from the Brexit bill, then it is time to put pressure on the government to do something about it. Don't just sit there like a lemon thinking "I am a Brexiteer so I have to support the government on the Brexit Bill." It's time for Brexiteers to take responsibility for the sort of Brexit they want. Bull-fighting isn't our concern any more - we voted ourselves out of having any responsibility on that matter - our concern must be for the standards we want in our own country now.
14
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Erm... yes they do, frequently.
jk
> Last I heard, the World Medical Association and the British Medical Association hadn't actually supported a ban on mountaineering or golf. Maybe it's because human beings don't actually kill each other in those sports.
Erm... yes they do, frequently.
jk
1
1
In reply to Wicamoi:
I'm more bemused as to why people think it's terrible that it's not being made law. I don't think it's a good idea to make law that is unclear as to meaning and effect, and as far as I can see that's this one. What does sentient mean, after all? I reckon anything with the right receptors can feel pain, and I'd think most (all?) mammals have emotion, but I can't see that making it law that they're sentient has any meaning at all. Plus as MG said, if they're sentient then they're sentient, making it law doesn't change the facts.
I read the vet's comments, I can't see how they show that there's any actual problem here, and they don't explain why this is a good bit of law to have.
Could be worth thinking from the alternative perspective - just because you're a remainer doesn't mean that this is a good law, or that it needs to become part of UK law. Unthinkingly transferring every line of legislation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. What side of the EU debate you are/were on has no relevance.
Totally agree, but I don't see that this changes our actual standards at all.
Gordon - perception and feeling...so snails are sentient presumably?
I'm more bemused as to why people think it's terrible that it's not being made law. I don't think it's a good idea to make law that is unclear as to meaning and effect, and as far as I can see that's this one. What does sentient mean, after all? I reckon anything with the right receptors can feel pain, and I'd think most (all?) mammals have emotion, but I can't see that making it law that they're sentient has any meaning at all. Plus as MG said, if they're sentient then they're sentient, making it law doesn't change the facts.
I read the vet's comments, I can't see how they show that there's any actual problem here, and they don't explain why this is a good bit of law to have.
Could be worth thinking from the alternative perspective - just because you're a remainer doesn't mean that this is a good law, or that it needs to become part of UK law. Unthinkingly transferring every line of legislation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. What side of the EU debate you are/were on has no relevance.
> our concern must be for the standards we want in our own country now.
Totally agree, but I don't see that this changes our actual standards at all.
Gordon - perception and feeling...so snails are sentient presumably?
Post edited at 14:24
1
5
In reply to Wicamoi:
Now this https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/politics/tories-strip-right-equality...
Brexiteers: Is this really what you wanted? Really? These are your rights too.
jk
Now this https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/politics/tories-strip-right-equality...
Brexiteers: Is this really what you wanted? Really? These are your rights too.
jk
Post edited at 14:31
3
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
No. Perception and feeling are two different concepts. Sentience includes them both. Not all animals are sentient. This latest law (which the Europeans have already) is about the way sentient beings are treated. When I have a moment, I'll have a look and see how their act is worded in detail.
I see it's quite clearly explained here:
https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en
> Gordon - perception and feeling...so snails are sentient presumably?
No. Perception and feeling are two different concepts. Sentience includes them both. Not all animals are sentient. This latest law (which the Europeans have already) is about the way sentient beings are treated. When I have a moment, I'll have a look and see how their act is worded in detail.
I see it's quite clearly explained here:
https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en
Post edited at 14:37
1
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
So you mean emotional feeling? The law's linked, it doesn't define sentient.
So you mean emotional feeling? The law's linked, it doesn't define sentient.
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
Scientifically it doesn't. It may of course in practice. Brexiteers and the populist right generally don't like facts, particularly ones that get in the way of their delusions and zealotry. Legislating against facts will give them the cover to behave as if the facts didn't exist, by allowing cruelty to animals in this case.
> Plus as MG said, if they're sentient then they're sentient, making it law doesn't change the facts.
Scientifically it doesn't. It may of course in practice. Brexiteers and the populist right generally don't like facts, particularly ones that get in the way of their delusions and zealotry. Legislating against facts will give them the cover to behave as if the facts didn't exist, by allowing cruelty to animals in this case.
11
3
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Which is largely what is in AWA 2006! When the link you gave stated that the EY set up minimum standards and members could legislate to exceed them - it’s desctibing the current UK condition of legislation beyond the EU minimum.
Which is largely what is in AWA 2006! When the link you gave stated that the EY set up minimum standards and members could legislate to exceed them - it’s desctibing the current UK condition of legislation beyond the EU minimum.
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
From a biologist´s viewpoint, sentience is something that is graded, rather than a black and white property some species has, but another, possibly related, species does not.
If I had to define sentience (even though it is not my specialist subject), I would argue that self recognition, self reflexivity, and a theory of mind (that I have an concept or idea of what another individual may experience, feel, or think, and how that would be influenced by external events including my actions) would be sufficient.
However, I would not think that these criteria are also necessary, and it may be justified to ascribe sentience also to organisms which do not fulfill all of these criteria fully. Exactly where to put the sentience threshold is probably more philosophy than science, but I assume it would fall well below anything observed in mammals, birds, and probably at least some fish.
Birds are actually a great example where current tests for sentience can give you wildly different results for closely related species, which probably just tells you how crude such tests still are.
In any case, sentience is probably not the only such graded property, states resembling sleep can even be found in jellyfish, while flies definitely have neural activities resembling dreaming.
Fortunately I am sure that flies do not have emotional correlates of pain or fear (e.g. they certainly sense damage, but unlike mice do not favour an injured limb), as this would have consequences for my line of research.
CB
> Gordon - perception and feeling...so snails are sentient presumably?
From a biologist´s viewpoint, sentience is something that is graded, rather than a black and white property some species has, but another, possibly related, species does not.
If I had to define sentience (even though it is not my specialist subject), I would argue that self recognition, self reflexivity, and a theory of mind (that I have an concept or idea of what another individual may experience, feel, or think, and how that would be influenced by external events including my actions) would be sufficient.
However, I would not think that these criteria are also necessary, and it may be justified to ascribe sentience also to organisms which do not fulfill all of these criteria fully. Exactly where to put the sentience threshold is probably more philosophy than science, but I assume it would fall well below anything observed in mammals, birds, and probably at least some fish.
Birds are actually a great example where current tests for sentience can give you wildly different results for closely related species, which probably just tells you how crude such tests still are.
In any case, sentience is probably not the only such graded property, states resembling sleep can even be found in jellyfish, while flies definitely have neural activities resembling dreaming.
Fortunately I am sure that flies do not have emotional correlates of pain or fear (e.g. they certainly sense damage, but unlike mice do not favour an injured limb), as this would have consequences for my line of research.
CB
4
In reply to Jim C:
Did you not get the memo? The majority of MPs are hardline brexiteers now. It's the will of the people.
> As I understood it Remainers were the majority of MPs , so why is it that the Brexiteers are getting stick for this situation, how could the Brexiteers outvote the Remainers?
Did you not get the memo? The majority of MPs are hardline brexiteers now. It's the will of the people.
In reply to cb294:
That all seems reasonable. I'd agree it's more philosophy than science.
So what do you think of the law? "Since animals are sentient beings" No qualifiers, so logically includes flies, snails, even coral.
Well off topic - is that (favouring a limb) anything more than an instinct to avoid further damage to it?
That all seems reasonable. I'd agree it's more philosophy than science.
So what do you think of the law? "Since animals are sentient beings" No qualifiers, so logically includes flies, snails, even coral.
> (e.g. they certainly sense damage, but unlike mice do not favour an injured limb
Well off topic - is that (favouring a limb) anything more than an instinct to avoid further damage to it?
Post edited at 09:30
In reply to thomasadixon:
In this case, it is probably more a matter of jurisprudence. Most likely some other law will already have defined what organisms are classed as an animal in the legal context.
For example, here in Germany, fish embryos and larvae (but not adult fish), and invertebrates do not fall under the animal protection rules for scientific experiments, as they are not classed as animals as defined for the purpose of the legislation, even though they obviously are animals in the biological sense (saves me a load of red tape, too).
Depending on which (scientifically defined) animals are covered by the legal definition of animals the law refers to, this preamble may therefore even be scientifically correct. As noted above, I believe some degree of sentience, e.g. an ability to take the inferred mental state of another individual into account when making a decision, will be detectable quite widely in evolution. However, I do not believe that a practical sentience threshold should be defined to encompass all animals (including, e.g., jellyfish or sponges), so no, I do not consider all animals sentient.
As an aside, this view does not clash with another observation I repeatedly posted on here, which is that internally we are still animals, and our long evolution as non-sentient animals even explains many aspects of human behaviour which we would usually ascribe to our unique, sentient human condition, including religion and societal organization.
As for the favouring of an injured limb, sure, avoiding more damage is the evolutionary "purpose" of pain, to associate something that is damaging with unpleasant emotions that should be avoided. The key issue, though, is that a mouse can have fear of pain, and just being put in a place it has learned to associate with pain will put it under stress similar as if was experiencing that pain. Even beyond that, mice have empathy, and the stress they experience (as detected e.g. by stress hormones in the blood, behaviour, or pulse rates) when seeing another mouse in stress or pain will vary depending on whether the mouse in distress is a littermate or an unknown individual.
Flies already fail at the first hurdle: Clip the tip off a fly leg, and the animal will simply extend that leg a little further to maintain a horizontal posture, no favouring . Nevertheless, you can train flies to avoid damage or shocks, but there are no known parameters that would indicate that they have an emotional correlate of fear resembling the response seen in lab mice. They will "happily" sit on top of another fly in distress (e.g. stuck in the food) and run their normal behavioural program more or less unchanged.
CB
In this case, it is probably more a matter of jurisprudence. Most likely some other law will already have defined what organisms are classed as an animal in the legal context.
For example, here in Germany, fish embryos and larvae (but not adult fish), and invertebrates do not fall under the animal protection rules for scientific experiments, as they are not classed as animals as defined for the purpose of the legislation, even though they obviously are animals in the biological sense (saves me a load of red tape, too).
Depending on which (scientifically defined) animals are covered by the legal definition of animals the law refers to, this preamble may therefore even be scientifically correct. As noted above, I believe some degree of sentience, e.g. an ability to take the inferred mental state of another individual into account when making a decision, will be detectable quite widely in evolution. However, I do not believe that a practical sentience threshold should be defined to encompass all animals (including, e.g., jellyfish or sponges), so no, I do not consider all animals sentient.
As an aside, this view does not clash with another observation I repeatedly posted on here, which is that internally we are still animals, and our long evolution as non-sentient animals even explains many aspects of human behaviour which we would usually ascribe to our unique, sentient human condition, including religion and societal organization.
As for the favouring of an injured limb, sure, avoiding more damage is the evolutionary "purpose" of pain, to associate something that is damaging with unpleasant emotions that should be avoided. The key issue, though, is that a mouse can have fear of pain, and just being put in a place it has learned to associate with pain will put it under stress similar as if was experiencing that pain. Even beyond that, mice have empathy, and the stress they experience (as detected e.g. by stress hormones in the blood, behaviour, or pulse rates) when seeing another mouse in stress or pain will vary depending on whether the mouse in distress is a littermate or an unknown individual.
Flies already fail at the first hurdle: Clip the tip off a fly leg, and the animal will simply extend that leg a little further to maintain a horizontal posture, no favouring . Nevertheless, you can train flies to avoid damage or shocks, but there are no known parameters that would indicate that they have an emotional correlate of fear resembling the response seen in lab mice. They will "happily" sit on top of another fly in distress (e.g. stuck in the food) and run their normal behavioural program more or less unchanged.
CB
4
In reply to French Erick:
I hope we never have low turn outs for all elections. Now is the time to see national and local voting as imperative in shaping the UK because we have no safety net of EU law which has been relied on in the past. No room for complacency.
I hope we never have low turn outs for all elections. Now is the time to see national and local voting as imperative in shaping the UK because we have no safety net of EU law which has been relied on in the past. No room for complacency.
1
In reply to MargieB:
Have we actually 'relied' on EU law as a safety net? Animal welfare standards across the EU in many cases do not meet UK standards, CE standards for safety equipment tend to be lower than British Standards.
It may well be that EU law, particularly in the case of human rights, does act as a safety net. However I don't think voters have ever consciously 'relied' on it.
Edit: I also suspect this particular EU law won't have any effect on the Spanish having bullfights and donkey drowning festivals, or hunters in other EU countries slaughtering migrant birds on an industrial scale for a laugh.
Have we actually 'relied' on EU law as a safety net? Animal welfare standards across the EU in many cases do not meet UK standards, CE standards for safety equipment tend to be lower than British Standards.
It may well be that EU law, particularly in the case of human rights, does act as a safety net. However I don't think voters have ever consciously 'relied' on it.
Edit: I also suspect this particular EU law won't have any effect on the Spanish having bullfights and donkey drowning festivals, or hunters in other EU countries slaughtering migrant birds on an industrial scale for a laugh.
Post edited at 12:37
2
In reply to Ridge:
The EU was never perfect. Countries apply rules according to their interpretations: fact. However, the fact that there is a rule that can be referred to is the ultimate port of call. I cannot talk about animal welfare- an area I know little about and probably do not care about as much as I should. I am only slightly ashamed to say that as a special treat I like foie gras.
I always find interesting to see, if allowed, the age of the person speaking for/against the EU. I am obviously biased since the EU allows me my lifestyle and provided me with my current life, wife and job opportunity. I do accept it has flaws but I still like it.
BTW, changes from my previous posts- I have been awarded indefinite leave to remain, letter in post yesterday. Now to the next hurdle of obtaining British citizenship. Life in the UK test and £1200ish to buy citizenship to the Government and the agonising moment of swearing allegiance to the current monarch (hopefully Elisabeth II will hold on a bit longer as I really dislike Charles...it's hard enough as it is for a born republican-the non american meaning).
The EU was never perfect. Countries apply rules according to their interpretations: fact. However, the fact that there is a rule that can be referred to is the ultimate port of call. I cannot talk about animal welfare- an area I know little about and probably do not care about as much as I should. I am only slightly ashamed to say that as a special treat I like foie gras.
I always find interesting to see, if allowed, the age of the person speaking for/against the EU. I am obviously biased since the EU allows me my lifestyle and provided me with my current life, wife and job opportunity. I do accept it has flaws but I still like it.
BTW, changes from my previous posts- I have been awarded indefinite leave to remain, letter in post yesterday. Now to the next hurdle of obtaining British citizenship. Life in the UK test and £1200ish to buy citizenship to the Government and the agonising moment of swearing allegiance to the current monarch (hopefully Elisabeth II will hold on a bit longer as I really dislike Charles...it's hard enough as it is for a born republican-the non american meaning).
4
2
In reply to French Erick:
>....and the agonising moment of swearing allegiance to the current monarch
Does it not help you a little that the Royal family is of German descent , and bits of other Europeans) ?
>....and the agonising moment of swearing allegiance to the current monarch
Does it not help you a little that the Royal family is of German descent , and bits of other Europeans) ?
In reply to French Erick:
You are a little late doing this. The Queen is, of course, the rightful Queen of France so you should have sworn allegiance years ago....
> BTW, changes from my previous posts- I have been awarded indefinite leave to remain, letter in post yesterday. Now to the next hurdle of obtaining British citizenship. Life in the UK test and £1200ish to buy citizenship to the Government and the agonising moment of swearing allegiance to the current monarch (hopefully Elisabeth II will hold on a bit longer as I really dislike Charles...it's hard enough as it is for a born republican-the non american meaning).
>You are a little late doing this. The Queen is, of course, the rightful Queen of France so you should have sworn allegiance years ago....
6
In reply to SDM:
IF that were really true Davis would be more than happy to give a 'meaningful vote' to MPs on the final deal.
( As it is, the EU don't want us to leave, and they know the majority of MPs don't either, so if the EU think the MPs will have the final say then they will ,for sure, give us the bad deal that the MPs would reject and keep us in.
> Did you not get the memo? The majority of MPs are hardline brexiteers now. It's the will of the people.
IF that were really true Davis would be more than happy to give a 'meaningful vote' to MPs on the final deal.
( As it is, the EU don't want us to leave, and they know the majority of MPs don't either, so if the EU think the MPs will have the final say then they will ,for sure, give us the bad deal that the MPs would reject and keep us in.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Historically controversial statement that!!! Interestingly, The French are fascinated by royals on account on not having any.
I have no love for the Royals but have some respect for the Queen, if that makes any sense.
Historically controversial statement that!!! Interestingly, The French are fascinated by royals on account on not having any.
I have no love for the Royals but have some respect for the Queen, if that makes any sense.
1
1
In reply to Jim C:
And how do you feel about the solution to that problem Jim, denying parliament any true authority by allowing them a vote (perhaps even before signing the deal they're voting on!) that amounts to nothing more than 'head shot or kneecaps?'?
Is this what taking back control and our vaunted parliamentary sovereignty looks like? Or are you going to make excuses, after all you can't make an omelette without...
Is this really what you wanted?
jk
> IF that were really true Davis would be more than happy to give a 'meaningful vote' to MPs on the final deal.
> ( As it is, the EU don't want us to leave, and they know the majority of MPs don't either, so if the EU think the MPs will have the final say then they will ,for sure, give us the bad deal that the MPs would reject and keep us in.
> ( As it is, the EU don't want us to leave, and they know the majority of MPs don't either, so if the EU think the MPs will have the final say then they will ,for sure, give us the bad deal that the MPs would reject and keep us in.
And how do you feel about the solution to that problem Jim, denying parliament any true authority by allowing them a vote (perhaps even before signing the deal they're voting on!) that amounts to nothing more than 'head shot or kneecaps?'?
Is this what taking back control and our vaunted parliamentary sovereignty looks like? Or are you going to make excuses, after all you can't make an omelette without...
Is this really what you wanted?
jk
4
1
In reply to cb294:
A law that is so vague that it needs other laws not yet written to have any meaning should not be passed. And this is only the first vague bit - what does it mean to have "full regard to their welfare"? Nothing clear, that's for sure. We have good law that protects animals, we don't need waffle to back it up (and as others have pointed out, that it doesn't protect animals in other parts of the EU tells you just how meaningful that protection actually is).
That's quite interesting, thanks.
> In this case, it is probably more a matter of jurisprudence. Most likely some other law will already have defined what organisms are classed as an animal in the legal context.
A law that is so vague that it needs other laws not yet written to have any meaning should not be passed. And this is only the first vague bit - what does it mean to have "full regard to their welfare"? Nothing clear, that's for sure. We have good law that protects animals, we don't need waffle to back it up (and as others have pointed out, that it doesn't protect animals in other parts of the EU tells you just how meaningful that protection actually is).
> Flies already fail at the first hurdle: Clip the tip off a fly leg, and the animal will simply extend that leg a little further to maintain a horizontal posture, no favouring . Nevertheless, you can train flies to avoid damage or shocks, but there are no known parameters that would indicate that they have an emotional correlate of fear resembling the response seen in lab mice. They will "happily" sit on top of another fly in distress (e.g. stuck in the food) and run their normal behavioural program more or less unchanged.
That's quite interesting, thanks.
2
In reply to jkarran:
I'm intrigued.
I really didn't think climbing was a combat sport. I don't really know enough about golf to comment.
I'm intrigued.
I really didn't think climbing was a combat sport. I don't really know enough about golf to comment.
In reply to thomasadixon:
what about delegated legislation - that requires the detail to be filled in by SI etc. They have have legal force and the PL depends on them for effect?
what about delegated legislation - that requires the detail to be filled in by SI etc. They have have legal force and the PL depends on them for effect?
In reply to wercat:
That's how I understand it. 'Laws', or in our case Acts of Parliament are always vague on the detail. It's the statutory instruments and Regulations that do the specifics, (which in themselves are open to legal challenge).
> what about delegated legislation - that requires the detail to be filled in by SI etc. They have have legal force and the PL depends on them for effect?
That's how I understand it. 'Laws', or in our case Acts of Parliament are always vague on the detail. It's the statutory instruments and Regulations that do the specifics, (which in themselves are open to legal challenge).
In reply to Wicamoi:
It's OK, Mike says it was all just a misunderstanding. Well I for one, definitely and unquestioningly trust him. Probably until the cows come home... Or get sent abroad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42108236
It's OK, Mike says it was all just a misunderstanding. Well I for one, definitely and unquestioningly trust him. Probably until the cows come home... Or get sent abroad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42108236
In reply to thomasadixon:
I agree. At the very least the definitions and phrasing should precise: This law covers the following species.... Animals included in this group shall be protected from blabla ....
> A law that is so vague that it needs other laws not yet written to have any meaning should not be passed.
I agree. At the very least the definitions and phrasing should precise: This law covers the following species.... Animals included in this group shall be protected from blabla ....
In reply to Tom Valentine:
It's not but then nor is that what either of us claimed. You said:
My point is they do. People get hit and killed by golf balls and mistakes get made in mountaineering that have fatal consequences, often not just for the person making the mistake. As with boxing, nobody sets out to kill anyone and safeguards are put in place to ensure people don't get killed but they do. I don't much like boxing either but the game we play is plenty dangerous so I'd be very wary of banging the drum for a ban on any 'dangerous' sport. The reality is the acceptability of risk varies enormously with perspective.
jk
> I really didn't think climbing was a combat sport...
It's not but then nor is that what either of us claimed. You said:
> Maybe it's because human beings don't actually kill each other in those sports
My point is they do. People get hit and killed by golf balls and mistakes get made in mountaineering that have fatal consequences, often not just for the person making the mistake. As with boxing, nobody sets out to kill anyone and safeguards are put in place to ensure people don't get killed but they do. I don't much like boxing either but the game we play is plenty dangerous so I'd be very wary of banging the drum for a ban on any 'dangerous' sport. The reality is the acceptability of risk varies enormously with perspective.
jk
1
In reply to jkarran:
Fair comment.
No one sets out in boxing to kill someone, but they do set out to render their opponent unconscious.
That is their objective.
The rules could easily be changed so that blows to the head were outlawed. If that happened, fatalities in boxing would drop down to a level similar to fatalities in, for example, judo.
But boxing supporters will never support such a common sense measure because the real attraction for them is not the points win, it's the knockout.
Fair comment.
No one sets out in boxing to kill someone, but they do set out to render their opponent unconscious.
That is their objective.
The rules could easily be changed so that blows to the head were outlawed. If that happened, fatalities in boxing would drop down to a level similar to fatalities in, for example, judo.
But boxing supporters will never support such a common sense measure because the real attraction for them is not the points win, it's the knockout.
In reply to Tom Valentine:On a personal note,stating the obvious, id worry first about animals forced to fight for theyre lives for human enjoyment as they dont have a choice,having boxed for very many years, the objective being, hitting your opponent without being hit,spending years conditioning your body and head to withstand blows that would hurt an untrained person,i wasnt forced to go into the ring nor was any of my opponents,as the ref says protect yourself at all times.Though what i would agree with is that the ref intervenes earlier when its obvious a boxer is struggling.
2
In reply to blackcat:
Now I am really interested.
How do you condition your head to withstand blows?
In spite of your personal expertise, I still believe the main objective is to knock your opponent out.
That means, to hit him so hard that he can't stand up or even to knock him unconscious for a short spell.
None of this achieved by body blows.
And looking at the statistics, none of the deaths have been caused by body blows.
So it's punches to the head which provide the knockout the fans want, and it's punches to the head which provide the most life threatening risk to the sport.
As for the "no one's being forced" argument, which I tried to avoid, I'll try again.
If two blokes agree (consent) to settle their differences in a pub car park and one dies as a result, it's manslaughter. Consent is completely irrelevant. Why is boxing so different from real life?
Now I am really interested.
How do you condition your head to withstand blows?
In spite of your personal expertise, I still believe the main objective is to knock your opponent out.
That means, to hit him so hard that he can't stand up or even to knock him unconscious for a short spell.
None of this achieved by body blows.
And looking at the statistics, none of the deaths have been caused by body blows.
So it's punches to the head which provide the knockout the fans want, and it's punches to the head which provide the most life threatening risk to the sport.
As for the "no one's being forced" argument, which I tried to avoid, I'll try again.
If two blokes agree (consent) to settle their differences in a pub car park and one dies as a result, it's manslaughter. Consent is completely irrelevant. Why is boxing so different from real life?
1
1
In reply to blackcat:
I almost entirely agree with your statement. The only difference is scale. Fewer bullfighters than meat eaters .
As stated above though, I do not have a completely clean conscience when it comes to animal welfare and food. I eat a lot of dairy products. I also do eat meat...less than in the past though. And about once a year I'll have some foie gras for Xmas.
I almost entirely agree with your statement. The only difference is scale. Fewer bullfighters than meat eaters .
As stated above though, I do not have a completely clean conscience when it comes to animal welfare and food. I eat a lot of dairy products. I also do eat meat...less than in the past though. And about once a year I'll have some foie gras for Xmas.
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
So the tories agree that animals can feel pain.
However, they are still not sure about the poor and will be continuing with tests.
> It's OK, Mike says it was all just a misunderstanding. Well I for one, definitely and unquestioningly trust him. Probably until the cows come home... Or get sent abroad.
So the tories agree that animals can feel pain.
However, they are still not sure about the poor and will be continuing with tests.
5
In reply to Big Ger:
Which regulation would that be?
> This would be the EU regulation which allows bullfighting to continue?
Which regulation would that be?
Post edited at 14:24
2
In reply to Tom Valentine: Sorry for the late reply,conditioning of the head takes years of sparring, the head gets used to being hit,so you gradually build up tolerance ,all boxers are taught to work on your opponents weakness.they are athletes doing something they have been taught for years,but again we all know the dangers and still do it and that goes for any pastime/sport.Ive soloed winter climbs where i could have fallen and been injured , and still did it.Back to boxing,contests can be won by body blows where your opponent can no longer stand up and the crowd go crazy,or a contest can go the distance with a great display of boxing skills from both opponents,crowd happy.The two blokes in the pub car park fight argument and why is boxing different is this,the two guys are more than likley drunk,unconditioned and more likley to get hurt,and its illegal.Two boxers, both are trained athletes,theres doctors, paramedics on standby, both are wearing gloves and gum shields, queensbury rules no biting,nutting gouging,and its legal for all those reasons.
In reply to blackcat:
Ok.
One thing at a time.
You are telling me that being punched in the head repeatedly actually has benefits in terms of toughening up your skull/brain and the intermediate tissue?
Do you have any friends/ acquaintances in the medical profession who back you up in this, or is it just your coach/trainer?
Sorry to involve the medical side of this yet again but I have this particular hang up about stuff like this. Basically i can't get my head round the fact that as a nation/society/civilisation, we tend on the whole to listen to medical advice.
So when doctors tell us that smoking is bad for us, we tend to accept it, however reluctantly. The same with alcohol. The same with excessive intake of fatty foods/ junk food. Most people on UKC are ok with that.
But boxing?
At this point the doctors whose advice we have been taking over a whole swathe of things become a body of people whose advice and policy is an irrelevance.
Anyway, back to basics: I know that various exercises strengthen muscle tissue but I will be really surprised when you can produce any sort of evidence at all which claims that being punched in the head repeatedly is of any benefit whatsoever.
Ok.
One thing at a time.
You are telling me that being punched in the head repeatedly actually has benefits in terms of toughening up your skull/brain and the intermediate tissue?
Do you have any friends/ acquaintances in the medical profession who back you up in this, or is it just your coach/trainer?
Sorry to involve the medical side of this yet again but I have this particular hang up about stuff like this. Basically i can't get my head round the fact that as a nation/society/civilisation, we tend on the whole to listen to medical advice.
So when doctors tell us that smoking is bad for us, we tend to accept it, however reluctantly. The same with alcohol. The same with excessive intake of fatty foods/ junk food. Most people on UKC are ok with that.
But boxing?
At this point the doctors whose advice we have been taking over a whole swathe of things become a body of people whose advice and policy is an irrelevance.
Anyway, back to basics: I know that various exercises strengthen muscle tissue but I will be really surprised when you can produce any sort of evidence at all which claims that being punched in the head repeatedly is of any benefit whatsoever.
In reply to blackcat:
Not sure how you condition your brain to collide with your skull without causing damage?
I can see how you could strengthen neck and shoulder muscles, but that would not prevent damage from impacts from blows.
I believe they are even considering to outlaw heading a football in youngsters games, presumably as the ( relatively low) impact still damages the brain.
Not sure how you condition your brain to collide with your skull without causing damage?
I can see how you could strengthen neck and shoulder muscles, but that would not prevent damage from impacts from blows.
I believe they are even considering to outlaw heading a football in youngsters games, presumably as the ( relatively low) impact still damages the brain.
In reply to Wicamoi:
At the same time, many of the reports did miss a very specific but very important detail of what happened. Nobody voted that animals aren’t sentient, because that wasn’t ever up for a vote. Instead, they didn’t vote that they were. A number of stories gave a misleading impression by eliding that distinction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-carol...
"I think the story has got out of hand," Wild, whose original piece accurately reported the vote, told BuzzFeed News. He said he was delighted to see his story get traction but was somewhat baffled by how it was rewritten with a political slant: "I didn’t expect the Independent to run with this story that we did and turn it into an anti-Brexit story." But he added: "They often do this – they’re quite known for it."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/independent-animal-sentience?utm_term=...
> "MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of a crucial clause that would transfer the recognition of animal sentience into UK law post Brexit in an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill (15 November)."
At the same time, many of the reports did miss a very specific but very important detail of what happened. Nobody voted that animals aren’t sentient, because that wasn’t ever up for a vote. Instead, they didn’t vote that they were. A number of stories gave a misleading impression by eliding that distinction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-carol...
"I think the story has got out of hand," Wild, whose original piece accurately reported the vote, told BuzzFeed News. He said he was delighted to see his story get traction but was somewhat baffled by how it was rewritten with a political slant: "I didn’t expect the Independent to run with this story that we did and turn it into an anti-Brexit story." But he added: "They often do this – they’re quite known for it."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/independent-animal-sentience?utm_term=...
1
In reply to Wicamoi:
I'm looking forward to the EU law that defines 'leaves' as flexible green appendages of trees that fall off in autumn bringing about a need for member states to cancel rail services when the wrong kind fall on railway tracks. Then we can all have an interesting and extended debate as to how this is definitely wrong because leaves from cone-bearing trees behave in a different way.
I'm looking forward to the EU law that defines 'leaves' as flexible green appendages of trees that fall off in autumn bringing about a need for member states to cancel rail services when the wrong kind fall on railway tracks. Then we can all have an interesting and extended debate as to how this is definitely wrong because leaves from cone-bearing trees behave in a different way.
In reply to Big Ger:
I think the journalist you quote is mistaken: that is not a very important detail at all - unless you think semantics are more important than legislation. What makes a difference is whether or not there is a legal provision recognising animal sentience in the development of future policy.
While we are in the EU that provision exists - its Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty. When we leave the EU that provision will no longer exist, because the government elected to remove that legislation when transferring EU law to UK law. That was a deliberate omission. Then, when a proposed amendment to include Article 13 was tabled, it was voted down in the Commons. That, by any standards, is the government deliberately, and on two separate occasions, removing recognition of animal sentience from UK law.
For me the really important thing is that the government seems to have responded to criticism on this issue, and is apparently going to reverse its position on the Article 13 provision - though as far as I can tell this is merely a statement of intent at this stage, which is equally inconsequential until law is actually formulated and passed, so we shall see.
Nevertheless, this episode makes me feel optimistic that the people still have a role to play in the Brexit process, that we can still hold our government to account, and still demand higher standards than the government find convenient. Given the willingness to speak out we can prevent Brexit from becoming the catastrophe that it obviously has the potential for. But we need to be vigilant and vocal, and we need to forget about the sides we chose in the referendum, really need to stop cheering on our perceived team regardless. There are two factions for sure, but this isn't a football match, with one team winning and the other losing. The 'result' of Brexit will affect the majority of both factions equally.
So instead of clashing our swords against our shields at the whim of the generals, whose motivations are opaque to us, I suggest we need to concentrate on what we actually want for the future of the UK, because like it or not big changes are afoot.
What sort of country can we be proud of?
> At the same time, many of the reports did miss a very specific but very important detail of what happened. Nobody voted that animals aren’t sentient, because that wasn’t ever up for a vote. Instead, they didn’t vote that they were. A number of stories gave a misleading impression by eliding that distinction.
I think the journalist you quote is mistaken: that is not a very important detail at all - unless you think semantics are more important than legislation. What makes a difference is whether or not there is a legal provision recognising animal sentience in the development of future policy.
While we are in the EU that provision exists - its Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty. When we leave the EU that provision will no longer exist, because the government elected to remove that legislation when transferring EU law to UK law. That was a deliberate omission. Then, when a proposed amendment to include Article 13 was tabled, it was voted down in the Commons. That, by any standards, is the government deliberately, and on two separate occasions, removing recognition of animal sentience from UK law.
For me the really important thing is that the government seems to have responded to criticism on this issue, and is apparently going to reverse its position on the Article 13 provision - though as far as I can tell this is merely a statement of intent at this stage, which is equally inconsequential until law is actually formulated and passed, so we shall see.
Nevertheless, this episode makes me feel optimistic that the people still have a role to play in the Brexit process, that we can still hold our government to account, and still demand higher standards than the government find convenient. Given the willingness to speak out we can prevent Brexit from becoming the catastrophe that it obviously has the potential for. But we need to be vigilant and vocal, and we need to forget about the sides we chose in the referendum, really need to stop cheering on our perceived team regardless. There are two factions for sure, but this isn't a football match, with one team winning and the other losing. The 'result' of Brexit will affect the majority of both factions equally.
So instead of clashing our swords against our shields at the whim of the generals, whose motivations are opaque to us, I suggest we need to concentrate on what we actually want for the future of the UK, because like it or not big changes are afoot.
What sort of country can we be proud of?
3
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Society doesn't listen to advice on the things that are bad for us though. There is mass participation in smoking, alcohol, excessive intake of fatty foods many orders of magnitude greater than participation in boxing. People do and should have a choice to weigh up risk and decide whether it is for them or not, the important thing I think is that they should be fully informed when making their choice.
Society doesn't listen to advice on the things that are bad for us though. There is mass participation in smoking, alcohol, excessive intake of fatty foods many orders of magnitude greater than participation in boxing. People do and should have a choice to weigh up risk and decide whether it is for them or not, the important thing I think is that they should be fully informed when making their choice.
In reply to Wicamoi:
I think that twisting of semantics, mainly by the Indy which has now recanted it, was the main fuel behind all these; "Evil Tory Bigot Brexiters vote to make feeding live kittens into wood-chippers, in front of crying children, legal", memes floating about on facebook now.
> I think the journalist you quote is mistaken: that is not a very important detail at all - unless you think semantics are more important than legislation.
I think that twisting of semantics, mainly by the Indy which has now recanted it, was the main fuel behind all these; "Evil Tory Bigot Brexiters vote to make feeding live kittens into wood-chippers, in front of crying children, legal", memes floating about on facebook now.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...