|
U-Know! Forum » Animal Farms |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Edited Mar 13, 2019, 20:31
Mar 13, 2019, 20:08
|
||
|
..talking of the senseless slaughter of animals. https://youtu.be/JOqL6i9zAHk “Slaughtered on Suspicion” A documentary that gives a voice to local people at the sharp end of the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak. Maybe this goes some way to answering why many people in rural areas voted to leave the EU. I don’t think it’s important ‘who’ made this film..the people appearing in it would say the same to anyone..given the chance. So the Sate ordered the ‘Foot and Mouth No Access’ signs from a printers in Ireland in the summer of 2000 but the first reports of the outbreak weren’t until Feb. 2001. Tell me more..just making sure they had stocks if they should need them? Obviously, it’s not what theses guys think. Source: ‘Michael’ ex army who appears in the film.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 17, 2019, 09:52
|
||
|
"ordered the ‘Foot and Mouth No Access’ signs from a printers in Ireland in the summer of 2000 but the first reports of the outbreak weren’t until Feb. 2001. " So? Is risk planning now to be pounced upon as Conspiracy?
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Mar 17, 2019, 12:07
|
||
|
There is absolutely no sense in engaging with conspiracy theorists. People who can't properly process or judge evidence will never have their minds changed by words. The only words they're capable of hearing are those which already fit a pre-existing worldview. I spent a decade in that mindset, I know it intimately. If risk-planning had not resulted in those signs being purchased before the outbreak; exactly the same people would be arguing THAT was clear evidence of the conspiracy... "What? They expect us to believe that the government had no warning signs purchased for this eventuality? Yeah right! They don't print up new roadworks signs only when pot-holes appear, do they? If there's a chemical spill on a motorway, I bet they have some "hazardous materials" signs in a warehouse somewhere, right? Of course they do!!! But they didn't have any signs warning about one of the biggest animal diseases on the planet? Ha! Clearly they were deliberately unprepared so the disease would spread quicker!" So we have the allegation that risk-management is evidence of conspiracy. And now we see how quickly a lack of risk-management would become evidence of conspiracy too. People who think like that are incapable of rooting their mind properly and arguing from a position of good faith or rationality. Do not engage with them is my advice. ----------- PS: The Taiwanese pork industry was devastated by Foot & Mouth disease in 1997 ("During the outbreak, over 3.8 million pigs had to be destroyed at a cost of almost US$7 billion"). That's just three years before the UK was buying the "dodgy signs". Personally I'm willing to bet that dozens of agricultural nations stepped up preparation and risk-mitigation exercises during the years following the Taiwan outbreak. An interesting research project; I mean, if the UK was the only nation to react in any way to the Taiwanese outbreak, then maybe there might be more to this than meets the eye. It would probably require a solid month of research though -- to personally make contact with the department of agriculture and/or emergency planning in, let's say 100 nations; conduct interviews, find out what preparations were being made throughout the world, how much was spent in different countries, and put together a case study and some comparative research material. Y'know, gather facts. It's hard work and it's not as much fun as just spouting unsourced allegations and sheer nonsense. But it's how we get closest to whatever Truth is there to be found.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 17, 2019, 13:04
|
||
|
"The only words they're capable of hearing are those which already fit a pre-existing worldview." You mean like Christians, Brexiteers and, increasingly as age takes over, me.. ;) "...gather facts. It's hard work and it's not as much fun as just spouting unsourced allegations" Indeed it's not. Nor as profitable. The most believable conspiracists are the ones that are doing it as a public service, for free!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Mar 17, 2019, 15:56
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "The only words they're capable of hearing are those which already fit a pre-existing worldview." You mean like Christians, Brexiteers and, increasingly as age takes over, me.. ;) I had a stupidly long response typed up, but realistically it's wildly off-topic and unlikely to be of the slightest interest to anyone. So instead I'll just point out that while yes, everyone has a tendency to try and make the world fit existing beliefs. It's very much a question of degree.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 17, 2019, 17:12
|
||
|
I wouldn't really want conspiracy theorists to be assessed by the degree of mindset they have as that implies a little bit is OK which it ain't if you believe in science and evidence. Of course, they're hard to pin down with science or evidence as those two things are invariably said to have been misrepresented by "them". As for who them are, read my book.
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
