Er - yeah. (As in 'you ought to believe in xxx' rather than the sense of 'you ought to tithe to your church'.) Since you - by definition - believe things that are fundamentally incompatible with their religion and they believe things that are fundamentally incompatible with yours, then 'tolerance' expressed by you to one of their beliefs is both bizarre and illogical.
I have understood - of course, I may have been mistaken - that your belief is in a fairly crispy christianity (baptised as an adult, and so forth) rather than the woolly headed "everything nice is groovy with Jesus" sort of christianity which is so foggy it's almost evaporated.
I'd be intrigued to learn at what point you would be prepared to say "That belief is nonsense" - or would you never be prepared to say it? Would it be a case of "Any belief is OK as long as it is one I personally don't disapprove of?"
He's back in the news and with a picture too A Bull in pink? What were they thinking? Cull the poor thing now.
Seriously though farmers are ever so slightly miffed at the stay of execution; "Last year, 5,220 cattle in Wales alone were culled because they failed the TB test".
But hes a religious icon, so thats all right then
Check the arrogance of this ...
so, he's above the law because he has better lodgings ....Originally Posted by David Anderson QC for the Hindu monks
...did he consider the power of prayer ? hmmm i think notOriginally Posted by Clive Lewis QC
If Anderson got away with that then Lewis was definitely asleep. The policy isn't restricted to farm animals. If you had a cow in a petting zoo, for example, it would be equally subject to the policy, as would someone who was a stockbroker but kept a show bull in a rented paddock, and blah de blah. Anderson would have had to admit that his position is that the policy should affect all animals except 'sacred' ones, rather than being one that only affects farm animals.
Sheesh.
I see what you are saying. Re-iterating, I don't personally believe that Shambo is divine, and I do believe that God gave us dominion over animals etc etc. I also believe in the message of love for one another that Jesus taught, and IMHO for me to condemn others for their beliefs wouldn't be in line with this. I may believe something completely different from them, but I'm not going to get militant about it.
[booming voice]
I believe that we are all sinners. I believe that in repenting of those sins and accepting Jesus into our lives is the way to salvation. I believe in baptism as a symbolic and spiritual cleansing of ourselves as we embark on a new life with Christ. I don't conform to one definition of Christianity in the sense of one denomination to the exclusion of others...I believe that everyone approaches God in their own way, as ultimately that is who we answer to. I believe that the best way of living is a Christian is to try and emulate Jesus in our lives.
[/booming voice]
Seriously though, I think my belief is a fairly mainstream one as far as Christianity is concerned.
It's a very good question, Barry. If someone has a belief and can explain why that is their belief, then I don't think I'm in any position to claim that their belief is nonsense...mine may seem ludicrous to them. All I can respond with is an explanation of my own belief. I can say, however, that it wouldn't be a case of any belief being OK unless I personally disapprove of it.
I wonder how many farmers will be setting up "shrines" on their land now?
Seriously, I think this whole case has been a farce. If farm animals with TB have to be destroyed, then so should "sacred" animals. Any other policy is an insult to Welsh farmers, who have their income to lose if their animals are slaughtered.
Court of Appeal brings some sanity back into the situation.
Said, apparently, that slaughter was an eminently proportional solution to the problem of TB in Wales!
Hoo-rah!
Yes, but aren't they planning on appealing to the house of Lords?
a sensible thread ...ruined yet again....
Yes apparantly the house of Lords will hear an appeal, but surely they are not mad enough to give it any thought....
It's tested positive for what exactly? Did you read about the test?
They pinch a bit of skin and measure the thickness, then come back two days later and attempt to do the same measurement as before in the same place. If the skin is thicker, it means the poor beast has TB.
How reliable can this test really be? They claim it has 99.99% reliability, but that would still result on one false positive in every 10,000.
I'd imagine that the instances of false positives would actually be much higher than that.
Is it any wonder that ...
There's probably little effort been put into finding a better test as the current system helps keep people in jobs. The farmers will get compensation for the "culled" animals – perhaps more than the market value anyway.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Presumably bovine TB?
Well, from a statistical point-of-view, that's pretty damn good. If the test is as simple as described, then I would imagine the number of errant results to be less, not more - the simpler it is, the less there is to mess up. The 'test' for a throat infection is looking into someone's mouth and seeing if their throat is red. Sometimes simple observation is enough.
Added to that, I doubt the government would pay compensation if the test wasn't deemed sufficiently reliable...otherwise farmers who were a bit hard up could claim their herd had TB, get the first measurement taken, feed them McD's (oh, irony) for the next 48 hours and hopefully get a result.
Maybe there's no effort been put into finding a better test as improving on 99.99% would be rather tricky... Seriously, though, is there any credible information that a bovine TB test isn't as accurate as advertised? I'd be interested to know if there is or not.
perhaps ducasi has bovine TB...its all a cover up..
I've learnt a couple of things in my investigation – first, the test involves injecting an antigen in the skin during the first measurement. This should cause a thickening of the skin in diseased animals.
Second, that the government puts the reliability of the test at 99.9%, which means it has a one in a thousand failure rate.
In 2006, 22,242 cattle were slaughtered due to suspected bTB, with £28.2 million paid in compensation.
There are around 10 million cattle in the UK. This means that if they were all tested each year, 10,000 would be killed for no reason. I wonder just how many of the 22,000 killed last year were actually diseased.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
er...22
There you have it. The test is workable. 99.99% accuracy is pretty good. At the end of the day, even if the minority of cows didn't have it, given they were tested due to (I imagine) proximity with cows that did have the disease, then it's a safe assumption that they could eventually get it. Yes, some animals might have been unfairly killed, but given the seriousness of the disease it simply comes down to collateral damage...which the farmers are reimbursed for, no less.
[geek]
Wouldn't the correct answer be 22,000 - 22 = 21,978?
Actually, if 99.99% of all subjects were tested accurately, then only 00.01% of subjects returns an erroneous reading. Which would, in this case, be 2.2 cows. So let's just be pessimistic and say 3.
Speaks for itself. Poor Shambo.
[/geek]
Last edited by andystyle; 24th-July-2007 at 03:24 PM.
If we were to assume that the UK cattle population was entirely free of disease, this test would still decide that 10,000 of them were infected. All 10,000 would have been mistakenly killed. It's likely that a lot more than 22 of the 22,000 that were killed last year need not have been.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks