On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:04:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.

Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.

Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals. There will be
loads of people who are very much against 'our boys' being at risk for
whatever the reason.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

Well, as mentioned the councillor will represent all the people in the
ward and will try to do what is best for them as a class. Acknowledging
that there are many dairy farmers, and many dependant jobs directly and
indirectly supported by the industry,

Yes, as there were in the 'slavery industry' or the are in the 'human
trafficking industries.

you would hope that they would
point out too their constituent that the confiscation of private
property,

Who is going to do that then?

the destruction of jobs,

Why would that happen then? They have to carry on exploiting others
because that's all they know how to do? That no 'dairy farmer /
worker' has ever been able to do anything else?

or the interference in legitimate
private business

Legitimate in a legal sense possibly and for the moment. Not
legitimate in a moral or need so justification sense (in 2021).

that help keep a nation fed,

'Helped. No longer relevant in 2021.

would not be in the public
interest.

Of course it would, if the alternatives provided the same solution
with lower cost to the environment, resources and animal suffering and
exploitation.

Perhaps also highlighting that the enterprises also help to
maintain local green spaces

In your dreams. They help maintain the construction of concrete feed
lots over the very thing you would hope we would protect.

and put agricultural land to good economic
use,

By wasting it providing something that nobody needs and is already in
decline? How progressive is that (not)?

which is also beneficial to the local community.

It's only 'beneficial' to those party to the exploitation. It's
certainly not beneficial to those who are exploited and have to die
simply to produce something that was never intended for us in the
first place (of all the animal rights issues). [1]

Anyway, you have actually answered my question in that it's pointless
to ask them to consider anything like that as they would be just as
indoctrinated as most backward looking people. And the changes aren't
going to be an 'if' but a 'when'.

In other words they would need to handle such requests with similar
sensitivity to they way they handle the ones that ask them to evict all
the Jews & black people...

More like if they wanted to continue the suffering and exploitation of
Jews and black people.

There are victims here but they aren't any of those earning a living
off the suffering of others, any more than the slave traders were
victims when they had to give up their career choice.

Cheers, T i m

[1] If 'most people' wouldn't support the force feeding of ducks and
geese to cause them to have enlarged livers to yield more liver for
pate, why would they support the feeding of animals with unnatural
foods to cause them to put on weight faster or to carry 10x more milk
than they would ever do 'naturally' (a 'baby food' that was never
meant for us in the first place)?