Jump to content

chrisjpainter

Members
  • Content count

    2,957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chrisjpainter

  • Rank

  • Birthday 29/10/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    South Oxfordshire
  • Interests
    Mountain climbing, reading, anything in the out doors!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. chrisjpainter

    First Aid Kits when shooting

    True, but Celox and tourniquets only come into play when we're talking SERIOUS bleeds; venal/arterial stuff where there are bigger consequences than a lost limb. If you're in the position of using either one, sod the limb, save the life. I've never had to use it, but my First Aid+Forestry training with chainsaw related injuries where chain and flesh have met, you're not looking at medium sized dressings, and a bandage. I've never been sold on those basic first aid courses. I've done a load of them in my time and none of them made me feel at all prepared for a genuine real life emergency, just the kind of emergency where every single thing is weighted in your favour: easy access to phone, good signal, good vehicle access, all the first aid supplies plus extra things etc. That almost never happens in the real world, except with things that are so minor they barely register as being worth the term 'first aid trained!' I only felt comfortable and genuinely trained beyond common sense when I did my First Aid+Forestry. Now I feel that if I came was in any situation, whether that's climbing, chainsawing, road accident, shooting accidents, multiple casualty scenarios I could be run the show until the emergency services arrived.
  2. chrisjpainter

    First Aid Kits when shooting

    Gotta love the ol' celox. I'm still of the opinion that something is more likely to go wrong with a chainsaw in the right hands than a gun in the right hands as there are far more variables that can't be immediately mitigated against. Having said that, if something was to go badly wrong with firearms celox, israeli military dressings and potentially tourniquet would be pretty useful to have around.
  3. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    That must be absolutely infuriating.
  4. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    quite!
  5. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    I said pretty much everything. not Everything in any situation! Practicality doesn't trump everything. A country's population is getting too big. Practical solution: invade a neighbouring country with low population, because it's a practical solution? perhaps not... I said should, not have to. Currently they don't, by law, but in a society that wants to accept everyone regardless of their moral beliefs should - where reasonably practical and where common sense dictates - provide allowances. How have I? All I've said is that if it's reasonable and practical to make accommodations then it makes sense to. I've not said the whole meal should go vegan to protect the feelings of one. I've not said that it's morally wrong to eat meat, I've not even said it's wrong to eat meat in the presence of another vegan. All I've said is that if you can, you should, because it's nice to show that you respect each other's opinions - especially when loved ones are concerned. Actually, no, I don't want to FORCE the hand. This may take some explaining, because I recognise it kind of sounds like I do! By force, I'm guessing you mean by a specific legislated, concerted mission by some government/populist power? (If not, put me straight and I'll answer!). No, I don't believe that. Governments can't be trusted and populist movements are usually even worse! I am taking it beyond that level, if that makes sense - so that governments and populists are included into that same moral framework. What I would like to see is inclusiveness - but true, genuine inclusiveness. So a family with a pet vegan can go to any restaurant and have nothing to worry about. The same with Muslims and Christians, men and women, gay, whatever. All of that under the premis of what is practicable and reasonable and it's this that stops me from wanting it legislated for. As you and Panoma1 point out, it's WAY too easy to get into 'what about this and what about that' of examples that make it stupid and dangerous to specifically legislate. A case in point often comes up with Christian Unions being part of the Students Union on most union campuses. There's a clause in many Students Unions that makes it clear that elections for positions within clubs and societies must be completely non discriminatory. Most CUs won't sign that, because they do (reasonably) discriminate - they wouldn't, for example, have a Muslim as its chairperson. REASONABLE and PRACTICABLE would have to go out the window. So they 'should' be allowed to discriminate but to legislate would be daft and, as Panoma1 suggests unfair because that is political correctness gone mad. I'd rather see a world of genuine, realistic tolerance, where everyone is accommodated wherever they please to be, without infringing on others' beliefs. That's where far too many vegans fall down and drive me nuts. Tolerance too often these days means 'you have to believe everything I believe'. rather than 'i believe differently, but we can still eat in the same place'. That's not unreasonable. If there is any 'process' going on, it needs to be gradual and not deliberate - again why I don't think a specific legislative agenda should be pursued as you risk trampling on others' views and belief. I just want to see one guest be happy at a wedding because someone was kind enough to openly accept him - whilst guzzling as much meat as they can!
  6. Not sure if this would come under guns and equipment, country sports or what so I'll leave it here and see where it ends up. Do people carry first aid kits when out shooting? if you do, what are you aiming them for and what would you say is absolutely necessary? Are we talking tick removers and plasters for cut hands, or serious stuff for gun-related injuries. I've never really thought about it too much, but do you guys make sure you have access to the same sort of heavies I have when I'm out with the chainsaw?
  7. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    That's being subjected to, not being imposed. Just walk faster I'm saying that a question of morality trumps pretty much anything. So, should restaurants provide a vegan option? yes, because to refrain from doing so is discriminating against someone for a deep rooted, moral belief. Are my rights discriminated against? no. there's still dead pig on the menu, as is ground up cow, dismembered chicken etc...That is accommodating, not discriminating in favour, because no one's moral code is broken. Discrimination is of course wrong on any level - whether positively or negatively. so it'd be wrong to insist that restaurants go vegan. THAT is positive discrimination. Instead I'm saying that you make accommodations where it is reasonable and practicable - as is the case with this wedding. No one's rights are ignored, no one is discriminated against. At some point one gets to two impasses: 1) where a moral position is weighed up against a non-moral position and 2) where two moral positions go up against each other. The first should be easily broken, as I said. Sticking with food, if you eat a vegan meal at your sister's house, you've not been forced to do something that is explicitly against your moral belief. It might not be your cup of tea, but big deal. For the odd meal to keep a fictitious sister happy, why not? But it works with plenty of other things. Smoking areas get the smoke away from people who think it's wrong to smoke and don't want to have their bodies damaged by someone else's liberties. The smoker is still free to smoke, rights maintained, but the non smoker keeps their lungs in good condition. The second is more complicated, but that VERY rarely comes up in modern society, and we probably should take THAT debate elsewhere, because where it usually surfaces is with religion and then we'd both get banned! Sexism, racism, feminism, er...foodism? etc, should come down to a simple matter of egalitarian politics. Everyone is equal in their rights and should have equal opportunities. That excludes positive discrimination as well as negative discrimination. As it stands, your right to eat meat is not infringed upon. Happy days. At the point where your rights are legislated against (as opposed to a vegan's rights for) then we have a problem. It's something that we should be aware of, and be vocal and active in to prevent the vegans taking over and damning us all to rabbit food, but to me, keeping a sister happy and sharing a meal with her as well as showing I respect her beliefs, is more important than one meal. We can't tell if she respects your opinions (partly because she's fictitious) but mostly because we've not given much chance for her to demonstrate it. Is she plaguing your phone with animal cruelty tweets, or vegan recipes or saying you're a terrible person for eating Fluffy? at that point she's obviously not respecting you, which is wrong of her. But we can't assume that's the case, or we're prejudicing against her unfairly. With this wedding, the boyfriend would show that he respects the meat eaters by shutting up for one day and not making a fuss over it, particularly if he's been shown the respect of having a meal specially done for him to account for his convictions. If he can't do that for one day, then he's going to upset the bride, the groom, the family, the friends and make the sister (the real, existing sister!) feel incredibly awkward. At that point he can be shown the door, but if he's a genuinely lovely chap, I can't see that happening.
  8. Sadly, yes, I think you're right.
  9. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    You are though, because you're asking a vegan to cook you meat. It's basically saying 'I don't see the problem with eating meat, therefore you should cook me some, regardless of what you believe.' That's free speech for you. In that situation they're being imposed on you, they're just telling you about it - admittedly in a very oppressive way. But they're not forcing you to follow their beliefs, so nothing's being imposed on you. I am saying that, when they come into conflict, it is logical to cede the opinion that is based on a strong moral belief - but actually in practical terms that happens in so few circumstances - like this one. 'Political correctness gone mad' would be if restaurants ONLY served vegan food for fear of upsetting the vegans. Accommodating them by having options is not. How so? admittedly I'm assuming that she's vegan because of a moral code, but that's reasonable, I think. If it's because of dietary requirements or just not liking meat/animal products, then yes I'd agree that it'd be reasonable for her to cook you meat. But not if it's an issue of morality.
  10. Possibly not an odd question. I can see the logic in it, as you say. What is odd is to have 25 responses to his question - but he's not been back once since the day he joined and posted to see what they actually say!
  11. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    No, I'm talking about the burden of ethical, moral value. You're weighing a belief that something is fine to do as equalling a belief that something is wrong to do, because it's just a matter of opinion. But that's not what is going on with the vegan debate. The moral equivalent and thus the equalling value of belief would be: Eating meat is a moral right and must be done = Eating meat is a moral wrong and must not be done. Opposing, but of equal value. 'not being interested in veganism' is fine. It's an opinion. what you're not saying is that veganism is morally abhorrent. As you've said, you don't see it as a moral must to eat meat, so you hold less strong opinions on the matter. So, which should be give the greater deference: the strong conviction or the weak conviction? Let's say you're not a fan off Christmas jumpers. You wouldn't wear one, but don't care beyond that. Let's say Comrade Corbyn says he wants to ban shooting. I'm guessing you'd be outraged. Cue arguments about countryside management, understanding where food comes from, pest control issues, way of life, tradition etc...and rightly so. If Corbyn said to you 'Oh but it's okay because I'm also going to ban Christmas jumpers, so those two balance out, so you can still vote for me.' I wouldn't put it past him, because he's inexplicable at the best of times, but you wouldn't say, 'oh that's true, they're of equal weight, because they're both opinions. Fair's fair, I can see myself voting for you' Soooo. Yes give the man a meal and be happy to have both sister and boyfriend at your wedding and are comfortable being there. Haha! I do love this. I've also always wondered what would happen if someone could somehow prove that plants have some sense of pain - or at least knowledge of cutting off of limbs and leaves and such...
  12. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    Then you miss the point of veganism. What you're asking of your fictitious vegan sister is to go against something that is an incredibly, deeply, personal conviction. She's asking you to not have a slice of meat for a change. That's not equality. You're not asking to be treated in the same way, you're asking of her far, far more of her than she is of you.
  13. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    Can I ask why you think it is a moral, inescapable belief that you MUST eat meat? I don't mean that it's allowed for you to eat meat, or that it's not wrong, or even that it's right to, but that you MUST eat meat
  14. chrisjpainter

    Canal boat break - which route?

    Just don't forget to learn how to use the locks... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-44869566
  15. chrisjpainter

    Vegan in the family

    Probably not, but then why play to the tune of the lowest common denominator? Be better than them.
×