DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

a couple questions for admin

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 11 2015 21:21
a couple questions for admin

Just wondering, how is it decided what makes the front page of libcom? (the forum threads, blog posts, history and library articles.)

Also, is there a page that shows which blogs and articles have recently had comments made on them? (Like the page showing which forum threads have recent comments https://libcom.org/forum/tracker )

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jan 11 2015 21:51

It's based on an algorithm that figures out the best threads for increasing their pay per click revenue. The proceeds are then spent on fois gras and exotic underwear.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Jan 12 2015 00:39

MI5

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 12 2015 10:07
Webby wrote:
It's based on an algorithm that figures out the best threads for increasing their pay per click revenue. The proceeds are then spent on fois gras and exotic underwear.

ha ha I do actually have a fair bit of foie gras in my cupboard! (I got it for free though)

Basically the main front-page article we choose manually. The secondary front-page pieces we also highlight manually. The remaining blogs are just the most recent blog entries. The random library, history articles lower down on the front page are chosen randomly from our older featured content. With forum threads, we manually designate some of them as featured if they are particularly good/interesting/relevant, and the website takes the most recently-commented on three of these featured threads.

If you want to see the most recent comments on things you can just look at the main recent posts feed here: http://libcom.org/tracker

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 12 2015 19:50

Steven, thank you for your answer.

I'm sad/disturbed you have foie gras in your cupboard. Foie gras is perpetuating a living nightmare, the birds endure some of the most horrible torture imaginable in all the meat industry. Not even Hitler would deserve this type of torture.

Some highlights from http://www.stopforcefeeding.com/content/what-foie-gras

"Foie gras - French for "fatty liver" - is the diseased and enlarged liver of a duck or goose, produced through force feeding.... Two to three times a day, a worker grabs each bird, shoves a long, thick metal tube all the way down his throat, and an air pump shoots up to two pounds of corn mush into his esophagus.... Picture 30 one pound boxes of dry pasta and then add water. This is proportionally how much a 150 pound human would be force fed...."

"The vast amounts of feed pumped down the ducks' throats causes enormous internal pressure, and the pipe sometimes punctures the esophagus, causing many to die from choking on the blood that fills their lungs. Some birds literally burst, choke to death on their own vomit, or become so weak that they are unable to fend off rats from eating them alive ... Other ducks die a slow, painful, and premature death by suffocation from inhalation of regurgitated feed. In fact, because of the massive toll taken on the birds during the force-feeding process, the average pre-slaughter mortality rate is up to twenty times higher than on other duck factory farms, according to the European Union's Scientific Report on the subject."

"According to the ASPCA, "The birds' livers become so enlarged…that according to documentation by veterinarians, the animals must experience unspeakable pain and suffering. Birds have literally exploded from these forced feedings. The results of necropsies on dead birds that have been force-fed reveal ruptured livers, throat damage, esophageal trauma, and food spilling from the dead animals' throats and out of their nostrils." "

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jan 13 2015 08:07

'The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by proponents of the foie gras industry this week, in a move that was seen as a major victory for animal rights advocates. The court declined to hear an appeal filed by foie gras producers and restaurants to appeal a 2004 law passed in California that banned the sale of foie gras — the first ban of its kind in the country.

The law, which only went into effect in 2012, banned any food products created by “force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond a normal size.” In 2013, a group of foie gras supporters filed a motion to block the state’s ability to enforce the ban. But this motion was quickly denied. They appealed, and were denied again in a higher court, the Ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals in August 2013.

Now, this week’s court ruling held that the production of foie gras — a process that involves shoving a pipe down ducks’ throats to force them to eat — falls under the state’s authority to enact humane laws and prevent animal cruelty.'

https://www.thedodo.com/foie-gras-ban-california-764441121.html

Political correctness victory by duck lovers - will this madness lead to animal anarchy?

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 12 2015 20:28

Tragically, the ban in California was recently overturned by some asshole federal judge, according to this link someone posted on Facebook: http://gawker.com/foie-gras-is-for-assholes-1678213499

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jan 12 2015 20:44

Boomerang, I beseech thee, just do not go there.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 12 2015 21:08
boomerang wrote:
Not even Hitler would deserve this type of torture.

downed

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jan 13 2015 08:13

Boomerang #7

Yes, I heard that on the World Service.

Webby #8

I agree with you.

radicalgraffiti #9

Yes, though I would not eat him.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 13 2015 19:19

Ok, maybe Hitler deserves to have tubes stuck down his throat and forcefed daily until his esophagus is scraped and punctured, he chokes on his own blood filling his lungs, is eaten alive by rats, or his liver explodes.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 13 2015 20:20
boomerang wrote:
Steven, thank you for your answer.

I'm sad/disturbed you have foie gras in your cupboard. Foie gras is perpetuating a living nightmare, the birds endure some of the most horrible torture imaginable in all the meat industry. Not even Hitler would deserve this type of torture.

So if I took the jars which someone gave me (they are an animal rights person, who were given them as a gift and obviously didn't want them!) and threw them in the bin, would that reverse some of the suffering?

Funnily enough, a work colleague who returned from France gave me a big slice of baguette with foie gras on it today at lunch. It made my afternoon…

(This is not to say I don't care about the suffering, mind, it is terrible. I just don't think that me not consuming free stuff will make any difference)

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jan 13 2015 20:21

boomerang #11

I was not being serious. Please beware of wind-ups.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 14 2015 06:24

Not you, Auld-bod, I was replying to radicalgraffiti (who quoted my part about saying "not even Hitler would deserve this type of torture" then wrote "downed").

Steven, I think the thing to do would be leave it out for the raccoons, then it doesn't go to waste.

If someone offered me foie gras, I would say "Thank you, that's really nice of you to offer, but..." then explain to them the torture behind it. After explaining, either decline the gift or let them know you'll be feeding it to raccoons.

Accepting it even though it's free is
(1) losing an opportunity to explain to someone the torture behind it, and
(2) showing that you accept or tolerate the torture enough to eat it.

All our actions, when witnessed by others, are propaganda of the deed. We all contribute to setting social norms through our actions or inactions.

I know it's really awkward to do stuff like this, but when I'm feeling scared about it, I remember whatever pain the awkwardness causes me is a billion times less than the pain of those I'm trying to defend.

Thanks for listening.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jan 14 2015 18:21

I've never eaten foie gras, so that one's not much of an issue for me and raccoons are probably my favourite urban animal and there are loads of them where I live. However, feeding them is a terrible idea, for multiple reasons, all of which ultimately end up being bad for raccoons, so shouldn't be encouraged.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 14 2015 18:33
boomerang wrote:

Steven, I think the thing to do would be leave it out for the raccoons, then it doesn't go to waste.

If someone offered me foie gras, I would say "Thank you, that's really nice of you to offer, but..." then explain to them the torture behind it. After explaining, either decline the gift or let them know you'll be feeding it to raccoons.

I'm not really going to explain the torture behind it to someone who is giving it to me because they don't want to eat it because of the torture! Also don't know where you live but there aren't that many raccoons in London…

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jan 14 2015 18:38
Quote:
there aren't that many raccoons in London…

There were an awful lot of rats when I lived there. They're nowhere near as endearing.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Jan 14 2015 20:27

One persons foie gras is another's meat paste.. Foie gras is one of the few meat paste products that I wouldn't buy for exactly the reasons boomerang has laid out. I wouldn't bin it though.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 14 2015 20:58
Quote:
Accepting it even though it's free is
(1) losing an opportunity to explain to someone the torture behind it, and
(2) showing that you accept or tolerate the torture enough to eat it

Moralising bs. While I won't buy it, if it was given to me for free I would eat it. Throwing it out doesn't stop suffering and is actually completely in line with the consumerist mentality that it a-ok to throw stuff out. By your logic it's the equivalent of dumping corn into the sea in order to keep up market prices.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 14 2015 22:30

Well I'm sure there are stray cats around.

Khawaga, feeding animals isn't throwing stuff out. They gotta eat too! And how can you compare it to dumping food to raise market prices? That's driven by the profit-motive and has the result of making food unaffordable and increasing global starvation. Totally different than someone trying to challenge and change our culture' acceptance of animal torture, and has zero impact on prices.

If your dog or cat dies, do you eat them? Cook them up and offer them to a neighbor? Or do you waste precious meat by burying or cremating them? The reason is respect for their life. I'd actually have much less problem with people eating their dead pet who died naturally or was euthanized, because that's not condoning animal torture (nor was the animal killed so it could be eaten... they're just being eaten because they're already dead).

Steven: "I'm not really going to explain the torture behind it to someone who is giving it to me because they don't want to eat it because of the torture!"

True enough. They should have been the one explaining it to whoever gave it to them in the first place. But you missed a chance to do this with the person who offered it to you at lunch. By accepting to eat it, you communicate loud and clear that you have no problem with it. You perpetuate our culture's acceptance of animal torture, instead of taking the opportunity to challenge it.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jan 14 2015 22:09

Khawaga #19

I see the logic in what you write with the exception of the last sentence. Where has anyone suggested supporting the market? What is this equivalent logic? Sorry but that is bs.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 14 2015 22:53

I guess I didn't explain that properly... But it's the logic that throwing things out is ok because [insert whatever reason here]; so it's not an equivalence between feeding racoons (who by the way are very good at feeding themselves in urban setting) and supporting the market, but of a society in which throwing out perfectly good things (edible or workable). We live in a society of abundance (granted not for all) that allows for throwing shit out. Why on earth someone would throw out perfectly edible food is beyond me; irrespective if this is done for personal morals or for keeping market prices high.

Quote:
If your dog or cat dies, do you eat them? Cook them up and offer them to a neighbor? Or do you waste precious meat by burying or cremating them? The reason is respect for their life. I'd actually have much less problem with people eating their dead pet who died naturally or was euthanized, because that's not condoning animal torture (nor was the animal killed so it could be eaten... they're just being eaten because they're already dead).

I understand this logic, but this argument is really just sophistry. In any culture/society there is a dividing line between what is food and what is not food. Pets don't fall in that category. I would never eat my cats, not because I think eating cats are inherently wrong, but it's because I've grown up in a society where I've learnt that they are pet not food. Had I grown up in India I would likely not eat beef, if in China or Korea I'd probably a-ok with eating cats and dogs.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 14 2015 23:20
boomerang wrote:
If your dog or cat dies, do you eat them? Cook them up and offer them to a neighbor? Or do you waste precious meat by burying or cremating them? The reason is respect for their life.

Er, no, it's more that people don't eat old animals who died from reasons you don't understand. Apart from the fact it would probably taste terrible, it would be completely unsafe.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 15 2015 03:52

Khawaga: "I understand this logic, but this argument is really just sophistry. In any culture/society there is a dividing line between what is food and what is not food. Pets don't fall in that category."

But why aren't pets considered food? Because of respect for their life. Let's extend that respect beyond our pets.

Let's challenge and change the dividing line so that the body part of a severely tortured animal is not considered food, but is considered what it is: the body part of a victim of torture and a brutal murder.

Steven, I still think respect for a pet's life has a lot to do with why we don't eat them, but even putting that aside completely... you're not addressing the fact that eating foie gras offered to you at lunch is communicating loud and clear that you have no problem with it or the torture behind it. You perpetuate our culture's acceptance of animal torture, instead of taking the opportunity to challenge it.

(Edit: added bold font to highlight my main point in this entire thread.)

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jan 15 2015 00:13
Quote:
But why aren't pets considered food? Because of respect for their life.

It probably has more to do with pets fulfilling an entirely different purpose in human society to food. My 16 year old dog has been my companion, my play mate, confidant, running buddy and endless source of comfort and entertainment. I cannot imagine having such a relationship with a duck. I would not eat him because he is of more value to me alive and when he eventually dies, hopefully of old age, I wouldn't eat him then. The relationships people forge with companion animals is far more akin to family relationships than other relationships people have with animals which are not pets. Nobody eats animals which have dies of old age, they would not be safe or good to eat.

Quote:
the body part of a victim of torture and a brutal murder.

No, it's animal husbandry. It's a particularly repugnant form of husbandry but nevertheless it is not murder.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 15 2015 00:15
Quote:
But why aren't pets considered food? Because of respect for their life. Let's extend that respect beyond our pets.

Let's challenge and change the dividing line so that the body part of a severely tortured animal is not considered food, but is considered what it is: the body part of a victim of torture and a brutal murder.

Pets are considered pets because of respective cultural history for various reasons. At first they weren't pets, but more like additonal lil' helpers (sheep herding, cats catching mice). Then you have borderline categories in our culture like rabbits/hares. Both pets and food... I don't think that respect for life is THE reason why we don't consider pets food; rather we respect their life because they are pets not the other way around.

But hey, I am in no disagreement with as ethical treatment of animals as possible before we turn them into food, but the argument is really about throwing out edible food for no good reason. Don't change the goal posts here.

Let's face it, who the fuck among us folks can afford luxieries like the crap we're talking about. None of us would buy it; we'd only eat it if it was given to us for free. I can't afford to chuck food out, irrespective of it being so-called luxuries or the shit I buy that is marked down because it is soon going bad.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 15 2015 00:19

boomerang, would it be ok to give the fois gras to a hungry, cashless homeless person? Or would s/he be signalling acceptance of the industry? Or should we rather feed the racoons?

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 15 2015 03:54

I accept eating it for survival, if there aren't other options. So giving it to a starving person would be ok by me.

Myself I'm living below the poverty line, and my boyfriend sometimes makes fun of me for eating food that is in his opinion expired (I just cut off mouldy parts or cook out the germs, and then it's fine!). He jokingly has called me "garbage disposal" (not in a mean way, we both get a laugh out of it). I get on his case for leaving a few grains of rice in the pot or on his plate (and then eat them myself).

So, I also really hate throwing out food, but I hate even more to reinforce the cultural acceptance of animal torture, especially one as extreme as foie gras. I'd rather go to the foodbank or skip a meal than do that.

Fleur: "My 16 year old dog has been my companion.... I would not eat him because he is of more value to me alive"

So you're saying you should only respect a life because it has value to you... the life is only worthy of respect to the extent that this life has been used to bring you happiness. If not, then it's worthless. Never mind the value of that life to whoever's living it, never mind the happiness that life could give them.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 15 2015 03:23
Quote:
So giving it to a starving person would be ok by me.

I'm sure said starving person will be gratified by your forbearance. In other news, Steven also has to eat on a daily basis, so is there any actual difference between him handing it to said starving person and just eating it himself?

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jan 15 2015 03:53

Yeah, the difference is Steven is not going to starve if he passes up the foie gras.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jan 15 2015 04:21
boomerang wrote:
Steven, I still think respect for a pet's life has a lot to do with why we don't eat them, but even putting that aside completely... you're not addressing the fact that eating foie gras offered to you at lunch is communicating loud and clear that you have no problem with it or the torture behind it. You perpetuate our culture's acceptance of animal torture, instead of taking the opportunity to challenge

Who is Steven communicating this too? The person who gave him the foie gras, who already knows about how it's made? The rapt audience that watches him eat dinner and takes their cues from that? How would not eating the fois gras challenge anything? Would not eating fois gras that's already been made and sold somehow undermine its production or discourage people from buying it? Isn't this the same logic as saying that use of any product communicates loud and clear that you have no problem with the production process behind it?