1 edit
pradtf,
What I would really want to know is, has anyone asked Australian farmers (or a representative body) WHY they continue to use a practice that others apparently regard as cruel.
It seems quite obvious to me that the odds of them doing it just for fun are pretty low. I would think that any attempt to have the practice end are doomed unless PETA addresses the reasons for mulesing, not just the practice itself.
Like no1marauder, I would as a matter of general principle put the rights of humans over the rights of animals. I'm not prepared to support action aimed at damaging the livelihood of people. What I AM prepared to support is education and dialogue aimed at showing them 1) what alternatives there are and 2) why those alternatives are better, FOR THEM as well as the sheep. Item 2 is not covered by "do it or we'll ruin you", there must be a better argument than that.
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfAs I said before, some people stand on their beliefs, some cut and run or change them at the drop of a hat. It's obvious that your core beliefs can change from day-to-day; mine are not so flighty. I consider that a good thing for me and a bad thing for you.
yes yes i know your comments always stand and you right along side them - even through an earthquake 😀
i didn't refute your comments because they don't make much sense and i keep trying to stay on topic which has nothing to do with my ...[text shortened]... end just as much as someone who buys wool.
in friendship,
prad
My comments regarding your dim view of the human race are directly on topic as you have stated a wish that the people who engage in this practice which causes discomfort to a sheep should suffer "financial hardship". It was also your point that people care more about the life of their dog than of a starving child if they don't see it. So if anybody was straying off-topic, it was you.
You're not really suggesting that Abercrombie & Fitch are really concerned about the discomfort of some sheep are you? Obviously they made a business decision that going with the silly boycott would make them look socially conscious and therefore, increase their sale of other items to people with an outlook similar to yours. I doubt that compassion for sheep had anything to do with it or that they sell very much in dollars of items containing Australian wool! So be serious.
I find it strange that someone who wouldn't buy wool no matter what, pretends that it is this one practice he objects to. If you think people shouldn't buy wool because wool farming is some terrible crime against a sheep's "rights", just say so. You're not going to buy wool even if the practice is stopped anyway, so for you to "boycott" is pointless. I'm sure if this one practice is stopped, you and your ilk will find another practice that wool farmers engage in and demand a boycott because of THAT. So, cut to the chase; say you boycott ALL wool not matter what and be done with it. At least that's upfront and honest, though you have problems with both of those concepts.
In Upfrontandhonestsheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by KneverKnightthis is a viable possibility for sure and i think this sort of symbiosis does happen in smaller setups.
I can see another relationship between man and animal, a symbiotic one. The sheep provides the farmer with wool in return for protection against predators.
however, in large operations that are driven by commerce that is not the case.
in friendship,
prad
3 edits
[/i]Originally posted by bbarr[]Perhaps I did misunderstand you. To answer you directly, I don't believe that most humans feel they owe any "moral" obligations to their animals. They might believe that certain treatment of the animals is socially unacceptable, but I don't think they feel "I have moral obligations to my hamster which preclude me from owning him". I think most people would believe that absurd. My question to you is: do you think people should feel they have moral obligations to animals and why?
Since you are apparently ignoring what I'm actually claiming, I'll repost the relevant claim:
[i/]The point, again, is that [b]if you recognize a moral obligation not to treat animals under your control in any manner you see fit (e.g ou are committed to viewing them as improper objects of ownership.[/b]
In Havewebeenherebeforesheep,
2BitLawyer
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfYa, they offer you the moon at first, then they want more and more ... but seriously, grannies are going to want wool to knit with for the foreseeable future, surely we all can agree that the wool be harvested in a humane manner, and that sheep farmers can continue to make a living, send their kids to school and so forth. With this in mind, a boycott is a way to send a message to farmers, but should they respond by ending cruel procedures, the boycott should end. IMHO
this is a viable possibility for sure and i think this sort of symbiosis does happen in smaller setups.
however, in large operations that are driven by commerce that is not the case.
in friendship,
prad
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI think people generally recognize moral obligations to animals, though maybe hamsters aren't a good example, as they are widely considered 'starter pets', disposable and replaceable (unjustifiably, in my opinion). Anyway, if you ask people whether it is wrong to set an animal on fire, most will say "yes", and not because it harms another person (contrary to your initial analysis of constraints on disposal of property), nor because it harms one's self interest (contrary to your proposed computer analogy), but because it harms the animal. When pressed, I bet people will claim that treating animals cruelly violates obligations we owe directly to those animals. My claim is that anybody who thinks there are these obligations will thereby be committed to the claim that animals are not proper objects of ownership.
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. To answer you directly, I don't believe that most humans feel they owe any "moral" obligations to their animals. They might believe that certain treatment of the animals is socially unaccepta ...[text shortened]... ?
In Havewebeenherebeforesheep,
2BitLawyer
I think people should feel that they have moral obligations to animals. They should feel this way because they do, in fact, have such obligations. Of course, justifying this point will take us directly into theoretical ethics, and nothing I will say will convince the Act Utilitarian (whose view is inconsistent with the very notion of a right), or the Theist (who will claim that God has given us dominion over animals). In short, my view is that the psychological capacities that we normally take to be sufficient for rights possession amongst humans are ones we share with mammals. If you deny rights to animals because they are not as autonomous or as rational as an adult human, then you are committed to denying rights to infants and the severely developmentally disabled. This is a consistency argument.
Originally posted by orfeoOriginally posted by orfeo
pradtf,
What I would really want to know is, has anyone asked Australian farmers (or a representative body) WHY they continue to use a practice that others apparently regard as cruel.
It seems quite obvious to me that the odds of them doing it just for fun are pretty low. I doubt that any attempt to have the practice end are doomed unless PETA addresses ...[text shortened]... tem 2 is not covered by "do it or we'll ruin you", there must be a better argument than that.
What I would really want to know is, has anyone asked Australian farmers (or a representative body) WHY they continue to use a practice that others apparently regard as cruel.
if you look at the initial post it says
PETA has announced an international boycott of Australian wool. The announcement comes after multiple protests on three continents, years of campaigning by Australian activists, and repeated warnings to the Australian government to curb the worst abuses of sheep raised for wool.
so there has been considerable effort to deal with this for quite some time, from what i understand.
for instance, i posted about all this nearly 1 year ago on RHP.
It seems quite obvious to me that the odds of them doing it just for fun are pretty low. I doubt that any attempt to have the practice end are doomed unless PETA addresses the reasons for mulesing, not just the practice itself.
i don't think farmers do this just for fun. it is a short-cut though. often in large commercial ventures, short-cuts are taken with little consideration given to the animals. this is plain to see in factory farming ventures.
PETA has addressed the reasons for mulesing and has printed many alternatives on the website. these alternatives are not the creation of PETA as you will plainly see from the references. I have posted much of this on p2 of this thread.
It is also not correct to think that PETA is in this alone. as i've pointed out 2 of the australian political parties have signed the petition and there is concern on 3 continents. That pressure may end the practices regardless of what PETA does.
What I AM prepared to support is education and dialogue aimed at showing them 1) what alternatives there are and 2) why those alternatives are better, FOR THEM as well as the sheep.
as for 1), the alternatives are there on the website and on p2 of this thread.
as for 2), there is no "do it or we'll ruin you" though some people seem to think that. the boycott simply means that certain groups and individuals will not buy australian wool until mulesing and live exports are stopped. presumably as a result of this pressure, the australian government will stop the two practices again presumably because they want the wool industry to continue to have a significant market share.
this is hardly a matter of rights of humans vs rights of sheep. if it were, then the aim would be in all likelihood to end the wool trade. the issue is not one of animal rights, but of animal welfare.
i hope that answers your questions - if not, please ask again.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by no1marauderyou keep talking about mere discomfort to the sheep probably because you have not thought sufficiently about having chunks of flesh cut out without anaesthetic.
You're not really suggesting that Abercrombie & Fitch are really concerned about the discomfort of some sheep are you? Obviously they made a business decision that going with the silly boycott would make them look socially conscious and therefore, increase their sale of other items to people with an outlook similar to yours. I doubt that compassion for ...[text shortened]... lems with both of those concepts.
In Upfrontandhonestsheep,
2BitLawyer
i don't know why the company made the decision they did. perhaps it was to appear socially conscious or perhaps they are socially conscious. however, that is their decision for now and hopefully it will influence others.
i'm glad you keep figuring out that i boycott all wool especially since i said so more than once 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnightthe message is actually going to the australian government i believe and not the farmers.
With this in mind, a boycott is a way to send a message to farmers, but should they respond by ending cruel procedures, the boycott should end. IMHO
however, once the mulesing and live exports stop, so will the boycott as far as i know.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrOK, this is a lot more interesting than the wool boycott itself! Let us say that I recognize that a dog can feel pain and wishes to avoid feeling pain. Therefore, I say I have a moral obligation not to inflict unnecessary pain on the dog because the dog would not want to feel pain and I should respect that.
I think people generally recognize moral obligations to animals, though maybe hamsters aren't a good example, as they are widely considered 'starter pets', disposable and replaceable (unjustifiably, in my opinion). Anyway, if you ask people whether it is wrong to set an animal on fire, most will say "yes", and not because it harms another person (contrar ...[text shortened]... ng rights to infants and the severely developmentally disabled. This is a consistency argument.
But a dog has no concept of being owned. What am I depriving a dog of by saying I own it? The dog is not suffering by my owning it, it is almost certainly benefiting. Why shouldn't I be able to own the dog as it is not aware that it is being injured in any way by my doing so?
In Nowwe'regettingsomewheresheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by pradtfI suggest those interested in some balance on the issue go to the Australian Wool Growers Association website at: http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/
the message is actually going to the australian government i believe and not the farmers.
however, once the mulesing and live exports stop, so will the boycott as far as i know.
in friendship,
prad
The boycott is aimed directly at the wool growers, the government has taken a "hands off" approach and the wool growers fear that loss of access to the American market will bankrupt their $1 billion industry. It also states that they have invested millions of dollars into research to find techniques as effective as mulesing in preventing disease and that they will end the practice if other measures can be shown to be as effective, so long as they are not cost-prohibitive. It's interesting reading for those who after reading this thread get the impression that the wool farmers are a bunch of callous, greedy sadists. But that makes for better propaganda.
In Sweettruthsheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom what I can see with my own eyes around here: there's a lot of livestock of different kinds and if on a Sunday I should take my daughter to look at them, we can get out of the car, walk over to the fence and the animals will come over; clearly unafraid of humans. It pays the farmer to take good care of his flock, and as better methods become standard, to adopt them.
I suggest those interested in some balance on the issue go to the Australian Wool Growers Association website at: http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/
The boycott is aimed directly at the wool growers, the government has taken a "hands off" approach and the wool growers fear that loss of access to the American market will bankru ...[text shortened]... ists. But that makes for better propaganda.
In Sweettruthsheep,
2BitLawyer
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderthere is some excellent stuff here since it does provide the view from the perspective of the industry.
I suggest those interested in some balance on the issue go to the Australian Wool Growers Association website at: http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/
The boycott is aimed directly at the wool growers, the govern ...[text shortened]... r propaganda.
In Sweettruthsheep,
2BitLawyer
for instance:
http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/html/news181004.html
Last week, Australian Woolgrowers were stunned at the news that US fashion retailer Abercrombie and Fitch had boycotted Australian merino fibre in all its stores.
this answers orfeo's question - apparently the quantity of wool must be significant.
It is time to admit that if these animal rights groups can influence major US retailers' decisions so effectively, then we to must immediately open dialog with these groups to demonstrate our shared goals of finding alternative preventative measures to the very real threat of blowfly strike and the slow and totally inhumane death that follows, and set an agenda for change. The US fashion market represents a gold mine for Australian Merino fibre and if other countries follow suit then the effect will be simply catastrophic.
this suggests that because of the fear of the boycott, the alternative measures are starting to be taken seriously (albeit maybe not for the best of reasons).
Australian woolgrowers simply can not afford to allow this to threat to escalate into reality. Full disclosure of the current standing on the developing alternatives needs to occur immediately if the industry is to demonstrate it is responsive to consumer concerns.
this shows that the consumer does have power.
and
http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/html/news201004.html
The RSPCA has also weighed into the debate saying that research into safe and humane alternatives is now the number one priority for the wool industry.
this organization has apparently done quite a bit too in this regard.
It is no secret that PETA's next target is Europe where Australian merino fibre has long been the number one choice of the top fashion houses of Italy, France, Germany and England. One only has to look at the recent disappearance of kangaroo meat from English supermarkets and restaurants to understand what a formidable organisation PETA is.
PETA does tend to be effective which is one of the reasons some groups with vested interests bad-mouth them. however, they have brought the entire issue of animal rights and even animal welfare to the forefront.
If a "head in the sand" approach is taken by our industry leaders in the hope that PETA will just go away, then they will be sadly mistaken. PETA has carried out its initial threats highly effectively and with potentially devastating consequences for the entire Australian wool industry.
so it certainly has not been without warning as i mentioned earlier. AR activists have tried for quite some time to have practices changed.
in any case, the boycott seems to be fairly effective so far and it looks like it may escalate. it is good to know that it is in everyone's mind to end mulesing, but the idea of 'cost-prohibitiveness' is one of those 'excuses' that can be conveniently applied.
it is unfortunate that your propaganda is geared towards suggesting that this thread gives "the impression that the wool farmers are a bunch of callous, greedy sadists", because you are really the only one who has said things like that. however, what is important is that alternatives be used.
i also don't see why you think that the aussie government is really going to have no role to play in this since i was of the impression that they are probably going to pass legislation to end the practices.
in friendship,
prad