Originally posted by pradtfIt's not the money, it's the admission this man thinks it's OK to burn down buildings, and the support he gets from PETA. This isn't acceptable.
According to a release by the Center for Consumer Freedom (who aren't particularly AR friendly), PETA made a $2,000 contribution to the defense of David Wilson in 1990, and $5,000 contribution to the "Josh Harper Support Committee." they also provided the $45 000 (some sources say $70 000) to coronado in 2002, i think.
the funds went to their legal defe ...[text shortened]... ibute to PETA, i would want my money to be spent in benefitting animals.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by no1marauderwell that's fine - i'm not asking you to join the boycott.
If the AVA, the people who have dedicated their lives to the treatment and care of animals and who have first hand experience with blowfly strike (which is not flies buzzing around, but maggots actually in the sheep's skin eating them alive) say the procedure is necessary at this time, that's good enough for me.
In Iguessthat'salltosaysheep,
2BitLawyer
however, if you have at least come to the point where you realize that mulesing is not just a bit of discomfort, it may encourage you to spend as much time on the www.savethesheep.com site as you have finding all this other stuff (some of which has been admittedly good and helpful).
obviously it isn't fine with some others:
1) some people believe that the alternatives need to be implemented in place of mulesing
2) some people will not buy australian wool as long as mulesing and live exports continue
regardless of what the AVA says, the boycott is intended to speed up the end of mulesing and live exports. (that this would be a good thing is something that the AVA is certainly in agreement with - at least in principle.)
in friendship,
prad
4 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightthe admission that this man thinks it's OK to burn down buildings is the responsibility of the man.
It's not the money, it's the admission this man thinks it's OK to burn down buildings, and the support he gets from PETA. This isn't acceptable.
the support he got from PETA was for legal aid not burning down buildings.
are you suggesting that he gets further support of any other kind from PETA?
(the issue of destruction of property as a means to an end is something that might be worth debating in the debates forum, but it is of no consequence here. however, it may be interesting to look at as well as other 'violent' solutions in different areas eg abortion, political revolution, education reform etc.)
in friendship,
prad
2 edits
Originally posted by pradtfPETA to threaten to run ads against Abercrombie and Fitch and harass customers and the ALF goon squad in the shadows to smash windows and commit other "direct action".
you are confusing ALF with PETA (though i'm sure ALF would support the boycott).
the latter runs various campaigns against corporations who abuse animals as well as against those who use products from abused animals.
these campaigns have ...[text shortened]... port the atrocities and changes are made.
in friendship,
prad
How am I confusing ALF with PETA?
PETA has been harasssing fur shop owners, staff and customers. Examples of action on the PETA website include a cute little sticker saying "If you wear fur, watch your back" and encouragement to confont people wearing fur. I called that harassing customers - what would you call it? How about threatening behavior?
ALF commit violent and destructive crimes - which you call direct action rather than criminal action. I think that shows your attutude towards smashing windows, arson, destruction of propery and attacks on people. It comes as no surprise that a PETA member such as you regards burning down buildings as an topic of no consequence here.
The thread you started is to anounce your boycott - and has been already pointed out to you, there is no such thing as a boycott going on. This is an intimidation campaign, and the further this goes, the more we learn about the people behind this campaign.
Originally posted by pradtfI did see the answer already. I'm just not happy with it. I am (1) far from convinced that a Win/Win strategy has been tried by organisations such as PETA and (2) far from happy with the idea that a Win/Win strategy, properly exercised, should *ever* be considered 'exhausted' and replaced by an alternative that is less effective, based on confrontation instead of communication and designed to erode whatever trust and respect may have been present.
i answered you on p11, orfeo but i'll repeat it below just in case you didn't see it.
i think groups feel they have already exhausted the Win/Win strategy which is why the boycott is in place. i think the Win/Lose strategy may catalyze the adoptation of alternatives. this is, of course, the animal welfare stance. the animal rights one is, understandably, a different matter.
in friendship,
prad
As to (1), maybe they DO try Win/Win strategies. Maybe it's just because the media only enjoys reporting conflict that I don't hear the happy stories of animal welfare organisations working with businesses, scientists etc to improve the world.
By the way, the vet saying sheep are not bred to survive in particular conditions is onto a complete no-brainer in Australia. Sheep are not native here, and creating an animal immune to blowflies is a bit like transplanting people to Antarctica and demanding they grow their own fur. Frankly if people had known in 1788 what they know now many European animals would never have been brought here because they are so poorly suited to the natural Australian environment.
2 edits
Originally posted by steerpikewell i haven't seen this sticker so i really can't comment, though it is possible that you may be misinterpreting the meaning of the words.
[b] PETA to threaten to run ads against Abercrombie and Fitch and harass customers and the ALF goon squad in the shadows to smash windows and commit other "direct action".
How am I confusing ALF with PETA?
PETA has been hara ...[text shortened]... s goes, the more we learn about the people behind this campaign.
[/b]
i think it is fine to confront people who wear fur so long as it is done courteously. some of them don't know how they got their fur clothing and very often once they find out, they donate it to peta. last year, peta shipped several boxloads of donated furs to familys in iraq.
i have already told you my "attutude towards smashing windows, arson, destruction of propery and attacks on people". if you want to ignore what i said and paint your own picture, that's entirely up to you and you won't be the first to do so here. 😉
i don't know why you think i'm a peta member. i have never said i was. in fact, i have said that i wasn't. i still haven't bought my membership and i've known about them for a few years.
some boycotts are intimidation campaigns though not in the way you seem to be suggesting.
this boycott is basically saying "we will not buy australian wool until the mulesing and the live exports stop". it has proved intimidating as you can see from some of the comments i posted earlier from the wool association.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by orfeoOriginally posted by orfeo
I did see the answer already. I'm just not happy with it. I am (1) far from convinced that a Win/Win strategy has been tried by organisations such as PETA and (2) far from happy with the idea that a Win/Win strategy, properly exercised, should *ever* be considered 'exhausted' and replaced by an alternative that is less effective, based on confrontation in ...[text shortened]... have been brought here because they are so poorly suited to the natural Australian environment.
I did see the answer already. I'm just not happy with it.
i don't think it is PETA's responsibility to always keep looking for a win/win solution. perhaps if the people involved with the industry were concerned earlier with their image rather than their profits, they would have tried harder to end the practices that more of the world is finding out about thanks to the efforts of various animal rights and animal welfare organizations.
PETA is an animal rights organization. their mandate is to look out for the rights of animals. that is why people make contributions to them.
maybe they DO try Win/Win strategies
however, that is not to say they haven't been successful with win/win strategies. their cooperative venture with burger king resulted in a veggieburger that PETA encourages its members to eat (which i personally think is rather weird).
the vet saying sheep are not bred to survive in particular conditions is onto a complete no-brainer in Australia.Sheep are not native here, and creating an animal immune to blowflies is a bit like transplanting people to Antarctica and demanding they grow their own fur.
that is really not quite a nobrainer. some of the 'reseach projects' underway according to jane speechley of the aussie RSPCA are "the application of certain proteins to the skin, to
restrict the growth of wool in that area - to even breeding a variety of sheep that is naturally bald on those areas that have a risk of flystrike".
what really seems to be wrong is bringing animals into the wrong environment for the sake of profit, then mutilating them for the sake of profit, then shipping them off under horrible conditions for the sake of profit - and then complaining about it when you're caught doing all these things and blaming people who will not go along with it any longer. it is not surprising that we are not going to have a win/win situation here.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfwell i haven't seen this sticker so i really can't comment, though it is possible that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the words.
well i haven't seen this sticker so i really can't comment, though it is possible that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the words.
i think it is fine to confront people who wear fur so long as it is done courteously. some of them don't know how they got their fur clothing and very often once they find out, they donate it to peta. last year, peta ...[text shortened]... ee from some of the comments i posted earlier from the wool association.
in friendship,
prad
"If you wear fur, watch your back" Seven words - not very hard to get the meaning surely? I have always thought it meant be careful as you may be attacked from behind - perhaps you have an alternative explanation? To help you out, the words are superimposed over a target. See for yourself at http://www.furisdead.com/gloves.html
i think it is fine to confront people who wear fur so long as it is done courteously.
You mean like adding the words "in friendship" after accusing them of animal torture? And you are ready to say the same to wool wearers?
this boycott is basically saying "we will not buy australian wool until the mulesing and the live exports stop".
No - it means A&F will not stock wool. Do you understand the difference between a consumer boycott where consumers choose not to buy and an intimdation campaign where you deprive customers of their choice?
If you think intimidation is a worthy tactic, then go for it. But at least be honest about it. Make your press release : "Retailer backs down under pressure and wil not stock Australian wool". Then explain how the retailer thought about the pressure put on fur suppliers by PETA, ALF and eco-terrorists and gave in - and how you are looking for more cowardly retailers to bully.
7 edits
Originally posted by steerpikewell i certainly don't like the approach on the webpage, but it is a long way off from ALF stuff. PETA and ALF don't do the same things or in the same ways.
[b]well i haven't seen this sticker so i really can't comment, though it is possible that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the words.
"If you wear fur, watch your back" Seven words - not very hard to get the meaning sur ...[text shortened]... - and how you are looking for more cowardly retailers to bully.
[/b]
You mean like adding the words "in friendship" after accusing them of animal torture?
i see you are still sore about this - which might explain your unusual hostility. just where have i accused you of animal torture? if you look at my first post to you, it clearly states:
what you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that AR people are fighting against exactly what you do not condone - cruelty in farming.
you are the one who said you don't condone cruelty towards animals in that other thread and i have accepted it ever since.
Do you understand the difference between a consumer boycott where consumers choose not to buy and an intimdation campaign where you deprive customers of their choice?
i've been through all this earlier. consumers have boycotted aussie wool even before i made my first post on this a year ago. what is happening now is that it is all coming together. A&F don't want to support aussie wool perhaps because they don't want PETA on their case and perhaps because they genuinely do not want to deal with suppliers that do mulesing and live exports. there should be other retailers following suit for the same reason. if you think that all PETA is simply going to do is stand on a street corner pleading with consumers not to buy from retailers that supply aussie wool, well those days are long gone. the systems used these days are more dynamic and far-reaching - though the street corner thing is still done.
protesting retailers btw is not a new technique. it's been around for quite a while and has proved very effective in a large number of areas (and not just for animal rights by any means).
in friendship,
prad
One small point prad - sheep weren't originally brought into Australia for profit. Really it was because they thought they needed them for wool and meat. The first Europeans had almost no idea what was here and whether there was anything they could eat or make clothing from.
Otherwise... Okay, I guess I'm done. You've done an awful lot of work on this thread for which I thank you, even though I'm still not exactly convinced.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoi understand that would be the case originally and thank you for making the point.
One small point prad - sheep weren't originally brought into Australia for profit. Really it was because they thought they needed them for wool and meat. The first Europeans had almost no idea what was here and whether there was anything t ...[text shortened]... r which I thank you, even though I'm still not exactly convinced.
i guess what i was thinking about was really the merino breed which was 'created' with wrinkly skin so they could grow more wool - which happens to be one of the reasons there are problems.
that is really what i had in mind when i said "for the sake of profit"
i am not trying to convince anyone. i am just answering questions as best i can. it is important for people who feel this is an important matter to do their own research and convince themselves.
i appreciate the questions you've asked, the comments you have made and your kind words.
in friendship,
prad
ps i see you are from Oz! elvendreamgirl asked the question earlier in the thread as to whether they mulesing in Oz. i haven't been able to find out through the search engines (i keep getting stuff on oz - 1/16 lbs 😀 ). it would be greatly appreciated if you could let us know.
unless Oz = australia rather than there being a region such as Oz, australia which is what i thought she meant. if so, this would explain why i can't find anything 😀 😀 😀
The (AVA) might be biased. These are some of their biggest customers I would imagine.
my credibility isn't particularly important here.
Yes it is, because you are the biggest voice favoring this boycott. My level of respect for this boycott is currently influenced by my level of respect for your credibility, and I bet that's true for others here.
you will either see the boycott as a suitable solution to what is a barbaric process or you won't.
I am partially relying on your information and evaluations to help me make that decision, and I bet that's also true for others.
you guys go around breaking windows and god knows what else
This categorizes people who highly value animal welfare, like you, in the same way that you are categorizing people who bring up "this sort of argument."
it is not so much people that are being categorized, but the thought processes that are being used.
The thought process you are using is putting people into a group called "these people" and assigning them all a bunch of attributes that often correlate but are not possessed by every individual. Then you are using this categorization to judge the arguments of the individuals. Evaluate the individual arguments individually.
Which of these purported reasons is why the Australian Veterinary Association opposes the boycott?
Possibly 2) and 3). Maybe even 1), if their vested insterest is strong enough.
I know which strategy is more likely to get results in my opinion.
There's no reason why both can't be used simultaneously. In addition, the "Win/Lose" position is more of a "Win/Win/Lose" position which tries to change the current "Lose/Lose/Win" status. The groups in question are sheep, people who want to help sheep, and the wool merchants.
the support he got from PETA was for legal aid not burning down buildings.
Why did PETA give him legal aid? There are many people who can use it. They gave him legal aid because they supported his position and his actions.
) far from happy with the idea that a Win/Win strategy, properly exercised, should *ever* be considered 'exhausted' and replaced by an alternative that is less effective, based on confrontation instead of communication and designed to erode whatever trust and respect may have been present.
If a group is insistent on playing Win/Lose, you can't use the Win/Win model. You can try to persuade them to change their minds, but Win/Win takes both sides.
"If you wear fur, watch your back." To help you out, the words are superimposed over a target.
That's a pretty aggressive, intimidating statement.
Then explain how the retailer thought about the pressure put on fur suppliers by PETA, ALF and eco-terrorists and gave in
You don't know why A&F are boycotting. Assuming that they were intimidated into it is unfair to them and to those who proposed the boycott and spread the message.
Examples of action on the PETA website include a cute little sticker
I don't see it at peta.org, unless it used to be where the "Cancelled" sticker is now. That other webside is not peta.org, it's some other website with a link to peta.org.
Originally posted by dfm65LOL, thanks,
yep, Oz=Australia. ironically enough, the leader indulges in the odd bit of deception...
and geeeeewizzzzzzzz ðŸ˜
i feel like the strawman - and i know the tinman, lion and dorothy are smirking at me 😀
Originally posted by elvendreamgirl
Is this practise on done in Oz?
yes - (sorry it took me a while to have the connection made for me)
in friendship,
prad
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthen please do consider the information that has been provided throughout the thread and if you like my evaluations that's great too. there will be more to follow. (my credibility, you'll have to decide that for yourself).
I am partially relying on your information and evaluations to help me make that decision
in friendship,
prad