Australian Wool Boycott

Originally posted by steerpike
Because it is dishonest to call such actions a boycott. This is not an organized refusal to purchase products or patronize a store. It is threatening and intimidating behaviour, and the retailer will assume if they don't comply, there will be consequences beyond some customers buying elsewhere.

Why do you refer to such behaviour as direct action? I wou ...[text shortened]... , arson or sabotage as criminal action. And I don't care if the thugs support my views.

I'm not calling them a boycott, I'm calling them direct action. I'd also be fine with calling them intimidation or bullying. The retailer is right to assume that there will be consequences for non-compliance. If the retailer doesn't want to deal with those consequences, he ought to stop trafficking in the destruction of animals.

You may call this action criminal, it is against the law, after all. But so what? Many civil rights movements also involved direct action (and were called criminal, at the time). When we look back on the civil rights movement with the objectivity that distance allows, we see that the thugs were those trampling on the rights of others, and not those taking direct action to stop it.

Originally posted by steerpike
Why should a woman be attacked because she wears a fur coat - while no-one notices my leather shoes? In both cases, an animal has to be skinned to produce the materials, and there are equal amounts of vanity and greed. Why is her moral transgression greater than mine?

Or is rational thought not required on these topics?

First, nobody is talking about attacking anybody. The idea is to spray-paint the coat. I'm not ruling out the idea that leather would be a target. Most leather goods are made from the the remains of animals killed at slaughterhouses for food, so there is a dual purpose here that may, prima facie, mitigate the seriousness of your offense. Further, since the leather is a byproduct, its production may be combatted by attacking the meat-production industry directly, rather than by the vastly decentralized leather retailing industry.

No, rational thought is not required, feel free to continue saying whatever you wish. 😀

Cheers!

Originally posted by steerpike
Why should a woman be attacked because she wears a fur coat - while no-one notices my leather shoes? In both cases, an animal has to be skinned to produce the materials, and there are equal amounts of vanity and greed. Why is her moral transgression greater than mine?

Or is rational thought not required on these topics?

Minks are cuter than cattle.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
"Of course, since you'll claim that humans, unlike animals, have innate rights," -Bbarr

False assumption. Are you claiming to have the power to read minds, or do you habitually pigeon-hole people who don't agree with you?

so are you claiming that humans too only have rights that other humans grant them?

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
so are you claiming that humans too only have rights that other humans grant them?

in friendship,
prad

This is going to evolve into an argument about whether human rights are innate or granted, and by granting these rights are we really creating them or recognizing something that is already there. Might be worth another thread, seems a bit out of place in this one, or do we need to discuss it's inclusion in this one?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
This is going to evolve into an argument about whether human rights are innate or granted, and by granting these rights are we really creating them or recognizing something that is already there. Might be worth another thread, seems a ...[text shortened]... in this one, or do we need to discuss it's inclusion in this one?

we don't need to discuss it here if you do not wish to.

i only asked because you seemed to take exception to bbarr's comment and because some of your sentiments seem to be based on this idea that a being doesn't have rights unless some sort of 'superior' power grants them.

while pragmatically this has been the case throughout history (you can see some comments i made along these lines below in the animal rights thread from nearly a year ago), i do not think it is a wise course to follow.

it was actually bbarr's arguments in that thread that caused me to realize that rights whether 'granted or not', nevertheless exist (even though some people have found it convenient throughout history to deny this for various reasons).

in friendship,
prad



what is written below is historically valid - this is how it's been. however, it has happened and will continue to happen because some people do not acknowledge, accept, allow innate rights.

Animal Rights Thread 07 Dec '03
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=7804&page=4

i wish to look at the AR issue from a slightly different perspective, that of rights in general. in these matters, rights are always sought by the 'weaker' party (or their advocates) from the 'stronger' party.

let us first look at this within the human species since it is sometimes difficult for some people to extend the notion to other species so that the mechanics behind the idea become clarified.

let's start with slavery in the US. the 'weaker' party were the blacks, forcibly uprooted from their homeland and brought to 'bolster' the economy in the US. the 'stronger' were those making the profits as slave owners and traders. the stronger party did not want to consider these beings as anything other than property or commodities. by viewing them as such, it was easy to subject them to abhorrent actions. there was a fight to gain rights and eventually the 'stronger' party was forced to concede at least legally though not pragmatically till much later and the struggle, at least against bigotry still continues.

the industrial revolution in britain is another example of the same thing. though they were not called 'slaves', the laborers (men, women and children) were effectively treated as such forced to work inhuman hours under inhumane conditions for sustenance wages. there was a whole 'deformed' generation that developed as a result of these 'satanic mills'. the 'weaker' party were the laborers and the 'stronger' party were their employers and others who profited from their work. 'freethinking radicals' and religious leaders spoke out against this treatment because it was abhorrent and eventually the 'stronger' party was forced into some concessions. this struggle also continues in many parts of the world.

the first nations population in canada is the 'weaker' party and the non-aboriginal 'invaders' became the 'stronger'. same thing here again. the stronger party finds it inconvenient to grant rights. there is a 'fight' and some concessions are eventually made, but the struggle still continues.

women were defined by british common law as 'persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges'. as such women could not hold public office because they had to figure out 'Does the word "person" in Section 24 of The British North America Act include female persons?' again a fight on behalf of the 'weaker' party to gain concessions from the 'stronger' party. though the feminist movement has made enormous strides, here again the struggle still continues.

the pattern appears to always the same. the 'stronger' party cling tenaciously to what they have regardless of how badly they mistreat the 'weaker' party. the 'rights' have to be fought for and eventually concessions are made.

so here is the question: what does it say about the 'stronger' party that they are willing to oppress others for their own gain? how, in fact, does posterity view these oppressors and most importantly why is it that these oppressors eventually are viewed this way by later generations?

the trend in 'civilized' society generally seems to be towards restricting the power of the oppressors. people aren't allowed to keep slaves, owners are legally forced to provide proper working conditions and decent wages. if someone tries to force aboriginal people off their land, or if promotion is withheld on the basis of creed, color or sex there is usually a mechanism for protest and very often significant legal action as well. hence, society does not look favorably on oppression in general. in fact, we not only speak of oppressors of the past in derogatory terms, the laws that are set up are usually to some extent intended to prevent such acts from taking place in our present and future. hence, we have laws against murder, violence, fraud, animal cruelty etc. the idea is to protect the weak against the oppression of the strong. in fact, it is often the strong who initiate and implement these ideas following through on that wonderful moment of enlightenment that king arthur had when he realized that it was not 'might is right', but that it needs to be 'might for right'.

why does this happen? it happens because there is a continual awakening to the realization that being cruel, greedy and barbaric is not in the best interests of the individual, society or the human species. our literature, theatre, cinema and even television are filled with support for the 'underdog' who overcomes the odds against the powerful oppressor - there appears to be a natural tendency to fight the good fight against this sort of thing. when we instill values in our children we generally try to bring about qualities of honesty, decency, kindness and courage. the 'golden rule' of 'do unto others ...' appears in many forms and in many places.

some people are too quick to point out that in nature it has to be 'the survival of the fitest', yet they do not stress strongly enough the other 'nature' adage that it is 'only those who adapt, that survive'. the human species has been adapting for centuries not so much biologically, but psychologically, ethically and spiritually. it is a necessary part of our evolution.

whether animals have rights or not can always be debated, but whether we grant our fellow creatures these rights, whether we acknowledge their dignity to life, whether we stop exploiting and abusing them says a lot about ourselves and the progress our species has made in the short time it has shared the earth.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
"Of course, since you'll claim that humans, unlike animals, have innate rights," -Bbarr

False assumption. Are you claiming to have the power to read minds, or do you habitually pigeon-hole people who don't agree with you?

Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel pigeon-holed. You claimed that animals don't have innate rights (they only have what we grant them), and that is why it is impermissible to engage in direct action vs. those who exploit animals for the sake of their vanity. Now, there are three options here: either you think that human rights are 1) innate or 2) not innate or 3) that the notion of a right itself is nonsense. If 1, then you believe what I attributed to you in my post above. If 2, then your claim that the rights of animals are not innate doesn't support your case against direct action, because the rights of humans have the same status (and you'll face the obvious objection that if human rights are granted, then they can be taken away by decree. This is quite startling, as it would entail that a government could torture or enslave humans without violating their rights, as long as the government decrees that there are no such rights). If 3, then you need to give some sort of argument that doesn't rely on the notion of a right to justify your contention that it is impermissible to engage in direct action vs. those who exploit animals for the sake of their vanity.

So, I await your clarification.

Originally posted by steerpike
Because it is dishonest to call such actions a boycott. This is not an organized refusal to purchase products or patronize a store. It is threatening and intimidating behaviour, and the retailer will assume if they don't comply, there wi ...[text shortened]... riminal action. And I don't care if the thugs support my views.

steerpike,

in your repeated efforts to say not nice things about this boycott (or whatever you see fit to call it), PETA, animal rights advocates, and certain individuals posting here, you seem to not want to consider that maybe the retailer in question didn't know what was happening and after they learned, they thought it was pretty bad stuff which is why they joined the boycott.

here is an excerpt from an The World Today interview with Matt Rice from PETA who gives his version of what happened:

NICK GRIMM: Okay Matt Rice, some might say that what you've done is blackmail the Abercrombie and Fitch chain by threatening them with negative advertising. What do you say?

MATT RICE: Well, when we first approached Abercrombie and Fitch they were hesitant to make such a bold statement against the Australian wool industry, but after their executives saw our video - which you can see at save the sheep.com. It's a video called Australia's secret shame, it shows sheep having huge chunks of flesh carved from their back side and millions of sheep being forced to live on crowded transport ships. After Abercrombie and Fitch saw this video and learned from us what goes on in the wool industry, they decided that we are right.

Abercrombie and Fitch I think understands that most young people and certainly all compassionate consumers don't want to pay for cruelty.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1220804.htm

now you can say that matt rice may be somewhat biased, but perhaps a lot of other people are too and don't want to get their wool through this kind of cruelty.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I feel the notion of humans inventing the concept of rights is noble and fine, doing something for its own sake because it is right, not because its forced on them by a higher power. Similar to the concept of ethical atheism, acting in a good manner not out of fear of going to hell or being rewarded in heaven.
But what's this got to do with sheep on a ship?

I'm sorry, why is this relevant to the discussion at hand? We're talking about rights here, and not the concept of rights. All concepts rely on creatures with minds, as concepts are mental entities. The concept of 'rock' is dependent on minds as well, but that doesn't entail that actual rocks are human inventions. If you think that rights do not exist indpendently of human attributions, then you are committed to option 2 above (that rights are not innate). But, as I would hate for you to feel misinterpreted, I will not actually attribute this view to you until you have provided the requested clarification. Could you please indicate which of the above options (1, 2, or 3) you actually agree with?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
But what's this got to do with sheep on a ship?

you wrote earlier that fur-wearing was repulsive - what i think you meant was that it is repulsive because of the way it is acquired - the pain in the traps or the horrendous conditions of the fur farm and the eventual anal electrocution. i think you find it repulsive because you don't believe that animals with fur should be treated that way.

presumably, once you learn how these sheep on a ship are treated (during their wool production years and subsequently), you may find, for the same reasons, that wearing wool acquired in this fashion is also repulsive.

it is a violation of their rights as sentient beings.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I feel the notion of humans inventing the concept of rights is noble and fine, doing something for its own sake because it is right, not because its forced on them by a higher power. Similar to the concept of ethical atheism, acting in ...[text shortened]... rded in heaven.
But what's this got to do with sheep on a ship?

This all stemmed from your comment about vigilante action and your subsequent argument, in clarifying this comment, based on animals not having innate rights. The while idea of rights, who has them, and who grants them, then, comes up.

Your “vigilante action” comment stemmed from a focus on animal rights activists. And I agree, what about the horrors of what is actually happening to the sheep? Why are we focusing on the actions of animal rights activists alone?

As far as your notion of people coming to the idea of rights because they are noble and good and not being forced into it – how does it working in practical terms? What about the days of slavery? Should people not have fought against this? Should we have waited for those that enslaved others to come to a realization on their own that this was wrong, while millions of black people continued to suffer horribly?

in peace
Ranjana