Originally posted by pradtfTell ya what, Brutus .....
tell you what no1 ...
how about we liberate the sheep and the other 30 billion animals who are going to die each year under atrocious conditions first and then i'll personally join your free the plants campaign. after you invest some time in the animal rights arena, you will be in a better position for sure to conduct a boycott of iceberg lettuce!
in friendship,
prad
How about we liberate the millions of human beings who are going to die in atrocious conditions first and then worry about some sheep?
Originally posted by steerpikeit's not dishonesty, steerpike - quite the opposite in fact.
If the mulesing and live exports stopped tomorrow - would the campaign stop? So these objectives are not the reason for their intimidation campaign.
Just more dishonesty from PETA.
you are confusing PETA with the boycott which is a much bigger thing involving much more than PETA.
once the mulesing and live exports stop - the boycott will stop because that is what the boycott is about.
PETA will naturally remain opposed to wool because they are an animal rights organization.
PETA is only organizing the boycott under an animal welfare hat because they are trying to get at least decent conditions for the sheep.
If it were otherwise and PETA was interested in eliminating wool from the planet with the boycott, they would have launched the boycott against every wool producing country. they are focussing on australia because this is where it's been the worse for sheep for decades.
so once again the boycott is to stop mulesing and live exports and is localized to australia.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrTake a look at this link: http://www.simplytheweb.com/garden/plantemot.htm
Um, they're not living things, no1. They do fit the definition of 'intelligence' provided by the researcher you cite. If thermostats are intelligent, according to that definition, then why should the additional property of being alive make any difference at all? It is certainly not the case that it is sufficient for being able to suffer that a creature b ...[text shortened]... nybody else for that matter) worry about eating plants or using them as resources generally?
which gives evidence that plants may have empathic reactions to the deaths of other species and may react in fear when confronted by a human who it had "seen" kill another plant! Seen any thermostats do that?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat are you doing to achieve this goal no1....? I see no fundraiser for feeding the children coming from your direction.
Tell ya what, Brutus .....
How about we liberate the millions of human beings who are going to die in atrocious conditions first and then worry about some sheep?
What are you doing, if you can demand of others?
Mike
Originally posted by no1marauderlol, you're kidding me, right? I'm sure I can find some kook on the web who claims that plants can talk, too. If you're going to provide evidence, can you try and do so from a reputable source, or perhaps a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Take a look at this link: http://www.simplytheweb.com/garden/plantemot.htm
which gives evidence that plants may have empathic reactions to the deaths of other species and may react in fear when confronted by a human who it had "seen" kill another plant! Seen any thermostats do that?
Originally posted by no1marauderwe are working on that too. as i told you many AR activists are also HR activists.
Tell ya what, Brutus .....
How about we liberate the millions of human beings who are going to die in atrocious conditions first and then worry about some sheep?
however, what you need to understand is that it is the same mentality and excuses that exploit animals that also exploit humans.
you actually said it rather well earlier that some people are happy to get their wool cheap and not give a damn how it was gotten. it may be that those same people are happy to get their stuff cheap regardless of whether it comes from sweatshops, child slavery etc
if you are really so concerned about the human condition and the plant condition, i would have hoped you might be a bit more sensitive towards the plight of animals.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by no1marauderno1,
Take a look at this link: http://www.simplytheweb.com/garden/plantemot.htm
which gives evidence that plants may have empathic reactions to the deaths of other species and may react in fear when confronted by a human who it had "seen" kill another plant! Seen any thermostats do that?
what are you doing now?
first it was humans vs animals.
then it was animals vs plants.
now it's plants vs thermostats?
perhaps plants have esp and other such qualities.
but we are talking not about plants, but about sheep and the way they are treated.
trying to throw a wrench in here with your plant argument is even more absurd and irrelevant than the "there are thugs in PETA so PETA's boycott must be wrong" effort. (oh ya - then there was that 'brutus' line that is supposed to have some significance i'm sure).
it would be preferable if you can stick to matters relevant to the issue, rather than introduce diversions such as these which really have no bearing on the topic at hand.
in friendship,
prad
2 edits
Originally posted by pradtfYour argument was I should worry about animals first before I worry about plants; I basically tossed the same argument back at you. You need to understand that just because somebody eats a steak sandwich doesn't mean that they support war and oppression and just because someone only eats a salad doesn't mean that they can't be an evil SOB (Hitler was a vegetarian). I regard you by the way you talk as somebody who is personally insensitive to the suffering of your fellow man, but highly interested in the suffering of sheep. Therefore, you either have a screw loose or are incredibly shallow and not terribly bright. So far, the Vegas Line is even money.
we are working on that too. as i told you many AR activists are also HR activists.
however, what you need to understand is that it is the same mentality and excuses that exploit animals that also exploit humans.
you actually said it rath ...[text shortened]... e sensitive towards the plight of animals.
in friendship,
prad
BBarr - I wasn't aware all assertions made in the Forums had to be backed by articles in scientific journals but now that I'm aware of this rule, I'll see what I can get ya. There is this link to a long book review of The Secret Life of Plants http://www.raven1.net/seclife.htm
which talks about some of the research mentioned in the other link.
The big point is, of course, since humans have to eat something if plants have a "mind" under your definition and thus, are morally no different from animals in this regard we must either: 1) Not eat EITHER plants OR animals thus our only moral course is to starve to death; or 2) We can eat either plants or animals since we must to survive (self-preservation trumping their "rights"😉 and there is no moral difference between them. Would you concede that if my premises prove to be true than this conclusion logically follows?
EDIT: Pradtf, what BBarr and I are having is a logical debate; you wouldn't understand it so don't waste your time trying.
Originally posted by KneverKnightintimidation is not something AR activists use very often - and only a very few ever do. however, it is too often thrown around by those opposed to giving animals even minimal kindness as an attempt to divert attention from the real issue.
I was speaking of the tactic of using intimidation to force your views on others, which was already raised in this thread.
you conceded that bbarr made you think about animal rights issues. that is a really important step. that's what this thread is largely about.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI still don't see the difference in spray painting some grandmother for knitting wool socks because some sheep died in transit or harrassing anyone else because they don't agree with me.
intimidation is not something AR activists use very often - and only a very few ever do. however, it is too often thrown around by those opposed to giving animals even minimal kindness as an attempt to divert attention from the real issue.
you conceded that bbarr made you think about animal rights issues. that is a really important step. that's what this thread is largely about.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by rapalla7That's a hoot coming from you, Mike; when was the last antiwar or civil rights march you were at? I've been in both in the recent past. I represent people getting evicted pro bono even though I ain't living in a mansion; when was the last you unclogged a poor person's drain for free? If you want to keep defending the Pradtf's and Ivanhoe's of the world or continue some silly personal vendetta against me, knock yourself out, but don't try to pretend you have some moral superiority over me because that's just too funny.
No1,
Why would you care if someone is trying to make a difference in this world, would you have them do nothing but spread hate like you?
Mike
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderevidently you don't have your sense of humour tonight and you didn't really toss anything except your salad, perhaps.
Your argument was I should worry about animals first before I worry about plants; I basically tossed the same argument back at you ... (Hitler was a vegetarian). I regard you by the way you talk as somebody who is personally insensitiv ...[text shortened]... ate; you wouldn't understand it so don't waste your time trying.
you have also come to the conclusion that i don't care about the suffering of humans or do anything about it, presumably because i care for the suffering of sheep - again without any rationale, not that it is relevant to the thread.
you also seem to spend a lot of time engaging in critiquing me for some reason - again, this has nothing to do with the thread. in your critque you have decided that i couldn't possibly understand that you are engaged in a logical debate. you are right to some extent - i do not see you engaging in any sort of debate ... all you are doing is engaging in your usual verbal hostilities.
btw, hitler wasn't a vegetarian and if you'd do some research on that topic too you'll find that you are again misinformed.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnighti'm not trying to disagree with you kneverknight, but this thread is not about the so-called intimidation tactics that some AR people are being accused of. this argument was introduced by a couple of people in a typical effort to divert attention from the real issue which is the boycott of australian wool because of mulesing and live exports.
I still don't see the difference in spray painting some grandmother for knitting wool socks because some sheep died in transit or harrassing anyone else because they don't agree with me.
now if you want to talk about AR tactics, that's fine, we can continue to do so - because it has started. however, it should be recognized that the tactics (some of which may be more effective than others) used don't really change the issue itself.
in friendship,
prad