Originally posted by steerpikei guess it's like we've crossed so far into the intersection that it felt like it was too late to back up.
[/i]If you are going to tell others not to divert the thread, how come you are discussing Hitler's flatulence?
but you are correct!
i will get back on the proper topic.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by steerpikeno AF is the clothing retailer we've been talking about.
You mean www.rspca.org.uk? They have about 30 campaigns from tortoises to bull fighting but I can't find the PETA campaign. Care to provide a link?
I thought you might have got confused with the American or Australian SPCA but could ...[text shortened]... g animal rights by assiocating PETA with criminal activists again.
the aussie RSPCA doesn't support the boycott, presently, though they have been opposed to the live exports.
however, animals australia does (http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/orange/200410/s1224243.htm)
EDIT: the british RSPCA does, i thought, but since they don't have a link, it seems i was mistaken (at least for now).
give it some time though - the official boycott was only called 1 week ago (though unofficially it has been going on a while, from what i understand).
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfThis thread was introduced by you Prad, if you are speaking on behalf of a syndicate, say so at the outset. This thread is all about ways and means to reduce animal suffering, otherwise, why post it? I say that intimidation tactics are indefensible, what say you?
i'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.
now if you w ...[text shortened]... more effective than others) used don't really change the issue itself.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnighti'm not sure what you are getting at. the ways and means are the boycott.
This thread was introduced by you Prad, if you are speaking on behalf of a syndicate, say so at the outset. This thread is all about ways and means to reduce animal suffering, otherwise, why post it? I say that intimidation tactics are indefensible, what say you?
if you are calling these tactics indefensible, then i totally disagree.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfSurely there would be a joint statement when the campaign was announced? Presumably PETA is on speaking terms with animal welfare organisations and would have asked for support?
no AF is the clothing retailer we've been talking about.
the aussie RSPCA doesn't support the boycott, presently.
the british one does, i thought, especially since they were so involved in the cormo express matter (however, possibly i was wrong about that if they don't have a link - i'll try to find out though).
give it some time though - the boycott was only called 1 week ago.
in friendship,
prad
So we have PETA and Abercrombies so far? Isn't it strange that an American retailer is in support of you when the American SPCA is not?
Originally posted by steerpikei don't think it is strange because it may not be an issue for the SPCA's which are generally locally motivated. the SPCA's really aren't as important as the retailers, because they are the ones who will have an effect as will consumers.
Surely there would be a joint statement when the campaign was announced? Presumably PETA is on speaking terms with animal welfare organisations and would have asked for support?
So we have PETA and Abercrombies so far? Isn't it str ...[text shortened]... rican retailer is in support of you when the American SPCA is not?
animals australia has joined the boycott (link is in the last post).
i haven't been able to find anything on the british RSPCA so i assume you are correct and i agree that there should be a joint statement if it were true.
i probably read something like it in a newsgroup post and really didn't look into it further. sorry.
however, i think that more will come on board.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfThe British RSPCA is apparently concerned wih the consumption of dog and cat meat in Korea so they are involved in ouside issues.
i don't think it is strange because it may not be an issue for the SPCA's which are generally locally motivated. the SPCA's really aren't as important as the retailers, because they are the ones who will have an effect as will consumers. ...[text shortened]... ver, i think that more will come on board.
in friendship,
prad
Stranglely enough, Korea is the country that produces much of the syntheric fibres which are " warm and wonderful alternatives to wool" which Abercrombie will be stocking.
Here's an interesting article on the "socially conscious" retailer Abercrombie & Fitch: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/60minutes/main587099.shtml
Apparently there is a lawsuit filed and pending against A & F for discriminating in their hiring and other employment practices against African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other minorities. A & F likes to keep their workforce has lily white as possible to appeal to their preferred upscale clientale. I guess they're Pradt's type of people: caring more about the "rights" of sheep than the rights of human beings!
Originally posted by steerpikei have edited earlier that since i could find nothing to support the involvement of the british RSPCA in the boycott, so my belief that they supported the boycott is not correct. i try to provide links to verify my statements and this was obviously an oversight on my part.
The British RSPCA is apparently concerned wih the consumption of dog and cat meat in Korea so they are involved in ouside issues.
if they do support the boycott at a later date, i promise i will not say "i told you so", since i have made an error in my prior statement regarding them. 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfhere is part 2 (part 1 is on p10).
we will now focus on the live export trade.
it includes a brief intro and an interview with the aussie PM and is from
http://www.animalliberation.com.au/issues/live_exp.html
the primary focus of the page is the idea that the economy justifies what is done to the sheep. the comments may be construed to be biased, but similar arguments as in the PM interview transcript have been made for more than sheep.
in friendship,
prad
The live Export industry is one of the cruellest forms of animal exploitation. Animals are crammed into transport trucks for days at a time with little or no water & food (reduces the messing of the truck) before being herded onto ships to spend weeks in poorly ventilated pens again with little clean water or food and forced to live in their own excrement - no animal voluntarily lives in its own excrement.
Many animals die in transport due to heat, stress, dehydration, starvation, injury & illness. The Industry dismisses this as a small percentage ie a statistical number - regardless, the deaths run into the hundreds of thousands per year - these are not "quick kills", but slow painful deaths that may take days or even weeks.
The Industry is all about how much more money it can squeeze out of the animal kingdom and cruelty can be excused because the industry is an important part of our economy. The Industry and government will use all manner of propaganda to justify the industry's existence, whilst doing virtually nothing about the cruelty inherent in it.
Read some of the Industry propaganda below the Prime Ministers interview.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY CORDEAUX, RADIO 5DN, REGARDING LIVE EXPORT TRADE - August 2003
CORDEAUX: I don't know if you saw 60 Minutes not last Sunday but the Sunday before which dealt with the live animal export trade in Australia. I can't think of anything it has run as hot as that subject on this program, there's an awful lot of feeling about the need to ban such a cruel, cruel trade. Did you in fact see it, or did you get a report on it?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I saw parts of it, I was traveling at the time and I only saw a summary of it and some extracts from it. And I have had a report on it and your listeners may or not be aware of a statement that was made by the Minister for Agriculture, he's asked the quarantine inspection service, that's AQIS to investigate the allegations and he's aware of that program on 60 Minutes. He points out in his statement that the deaths have halved from 0.3 per cent of stock shipped in 1999 to 0.11 to date in 2003, but that investigation is continuing. I found the images understandably distressing as most viewers would have and if there are ways in addition to what is now being done to prevent that kind of thing occurring in the future, then I would want to see those measures introduced.
CORDEAUX: And I think that's what you want to talk about, Cathy, is it?
CALLER: Yes, Jeremy and good morning Prime Minister. Look I want to raise that issue. I saw the 60 Minutes program and to me they were scenes from many evil torture chambers and apparently the scenes they weren't allowed to see it because children would be watching animals getting their tendons cut to disable them and then their eyes were poked out with swords. I mean, that is absolutely frightful. You have [inaudible] I'm sure expect [inaudible] RSPCA and he is so adamant about this dreadful conditions once these poor animals even get to these places, it's bad enough on board this ship but when they get there it's just hell, and he wants you to ban the trade.
PRIME MINISTER: Well that is a big thing. I understand the concern but people should bear in mind, of course, that it's a very valuable and important trade. It's worth about a billion dollars a year in export earnings and employs about 9,000 people, particularly valuable to farming in regional areas of Australia. So I deplore cruelty, any ordinary human being would and does. But we have to keep these things in perspective, we have to remember that you are talking about a very valuable economic asset and surely the goal is to make the trade as humane as possible isn't that the goal and that's the best thing to do rather than ban it... but you ban it you create a lot of disadvantage for many Australians who are already living in fairly disadvantaged circumstances. But your point, Cathy, about eliminating cruelty - I have to agree with that 100 per cent.
CORDEAUX: I mean, even the unions would rather that the animals were slaughtered here and sent for processing.....
PRIME MINISTER: We have humane conditions of slaughter and I mean, we have to be realistic about this, our methods of slaughter are more humane now than they have been in the past, but we have to understand the process that's involved in any abattoir and be realistic about it.
CORDEAUX: Yeah, but at least have a look at it.
PRIME MINISTER: I certainly have the same reaction to cruelty of animals appalls me and if there are ways that we can reduce that, and I will discuss this matter with Mr Truss and it will be raised in Cabinet amongst our under the line items which are those items that are not on a fixed agenda for discussion next week.
CALLER: I'd like to raise two things very quickly if I could. First of all, the live export trade. You are more or less justifying it on the grounds that it brings in money.
PRIME MINISTER: Can I just say I'm not justifying cruelty, but I'm defending the trade and I'm saying that it's not an answer to get rid of the trade altogether. The answer is to try and make it more humane.
CALLER: Well it's been shown very clearly that it can't be done humanely. They've had 25 years to get their act together. Hugh Worth has clearly stated that what they're doing, the decline, if you or I did it to our dogs we would be jailed for it. So if you say it should be justified on the grounds of income, you're saying that provided I'm making plenty of money out of committing a crime, it's okay. That's virtually what you're saying. They've admitted it themselves, that their truck which is the newest, state-of-the-art, world-class transporter, 41 per cent of the cattle on board of it died and the [inaudible] that they were standing in was 31cm deep. That is the best they can do. And it's commonsense in any case to transport an animal humanely halfway across the world is going to cost almost as much to transport a human being halfway across the world humanely. And how much does that cost? A lot more than the value of their carcass. That's obvious. It's very plain that this trade cannot be conducted humanely, so if you condone it, you're condoning the commission of a crime on the grounds that they make a billion dollars a year. It's as simple as that John.
PRIME MINISTER: Well no I don't think it is as simple as that.
CALLER: I'm afraid it is.
PRIME MINISTER: I don't accept that you can't make it more humane. I do accept that making it more humane is something that everybody should endeavour to do, but it's just not as easy as you suggest to dismiss the importance of an industry that provides a livelihood to tens of thousands...
CALLER: [inaudible] provides a very good livelihood...
PRIME MINISTER: No but it provides a living. I mean I am asked as Prime Minister every day to do things to help people who are not doing as well as other Australians and therefore I don't likely say I'm going to terminate an industry overnight that provides a livelihood and provides sustenance and provides support for many communities, particularly in country and regional Australia that have been badly affected by other conditions beyond their control. I think my obligation is to try and work to ensure that the concerns that were raised by that program and properly arise out of practices in the industry are addressed as much as we can.
CORDEAUX: Marianne, thanks for the call.
Comment - Because there is a large industry built around the live export of animals, the Prime Minister seems to excuse any cruelty involved as it's all for the benefit of the nation. From this it could be surmised that John Howard PM would also have been a supporter of the Slave Trade - there was a large industry built around that too - many Australians must of been financially disadvantaged when slavery was finally banned.
Here is a chronological series of news releases regarding the live exports. Only quick excerpts are given since the items will be too long to put in their entirity. The info is all gathered by Animal Activism Queensland (AAQ)
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=51
In friendship,
prad
RSPCA Campaigns to End Live Trade
5 February 2004
The RSPCA, animal rights groups and the Australian Democrats increased their attack on the live animal trade, declaring the industry was on its last legs ... the trade has been under siege in recent years, culminating in the Cormo Express affair last year ... Last August, the Saudi Arabian government rejected a shipment of 57,000 live sheep from Australia on disease grounds. After buying the sheep from their owner, the government took two months before donating the animals to the North African nation of Eritrea.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=24&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Live meat trade gets inside run
22 March 2004
FEDERAL and state governments favour the live animal export trade and erect barriers to exports of processed meat, a report commissioned by the West Australian Government warns ... Government and industry claim 9000 jobs have been created by the trade, which has grown rapidly in the past decade, but the report found exporters of live animals employ "relatively small numbers of staff".
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=29&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
RSPCA switches stance
Wednesday, 7 April 2004
The RSPCA has again switched its stance on live animal exports, issuing a statement calling for a ban on the industry. The RSPCA said only a total ban would guarantee an "end to the cruelty".
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=30&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Disappointment at AVA live export decision
Thursday, 10 June 2004
Peak animal protection body Animals Australia today expressed its bitter disappointment at this week's decision by the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) not to oppose live animal export ... "The AVA has put their credibility on the line by continuing to support an unethical industry in which suffering of exported Australian animals is endemic," said Glenys Oogjes, Executive Director of Animals Australia.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=37&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Live exporters confident of trade's future
20 September 2004
Livestock exporters say they've nothing to fear from animal welfare lobbyists, who are pressuring federal politicians to ban the trade.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=47&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Dems, Greens unite on live exports
29 September 2004
THE Democrats and the Greens joined forces today to campaign against Australia's live export trade. Number one Democrats Victorian candidate for the Senate Jess Healy and Victorian Greens Senate candidate Berhan Ahmed addressed more than 50 protesters in central Melbourne, calling on Australians to consider the export of livestock when they vote. ... "The unnecessary cruelty, suffering and death that results from this trade is unacceptable," Ms Healy told the gathering."If we have to have a meat trade, let's work to end live exports within five years and look at alternatives."
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=52&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Wool boycott gains Australian group's support
20 October 2004
Animal rights group Animals Australia has welcomed the campaign against Australian wool ... Meanwhile, the Australian Wool Growers Association has criticised industry leaders for not doing enough to prevent the boycott. Association chairman Chick Ollson says grower groups need to start negotiating with PETA, or risk other clothing chains following suit.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=56&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
PM hopes wool boycott won't spread
22 October 2004
Prime Minister John Howard hopes the boycott of Australian wool products by an upmarket American clothes retailer will not spread.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=57&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Kiwis Take Part In Sheep Protest
25 October 2004
An animal protection group from New Zealand has helped disrupt the loading of sheep ... Representatives of Australian, US and British animal rights groups and New Zealand's Save Animals From Exploitation or SAFE blocked the path of trucks loaded with sheep.
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=55&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Analyst predicts end of live export trade
28 October 2004
A leading grain analyst and woolgrower has delivered a broadside at the sheep and wool industries, for their response to animal rights activists ... "Why put demand for wool at significant risk in the short term, to support an industry which is going into a sunset phase anyway."
http://www.animalactivism.org/resources/online/story.php?pr=61&PHPSESSID=da1b8f8e9c03834192f68164bc9c838f
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, I don't think that every point made in these forums requires support from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. For instance, if you were to claim that the sky is blue, or water wet, I wouldn't require of you that you provide such evidence. If, however, you claim that all cats are cunningly disquised aliens, or that plants have the psychological capacities I mentioned earlier, then I think you've some justificatory work to do.
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.
...[text shortened]... I are having is a logical debate; you wouldn't understand it so don't waste your time trying.
Now, the following disclaimer is from the website you provided that reviews The Secret Life of Plants:
This is an "Eleanor White Book Review". Such reviews are not like what you see in the print media. My emphasis is to provide enough information that a mind control victim or supporter can make an intelligent decision as to whether to buy the book (or borrow it). This means most of the reviews are excerpted text, with comments inserted. This type of review is biased in favor of information relevant to mind control technology, and possible countermeasure experiments. Those who are interested in psychic phenomena outside of a mind control context should obtain this book for detailed information.
Is there any reason I should take this reviewer seriously?
If plants qualify as 'persons' by virtue of possessing the capacity to suffer, for self-consciousness and rationality, then they have rights just like any other person. Since the disjunction of your 1 and 2 is a tautology (either we can eat neither plants nor animals, or we can eat plants or animals), it follows from anything at all, including my claims.
Originally posted by bbarrOf course, there's no reason to take a reviewer who says such moronic things seriously, but since the "review" itself is excerpted text, you could have at least read some of it, particulary the experiments I cited and then judged if they had any scientific validity. That's pretty much all I was asking. I agree that the claim is somewhat unusual and therefore, the burden is on me the present supporting evidence (I'm still working on locating similar articles; you don't think that arguing at RHP is all I do?); however, you have an obligation to at least read the material presented and not dismiss it with an ad hominem attack on the book reviewer!
First, I don't think that every point made in these forums requires support from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. For instance, if you were to claim that the sky is blue, or water wet, I wouldn't require of you that you provide such evi ...[text shortened]... ls), it follows from anything at all, including my claims.
I'm confused by your last paragraph; I certainly wasn't saying plants were "persons" and should have the right to vote or own a gun, etc.; I was merely suggesting it was possible that they may be as self-aware as a sheep. That wouldn't make them a "person" but would, presumably, entitle them to the same "rights" as a sheep according to your moral doctrine. And maybe I didn't write it correctly but 1 and 2 were not meant to be a tautology it was meant as follows: 1) Either we are morally forbidden to eat both plants OR animals; or 2) It is morally permissible to eat both plants AND animals. This would follow if a plant is as self-aware as a sheep.
Originally posted by pradtf"Well you can't sit down with animal rights people, you just cannot sit down; they're irrational, they will not discuss anything with you, because they claim to occupy the high moral ground.
i have edited earlier that since i could find nothing to support the involvement of the british RSPCA in the boycott, so my belief that they supported the boycott is not correct. i try to provide links to verify my statements and this was ob ...[text shortened]... in my prior statement regarding them. 😀
in friendship,
prad
"And therefore, it is all or nothing in their view.
"There is no compromise position that is acceptable and if you give in to them once, you have to continue giving into them."
Who made this rather extreme statement? Australia's RSPCA national president Dr Hugh Wirth who says radical and extreme animal rights groups set back the work of his organisation. Work that includes opposing the live sheep trade.
Is it of concern that a respected animal welfare group such as the Australian RSPCA has moved to distance itself from a campaign against Australian wool being run by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal?
The following is a summary of Dr Wirth's background and achievements:
* Born 9th September 1939, Melbourne.
* Educated: Xavier College, Melbourne 1949-1957.
* Graduated Bachelor Veterinary Science, Queensland University, 1963.
* Vice-President University of Queensland Union 1963.
* General Practice 1964; Principal Balwyn Vet Surgery since 1966.
* President Melbourne Veterinary Practitioner's Branch, Australian Veterinary Association, 1969.
* Elected to RSPCA (Victoria) Council 1969.
* Vice-President RSPCA (Victoria) 1971.
* President RSPCA (Victoria) 1972 to current.
* Elected Member of Veterinary Board of Victoria 1972 1981.
* President, Victorian Division, Australian Veterinary Association, 1974.
* Honorary Secretary, Australian Veterinary Association 1978 1982.
* Elected Fellow, Australian Veterinary Association, 1979.
* President RSPCA Australia from its establishment in 1981 1983 and 1988 current.
* Vice-President RSPCA Australia 1983 1988.
* RSPCA Victoria Representative on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee 1980 and continuing.
* Received Order of Australia 1985 for service to animal welfare in particular to the RSPCA.
* RSPCA Australia Representative on LAC, NCCAW and various other committees.
* Received Advance Australia Award 1988.
* Received Victoria Council Award 1997.
* Director, World Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals since 1993. Member of Executive since 1996.
* Publications: A Vet's Guide to your Pets Illnesses and Injuries 1978. Living with Dogs 1995 Living with Cats 1997
* Received George T Angell Humanitarian Award, 1998, from Massachusetts SPCA, for "exceptional commitment to animals and for profoundly influencing public attitudes towards animals." (Only non-American to receive this award).
* Hon Life Member Royal Agricultural Society.
* Elected Secretary WSPA, June 2000.
* Awarded Honorary Doctorate in Veterinary Science from the University of Melbourne, December 2001.
* Elected Vice President WSPA, June 2002 (WSPA - World Society for Protection of Animals)