PDA

View Full Version : Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty



strongvoicesforward
07-02-06, 17:32
This thread is being created to highlight some of the actions taken on behalf of animals. It will discuss specific actions that have helped to end/lessen abuse of animals in industry or regulate it. Those actions may be legislative or Direct Action such as infiltration of industries by activists or other actions (sabotage/destruction of property/intimidation) that have had an impact.

For the most part, anyone who takes the time to send off an e-mail or letter, or even just to take the time to voice disgust at a cruel act, could be considered an activist. I think we are all activists in some ways. It is just a matter of degree to which we are willing to go.

In the world of animal activism there are two kinds of activists which rise above the average citizen which may be inclined to just only voice outrage. The two kinds of activists that jump into the fray to lend their time and recourses are usualy either Animal Rightists (ARists) or Animal Welfarists (AWists).

AWists usually go the legislative or protesting/picketing/boycotting routes in getting actions such as prosecution to animal abusers or new laws done for or enacted for animals.

ARists, while often doing the same things as AWists, are also more inclined to not reject and to partake in Direct Action (DA) -- but not always. Even some ARists will not get involved in DA that includes those activities that break the law.

strongvoicesforward
07-02-06, 17:34
One of the earliest Direct Actions (DA) done by ARists that helped jump start the DA movement was the case of the Silver Springs Monkeys. In 1981 Alex Pachedo, infiltrated the laboratories overseen by Dr. Edward Taub of Maryland University, whose research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Taub was surgically paralysing animals in order to find treatment for paralysis. The disturbing methods and activities were videotaped and when this video was made known to the Maryland State prosecuter`s office, it resulted in the first ever charge of any researcher facing a criminal court hearing of animal cruelty. Multiple counts were brought against him and he was convicted on one count of cruelty against primates. Later it was overturned due to a technicality in the state law. However, the state legislature the following year moved quickly to close that loophole.

This case is what launched PETA on the national level. Mr. Pacheco delivered the video to PETA and then PETA had it sent to the prosecuterfs office where it was used to formalize charges. The National Institute of Health, under pressure from politicians and the public, after segments of the video were released to the media, also cuts off all funding to Taub`s laboratory -- another first. This success emboldened activists and gave them reason to believe that Direct Action was a viable option as a tool in targeting those who exploit animals.

While not totally succussful, the movment to act forcefully and strongly, employing methods used by undercover journalists, proves successful, strengthens, and firmly establishes PETA`s presence in the AR movment.

strongvoicesforward
08-02-06, 17:37
For years activists have been harrying University of California San Francisco (UCSF) with demonstrations and law suits over the treatment of animals in their research facilities. Finally, the USDA took them to court over their violations of the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Rather than going to court where all their activities and violations would be brought out in the open, in 2005 they agreed to pay the USDA fine of $92,000 -- the largest fine ever imposed upon any university animal research activity.

Years of determined and focused activism on the University by dedicated activists and continued pressure on the USDA to not let these abuses go unpunished resulted in this success. It put all university labs on notice that they are under scrutiny and they could be next. One of the leading animal rights group leading the charge against UCSF, In Defense of Animals (IDA), are not letting up on the university and are keeping their protests going to continue highlighting the horrendous things done to animals in this lab as well as other labs.

It is nice to know that university branches of SETA (Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have ears and eyes prying into the laboratory corners and hallways of the universities across the nation -- always ready to expose those who think they are hidden and protected by tenure and their smug white lab coats. SETA gives a call and the activists come pouring in.

strongvoicesforward
10-02-06, 09:21
After 15 years of intense pressure by activists against fur farms, Britain in 2003 became a non-fur producing country by law. The vote to end fur farming in Britain passed in the Parliament by 303 to 27, ushering in The Fur Farming Prohibition Act.

Elliot Morley, Parliamentary Secrectary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, g"We are introducing the Bill because fur farming is a moral issue; opposition to such farming is based on morality, .... The fur farming industry does not provide for basic needs and does not justify the killing of an animal. In a modern society, fur farming has no justification in terms of need."

The fight to ban fur farming in Britain was lead by the Animal Rights group gRespect for Animals.h

Victory lurches forward! Onward toward Animal Liberation!

Tokis-Phoenix
10-02-06, 09:46
Umm...Why did you say all in that 4 posts? The high-lighting and underlining of half of what you say makes it difficult to read what you are trying to type :77: .

So...
Have there been any ways in which you have changed the way you live or what you consume in light of all this? Do you donate money to animal charitys or anything? Wear leather shoes/clothes or eat mcdonalds?
Personally i think you are going a bit too "greenpeace" on all this, but thats just my opinion :blush: .
Im no greenpeace supporter but i do care alot on animal rights and supporting the enviroment and wildlife and stuff, but i dont entirely agree with your perspective as i dont think you are looking at the whole picture enough.

strongvoicesforward
10-02-06, 15:13
Umm...Why did you say all in that 4 posts? The high-lighting and underlining of half of what you say makes it difficult to read what you are trying to type

Shorter posts are more apt to be read. Highlighting, while it made it difficult for you, stresses some points that I wished to stand out.


So...
Have there been any ways in which you have changed the way you live or what you consume in light of all this?

Yes. I have become an activist after learning about the many abuses animals are faced with and the miserable lives they are forced to live.


Do you donate money to animal charitys or anything?

Yes. I also volunteer my time.


Wear leather shoes/clothes or eat mcdonalds?

No, no, and no.


Personally i think you are going a bit too "greenpeace" on all this, but thats just my opinion.

Well, there are different degrees of involvement for all activists. However, I am not sure by what you mean by "too Greenpeace" and how my postings relate to that term.


Im no greenpeace supporter but i do care alot on animal rights and supporting the enviroment and wildlife and stuff,...

How much do you care? Do you mean just talking about it? What does your care involve?


but i dont entirely agree with your perspective as i dont think you are looking at the whole picture enough.

Many in the AR/AW Movement don`t agree with each other. The important thing is that those who feel strongly about the point of abuse that animals suffer that move them, roll up their sleeves and get active on that point in trying to abolish it.

Since you said you "care a lot on animal rights," what has that "care" caused you to take action on and increase the numbers of people to help you affect change on the points that bother you as it pertains to animal suffering? I am interested to hear your experiences and actions.

Tokis-Phoenix
10-02-06, 16:24
Shorter posts are more apt to be read. Highlighting, while it made it difficult for you, stresses some points that I wished to stand out.
Yes. I have become an activist after learning about the many abuses animals are faced with and the miserable lives they are forced to live.
Yes. I also volunteer my time.
No, no, and no.
Well, there are different degrees of involvement for all activists. However, I am not sure by what you mean by "too Greenpeace" and how my postings relate to that term.
How much do you care? Do you mean just talking about it? What does your care involve?
Many in the AR/AW Movement don`t agree with each other. The important thing is that those who feel strongly about the point of abuse that animals suffer that move them, roll up their sleeves and get active on that point in trying to abolish it.
Since you said you "care a lot on animal rights," what has that "care" caused you to take action on and increase the numbers of people to help you affect change on the points that bother you as it pertains to animal suffering? I am interested to hear your experiences and actions.


I had an awareness of the enviroment and its wildlife from a very young of my own accord, i guess it started with the tree planting.
Over a 6yr period i planted 10,000+ trees.
I donated a large amount of money to various wildlife charitys over time and i make an effort to make people aware of the cruelty of battery farming- the same goes for whenever i get into a debate about a particular animal species, i make an effort to see both sides of the debate whatever the discussion.
I've changed my life a great deal over the years concerning the foods i consume, i do not eat battery/intensive/0 grazing etc farmed foods at all but i do eat meat if i get the oppotunity to get hold of organic free range animal products- i also do my best to avoid foods that have had pesticide use etc.

I guess you could say that most of my interests/concerns are about the welfare of the enviroment/ecosystems/wildlife and that animals are raised in a morally correct way and humanely killed.
When i said you appear "too greenpeace", i was indicating the commonly held notion about about many animal activists, that although in motive they are for a good cause, they go about it in the wrong/not the best of ways and/or do not properly try to take time to properly consider other peoples opinions- through your entire thread so far you have not shown any consideration to the other side of the coin of some of the controversal topics you mentioned nor thoroughly explained to any agree how you came to your conclusions or opinions, even if how you came to them may seem obvious at first glance- you seem to be on a mission to convert as many people to your opinion without giving them a chance to consider.
I feel that if you want to simply discuss these topics, you should enter your conversation less agressively- if you are on a mission to convert people to your opinions, you shouldn't even enter discussion with this motive. You should give people the facts, commonly held notions and as many sides to your opinion as you can to help them make up their own minds- if you are right, they will freely take up your opinions/way of thought or at least understand where you are coming from and not label you as another fool-hardy or extreme animal activist etc.

These are simply my own opinions, so dont take them too seriously :blush: .

Anyhoo...Time for for some positive discussion, i hope :relief: !
Tell me in your opinions, for example, why you believe fur farming was/is wrong?

ps: doing multiple posts does not make easier reading, thats what paragraphs and the such like are for :) .

strongvoicesforward
10-02-06, 17:50
When i said you appear "too greenpeace", i was indicating the commonly held notion about about many animal activists, that although in motive they are for a good cause, they go about it in the wrong/not the best of ways and/or do not properly try to take time to properly consider other peoples opinions-

I have already considered them on my own and have rejected them. I am not here to put the other side up for them. If they or someone wants to put their point across and defend it, they are more than welcome to do so.

As for going about animal rights activism in the "wrong/not best of ways" I say there are a variety of approaches. Neither is wrong and some ways resonate better with different people. Some of the strongest actions that have resulted in successes for alleviating suffering of animals have been carried out by activists with a very strong approach. I will not diminish their impact for affecting change.


...through your entire thread so far you have not shown any consideration to the other side of the coin of some of the controversal topics you mentioned...

I am not on the fence. The other side can do just fine explaining their side if they so wish.


...nor thoroughly explained to any agree how you came to your conclusions or opinions, even if how you came to them may seem obvious at first glance-

Well, no one has asked. But, if that is an invitation for me to do so, I can simply say I came to my decision that animals are deserving of rights of protection after over a period of time of being bombarded with images of their suffering/exploitation via TV, newspapers, books, internet and personal experiences in my daily life. Pain is not a state that any feeling being wishes to experience. We all move away from the source of it if given a chance. If I have the choice to alleviate it through some action of mine, I see no reason to withhold that action.


...you seem to be on a mission to convert as many people to your opinion without giving them a chance to consider.

What is wrong with being on a "mission?" Most, if not all movements that have alleviated oppression and tyrany and gained rights have had an army of activists who could be considered being on a mission. "Mission" is not a dirty word or one to be embarrassed of.

What do you mean by the underlined above? Do you mean: a)consider the reasons for the mission? or b) the chance to consider the option of continuing the exploitation?

a. I think it is quite obvious. To not cause pain and suffering to animals through oppresion, exploitation and commodifying them. Most know that ARists are against exploitation of animals so I didn`t think that needed to be stated. Perhaps I am wrong since maybe you aren`t clear as to why I or other ARists are for Animal Rights.

b. I am not going to put forth their reasons to continue exploitation. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers don`t put forth the reasons why people should consider driving while drinking. Civil Rights Activists don`t put for the reasons why people should continue racial discrimination.


I feel that if you want to simply discuss these topics, you should enter your conversation less agressively- if you are on a mission to convert people to your opinions, you shouldn't even enter discussion with this motive. You should give people the facts, commonly held notions and as many sides to your opinion as you can to help them make up their own minds- if you are right, they will freely take up your opinions/way of thought or at least understand where you are coming from and not label you as another fool-hardy or extreme animal activist etc.
These are simply my own opinions, so dont take them too seriously.

Not taken personally -- but those opinions in my opinion are myopic as to the various ways that exist and some ways appeal to others that other ways would not. I for example, before getting active, was moved into activism by the more direct approach and hence that has been my way. I am sure I am not unique and I know many in the AR movement that have come to the movement after strong approaches to them. But, there are those who also prefer the softer approach. I wouldn`t rule either out.


Anyhoo...Time for for some positive discussion, i hope!

Yes, it is. First, TP, I am wondering why you said you cared about animal rights. Are you an animal rightist? I think you fall more into the category of Animal Welfarist. If you are an AW, then we will definitely have some differing of opinions on the treatment of animals between us. If you are an ARist, then our differences may be very small.

strongvoicesforward
10-02-06, 18:01
Tell me in your opinions, for example, why you believe fur farming was/is wrong?

I believe fur farming wrong because it is not necessary to have fur to stay warm. To cause an animal pain and suffering for mere fashion is ethically wrong. Pain and suffering is a state we can understand. We move away from it and avoid it if we can. Fur bearing animals do, too. I wouldn`t want that inflicted on me, therefore I see no reason why that should be inflicted on another being since humans have the ability to empathise.

Besides that, seeing animals in fur farms are raised in hurendous conditions living in wire mesh cages mostly without bedding and cleaning. Often they are exposed to extreme temperatures. They are usually not given medical care when they are sick. They experiene stereotypical repetitive behavior of pacing and circling due to a life of boredom and no enrichment. It is a living hell for them.


ps: doing multiple posts does not make easier reading, thats what paragraphs and the such like are for

I disagree. I am more apt to read a series of shorter posts, even if it is a continuation by one person, than a long one. I am sure there are some who agree with you and with me. Let`s let the mechanics of our posting style not be a part of the discussion. If you want to discuss this, then go ahead and make a separate thread for it in "opinions" or PM me about it. I think posting style discussions are rather boring and not many care about them.

MeAndroo
10-02-06, 20:01
As for going about animal rights activism in the "wrong/not best of ways" I say there are a variety of approaches. Neither is wrong and some ways resonate better with different people. Some of the strongest actions that have resulted in successes for alleviating suffering of animals have been carried out by activists with a very strong approach. I will not diminish their impact for affecting change.

I really don't mind animal activists protesting. I consume as I will and will continue to do so until I determine my own actions to be incorrect. That said, I'm curious to know your thoughts on a couple of things I've thought about.

-Do you think there's a certain line ARists should draw in terms of how far they're willing to go?
-I know heated and sometimes violent actions draw more attention, and sometimes get results quicker, but is there any perception within the AR community of an increasing number of strong proponents of the opposite viewpoint?
-Is there any concern within said AR community that their actions, while getting the quick results, are in fact harming their cause in the long term by creating powerful enemies both extreme and moderate, particulalry because of their supposed lack of regard for people in those industries?

I've had discussions/debates with ARists on different web forums and was just wondering where you stood in relation to them. I am of the opinion that much of the Animal Rights/Welfare debate results in ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations on both sides. In addition, the AR community in Los Angeles successfully pressure Mayor Antonion Villaragosa to remove the Animal Services GM. The issue affects me personally because a certain AR group made bomb threats to the Animal Services building that my friend works at.

strongvoicesforward
10-02-06, 20:05
Hi MeAndRoo,

Good post above. Good questions. If you don`t mind, I will get to them within the next 24 hours. I think my on-line time has come to an end for today. Check back soon and I will have a reply up.

Welcome to the discussion. -- SVF

Tokis-Phoenix
11-02-06, 08:42
I believe fur farming wrong because it is not necessary to have fur to stay warm. To cause an animal pain and suffering for mere fashion is ethically wrong. Pain and suffering is a state we can understand. We move away from it and avoid it if we can. Fur bearing animals do, too. I wouldn`t want that inflicted on me, therefore I see no reason why that should be inflicted on another being since humans have the ability to empathise.
Besides that, seeing animals in fur farms are raised in hurendous conditions living in wire mesh cages mostly without bedding and cleaning. Often they are exposed to extreme temperatures. They are usually not given medical care when they are sick. They experiene stereotypical repetitive behavior of pacing and circling due to a life of boredom and no enrichment. It is a living hell for them.
I disagree. I am more apt to read a series of shorter posts, even if it is a continuation by one person, than a long one. I am sure there are some who agree with you and with me. Let`s let the mechanics of our posting style not be a part of the discussion. If you want to discuss this, then go ahead and make a separate thread for it in "opinions" or PM me about it. I think posting style discussions are rather boring and not many care about them.

Yes, sorry i was getting a little off topic there about posting style and the such like, anyhoo :blush: .

I think its wrong to label all fur farms as cruel and evil, thats like saying all bears are agressive and bad tempered.

"I believe fur farming wrong because it is not necessary to have fur to stay warm."

Do you believe eating meat is wrong because its often unesarsary? People can live very healthily without eating meat- im just saying that your reasoning/justification of somthing being unesasary means that it shouldn't be done if there's a creatures life at stake.
Personally i am not against any farming of any sort as long as the animals have their basic needs attended too(enough space, good food, social requirements met etc) and they are humanely killed(i.e not cause a slow death/unesarsary suffering). Plenty of farms do this but there's also a large proportion that dont- the way i see it though you should not label all farms of a particular form of farming as a particular type, because they are never run exactly the same way.

I always like to think that if you are going to kill an animal for consumption, you should do your best not to waste good parts of the animal if you can. Millions of cattle are killed in the US every year for food consumption, their skins are also sold as a by-product instead of been thrown away. Do you think this form of fur/skin farming is bad?

Would you have a problem with somone if they wore an antique fur coat?

By the way, i am neither an animal rightist nor welfarist- i do not like to label myself as i do/say what i see right and dont always nesarsarily fall into any particular catagory.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 11:03
Hi MeAndroo,


I really don't mind animal activists protesting. I consume as I will and will continue to do so until I determine my own actions to be incorrect.

I was the same. Activists are not born activists. Something moves them and they determine that their purchases are promoting activities that cause suffering. They then change.

What would move you to change your consumption in order to lessen suffering?

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 11:27
I'm curious to know your thoughts on a couple of things I've thought about.
-Do you think there's a certain line ARists should draw in terms of how far they're willing to go?

I would say that all activists, no matter what they are being active for, should never cross any line that our governement would not cross in the present or had not crossed in the past (if those past actions had never been condemned).

Why should one group be hobbled by actions for change while another group be given a free license to do as they wish to either make change or keep the status quo that has oppression and tyranny as part of it?

That is the philosophical/strategic answer based on social realities and history. It is a realistic/realpolitik and practical philosophy. An idealistic philosophy and course of action I don`t think exists or that there has never been one that worked in a vacuum that was successful.

Now, personally about myself and the way many ARist think -- would I ever resort to arson as a tool to fight animal oppression? Hmmm... it is a tough call but in all probability, "No," -- I wouldn`t.

The reason being is there are many underground animal liberationists in stealth mode. They are teachers, policemen, housewives, and even firefighters. A fire can be quite dangerous and firefighters risk their lives in putting out those fires. In addition, an arson in a building would also have the possibility of killing mice or stray cats or some other creatures that could be living in the nooks and cranys. Arson is just too uncontrollable to use discriminately -- that is why I would not use it.

But, I am not saying that ARists should be hobbled from use of a tool if that tool has been used by other orgs, be it private or governmental. But, keep in mind, compared to all other social struggles in history that had ever lasted more than several years or ended in success or failure, the battle for AR has never resulted in one death (if I am wrong please correct me on that) or if it has or has caused some physical injuries, those pale in numbers compare to any other social battles in history.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 12:00
-I know heated and sometimes violent actions draw more attention, and sometimes get results quicker, but is there any perception within the AR community of an increasing number of strong proponents of the opposite viewpoint?

Yes, the AR movement is split on the use of strong Direct Action. However, if I were to try and gauge the movement now, I would say that there is a more and more popular trend toward a larger percentage of people in the AR movment who are coming to agree that stronger Direct Action, other than picketing and letter writing is needed.

There is frustration building in the movement. For years we have been polite by playing by the rules, written letters, protested, visited congressmen and gotten expose`s on TV and very little has come from it. Then all of a sudden a few liberations on fur farms in Great Britain causes fur farms to go out of business and it is like an Eureka moment. Animal oppressors get letters and their place picketed and they just laugh it off and continue doing their bloody business making money off the backs and pains of animals. But, when they are hit financially to the point where they have to withdraw money from their life`s savings to rebuild, they get the point rather quickly and want to be free of the troubles and understand the harsh realities of financial loss. Furthermore, insurance compannies will decide to not insure them. A farm goes belly up after a few liberations but for years it keeps operating when only letters and protests are utilized. What is that telling us? It tells us that money or loss of it is what drives a business and allows it to continue.

Some say that this is going to turn off the public and cause AR harm by eroding an audience listening to their message. But, the opposite is the reality. More and more people are joining the AR group and since it has been pushed underground because of the embracement of Direct Action techniques, you do find fewer and fewer people speaking up for Animal Rights in public. Why is that?

Becuase, once a person decides that AR Direct Action is what is best to get results, they go stealth. They will stop talking about their views or support for animal rights to friends or families because they don`t want attention drawn toward them. I would say that the more quiet the AR movement seems to appear on the public level, the more active it is underground. The louder it is above ground with speeches and picketing, the less frustrated the group is and therefore the less Direct Actions planning is being done.

Also, most ARists who accept Direct Action have usually slid on the spectrum from above ground to below ground. It is usually a gradual process and takes years to happen. For the government, it is in their interest to keep ARists above ground as much as and for as long as possible. For example, it would be disasterous for the U.S. government or any government to deny Peta its tax exempt status and declare it an unlawfull org. That could result in creating 850,000 Direct Action activists over night. That would seriously tax law enforcement in trying to keep tabs on so many who have been forced to go underground. The government should, and probably does reason that since and while all these people are above ground, standing in front of KFC, writing letters, baring their breasts, it is much more preferrable that they channel their energies doing that where they can be watched, rather than them being out of site planning more serious actions.

In addition, the internet has really accelerated the growth of those in the AR Movement who support Direct Action. No more are people only getting the spin from the media or government. The other side of the story now gets out with no problem. Where as before someone may come to Direct Action after they were in their 20s, they are now coming to it much younger because they have had a lot more information to inform them of it and how to do it.

But, back to your question -- yes, the sabotaging/monkeywrenching of the infrastructure of animal oppression does get quicker results, but I don`t think it is causing the Movement to weaken. It is strengthening it because those who have been above ground are now sliding over to belowground at a faster rate because they are attracted to the fast results which have been proven.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 12:18
-Is there any concern within said AR community that their actions, while getting the quick results, are in fact harming their cause in the long term by creating powerful enemies both extreme and moderate, particulalry because of their supposed lack of regard for people in those industries?

The AR Movement is composed of various people and orgs with different philosophies on strategy. There are the above ground and the below ground.

Publicly, many above ground orgs will condemn the actions of the below ground groups because they have to do that so that they can continue to keep meeting with politicians and executives and keep getting the public on board with their message. But, if you talk to those in the above ground groups, they will wink their eye and say they know they benefit from the actions of the below ground groups. Why?

Becuase those Direct Actions done by the below ground group make the above ground groups look moderate and appealing to deal with. The choice is what benefits the above ground group. The above ground groups would be the radicals if the below ground groups did not exist.

Becuase the above ground groups exist with the below ground groups waiting in the wings, the politicians and corporate heads are eager to talk to the above ground groups because that makes them appear to be taking animal cruelty into consideration.

AR would suffer a terrible blow if only the aboveground group existed. The aboveground groups know this quite well. They (i.e. the aboveground groups) would then be viewed as the radicals and therefore there would be no real impetus to reach out to them.

The belowground groups however, would melt away rather quickly if animal exploitation were to stop. They only exist because there is animal cruelty and Direct Action has proven to stop it, slow it, or bring relief to animals when it has been employed on specific targets of industry whose guiding light is the God Profit. If Direct Action was not or has never been successful in thwarting animal abuse/oppression, then it never would have survived as long as it has as a tactic. It would have ceased to have been being employed.

Every fur farm or lab that closes due to Direct Action only emboldens further action. Ever increasing insurance costs for those industries also embolden activists. The dollar is what is gauged, not only by the oppressors who judge their success on how many dollars they can accumulate, but also by the Direct Actionists who gauge their success on how many dollars they can deny the oppressionists and incur to them as operating costs which put the consumer goods out of further reach from a larger sector of the public that could not pay the higher prices that are past on.

It could be said to be a battle tactic of employing economics by inflicting costs.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 13:00
I've had discussions/debates with ARists on different web forums and was just wondering where you stood in relation to them.

Well, I can`t really comment on where I stand with "them," because I haven`t seen those arguments you specifically are talking about or had the chance to engage the person who put forth those arguments. I did however take some time to reply to your questions above. I hope that those replies have been satisfactory (not as a judgement for you to agree or disagree with) for you to get some idea on how I feel about AR, the philosophy and strategy of activists who employ Direct Action.


I am of the opinion that much of the Animal Rights/Welfare debate results in ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations on both sides.

I agree. Especially about the "ad hominen" attacks. Often when a person voices support for AR they are quickly asked their views on PETA or ALF and if they put forth the philosophy of those orgs as an explanation for what they are doing, rather than the philosophy or the argument being addressed, they are soon called a terrorist. It is the classical case of attacking the messenger and not the message. I am sure it goes the other way also with ARists slamming the character of those putting forth the reasons to continue exploiting animals.


In addition, the AR community in Los Angeles successfully pressure Mayor Antonion Villaragosa to remove the Animal Services GM. The issue affects me personally because a certain AR group made bomb threats to the Animal Services building that my friend works at.

At one time, I was following this story in L.A. I kind of have forgotten the details. I think there were several groups pressuring the mayor. In Defense of Animals (IDA) was one of the aboveground group if my memory is corrrect. Sorry, though, I have forgotten the reason for pressuring his removal so can`t comment on it. If in fact what he was doing was detrimental to animals then I support the action that caused his removal. If his removal was the result of misinformation then I would not support it and am sorry that he was targeted for removal.

It is a war. In all wars innocence do get caught up between the combatants. However, the impact on innocence when not purposely targeted but are affected, does not detract from the legitimacy of the war. I know that sounds cold and harsh, but one only need to look at history, far past and recent, to see wars which societies see as justified continue eventhough some harm have come to noncombatants. However, that is an issue of mechanics of actions and not the legitimacy of the the war.

*now I wait for the ad hominem responses from those lurking in on the discusssion. My experience has shown me that they will soon be forthcoming.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 13:16
Hi Tokis-Phoenix,

Sorry for the delay in getting back with you.


I think its wrong to label all fur farms as cruel and evil, thats like saying all bears are agressive and bad tempered.

Well, we disagree, then, TP. I think exploitation of life which suffers and feels pain or the violation of its autonomy and its will to live is cruel.

Do you think its wrong to label all slave traders as cruel? I do. I would imagine there are some murderers who attempt to kill their victims painlessly but I would still say that they are cruel for snuffing out a life and denying its possessor the right to have it.

Your analogy using bears does not match because you have used a part of the bears' natural biology shown by virtually all of them at certain times in their lives to sometimes be aggressive and bad tempered (protecting young, defending territory, prior to hibernation) whereas there is no natural biology of man to suddenly feel a desire/urge to create a fur farm at some point in his/her life.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 13:32
["I believe fur farming wrong because it is not necessary to have fur to stay warm."] -- SVF


Do you believe eating meat is wrong because its often unesarsary? People can live very healthily without eating meat--

Yes, I believe that when we have a choice to make between not supporting cruelty and suffering and exploitation of life which results in violating the autonomy of life and commodifying it, we should choose the alternative that does not support those things. Why would I not want to choose an alternative if that simple decision which does not harm my life means that a being is not going to suffer or be exploited?


Personally i am not against any farming of any sort as long as the animals have their basic needs attended too(enough space, good food, social requirements met etc) and they are humanely killed(i.e not cause a slow death/unesarsary suffering). Plenty of farms do this but there's also a large proportion that dont- the way i see it though you should not label all farms of a particular form of farming as a particular type, because they are never run exactly the same way.

I understand your point. And believe me, if there is animal exploitation, I would prefer all the animals to be treated as well as possible with all their needs met before they are slaughtered. However, for profits to be made and products to be supplied at a price that most consumers are willing to pay, it means that animals must be mass produced and mass confined under conditions that force as much gram per space as possible in one area. If all chickens or even minks were given large areas to roam to satisfy their natural urges, the price per gram would rise substantially. Most farmers want to be more efficient than their rivals so that they can get the larger market of orders. Economics will always force cruel conditions because the customer naturally tends toward the cheaper product.

Sure, there are anomalies where some customers choose the most expensive brands and some farms do provide large areas for animals because they are focusing on a premium market and upscale customer, but the masses are what drive the system.

In the end, no matter how much space is given if it were even possible in an ideal world to give large spaces to all animals desitined for consumption and use, I am still against the commodifying of life and the violation of their autonomy which ultimately results in their butchering for a society that does not need that to survive.

strongvoicesforward
11-02-06, 13:52
I always like to think that if you are going to kill an animal for consumption, you should do your best not to waste good parts of the animal if you can. Millions of cattle are killed in the US every year for food consumption, their skins are also sold as a by-product instead of been thrown away. Do you think this form of fur/skin farming is bad?

Good point. I`ve sometimes thought about this as well.

Most leather like you said is by-product and not the actual cause of demand which sent it to the slaughterhouse. If an animal is going to be butchered for whatever reason, I would prefer it all to be used as efficiently as possible.

As you know though, in the case of mink, fox, sabel, etc... fur farming, the main product is the fur -- not the meat.

Back to the cows. I do not wear leather products because cows are often skinned alive from not being killed before moving onto the skinning stations before the quartering for meat. I don`t want to be a supporter of an industry whose profits are made of pain and blood.


Would you have a problem with somone if they wore an antique fur coat?

Yes. It encourages a fashion of awe to those who are impressed by such consumer luxery things and those persons may feel a desire to copy a friend and place an order for a new fur coat. Nothing exists in a vacuum, you know?


By the way, i am neither an animal rightist nor welfarist- i do not like to label myself as i do/say what i see right and dont always nesarsarily fall into any particular catagory.

Ok, I understand. It is just that what you wrote earlier:


...i do care alot on animal rights...

...made me wonder what part of "animal rights" you cared about or identified with. Those in The Movement usually talk of "Animal Rights" as of having protection from exploitation. Those who talk about having larger cages, more humane killing, etc... are usually referring to "Animal Welfare."

I know you don`t want to be labeled because you think you don`t fall into any particular category, but you really do (not meant to be insulting) -- you are an Animal Welfarist if you care for the treatment but still feel that animals are for commodifying and use and that protections from exploitation can be bargained away for the benefit of humans.

Most ARists welcome AWists to do the activism they think they are felt moved to do. We readily admit that our numbers grow from AWists who often move on the spectrum and come over to the AR side. In fact, I was once an AWist but more and more thought on the subject eventually caused me to move. I think that is how it is with 95% of the ARists. Very few people wake up one day and just say, "I am an ARist."

The birth of an ARist is a gradual and for the most part a slow thing that takes time to come about. Most do start as AWists.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 11:38
So you do not agree with killing animals for food consumption?
Well wether you like it or not, if people stopped eating animals tomorrow, thousands of species of animals(domesticated or semi domesticated) would go extinct. 'Tis true. Its already an issue that thousands of species of animals, which although most have been reared for hundreds, even thousands of years, are facing because they are no longer been reared by farmers because better animals have been bred that produce more of what the public desires(i.e more meat, more fat, more milk, more wool etc)- people want lower prices for their food you see.
So by your reasoning, you would be happy is thousands of species of animals went extinct because people no longer ate them?

Wether you like it or not, in the vast majority of cases, when an animal exceeds its uses for people, they no longer want it or care for its survival.
Take this article for example, right how hundreds of endangered species of african animals are thriving in america because of hunting programs, you cannot deny the fact though that thousands of the animals that have been bred under this program would no longer exist if they didn't have it;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4689428.stm

I dont agree with the animal cruelty side of it, but then again if it means drastically increasing the survival of a particular species, im with it. And you cannot deny that animals rarely ever kill other animals humanely by our modern day standards- that lion could be tucking into that zebras stomache before its even had its last breath. Animals kill other animals, and human being been just another animal thats evolved to kill other animals, we kill other animals like any other animal.
Of course though, we have the ability to do it humanely, and to also raise the animal in a morally correct mannor in the first place, which is what im on about, but otherwise i dont have a problem with killing most animals as long as they are not rare or endangered and have been bred/raised with the intention of being killed.
For example, although im against many of the aspects of whaling/killing whales, i also dont agree with whaling because the animals are not bred or raised to be killed and we do nothing to support the species by killing them. But for farm animals like many species of cows or pigs for example, their species simply wouldn't exist unlike whales if we no longer had a need to kill them as many species of them would not be able to survive without us if they were in the wild.
No farmer will want to have a wild herd of uncontrolable cows breaking down fences or mowing through his crops/trees if all they are going to do is inevitably put him into debt if he doesn't seriously reduce their numbers. Its said that a confined species of almost any species of animal needs at least 250 of its kind so it can breed and overcome the serious effects of desease, inbreeding and predators- if you are to have 250 wild cows on your land you will need an incredible amount of spare land for themselves to support themselves on, which the vast majority of farmers do not have.
So you see what i am saying, if we stopped consuming many of the thousands of semi domesticated/domesticated animals out there, they would simply go extinct? Would you really want to be responable for somthing like that?

Another example is fox hunting, its very similar to the endangered african animal in america hunting debate. While fox hunting was legal, many farmers encouraged foxs on their land because they had a logical reason too. There many "rules" to fox hunting as far as the farmer was concerned, for example no farmers killed fox's during their breeding and cub raising seasons so there would always be numerous large quantitys of foxs around.
No the government and animal activists have made fox hunting illegal over here, farmers no longer have a reason to have foxs around, so hundreds of thousand of them are being shot and poisened- overall, despite the animal activist intentions being honorable, they have vastly contributed to the killing of hundreds of thousands of foxs.

Foxs have far more to fear of cars than the hunter and his dogs. You could also say foxs have far more to fear of animal activists than cars.

Would you get your drivers liscense and drive a car in the knowledge that you will drastically increase the chances of you running over many species of animals in your car-driving life time?

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 12:23
...if people stopped eating animals tomorrow, thousands of species of animals(domesticated or semi domesticated) would go extinct.

Life for the sake of life is worth very little. There is no suffering in extinction and it is not propelled forward to future generations.

I would rather die than be consigned to an existance of oppression, tyranny, no freedom, misery, suffering, and pain. I think many feel the same.

Many S./C./N. American Indians died under slavery inflicted upon them by the Spanish Conquistadors. Many slaves from the south risked their lives to escape their chains because they wanted more than just life. Many people of today have DNR orders for their hospitalizations. Many people seek out death when the pain and suffering becomes overwhelming -- sometimes traveling thousands of miles to a place that will let them die in dignity. One of our country`s partriot proclaimed, "give me freedom, or give me death."

It is not life that is valued. It is the quality of life and all the sum things of our will and urges that come together that make us want to live to experience things that satisfy those urges and desires that our biology seeks to engage in.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 13:15
Life for the sake of life is worth very little. There is no suffering in extinction and it is not propelled forward to future generations.
I would rather die than be consigned to an existance of oppression, tyranny, no freedom, misery, suffering, and pain. I think many feel the same.
Many S./C./N. American Indians died under slavery inflicted upon them by the Spanish Conquistadors. Many slaves from the south risked their lives to escape their chains because they wanted more than just life. Many people of today have DNR orders for their hospitalizations. Many people seek out death when the pain and suffering becomes overwhelming -- sometimes traveling thousands of miles to a place that will let them die in dignity. One of our country`s partriot proclaimed, "give me freedom, or give me death."
It is not life that is valued. It is the quality of life and all the sum things of our will and urges that come together that make us want to live to experience things that satisfy those urges and desires that our biology seeks to engage in.

So are you essentially saying that you do not care for the survival of a species, but only wether it lives in comfort or not?

Then surely, what point is there of fighting for the rights of animal to live a happy life if you inevitably cause its species to go extinct? It will no longer be an animal with rights because it will no longer exist to have them.

Surely you have not taken into consideration, that most animals would prefer to live, even it it means suffering at certein points of life, rather than to die? The nature of survival and life, is to live. If you call yourself an activist for animal rights, then surely the right to live is the most important right of all to fight for in an animal?
Did you not take into consideration, that extinction is rarely a pleasant process, and for the last remaining members of a species going extinct, life is often pretty miserable? I think you believe too much in the notion that death is the end to all suffering. It isn't. Life goes on after death.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 16:21
So are you essentially saying that you do not care for the survival of a species, but only wether it lives in comfort or not?

Of course I care about the survival of a species. A healthy echo-system is a rewarding one for all. Cows on feedlots, chickens in windowless sheds, mink in small wired mesh cages however, do not interact as part of the echo system. If cows were slowly phased out or mink in mesh cages were not replaced once their supply was exhausted the world`s echo system would not be damaged. In fact, if feed lots were to disappear it could help the environment.


Then surely, what point is there of fighting for the rights of animal to live a happy life if you inevitably cause its species to go extinct? It will no longer be an animal with rights because it will no longer exist to have them.

Then you are putting forth the argument that life, even a suffering one purposely caused is one worth living. Is that right? If someone tied you up and took you to a basement to keep you alive for the remaining of your life to milk bile from your prostate or some other oozing thing your body could produce, and kept you in the worse conditions possible, in your own excrement, never seeing the sun, leaving your dental care and any lesions go untreated with no care for your sanity, -- you would prefer that existence for decades rather than the release of death? You would say, "Don`t kill me, I don`t want to die because I care about keeping the numbers of my species up just so that I can rest assured I know we are more numerous than just the person coming to milk my oozing juices from me. Please exploit me and cause me suffering and pain just so my inert existance can proclaim one more number for my species."

Am I getting you right? Is that what you would want?

You didn`t address anything I wrote about Indians, slaves, people going to hospitals and all the pain and choices those subgroups have chosen to release themselves from suffering.


Surely you have not taken into consideration, that most animals would prefer to live, even it it means suffering at certein points of life, rather than to die?

TP, you have cleverly inserted "certain pionts of life," and not seem to know that mink in farms suffer greatly at most points in their lives, the same with pigs factory produced, the same with chickens factory produced etc... It is not like just one day they have a little pain. They are raised and meat their end in virtually a non-stop world of suffering.


The nature of survival and life, is to live. If you call yourself an activist for animal rights, then surely the right to live is the most important right of all to fight for in an animal?

The nature of most animals is to move away from a state of pain. That is the starting point. I doubt any dogs in Korea, if their cages at the food market were to fling open, would refuse to run to freedom thinking that they will insure the survival of their species if they stay in the cage so that they can be eaten and hence keep the market for dog eating alive and hence keep it so that the people will keep making a profit and decide to keep breeding them.


Did you not take into consideration, that extinction is rarely a pleasant process, and for the last remaining members of a species going extinct, life is often pretty miserable?

How are you defining "miserable?" Do you mean in a state of pain or just frustrated at not being able to find a mate? Do you have a case study for me to look at that identifies a last animal in a state of "misery?"


I think you believe too much in the notion that death is the end to all suffering. It isn't. Life goes on after death.

It is an end to suffering to that one animal that has escaped the source of its suffering. The fact that life goes on after death is a given and just because it does go on does not mean that suffering in life cannot still be addressed.

Death is not the ONLY way to escape/prevent suffering. It is just the final way. Surely suffering can be prevented by making and passing more animal welfare laws which is what happens. Apparantly many lawmakers agree with me around the world or a good number of animal anti cruelty laws to prevent suffering would have never been passed. It seems that suffering is taken into account by many and the laws are beginning to reflect that. Are you going to deny this? If not, then what is your point? Are you going to say that those efforts at ending suffering should not be happening?

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 17:02
Of course I care about the survival of a species. A healthy echo-system is a rewarding one for all. Cows on feedlots, chickens in windowless sheds, mink in small wired mesh cages however, do not interact as part of the echo system. If cows were slowly phased out or mink in mesh cages were not replaced once their supply was exhausted the world`s echo system would not be damaged. In fact, if feed lots were to disappear it could help the environment.
Then you are putting forth the argument that life, even a suffering one purposely caused is one worth living. Is that right? If someone tied you up and took you to a basement to keep you alive for the remaining of your life to milk bile from your prostate or some other oozing thing your body could produce, and kept you in the worse conditions possible, in your own excrement, never seeing the sun, leaving your dental care and any lesions go untreated with no care for your sanity, -- you would prefer that existence for decades rather than the release of death? You would say, "Don`t kill me, I don`t want to die because I care about keeping the numbers of my species up just so that I can rest assured I know we are more numerous than just the person coming to milk my oozing juices from me. Please exploit me and cause me suffering and pain just so my inert existance can proclaim one more number for my species."
Am I getting you right? Is that what you would want?
You didn`t address anything I wrote about Indians, slaves, people going to hospitals and all the pain and choices those subgroups have chosen to release themselves from suffering.
TP, you have cleverly inserted "certain pionts of life," and not seem to know that mink in farms suffer greatly at most points in their lives, the same with pigs factory produced, the same with chickens factory produced etc... It is not like just one day they have a little pain. They are raised and meat their end in virtually a non-stop world of suffering.
The nature of most animals is to move away from a state of pain. That is the starting point. I doubt any dogs in Korea, if their cages at the food market were to fling open, would refuse to run to freedom thinking that they will insure the survival of their species if they stay in the cage so that they can be eaten and hence keep the market for dog eating alive and hence keep it so that the people will keep making a profit and decide to keep breeding them.
How are you defining "miserable?" Do you mean in a state of pain or just frustrated at not being able to find a mate? Do you have a case study for me to look at that identifies a last animal in a state of "misery?"
It is an end to suffering to that one animal that has escaped the source of its suffering. The fact that life goes on after death is a given and just because it does go on does not mean that suffering in life cannot still be addressed.
Death is not the ONLY way to escape/prevent suffering. It is just the final way. Surely suffering can be prevented by making and passing more animal welfare laws which is what happens. Apparantly many lawmakers agree with me around the world or a good number of animal anti cruelty laws to prevent suffering would have never been passed. It seems that suffering is taken into account by many and the laws are beginning to reflect that. Are you going to deny this? If not, then what is your point? Are you going to say that those efforts at ending suffering should not be happening?



I think you ignore that fact though that many farm animals do not lead such lives of utter misery, life long suffering, and agnosing pain etc.
From what i gathered your point was that ending all farming/consumption of animals would release all animals from pain etc.
To begin with, not all farm raised animals live in suffering.
Secondly, for well treated farm animals its a very idealistic form of life- the animal is removed from the threat and fear of predators, it never has to worry about going hungry, it never dies of desease when it can be treated etc. I think you can somtimes over-rate the wonders of being wild- sure, you have plenty of space, the thats about as good as it gets for most animals in comparsion to well treated farm raised ones.
The vast majority of animals in the wild do not live anywhere near to their natural life expectancy- many of them starve to death, die of desease/sickness, die while giving birth or get killed competing for a mate, get slaughtered by predaters and die through many other forms of miserable death etc.

The way i see it, if you want to do your best supporting animals you should not only support local wildlife/animal charitys/conservations, but also help incourage the good management and farming of animals, because when done properly, has many benefets for the animal in question.
Realistically and not ideally, people are simply never going to stop eating animals, so the best you can do is support good animal husbandry/management/care etc to help incourage more people and farmers to take it up.

What are your opinions on the africa animal america hunting debate in one of the earlier links i gave you in this thread? My point about the survival and prosperity of a species and the right to live being one of the most important rights of animal is this. Would you rather hunters dont shoot their prized antelope in the head so they can die instantly, but the species as a whole benefets because of the huge interest in financially suporting the hunts so the species can survive, or to stop people hunting these animals so the chances of the species going instinct drasticaly increases? This is an important debate because no matter how you look at it, africa is no state of any sort to support anymore wildlife as it is- it can barely support the people let alone the animals.

This world is not ideal, you have to look at things realistically.

The indian slavery thing is irrelevant to the debate as far as im concerned as you replied it to a point you thought i was making/indicating, but i wasn't. My point about the survival of species and stuff is the one i just wrote about above.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 17:29
I think you ignore that fact though that many farm animals do not lead such lives of utter misery, life long suffering, and agnosing pain etc.
From what i gathered your point was that ending all farming/consumption of animals would release all animals from pain etc.
To begin with, not all farm raised animals live in suffering.

hmmm...well, TP, not all slaves lived a life of suffering, but I still don`t agree with keeping them in a state of oppression. And I don`t think it would have been right had slave owners treated all their slaves right just until they became too old to work and then executed them or rendered them in a way so that their bodies could be made into products such as fertilizer or glue, or even feed, itself, to be fed back to the slaves.

Qualifying something as "not all" in no way diminishes the wrongfulness of the system that the subjects are under.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 17:36
Secondly, for well treated farm animals its a very idealistic form of life- the animal is removed from the threat and fear of predators, it never has to worry about going hungry, it never dies of desease when it can be treated etc. I think you can somtimes over-rate the wonders of being wild- sure, you have plenty of space, the thats about as good as it gets for most animals in comparsion to well treated farm raised ones.

Secondly, for well treated slaves it is a very idealistic form of life- the slave is removed from the threat and fear of unemployment, exploitation from other slave owners who may not be as kind, he/she never has to worry about going hungry, dieing from desiese when he/she can be treated etc. I think you can over-rate the wonders of being free- sure, you have freedom to walk around and to come and go when you want, but that`s about as good as it gets for most ex-slaves in comparison to well treated plantation raised ones. -- Now does that sound familiar to you?

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 17:43
The vast majority of animals in the wild do not live anywhere near to their natural life expectancy- many of them starve to death, die of desease/sickness, die while giving birth or get killed competing for a mate, get slaughtered by predaters and die through many other forms of miserable death etc.

The natural life expectancy at a given time is determined by the mean/average of what most of the animals live to in the normal conditions of a natural environment. The natural life span does not mean living to the the maximum potential.

I would gladly live to the average life span of about 80 in freedom and with pain and suffering in this society rather than in suffering and pain to the potential of 120.

Likewise, man`s natural life span without medicine or treatment is usually stated to be between 40 and 50. I would rather live to 50 free of pain and suffering rather than 80 in exploitation, no freedom, and in suffering and pain.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 17:45
hmmm...well, TP, not all slaves lived a life of suffering, but I still don`t agree with keeping them in a state of oppression. And I don`t think it would have been right had slave owners treated all their slaves right just until they became too old to work and then executed them or rendered them in a way so that their bodies could be made into products such as fertilizer or glue, or even feed, itself, to be fed back to the slaves.
Qualifying something as "not all" in no way diminishes the wrongfulness of the system that the subjects are under.

Saying all farm animals live a life of opression is like saying you live a life of opression because you have to abide by laws.
But you still didn't answer any of my questions or reply to my other other points though in my last post- im waiting for your reply as im interested to know your opinion :) .

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 17:48
The natural life expectancy at a given time is determined by the mean/average of what most of the animals live to in the normal conditions of a natural environment. The natural life span does not mean living to the the maximum potential.
I would gladly live to the average life span of about 80 in freedom and with pain and suffering in this society rather than in suffering and pain to the potential of 120.
Likewise, man`s natural life span without medicine or treatment is usually stated to be between 40 and 50. I would rather live to 50 free of pain and suffering rather than 80 in exploitation, no freedom, and in suffering and pain.

Health is just the rate at which you die at, i never stated that farm raised animals live to their full life expectancy, just much higher than their wild relatives because they live a life of far greater comforts because they are removed from so many of the fears and stresses that wild animals face.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 17:52
The way i see it, if you want to do your best supporting animals you should not only support local wildlife/animal charitys/conservations, but also help incourage the good management and farming of animals, because when done properly, has many benefets for the animal in question.

There are many pieces to the puzzle. I wish all those well who choose conservation and welfare as the problems and goals to focus on. I cannot do all at once. I choose the one that moves me to action.

*However, I do support conservation through some avenues. But, that is not the thrust of my efforts.


Realistically and not ideally, people are simply never going to stop eating animals, so the best you can do is support good animal husbandry/management/care etc to help incourage more people and farmers to take it up.

We disagree. I don`t think that is the "best we can do." Sure, people may always (but not an absolute) eat animals but that is no reason to not be against it. People may always rape and murder but I would still hope that society would try to erase those things from us.

*There are those animal husbandry/care groups and I wish them well. However, their philosophy is one of making the chain of the slave longer, not severing it. I would hate to think that abolitionists of the 19th century sought to just lengthen the chains and not sever them. I am glad they never succumbed to the idea of "the best we can do," and dance with the status quo.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 17:56
Saying all farm animals live a life of opression is like saying you live a life of opression because you have to abide by laws.
But you still didn't answer any of my questions or reply to my other other points though in my last post- im waiting for your reply as im interested to know your opinion :) .

Why did you quote my analogy on slaves if you were not going to address it directly.

I am in the process of catching up on your post. But, since you are quoting my posts, you should address them. That above didn't address the analogy.

My life of abiding by laws as you have put forth is not oppression because I have representatives placed in lawmaking decisions that I, as a member of society in a democratic process, had put there. Animals have not voted for reps to stick them in cages and rip off their furs so your analogy of law and oppression do not fit.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:00
Health is just the rate at which you die at, i never stated that farm raised animals live to their full life expectancy, just much higher than their wild relatives because they live a life of far greater comforts because they are removed from so many of the fears and stresses that wild animals face.

And I addressed why length of life is not important in the face of oppression and suffering or exploitation. I think the slave would still rather be free rather than having the right to walk anywhere on the plantation, and then being rendered into product at some predetermined time that may not be anywhere near the natural end of its life.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 18:11
There are many pieces to the puzzle. I wish all those well who choose conservation and welfare as the problems and goals to focus on. I cannot do all at once. I choose the one that moves me to action.
*However, I do support conservation through some avenues. But, that is not the thrust of my efforts.
We disagree. I don`t think that is the "best we can do." Sure, people may always (but not an absolute) eat animals but that is no reason to not be against it. People may always rape and murder but I would still hope that society would try to erase those things from us.
*There are those animal husbandry/care groups and I wish them well. However, their philosophy is one of making the chain of the slave longer, not severing it. I would hate to think that abolitionists of the 19th century sought to just lengthen the chains and not sever them. I am glad they never succumbed to the idea of "the best we can do," and dance with the status quo.


Well i think its the best we can do for now.
Right now though you are doing nothing to help give people a reason to act better than what we are.
You cannot just say to everyone "dont do that because it is nasty" because people will always disagree with you because so much of topics concerning cruelty or morality is down to ones personal opinions -looking at things logically, the sooner animals get better treated, the better, but you need to have to do things effectively to do this. Small changes can grow into big actions- your point of view though seems to be "i dont like the way they do any of that, even if slowly changing the way they do things is the most efficient method".

I hate to break it to you, but people didn't stop slavery because all of a sudden they became aware of the cruelty and morality of it, people stopped slavery because it was decided that getting rid of it would be better for the economy in a variety of ways.
People only started becomming very gradually less rascist over time after slavery had been legally abolished/stopped.

For example most people couldn't give a crap about the suffering battery chickens or pigs go through, they dont care the fact that a chicken is more intelligent than their beloved pet cat or that a pig is more intelligent than their pet dog or has the same learning capacity as their 4yr old child- but if people started keeping cats in cages so small they couldn't turn around and cutting off their lower jaws so they could be constantly force fed, or their dog was made to be raped by other dogs every month and fed chemicals that made it so obese that it smothered its own pups when it turned over in its cage etc, they would be in an uproar.

People dont learn morality and then get a respect for animals, its often the other way around- people gradually show more and more respect to animals and the realise how much in common they have with them etc etc...

People need solid non-emotional reasons to do things or change their ways- in this scenario, giving farmers a proper reason to take up less profitable methods of farming by incouraging the consumption of animal products farmed in morally correct mannors.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:15
What are your opinions on the africa animal america hunting debate in one of the earlier links i gave you in this thread?

That is canned hunting. Where is the sport in killing something that can`t escape? Something that gets fed by the ranch owners and become so tamed that they almost walk up to the hunter or its truck?

It is exploitation.


My point about the survival and prosperity of a species and the right to live being one of the most important rights of animal is this.

You are confusing the "right for a species to survive" and the "right to live for an animal." How does an animal have "the right to live" if it is in a confined area for the purpose of being killed?

Would you think I would be respecting your "right to live" if I put you in my yard and hunted you down? The "right to live" is a strange concept if it means only until someone decides you no longer have the right.


Would you rather hunters dont shoot their prized antelope in the head so they can die instantly, but the species as a whole benefets because of the huge interest in financially suporting the hunts so the species can survive, or to stop people hunting these animals so the chances of the species going instinct drasticaly increases?

First of all, if an animal is going to be killed, sure I would prefer it to be shot in the head and die instantly rather than the gut. Did I ever say or hinted such that a death from a sloppy shot is more preferable? I don`t know why you even mentioned that or if it were insinuating something?

If the only way a species can survive is from canned hunts, well, then the echo system isn`t really working now -- is it? Those canned hunts are private property and fenced in. If those were the only animals left, kept to satiate blood junky sports, and not roaming wild to let us have some attatchement the our heritage of wildlife, then rather than be caught in a cycle of violent oppression, then they had go the way of the dodo bird.

Do you think a specific racial group of people would want to be kept around for eternity just to satiate the violence of those who hold the keys to their cages?

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 18:30
That is canned hunting. Where is the sport in killing something that can`t escape? Something that gets fed by the ranch owners and become so tamed that they almost walk up to the hunter or its truck?
It is exploitation.
You are confusing the "right for a species to survive" and the "right to live for an animal." How does an animal have "the right to live" if it is in a confined area for the purpose of being killed?
Would you think I would be respecting your "right to live" if I put you in my yard and hunted you down? The "right to live" is a strange concept if it means only until someone decides you no longer have the right.
First of all, if an animal is going to be killed, sure I would prefer it to be shot in the head and die instantly rather than the gut. Did I ever say or hinted such that a death from a sloppy shot is more preferable? I don`t know why you even mentioned that or if it were insinuating something?
If the only way a species can survive is from canned hunts, well, then the echo system isn`t really working now -- is it? Those canned hunts are private property and fenced in. If those were the only animals left, kept to satiate blood junky sports, and not roaming wild to let us have some attatchement the our heritage of wildlife, then rather than be caught in a cycle of violent oppression, then they had go the way of the dodo bird.
Do you think a specific racial group of people would want to be kept around for eternity just to satiate the violence of those who hold the keys to their cages?

No you never said that a sloppy shot to the gut is more preferrable, but if you read the article, alot of the controversy has arose from the fact that many of the hunters are not shooting the animals in the head, thus giving them a quick death, because they dont want to ruin their prize(i.e when the animals head gets stuffed and hung up on a wall or whatever etc, not that i would personally ever want to do that to an animal).

Nobody knows when they are going to die, the good thing though with the hunts is that the animals never get accustomed with having to live with the major stress of the threat of getting killed from every angle every waking and sleeping moment of its life like wild animals do- as you said, the animal was tame enough to come up to people.

Surely its better living a life never fearing death than living a life in constant fear of it?

And to be honest, i wouldn't really care if my only meaning of life was to be eventually shot when i got old if i never knew about it- so its a bit of a silly question IMO.

The animals are happy and breeding better than anywhere else in the world, even than in their native homeland, they are happy and well-fed and never have to fear predators- and then when they get past their best breeding age they are shot. In the wild they would also be eaten when they got too old and slow- i honestly dont see the difference in whats best for the animal as far as this is concerned apart from the fact that in the hunting reserves the animal is far more likely to lead a happy life.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:34
Well i think its the best we can do for now.

We disagree. But, I will agree that it is a slow process to win rights for animals.


Right now though you are doing nothing to help give people a reason to act better than what we are.

Causing suffering and oppression is wrong. That message gets out and the AR Movement is growing by getting more and more supporters.


You cannot just say to everyone "dont do that because it is nasty" because people will always disagree with you...

Sure you can. Many people are open to that message. Not "all" people will "always" disagree with that message. I was moved to change by being told of and then learning more of the "nastiness" of it. I am sure I am not unique. The Movement is growing.


...because so much of topics concerning cruelty or morality is down to ones personal opinions...

Yes, you are right. But, opinions change. People move on the spectrum. Sometimes that movement is done by individual recognition and research and sometimes people change after having been informed by others. I was of the latter. Again, I am not so unique on this point. Many have been changed through outreach programs.


-looking at things logically, the sooner animals get better treated, the better,...

I agree. Animal Welfare is welcomed by me. Animal Rightists help to push the industries toward making animal welfare improvements because industries having been targeted aggressively by AR would rather be seen to dealing with Animal Welfarists in an effort to discredit the need for Animal Rights. The industries look at it as having to deal with, "good cop/bad cop."

PETA is not only an AR org but also an AW org and many of their campaigns are not AR oriented but rather AW oriented because they want to focus on short term gains, knowing that AR gains are far in the future -- but their core beliefs and ultimate goals are AR. They just are merely putting the foundation down before building the house.


...but you need to have to do things effectively to do this.

Yes, Peta is very effective.


Small changes can grow into big actions- your point of view though seems to be "i dont like the way they do any of that, even if slowly changing the way they do things is the most efficient method".


Where did I ever say I didn`t embrace change of any kind -- be it slow or quick? I have always said things were slow and that it was a long war ahead. I surely don`t like what is going on, but my like slow change or fast change is irrelevant because all changes at alleviating animal oppression will definitely be slow. That is admitted. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant because IT WILL BE SLOW.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:43
I hate to break it to you, but people didn't stop slavery because all of a sudden they became aware of the cruelty and morality of it, people stopped slavery because it was decided that getting rid of it would be better for the economy in a variety of ways.

Please provide me with some extensive material that shows a majority part of society believed this or that the majority of our politicians of that time did so. Also, the societies in the South surely did not hold that opinion.

I am really waiting and looking forward to this because you have made me feel I have missed something in my educational upbringing.

I have a feeling after I peruse your sources and info on this I will be saying to you, "I hate to break it to you, but ..."

Remember, I want to see sources with a majority of decision makers or the populace having stated that reason like you said for abolishing slavery.

They may have mused on that thought, but that was not the final impetus for deciding to sweep it away. In fact, the South worried that it would destroy their economies and way of life which was supported on cheap labor.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:47
For example most people couldn't give a crap about the suffering battery chickens or pigs go through, they dont care the fact that a chicken is more intelligent than their beloved pet cat or that a pig is more intelligent than their pet dog or has the same learning capacity as their 4yr old child- but if people started keeping cats in cages so small they couldn't turn around and cutting off their lower jaws so they could be constantly force fed, or their dog was made to be raped by other dogs every month and fed chemicals that made it so obese that it smothered its own pups when it turned over in its cage etc, they would be in an uproar.

Agreed. Many people are prejudiced to their own domesticated house pets and ignorant of factory farm methods.

However, you use the word "most" people tells us that some do change. I changed when I learned about all those abuses. Some people do change when they hear about that. I am not unique in that regard. But, it does take time to seap in and cause one to change.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 18:53
We disagree. But, I will agree that it is a slow process to win rights for animals.
Causing suffering and oppression is wrong. That message gets out and the AR Movement is growing by getting more and more supporters.
Sure you can. Many people are open to that message. Not "all" people will "always" disagree with that message. I was moved to change by being told of and then learning more of the "nastiness" of it. I am sure I am not unique. The Movement is growing.
Yes, you are right. But, opinions change. People move on the spectrum. Sometimes that movement is done by individual recognition and research and sometimes people change after having been informed by others. I was of the latter. Again, I am not so unique on this point. Many have been changed through outreach programs.
I agree. Animal Welfare is welcomed by me. Animal Rightists help to push the industries toward making animal welfare improvements because industries having been targeted aggressively by AR would rather be seen to dealing with Animal Welfarists in an effort to discredit the need for Animal Rights. The industries look at it as having to deal with, "good cop/bad cop."
PETA is not only an AR org but also an AW org and many of their campaigns are not AR oriented but rather AW oriented because they want to focus on short term gains, knowing that AR gains are far in the future -- but their core beliefs and ultimate goals are AR. They just are merely putting the foundation down before building the house.
Yes, Peta is very effective.
Where did I ever say I didn`t embrace change of any kind -- be it slow or quick? I have always said things were slow and that it was a long war ahead. I surely don`t like what is going on, but my like slow change or fast change is irrelevant because all changes at alleviating animal oppression will definitely be slow. That is admitted. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant because IT WILL BE SLOW.


You forget though that its our governments that legalise all this animal cruelty and its never going to stop it because it rakes in too much profit. The government is not suddenly going to become all emotional and start treating animals in a morally correct mannor- you could say, "yeah but we are the people and we have the power", but this is rarely ever the case- the most you could do is perhaps hold a protest, but protesting rarely ever does anything apart from raise and issue(which is usually already well known before the protest) and make it harder to protest next time.

The government does things for power over the people and money, which are often closely related factors.
You would be wrong to think any different of it in my honest opinion.

The 3 ways i see things changing is;
a. Carefully and politely help people become more aware of the basics animal morality.
b. Help financially support better ways of treating animals.
c. Get into politics -this is by far the most effective way you can change anything in this world, politics is every thing and if you want to start making the big changes you have to be a big player and not to be seen as another whining animal rights activist(not meaning that personally, but many people, especially those with power, will see you that way as you currently are).

As it currently looks, we will and we wont agree on various aspects of animal morality- for example i think its fine to eat animals as long as they are raised in a morally correct manor and killed efficiently. Your opinion is that eating any animal is wrong, even if our species was evolved to do it and millions of other animals do it(its why the world evolved complex "food chains" after all).

You are right the process is slow, but i believe it can be speeded up in many ways that you are unwilling to to take into consideration.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:54
People dont learn morality and then get a respect for animals, its often the other way around- people gradually show more and more respect to animals and the realise how much in common they have with them etc etc...

I am assuming that people in the AR and AW movement come on board from different paths. What you say is true. I think people come to AR or AW through ambassador animals such as dogs and cats and the respect they have for them and then one day many have an epiphany that the meat on their bun came from an animal just as capable as pain as from the dog that makes them laugh and cheer them up.

I have seen these testimonies before and have been told so from people also.

To say which way is more prevalant of the different avenues, I couldn`t be sure. Since you said "often," that makes me want to ask you if you have some knowledge or data you can share with us to back up a majority from what you seem to be proclaiming.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 18:58
And to be honest, i wouldn't really care if my only meaning of life was to be eventually shot when i got old if i never knew about it- so its a bit of a silly question IMO.

lol. You are assuming too much. What makes you think you would be allowed to get "old" if you were exploited and oppressed.

It is only silly when you rewrite the situation so that you are not in the same situation as most oppressed animals. Be a little more fair when making parallels.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:01
The animals are happy and breeding better than anywhere else in the world, even than in their native homeland, they are happy and well-fed and never have to fear predators- and then when they get past their best breeding age they are shot. In the wild they would also be eaten when they got too old and slow- i honestly dont see the difference in whats best for the animal as far as this is concerned apart from the fact that in the hunting reserves the animal is far more likely to lead a happy life.

This goes back to the slave issue which you have still failed to address adequately. Slaves should still not be permitted just because we think they are being treated well and appear to be happy.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 19:01
Agreed. Many people are prejudiced to their own domesticated house pets and ignorant of factory farm methods.
However, you use the word "most" people tells us that some do change. I changed when I learned about all those abuses. Some people do change when they hear about that. I am not unique in that regard. But, it does take time to seap in and cause one to change.

I agree i say "most" because some people do change, but many simply dont want to acknowledge what they know about morality either way. You and i only reflect a very small amount of people that not only acknowledged animal cruelty but started to change our lives in various ways because of it.

Its also difficult to give up foods simply in the name of morality, especially those you love. I dont know wether you actually liked any of the meats/animal products you were raised on, but i think asking somone to give up eating every species of animal or animal product is too much, and besides, it wouldn't be natural.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:05
People need solid non-emotional reasons to do things or change their ways- in this scenario, giving farmers a proper reason to take up less profitable methods of farming by incouraging the consumption of animal products farmed in morally correct mannors.

There is a place for reason, logic, and emotions. Emotions move people to act. I or any ARists and many AWists also would never jettison emotions. Some people are moved by them and make changes based on those. It is one of the tools at any movment`s disposal.

Are you going to deny that emotions don`t have impact or cause change in people?

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:15
Its also difficult to give up foods simply in the name of morality, especially those you love. I dont know wether you actually liked any of the meats/animal products you were raised on, but i think asking somone to give up eating every species of animal or animal product is too much,...

Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now), but pleasure is no reason to indulge in an act that causes and perpetuates pain, suffering, exploitation, tyranny, and oppression.

You just don`t ask someone to give up meat. I have never said to anyone, "Would you please give up meat because of all the bad things associated with it." There is no meaning to approaching someone like that. You talk about the miserable conditions they endure and ask them if they feel comfortable supporting an industry that does those things. The question about giving it up comes naturally to them if they carry the information in their head and think of it. Some are not moved by that. Some are. Some are partially moved. Some are moved by the health benefits of going vegetarian that seem to strike a cord with them.


... and besides, it wouldn't be natural.

Well, ... it is not natural for me to defecate in the toilet but I do, controlling the urge to go in the woods like a bear or just whenever I like. I go against what nature is telling me and hold it in until I think there is an appropriate place and time to do so -- i.e. I have modified my natural feelings to let loose based on the construction of society and the rules that go with that. I control the urge.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:23
Nobody knows when they are going to die, the good thing though with the hunts is that the animals never get accustomed with having to live with the major stress of the threat of getting killed from every angle every waking and sleeping moment of its life like wild animals do- as you said, the animal was tame enough to come up to people.

Surely its better living a life never fearing death than living a life in constant fear of it?

Again, all this does not support a reason for oppression, exploitation, and tyranny. Substitute the word slave above for all those that are animal and the construct of it is one that one who can empathise would not want to be in a position of. You would be laughed out and looked at as a piriah if you suggested that homeless people be put in a situation like that -- hey, they get fed and never know when the 'hit' would come.

There is nothing natural about that scenario which you have described above. I point that out because you seem to value what is natural and what isn`t -- seemingly to not want to do something that is not natural:


and besides, it wouldn't be natural.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:28
You forget though that its our governments that legalise all this animal cruelty and its never going to stop it because it rakes in too much profit. The government is not suddenly going to become all emotional and start treating animals in a morally correct mannor- you could say, "yeah but we are the people and we have the power", but this is rarely ever the case- the most you could do is perhaps hold a protest, but protesting rarely ever does anything apart from raise and issue(which is usually already well known before the protest) and make it harder to protest next time.

TP, what makes you think I have "forgotten" that about government? I am well aware of all the money the gov gets and have no illusions that the gov is going to all of a sudden get emotional and change overnight. I have no idea why you are stating this.

And surely you are not suggesting I said or implied what your quote is above, are you? So, who are you addressing? Aren`t you addressing my points or are you having a conversation with a rhetorical muse in your head?

You are right, protests as they have been traditionally done have not been very successful. I have addressed that in my replies to MeAndRoo above, or perhaps it is in the Animal Rights thread.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 19:34
The 3 ways i see things changing is;
a. Carefully and politely help people become more aware of the basics animal morality.
b. Help financially support better ways of treating animals.
c. Get into politics -this is by far the most effective way you can change anything in this world, politics is every thing and if you want to start making the big changes you have to be a big player and not to be seen as another whining animal rights activist(not meaning that personally, but many people, especially those with power, will see you that way as you currently are).

Yes, those are all good. I have already addressed c. further above near the beginning of the thread or on the first page, I think.

But, TP, those are all very given and obvious. I really don`t see why you felt the need to post them.

But, there is also Direct Action and the championing of Animal Rights.

Mycernius
12-02-06, 19:43
Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now),
Not the only one. IMO the packaging is probably more tasty than the food. I don't use McDs for a reason, but not about animals. They were a big contributor towards the IRA
How do you feel about people on small holdings? The animals they keep are usually for their own consumption and are normally kept in very good conditions. Plenty of room, well fed and protected from predators. They are also subject to various animal welfare laws, in the UK at least anyway.

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 19:51
Please provide me with some extensive material that shows a majority part of society believed this or that the majority of our politicians of that time did so. Also, the societies in the South surely did not hold that opinion.
I am really waiting and looking forward to this because you have made me feel I have missed something in my educational upbringing.
I have a feeling after I peruse your sources and info on this I will be saying to you, "I hate to break it to you, but ..."
Remember, I want to see sources with a majority of decision makers or the populace having stated that reason like you said for abolishing slavery.
They may have mused on that thought, but that was not the final impetus for deciding to sweep it away. In fact, the South worried that it would destroy their economies and way of life which was supported on cheap labor.

Im suprised that you have so much faith in your government education, if only as an animal rights activist considering that its the same government that legalises the crueltys you are so against.
Im not sure what country you were brought up in(please tell me), but theres a trend in government education of any country, for example;

The americans are brought up and told that they are the best country out there. The american government though is the same government that is currently killing tens of thousands of people in iraq, and told the american public that the vietnam war is right.

The english are brought up with the notion too, that they are the best country out there. The english government is the same government that expresses what a great man churchill was and how evil sadam is for killing the kurds, despite that fact it was churchill who first mentioned the idea of gassing the 5000 kurds.

The japanese are brought up with the notion that they are the best country out there, despite being reasponsable for the Nanking massacre and refusing to openly educate its youth about the facts.

etc etc etc...
Most people dont even know about their countrys attrocitys, crimes or acts of wrong, most countrys are more than willing to educate their people about other countrys negative actions. Most countrys only admit their own actions if it means that denying them will lose them power/populity on the whole/in the long term or in the situation that they actually sorted out their wrong doings in some way or another.
We are all educated about the slave trade in africa, and how we were wrong to do it.

Now for some info/facts on why a large part of the slave trade was ended because of economy issues(given that its difficult to sift through the giant bulk of slave trade info, which is why i may take a tad to get you your desired amount);

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4742049.stm

If you read carefully and look at things logically, you'll notice "Slavery was the world's first global industry but before globalism and corporations it was actually run by a few hundred families."
Slavery does not create many jobs, but we all know that jobs are good for the economy- the romans never abolished their slave trade because they actually believed it would be bad for the economy.
If the government had continued to legalise slavery it would have lost control of its people and its trading relations with other countrys would have been damaged- in essense, the government was forced to stop the slave trade- most of the people may have been against the slave trade due to reasons of morality, but morality was not even considered as far as the government was concerned, but rather control over its people and profits. As long as slavery was popular amoung the masses, it was worth the money, when it started to threaten the governments control over the people, i.e people started having mass riots, the financial and power benefets of slavery no longer warrented being worth the effort.
I guess one example of a government not dealing with its slave trade even if it has plenty of reasons concerning morality why it should deal with its slave trade even today is Niger;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4327497.stm

Why is it in denial? Because currently slavery is good for its economy with little or no resistance.

Im sure you were never told in your government education that there's more slavery now in the world than what there ever was during the height of the slave trade;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204675.stm

Statistics that although we abolished the slave trade, we are in as much denial that it still goes on as the people in Niger are;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3589646.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39992000/gif/_39992552_world_slavery3_map416.gif

(Slavery is a problem around the world and very difficult to measure. The following examples are listed in geographical order and not in terms of the magnitude of the problem.)

1. US: An estimated 20,000 people are trafficked into the US annually - many are forced into prostitution.
2. Dominican Republic: Campaigners say hundreds of thousands of Haitians are rounded up near the border and made to work on Dominican sugar plantations.
3. Brazil: Up to 25,000 people are said to be working as slave labourers - most of them clearing Amazonian forests.
4. Mauritania: Despite its abolition in 1981, chattel slavery is still strong - up to 1m people are allegedly held as "inheritable property".
5. Sudan: Campaigners say northern militias continue to take women and children in slave raids in the south.
6. Europe: Tens of thousands of women and girls are cheated, abducted and forced into prostitution right across Europe.
7. UAE: Every year hundreds of boys are reportedly trafficked from South Asia to the UAE and other Gulf states to race camels.
8. Pakistan: Men, women and children are bonded into forced labour in agriculture and industry, campaigners say.
9. Burma: Forced labour is reportedly used on a growing number infrastructure projects.
10. Thailand: Thousands of girls are sex slaves for tourists.
... .... .....

Tokis-Phoenix
12-02-06, 19:59
Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now), but pleasure is no reason to indulge in an act that causes and perpetuates pain, suffering, exploitation, tyranny, and oppression.
You just don`t ask someone to give up meat. I have never said to anyone, "Would you please give up meat because of all the bad things associated with it." There is no meaning to approaching someone like that. You talk about the miserable conditions they endure and ask them if they feel comfortable supporting an industry that does those things. The question about giving it up comes naturally to them if they carry the information in their head and think of it. Some are not moved by that. Some are. Some are partially moved. Some are moved by the health benefits of going vegetarian that seem to strike a cord with them.
Well, ... it is not natural for me to defecate in the toilet but I do, controlling the urge to go in the woods like a bear or just whenever I like. I go against what nature is telling me and hold it in until I think there is an appropriate place and time to do so -- i.e. I have modified my natural feelings to let loose based on the construction of society and the rules that go with that. I control the urge.


Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 20:16
Im suprised that ....

TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.

I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."

I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 20:20
Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

My support for AR is one of being against oppression, exploitation and tyranny. One may say that is the moral argument. I am aware of the health benefit and environmental argument, but those are not the ones I champion.

Perhaps another ARist who is lurking in may want to put forth those reasons. Perhaps not. However, in modern society we do not need meat consumption to survive. If it were so, then all vegegtarians/vegans would never live too long.

strongvoicesforward
12-02-06, 20:23
So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?

I would see it as unecessary in today`s modern world. To cause pain and suffering to an animal, to violate its autonomy when it is not needed for survival for sustenance is cruel.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 08:34
TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.
I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."
I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?
I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons- you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.
You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons :relief: ?
Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.
Strongvoicesforward, i think your idea of hunting being cruel on the whole is wrong- you should re-examine your interperatation of what is "cruel".
Its not cruel to shoot a pheasant in the head, instantly blowing its brains out and killing it in seconds.
Honestly though, have you ever been to an organic free-range farm for any decent period of time or lived on one? Its just i have the feeling you are damning somthing you have never seen first hand or experienced.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 09:12
I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons...

That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.


just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons-

TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.


...you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.

Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?

Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.


You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons

Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 09:18
That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.
TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.
Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?
Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.
Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."

("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 09:19
Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.

Well, I don`t think it is a bad example and I will not embrace oppression in any of its ugly forms. Those against ARists want us to give up that but we won`t because when animals are shackled as a beast of burden or used to profit from, they are being oppressed as slaves were. They are being denied their freedom as slaves were. They are being forced to work for the profit of another as slaves were. Sorry, it will remain on the table unless you can explain why the slavery and oppression and tyranny and exploitation of humans is also good or acceptable.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 09:24
("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.

Look at the 2nd para above where I address your hair splitting and semantics. I clearly said there will be some who do not agree on everything. However, that does not warrant the use of qualifying statements all the time with "mainly."

Yes, you disagreed with me, but you made a very bold statement as if you were schooling me. You did not qualify your statement. You were far from what is viewed by most. You said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons." You finally admitted to it was wrong. Or I am sorry, you haven`t ,have you? Will you retract that statement or not?

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 09:29
Well, I don`t think it is a bad example and I will not embrace oppression in any of its ugly forms. Those against ARists want us to give up that but we won`t because when animals are shackled as a beast of burden or used to profit from, they are being oppressed as slaves were. They are being denied their freedom as slaves were. They are being forced to work for the profit of another as slaves were. Sorry, it will remain on the table unless you can explain why the slavery and oppression and tyranny and exploitation of humans is also good or acceptable.
So do you see me as against animal rights activists? Just curious.
Do you see yourself as living a life of opression because you have to work to earn money to live?
Slavery and opression as things that imply a seriosuly negative way of life.
You believe animals that are farmed live a life of slavery and opression.
Throughout this thread i have tried to explain to you that in cases of good farms, the animals are very happy.
You seem to entirely ignore this fact, somewhat implying they would be better off living in fear of predators their entire life, ridden with mites and fleas, constantly fearing starvation etc etc...
You dont seem to have ever had much real experience or contact with good free range organic farms- i was brought up on one so i would know.
I will give you an example of animals being happy in their farm enviroment.
One day in one of the cow feilds next to the woodland and other feilds, during the night in a storm, the old gate to the feild fell off its hinges.
The cows could have left the feild anytime they wanted, but when i discovered them the next day, they were just eating grass in the feild.
If the animals were unhappy with their life of "opression and misery", then surely they would have escaped- as you said, an animal moves away from discomfort, no?
What do you have to say about this true little farm story?

edit: Another situation i can tell you of is the chickens.
We kept chickens on the farm purely for their eggs and meat.
The only things the chickens were given was a roof over their heads, bedding and food & water- they had no pen that kept them together, they were allowed to go where ever they wanted.
We killed chickens chosen for their meat by ringing their necks, which kills them pretty much instantly, and when done the right way, is painless because of the way it severs the spinal cord. On quite a few occasions we ringed various chickens necks in front of the other chickens, so its entirely plausable they were aware we killed them from time to time.
They could have run away any time, the farm was sounded by miles upon miles of countryside. But they never left the farm. They always stayed in the garden, in the farm yard or close to the chicken sheds.
If they were unhappy with their lives of "opression", surely they would have just left the farm?
Even with the eggs, the hens always layed in the same place as long as you didn't take all the eggs out of the nests when you collected them.

As to the cows, the only times they actually broke out of their feilds was to go into my mums garden(which happened numerous times) to eat the apples and pears that had fallen off the trees in the summer and autum time, but we sorted that out by simply chucking all the excess fruit into their feilds and they never broke out after that- i think they just got bored of eating grass and hay all the time from time to time :relief: .

I think you are in denial, either that or you have had too many opinions shoved down your throat from people who dont really know what they are talking about/have never experienced the things they are damning. Since you seem to be a person of evidence, surely these incidences are proof that not all farm animals lead lives of opression and misery/slavery, as you put it?

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 17:19
Honestly though, have you ever been to an organic free-range farm for any decent period of time or lived on one? Its just i have the feeling you are damning somthing you have never seen first hand or experienced.

And what if I told you I had grown up in the rural areas of the countryside and have seen many farms been on them and in fact grew up on one myself, family owned and had friends of those fathers who worked in those long white non-discreet windowless factory farms and heard their stories and in addition to having relatives who at one time or another worked in a slaughterhouse? Where will your argument be then? What will you ask then?: "SVF, have you gone to every single one of them in the U.S. blah blah blah...?"

In debating in a forum like this, we will never be able to verify to a degree of satisfaction what our personal experiences were. How do I know you grew up on a farm? How could you prove it? Do you think I am going to spend time and money to go and track you down and have you guide me around to the neighborhood of your childhood to confirm with the old folk there that you had grown up on a farm? Vice versa for me with you. Therefore your personal stories in text here mean little as a point to consider. We can both fling these little stories back and forth to cancel one another`s out.

However, there are a great many number of articles on the horrors of factory farms with many accounts talking about them. Very few factory farms let visitors in to see the operations. Why not if they aren`t ashamed of them?

Furthermore, since I am not going to fling unverifiable personal stories around, it is not necessary to experience everything first hand in order to comment on the data and information that has been brought forth.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 17:27
So do you see me as against animal rights activists? Just curious.


I don`t see you opposing AR. I merely see you not championing them. I see you as an AW which is fine also. I welcome AWists because they bring relief to the animals while they await liberation.

ARists always welcome AWists up until the point AWists begin denegrating the the efforts of ARists. I talked a little about the relationship between the two with my replies to MeAndRoo above.

At times, AWists tend to waste recourses of time in attacking ARists instead of just staying focused on the tasks facing them with improper treatment of animals. However, ARists very seldom go out of their way to denegrate the actions of AWists because we know it is the animals that suffer when those who care about animals feel it is necessary to take away from their time to focus on each other by attacking each other.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 17:39
And what if I told you I had grown up in the rural areas of the countryside and have seen many farms been on them and in fact grew up on one myself, family owned and had friends of those fathers who worked in those long white non-discreet windowless factory farms and heard their stories and in addition to having relatives who at one time or another worked in a slaughterhouse? Where will your argument be then? What will you ask then?: "SVF, have you gone to every single one of them in the U.S. blah blah blah...?"
In debating in a forum like this, we will never be able to verify to a degree of satisfaction what our personal experiences were. How do I know you grew up on a farm? How could you prove it? Do you think I am going to spend time and money to go and track you down and have you guide me around to the neighborhood of your childhood to confirm with the old folk there that you had grown up on a farm? Vice versa for me with you. Therefore your personal stories in text here mean little as a point to consider. We can both fling these little stories back and forth to cancel one another`s out.
However, there are a great many number of articles on the horrors of factory farms with many accounts talking about them. Very few factory farms let visitors in to see the operations. Why not if they aren`t ashamed of them?
Furthermore, since I am not going to fling unverifiable personal stories around, it is not necessary to experience everything first hand in order to comment on the data and information that has been brought forth.


Geez, you dont need to get so agressive/defencesive, i was merely asking.
... ... ....
Anyhoo...
You are avoiding my question, and besides, if i wrote an account on farming on an internet site, and it was positive, would you believe it then? Or would you rather believe the many accounts of cruel farming you search for and read?

My point is, is that pretty much every time i have asked you your opinions on farming, you say its opression/slavery against animals. So i eventually decided after much discussion to give you a couple of examples that happened to me that led me personally to believe that not all farming is animal opression/slavery and misery and all that etc.

I cannot prove my life story to you and whatnot, but im just saying that i do have experience with farming because i was brought up on one, because thats what happened. You dont have to believe me, just like you dont have to believe anything you read on the internet- i believe you are simply choosing not to believe me/ignore my opinions, because you are currently stuck in a state of mind that you choose to be in.

By the way, its easy to get into a battery farm- all you have to do is apply for a job there. No qualifications needed and only a bare understanding of the language english is all you need to have to get into most farm jobs.
Asking though that "can i come into your farm because i want to pictures of your animals" is like going into Walmart and saying "can i have a look around your basement/store rooms to take pics of your stock?"- its obvious why any buisness is not going to let you in if you go around it that way etc.

Honestly though, what do you think about the storys i gave you to consider- sway your opinions at all, or do you still believe all farming is a form of animal slavery etc?

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 17:42
I don`t see you opposing AR. I merely see you not championing them. I see you as an AW which is fine also. I welcome AWists because they bring relief to the animals while they await liberation.
ARists always welcome AWists up until the point AWists begin denegrating the the efforts of ARists. I talked a little about the relationship between the two with my replies to MeAndRoo above.
At times, AWists tend to waste recourses of time in attacking ARists instead of just staying focused on the tasks facing them with improper treatment of animals. However, ARists very seldom go out of their way to denegrate the actions of AWists because we know it is the animals that suffer when those who care about animals feel it is necessary to take away from their time to focus on each other by attacking each other.


Talk about an ego- do you really honestly believe you are superior to everyone else/the majority of people because of your thoughts/actions? You have a lot to learn...

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 17:52
Do you see yourself as living a life of opression because you have to work to earn money to live?

What!? I just have to ask a ridiculous question, but: Are you trying to equate my being able to choose a profession in any place with the ability to quit anytime I wish without fear of being beaten and slaughtered with a farm animal which is confined, has no choice, and lives at the discretion or ignorance of a being other than itself? If so, I would say you need some serious tutoring in analogical construction.


Slavery and opression as things that imply a seriosuly negative way of life.

I`m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are missing a "verb" here or the sentence is badly constructed. I just can`t comment on it unless you mean a simple statement that, "slavery and oppression are bad." In that case we agree.


You believe animals that are farmed live a life of slavery and opression.
Throughout this thread i have tried to explain to you that in cases of good farms, the animals are very happy.

And throughout this thread I have tried to explain to you that in cases of good plantations and slaveowners, the slaves were very happy.

But, I will not presume to know the minds of the slaves for they are now so far removed to me from history. Now, how can you get inside the head of a dairy cow, a battery hen chicken, a warehouse chicken, a cattle feedlot, a pig raising unit -- into the minds of animals as they stand in line at the slaughterhouse hearing their kind go screaming before them with the stench of blood in the air, the chicks who have their beaks saudered off to prevent canibalization due to overcrowding, the piglets who have their teeth clipped off to prevent cannibalization.

Now, you get back with me with a large number/majority of ethologist studies on the happiness of animals that state animals are happy on the 'good' farms like you have asserted or that even the 'good' farms from the animals' point of view are the majority. And be sure to tell me how happy the animals are as they go through the stresses of transport to slaughter and their wait in the line at the slaugherhouses.


You seem to entirely ignore this fact, somewhat implying they would be better off living in fear of predators their entire life, ridden with mites and fleas, constantly fearing starvation etc etc...

TP, you seem to ignorant of the fact that if it weren`t for human consumption of cows, pigs, or chickens as we know them today, they would not exist to even worry about predators or any of the other hardships of a natural life. Perhaps you are referring to canned hunts. Well, they are still hunted there, just they have no way to escape. And I doubt the ranch owners are going out to de-tick them.

I would still rather have my freedom for 50 years and die unpredictably when that was up rather than have a hundred years of enslavement and exploitation at a master`s whim to end in amusing someone for entertainment or culinary pleasure. It is quite clear you value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life (not really guaranteed) rather than freedom and quality of life to anyone who can justify it for benefitting another. Again, your argument is the archaic one of slavery and oppression wrapped up smugly as if you know what is best for the ones you want to keep under and profit from. I guess the spirit of Jim Crowe really does still live.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:01
...surely these incidences [TP had listed some unverifiable experiences from her childhood on the farm -- SVF] are proof that not all farm animals lead lives of opression and misery/slavery, as you put it?

It proved nothing because it is all unverifiable. I have already explained why cute personal little stories that are unverifiable prove nothing. I too can list counter stories that say the opposite -- like the time when my father decided it was time to cut the sacks (the vein in the scrotum) of our pigs. Talk about a deafening sound of pain and shrill to stand the hair on your skin. Those pigs didn`t look too happy then. I`m glad that doesn`t get done to me.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:02
What!? I just have to ask a ridiculous question, but: Are you trying to equate my being able to choose a profession in any place with the ability to quit anytime I wish without fear of being beaten and slaughtered with a farm animal which is confined, has no choice, and lives at the discretion or ignorance of a being other than itself? If so, I would say you need some serious tutoring in analogical construction.
I`m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are missing a "verb" here or the sentence is badly constructed. I just can`t comment on it unless you mean a simple statement that, "slavery and oppression are bad." In that case we agree.
And throughout this thread I have tried to explain to you that in cases of good plantations and slaveowners, the slaves were very happy.
But, I will not presume to know the minds of the slaves for they are now so far removed to me from history. Now, how can you get inside the head of a dairy cow, a battery hen chicken, a warehouse chicken, a cattle feedlot, a pig raising unit -- into the minds of animals as they stand in line at the slaughterhouse hearing their kind go screaming before them with the stench of blood in the air, the chicks who have their beaks saudered off to prevent canibalization due to overcrowding, the piglets who have their teeth clipped off to prevent cannibalization.
Now, you get back with me with a large number/majority of ethologist studies on the happiness of animals that state animals are happy on the 'good' farms like you have asserted or that even the 'good' farms from the animals' point of view are the majority. And be sure to tell me how happy the animals are as they go through the stresses of transport to slaughter and their wait in the line at the slaugherhouses.
TP, you seem to ignorant of the fact that if it weren`t for human consumption of cows, pigs, or chickens as we know them today, they would not exist to even worry about predators or any of the other hardships of a natural life. Perhaps you are referring to canned hunts. Well, they are still hunted there, just they have no way to escape. And I doubt the ranch owners are going out to de-tick them.
I would still rather have my freedom for 50 years and die unpredictably when that was up rather than have a hundred years of enslavement and exploitation at a master`s whim to end in amusing someone for entertainment or culinary pleasure. It is quite clear you value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life (not really guaranteed) rather than freedom and quality of life to anyone who can justify it for benefitting another. Again, your argument is the archaic one of slavery and oppression wrapped up smugly as if you know what is best for the ones you want to keep under and profit from. I guess the spirit of Jim Crowe really does still live.


So you agree that some farm animals might be happy? Then why do you want to ban every farm, good and bad?

I have never implied that i was with battery farming or agreed with any of it, so please, do not imply it.

I also find it very insulting that you say i "value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life"- you know this is not true, that is, if you have actually registered anything i have said in this thread in your brain.

You are also seriously stupid/ignorant if you honestly beleive that no farm-related animals would exist to experience the hardships of natural life if we didn't farm them.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:06
Geez, you dont need to get so agressive/defencesive, i was merely asking.

TP, focus on the argument. I assure you I am quite calm. What part demonstrabably made you feel I was aggressive to you or defensive. I was merely replying to you and I don`t think I capitolized a sentence screaming at your or throwing expletives toward you, did I??? If so, please point it out to me. Perhaps you need to reign in the tenor of your inner dialogue voice between us.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:08
It proved nothing because it is all unverifiable. I have already explained why cute personal little stories that are unverifiable prove nothing. I too can list counter stories that say the opposite -- like the time when my father decided it was time to cut the sacks (the vein in the scrotum) of our pigs. Talk about a deafening sound of pain and shrill to stand the hair on your skin. Those pigs didn`t look too happy then. I`m glad that doesn`t get done to me.

You cant prove that any of the animal rights stuff you read on the internet is true, yet you seem more than willing to accept it.

If you only believed things that you could personally prove were true, i doubt you would even be here talking to me about this.

You are just refusing to acknowledge anything i say that does not conform to your personal opinions. You have shown no sign of actually considering anything i have said, or even trying to look from another persons point of veiw that isn't your own.
Somtimes i even wonder if you are actually in this thread to come off with a better understanding of what we are talking about, as far as i see it im practically talking to a wall anyway here.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:10
TP, focus on the argument. I assure you I am quite calm. What part demonstrabably made you feel I was aggressive to you or defensive. I was merely replying to you and I don`t think I capitolized a sentence screaming at your or throwing expletives toward you, did I??? If so, please point it out to me. Perhaps you need to reign in the tenor of your inner dialogue voice between us.

To be honest i was just thinking we were in a debate, or a conversation, not an arguement, as you put it.
Do my opinions honestly piss you off that much that you think we are in an arguement?

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:19
You are avoiding my question,...

Please repeat it. It could be that I just missed it by mistake as I quoted in pieces and went back and forth to quoting. If it were a relevant question, in no way did I avoid it purposely. Post it again, please.

Note, though, I think many of my direct questions have gone unanswered by you. Please extend the same courtesy of answering questions posed.

Also, we had talked about posting style in the past and I don`t really want to make that an issue, but when you quote whole posts of mine and then answer, it is just hard for me to see exactly which part of my post you are addressing. Why not break the quotes up soon after places questions are so that I can see exactly which part you are answering?


...and besides, if i wrote an account on farming on an internet site, and it was positive, would you believe it then?

Possibly. Still does not mean their violation of autonomy through captivity and life at the whim of the farmer or that their slaughter is positive. Would you believe that Jew had a great life if she were forced to be a house maid of a Nazi general and play the violin for him and his family but then shipped off to the gas chambers as her 'time' came to an end? I wouldn`t accept that


Or would you rather believe the many accounts of cruel farming you search for and read?

It is not a matter of "Would you rather believe," -- it is just believing that which is documented. I guess I could believe the other side more if the factory farms could be openly visited by anyone to see the operations or if slaughterhouses could also be visited and have cameras installed to watch everythng. But the industry is against that because they themselves know it is a horrid business.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:24
To be honest i was just thinking we were in a debate, or a conversation, not an arguement, as you put it.
Do my opinions honestly piss you off that much that you think we are in an arguement?

TP, I usually answer in order of posts, but seeing this I thought it imperative I jump the order to school you on the word "argue/argument."

Those terms are often used synonimously with debate. Lawyers "argue" their points before judges and jurries. A professor may ask a student for his "argument" on or against capital punishment.

It can mean a verbal fight with intent to injure in such a case as a husband and wife are having an argument and nasty words have flown and the child is crying because of the level of rancor it has reached.

However, you and I are putting forth our reasons for and against something, so most people with a strong lexicon will identify that "argument" means a debate. Please note that.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:32
Please repeat it. It could be that I just missed it by mistake as I quoted in pieces and went back and forth to quoting. If it were a relevant question, in no way did I avoid it purposely. Post it again, please.
Note, though, I think many of my direct questions have gone unanswered by you. Please extend the same courtesy of answering questions posed.
Also, we had talked about posting style in the past and I don`t really want to make that an issue, but when you quote whole posts of mine and then answer, it is just hard for me to see exactly which part of my post you are addressing. Why not break the quotes up soon after places questions are so that I can see exactly which part you are answering?
Possibly. Still does not mean their violation of autonomy through captivity and life at the whim of the farmer or that their slaughter is positive. Would you believe that Jew had a great life if she were forced to be a house maid of a Nazi general and play the violin for him and his family but then shipped off to the gas chambers as her 'time' came to an end? I wouldn`t accept that
It is not a matter of "Would you rather believe," -- it is just believing that which is documented. I guess I could believe the other side more if the factory farms could be openly visited by anyone to see the operations or if slaughterhouses could also be visited and have cameras installed to watch everythng. But the industry is against that because they themselves know it is a horrid business.


Why should i separate which quotes i do to make it easier for you to read when you refused to not do multiple posts when i asked you because i told you that i found it difficult for me to read? Very hypocritical i think of you to even ask.

Most of your questions i didn't answer were because they were already questions that you had asked in one form or another before and i had already answered, or because i believed they were off topic.

And yeah the questions i wanted you to answer, i apologise, i was referring to my farm storys i posted and the questions relevant to them, technically you did answer them by dismissing them entirely.


'Tis interesting that you noted that only believed info that was documented, which is incredibly vague. In essence you could say i am documenting my opinions by typing them up on here.

And you forget that the difference between the jews being slaves to the nazis in the concentration camps, is that they knew they were going to die long before they were killed, often by months or even years in some cases.
Unlike the jews, many farm animals do not know they are going to be slaughtered long before they are. You seem to ignore this fact.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:35
TP, I usually answer in order of posts, but seeing this I thought it imperative I jump the order to school you on the word "argue/argument."
Those terms are often used synonimously with debate. Lawyers "argue" their points before judges and jurries. A professor may ask a student for his "argument" on or against capital punishment.
It can mean a verbal fight with intent to injure in such a case as a husband and wife are having an argument and nasty words have flown and the child is crying because of the level of rancor it has reached.
However, you and I are putting forth our reasons for and against something, so most people with a strong lexicon will identify that "argument" means a debate. Please note that.

You are twisting the actual meaning of an arguement though.
If you believe that a debate is exactly the same thing as an arguement then perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

A debate implys a serious but civilised conversation of the discussing of opinions. An arguemnt implys somthing similar but much more negative. At least that is what it is to me, and many others, i believe.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:36
I cannot prove my life story to you and whatnot, but im just saying that i do have experience with farming because i was brought up on one, because thats what happened. You dont have to believe me,...

Like I said before, it is not about believing -- it is about it not being verifiable.


just like you dont have to believe anything you read on the internet-

lol. I don`t. There are other sources. Books, newspapers, and magazines. Though, a lot of those sources are cited on the internet.


...i believe you are simply choosing not to believe me/ignore my opinions,...

TP, I was once on the other side of the fence believing the other side. My belief is not rigid. It can move. It has moved. I am now an ARist. It is not about choosing to believe you, it is just about deciding which has more of the ring of truth to it. Yours does not because your argument is one of oppression and tyranny.

I have not ignored your opinions. On the contrary, I have spent time addressing them. I just don`t accept them for they are mired in exploitation.


...because you are currently stuck in a state of mind that you choose to be in.

I have moved on the issue. I have shown the ability to move since I was moved. You are the one who has not moved. And, having not moved on the issue that exploitation is ok, you are the one who is demonstrating a state of being "stuck."

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:40
Like I said before, it is not about believing -- it is about it not being verifiable.
lol. I don`t. There are other sources. Books, newspapers, and magazines. Though, a lot of those sources are cited on the internet.
TP, I was once on the other side of the fence believing the other side. My belief is not rigid. It can move. It has moved. I am now an ARist. It is not about choosing to believe you, it is just about deciding which has more of the ring of truth to it. Yours does not because your argument is one of oppression and tyranny.
I have not ignored your opinions. On the contrary, I have spent time addressing them. I just don`t accept them for they are mired in exploitation.
I have moved on the issue. I have shown the ability to move since I was moved. You are the one who has not moved. And, having not moved on the issue that exploitation is ok, you are the one who is demonstrating a state of being "stuck."

Books, magazines and newspapers aern't anymore trustworthy than the internet- how silly of you to imply that.

And yeah, did you spend time adressing my farm storys and the question with them by entirely dismissing them altogether? I think not.

What ability exactly have you shown that your opinions are not rigid in this thread, may i ask?

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 18:46
You are twisting the actual meaning of an arguement though.
If you believe that a debate is exactly the same thing as an arguement then perhaps you should buy a dictionary.
A debate implys a serious but civilised conversation of the discussing of opinions. An arguemnt implys somthing similar but much more negative. At least that is what it is to me, and many others, i believe.

An "argument" need not be "negative" like you are insisting.

Here:

Main Entry: arEguEment
Pronunciation: 'aNr-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <a later editor added an argument to the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar coordinates -- called also amplitude; compare ABSOLUTE VALUE 2


Words don`t necessarily mean what we "believe" them to be. Again note, many lawyers "argue" their cases in front of judges and jurries and people are called upon to proffer their argument for what they believe on a particular subject. Now, can you find this word in your dictionary, or don`t you have one?

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 18:50
An "argument" need not be "negative" like you are insisting.
Here:
Main Entry: arEguEment
Pronunciation: 'aNr-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <a later editor added an argument to the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar coordinates -- called also amplitude; compare ABSOLUTE VALUE 2
Words don`t necessarily mean what we "believe" them to be. Again note, many lawyers "argue" their cases in front of judges and jurries and people are called upon to proffer their argument for what they believe on a particular subject. Now, can you find this word in your dictionary, or don`t you have one?


"verb: -bat&#183;ed, -bat&#183;ing, -bates.

intransitive verb

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

transitive verb

1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

noun

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

derivatives

de&#183;bate'ment
noun
de&#183;bat'er
noun"

Just sounds more negative, doesn't it :blush: ?

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 19:00
By the way, its easy to get into a battery farm- all you have to do is apply for a job there. No qualifications needed and only a bare understanding of the language english is all you need to have to get into most farm jobs.Asking though that "can i come into your farm because i want to pictures of your animals" is like going into Walmart and saying "can i have a look around your basement/store rooms to take pics of your stock?"- its obvious why any buisness is not going to let you in if you go around it that way etc.

TP, why should an animal watchdog group concerned with humane treatment and cruelty have to apply for a job to get in and take a look at how pigs are being raised or mink are being kept in cages? The runnings of factory farms are not top secret. How to run them are printed openly in trade journals for maximum profit.

We are not talking about unfeeling watches in inventory in the basement. We are talking about living animals that feel pain and suffer in windowless and high methane enclosures. Those animals are shut and locked away for maximum profit without any concern to their happiness other than what can minimally be spared to them so that a larger profit can be squeezed from them. Don`t you know that? I thought you had previously hinted at that you were aware of the conditions, and now here you are defending them in a way to keep a watchdog group from checking on them. Are you confused as to what you believe or feel is right?


Honestly though, what do you think about the storys i gave you to consider- sway your opinions at all, or do you still believe all farming is a form of animal slavery etc?

You mean your personal unverifiable stories that could be stood against my personal stories?

Just because some slaveowners were kind to some of their slaves, do you still believe all slavery is not bad? Just because some slaves did not run away when they had the chance, does that mean they were all happy and content with their lives and thankful they had this lot in life and hoped it continues forever for them and their decendants?

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 19:13
"verb: -batEed, -batEing, -bates.
intransitive verb
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
transitive verb
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
noun
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
derivatives
deEbate'ment
noun
deEbat'er
noun"


more[/u] negative, doesn't it :blush: ?

Do you have a different definition for "more" also? Looking at the word "debate" above, I count only 3 out of the 12 choices that may possibly be considered "negative." Interesting though, "negative" as intent implied never shows up.

Again, those with differing views on an issue will "argue" their case between a jury or judge or someone may be called upon to put forth their "argument" on an issue. Perhaps it is your immaturity that is keeping you from ceding this point on usage of this word in a way that can mean something other than a negative hostile engagement.

Sorry you took the word for its negative connotation. I have gone out of my way to explain that I am not using the version of the word you are insisting it is "more" of than any other meaning. Why don`t you go to google and just search a few things like: Arguments for capital punishment, social welfare, national insurance, or a number of controversial topics and you might see that the word is used in a way that sides of issues put for their reasons of their beliefs.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 19:16
TP, why should an animal watchdog group concerned with humane treatment and cruelty have to apply for a job to get in and take a look at how pigs are being raised or mink are being kept in cages? The runnings of factory farms are not top secret. How to run them are printed openly in trade journals for maximum profit.
We are not talking about unfeeling watches in inventory in the basement. We are talking about living animals that feel pain and suffer in windowless and high methane enclosures. Those animals are shut and locked away for maximum profit without any concern to their happiness other than what can minimally be spared to them so that a larger profit can be squeezed from them. Don`t you know that? I thought you had previously hinted at that you were aware of the conditions, and now here you are defending them in a way to keep a watchdog group from checking on them. Are you confused as to what you believe or feel is right?
You mean your personal unverifiable stories that could be stood against my personal stories?
Just because some slaveowners were kind to some of their slaves, do you still believe all slavery is not bad? Just because some slaves did not run away when they had the chance, does that mean they were all happy and content with their lives and thankful they had this lot in life and hoped it continues forever for them and their decendants?
Yes, i mean my personal unverifiable storys that stood against your personal unverifiable storys. Remember to acknoledge that your storys are just as unverifiable as mine, at least though i had the decency to acknoledge them.
Ok, well how about if i said the person wanted to look in walmarts basement because they believed there was rotton food there that was being put on the shelves to be sold? Would that make a better example?
I am not sticking up for battery farms, i was merely stating a point that is often the case.
Do you think i would have any right to want to look into a medicion testing laboratry without permission because i believed they were creating biological warfare weapons?
The fact of the matter is i wouldn't. It would be against the law- if you have issues with the law, then perhaps you should adress that issue to somone who doesn't care about breaking the law.
You seem to believe that animal rights protesters should have access to anywhere they want because you believe they are for a good cause. Well im sorry thats not the case- tis a hard fact of life for now, just because i remind you of it does not mean i have any personal opinions on it either way.

edit: by the way i did a thread/poll on the negativity of an arguement other a debate- you can ignore it if you want, im just interested in other peoples opinions on it.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 19:18
Talk about an ego- do you really honestly believe you are superior to everyone else/the majority of people because of your thoughts/actions? You have a lot to learn...

Do you think the philosophy of exploitaton, oppression, and tyranny are superior? You have a lot to learn if you do. ;-) -- along with how words are often used -- like, "argument." <snicker snicker>

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 19:19
PS: Im going for a shower/break, you dont have to keep repeating yourself just because i am not there, not that seems to make much difference anyways- just my personal unverifiable opinion lol.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 19:21
Do you think the philosophy of exploitaton, oppression, and tyranny are superior? You have a lot to learn if you do. ;-) -- along with how words are often used -- like, "argument." <snicker snicker>

Well have i ever said or implied that?
Please take time to answer that honestly.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 19:43
This is in reference to post #68 where you quoted my previous post in full.


So you agree that some farm animals might be happy?

Where did I say that in that post?

Further more, there were a few questions in that post you have not addressed. Why don`t you cut quotes where I pose you questions and answer them like I have done here with you? It will make it easier on both of us to see what points you are referring to.


Then why do you want to ban every farm, good and bad?

Which ones are good? Do you have a comprehensive list of which ones are good? Please show me. Don`t forget about the transportation to the slaughterhouses and the slaughterhouses themselves either. In fact, address the whole industry from impregnation to birth to slaughter. Where is you data showing the farms which are identified as 'good' from the animals' point of view and that they are 'happy' like you stated? Have you gotten that info on animal happiness from ethologists yet like I asked previously?

Just in this para above I counted 4 question marks. Please answer them in quote cut form for clarity.


I have never implied that i was with battery farming or agreed with any of it, so please, do not imply it.

Are you saying that all battery farmed chickens are not 'happy'? What about factory farmed cows and pigs?

Are you aware that there are very few family farms of our traditional image with a pig rooting around and chickens pecking in the yard that support the markets where meat products are sold?


I also find it very insulting that you say i "value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life"- you know this is not true,...

Why should I know this not to be true when you are putting forth canned hunts as good or animals whose very breath from day to day is determined by their profit they have to offer and the whim of the owner can end their life for his benefit at any time he chooses? Have you come out against fur farming yet? Perhaps your insult is due to the words "oppression" and "exploitation" hitting a vulnerable target somewhere in you. The truth often does hurt. You still have not addressed the slavery issues and questions directly that have been peppered herein throughout.


...that is, if you have actually registered anything i have said in this thread in your brain.

What I have registered is that you are for lengthening the length of the slaves chains rather than severing them. While on the chain, they are still there to serve you for your profit. Severing them and letting them go means your profits are not made on the sweat and brow of another or in the animals' cases, their life and blood -- after viscious lives of suffering and death at slaughterhouses that send animals to scalding tanks alive or to different stations that begin the quartering or "holving" while still conscious.


You are also seriously stupid/ignorant if you honestly beleive that no farm-related animals would exist to experience the hardships of natural life if we didn't farm them.

Do you have some information that shows us that farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on? At any rate, if meat culture were to disappear, it would happen gradually and as demand lessened fewer and fewer would be produced until they were just phased out. There will never be a grand opening of the gates and let the animals run free. Economics will determine their disappearance.

MeAndroo
13-02-06, 19:46
What would move you to change your consumption in order to lessen suffering?

I've changed my consumption for health reasons already, but have no idea as to if/how what I eat suffers. For something like animal welfare/rights, I'd probably have to see it. After seeing veal farms, I stopped eating veal. I'm not saying just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it would certainly make more of a mark on me than biased rhetoric from either side.


I would say that all activists, no matter what they are being active for, should never cross any line that our governement would not cross in the present or had not crossed in the past (if those past actions had never been condemned).

I think it'd be tough to find violent government actions that have never been condemned. You talk in your post about having a "practical philosophy," so I guess you'd call me an idealist, but I think when condemning a violent opponent, engaging in violent acts yourself is a bit hypocritical. I think non-violent resistance is a better option, but people can get impatient with legislation and trying to change people's minds.


The belowground groups however, would melt away rather quickly if animal exploitation were to stop. They only exist because there is animal cruelty and Direct Action has proven to stop it, slow it, or bring relief to animals when it has been employed on specific targets of industry whose guiding light is the God Profit. If Direct Action was not or has never been successful in thwarting animal abuse/oppression, then it never would have survived as long as it has as a tactic. It would have ceased to have been being employed.

Every fur farm or lab that closes due to Direct Action only emboldens further action. Ever increasing insurance costs for those industries also embolden activists. The dollar is what is gauged, not only by the oppressors who judge their success on how many dollars they can accumulate, but also by the Direct Actionists who gauge their success on how many dollars they can deny the oppressionists and incur to them as operating costs which put the consumer goods out of further reach from a larger sector of the public that could not pay the higher prices that are past on.
It could be said to be a battle tactic of employing economics by inflicting costs.

I can certainly understand opposing industries that abuse animals. However, "cruelty" is defined differently depending on who you talk to. Some in the AR movement call pet ownership cruelty. I personally don't see it that way. Pet ownership holds no economic benefit. What lengths would the ADL, ALF, and the like go to for simple pets?.


Well, I can`t really comment on where I stand with "them," because I haven`t seen those arguments you specifically are talking about or had the chance to engage the person who put forth those arguments.

Just so you know, I wasn't asking where you thought you stood. It was just for me to know.


At one time, I was following this story in L.A. I kind of have forgotten the details. I think there were several groups pressuring the mayor. In Defense of Animals (IDA) was one of the aboveground group if my memory is corrrect. Sorry, though, I have forgotten the reason for pressuring his removal so can`t comment on it. If in fact what he was doing was detrimental to animals then I support the action that caused his removal. If his removal was the result of misinformation then I would not support it and am sorry that he was targeted for removal.

Well, a major sticking point had been the treatment of stray dogs. Oddly enough, now ex-GM Stuckey had been reducing the number of dogs euthanized in Los Angeles over the past few years, from 39,000 in 01-02 to 25,000 in 04-05. Yet the Animal Defense League didn't think that was the kind of progress they wanted, and they successfully forced Villaraigosa to remove Stuckey. The ADL proclaims a desire for a no-kill policy immediately, but speaking practically, where are 25,000 dogs going to go? I also find the difference in stances troubling to the cause, since even PETA euthanizes animals.

Link Here (http://www.petrescueonline.org/newsinfo/petaeu.htm)

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 19:49
You are just refusing to acknowledge anything i say that does not conform to your personal opinions. You have shown no sign of actually considering anything i have said, or even trying to look from another persons point of veiw that isn't your own.

TP, because your point of view is one of exploitation and oppression and tyranny over other beings. I am not goint to acknowledge that those are right no sooner than I am going to acknowledge slavery is or was right. You embrace those philosophies. I don`t. We stand on opposite sides of the issue.


Somtimes i even wonder if you are actually in this thread to come off with a better understanding of what we are talking about, as far as i see it im practically talking to a wall anyway here.

Errrrrrr....well... gee, TP, how do I respond to that? Errr...let me see...

The same right back to you. ;-)

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:11
This is in reference to post #68 where you quoted my previous post in full.
Where did I say that in that post?
Further more, there were a few questions in that post you have not addressed. Why don`t you cut quotes where I pose you questions and answer them like I have done here with you? It will make it easier on both of us to see what points you are referring to.
Which ones are good? Do you have a comprehensive list of which ones are good? Please show me. Don`t forget about the transportation to the slaughterhouses and the slaughterhouses themselves either. In fact, address the whole industry from impregnation to birth to slaughter. Where is you data showing the farms which are identified as 'good' from the animals' point of view and that they are 'happy' like you stated? Have you gotten that info on animal happiness from ethologists yet like I asked previously?
Just in this para above I counted 4 question marks. Please answer them in quote cut form for clarity.
Are you saying that all battery farmed chickens are not 'happy'? What about factory farmed cows and pigs?
Are you aware that there are very few family farms of our traditional image with a pig rooting around and chickens pecking in the yard that support the markets where meat products are sold?
Why should I know this not to be true when you are putting forth canned hunts as good or animals whose very breath from day to day is determined by their profit they have to offer and the whim of the owner can end their life for his benefit at any time he chooses? Have you come out against fur farming yet? Perhaps your insult is due to the words "oppression" and "exploitation" hitting a vulnerable target somewhere in you. The truth often does hurt. You still have not addressed the slavery issues and questions directly that have been peppered herein throughout.
What I have registered is that you are for lengthening the length of the slaves chains rather than severing them. While on the chain, they are still there to serve you for your profit. Severing them and letting them go means your profits are not made on the sweat and brow of another or in the animals' cases, their life and blood -- after viscious lives of suffering and death at slaughterhouses that send animals to scalding tanks alive or to different stations that begin the quartering or "holving" while still conscious.
Do you have some information that shows us that farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on? At any rate, if meat culture were to disappear, it would happen gradually and as demand lessened fewer and fewer would be produced until they were just phased out. There will never be a grand opening of the gates and let the animals run free. Economics will determine their disappearance.


First question- i never said you said that, i was just asking a question.
Second question- i've already answered that if you read my posts, and said why wouldn't do it too.
Third question- I've already answered that before, and yes i am aware that good/traditional farms are rare/uncommon, which i've also said/acknowledged.
Fourth question- That is your personal opinion/assumption which i disagree with. And no i dont believe in your theory.

I have explained to your thoroughly my opinion that not all farming is animal slavery. Animals are not boiled alive in slaughter houses, although i know of how they go about slaughtering cows, pigs, chickens and sheep.
I doubt any cow is still going to be alive after having its brains smashed out with a bolt gun. I cant speak for every abatoir though obviously.
Boiling is not part of the butchering process either- they dont cook meat, they just preprare the bulk of the carcass, other odds and bits go to other places to deal with- i would like to know the source where you got this idea of slaughtering animals from?

And yes i do have sources "farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on", take pigs for example;

"Pigs were domesticated many times";

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4337435.stm

..

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 20:15
TP, do you want me to keep replying to you? If so, you are going to have to start cutting my quotes and addressing them in cut form so I can quickly see what you are referring to. Look at how MeAndRoo above did it. That is what I mean. Until you start doing that I will probably just pick and choose a few things from your posts rather than being thorough in trying to address as much as possible.

Now, do you think you can start cutting my quotes up? Yes or No. Please answer.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:17
TP, because your point of view is one of exploitation and oppression and tyranny over other beings. I am not goint to acknowledge that those are right no sooner than I am going to acknowledge slavery is or was right. You embrace those philosophies. I don`t. We stand on opposite sides of the issue.
Errrrrrr....well... gee, TP, how do I respond to that? Errr...let me see...
The same right back to you. ;-)

I dont embrace those philosophies as you call it, thats just your personal narrow-minded opinion of my opinions. I dont need you to tell me my point of veiw, i've already told you plenty of my points of view as far as thats concerned anyways- would you like it if i told you my personal theorys on everything you have said on the whole? Would you like it if i implied that my opinions on you are better/more right than your own?

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:20
TP, do you want me to keep replying to you? If so, you are going to have to start cutting my quotes and addressing them in cut form so I can quickly see what you are referring to. Look at how MeAndRoo above did it. That is what I mean. Until you start doing that I will probably just pick and choose a few things from your posts rather than being thorough in trying to address as much as possible.
Now, do you think you can start cutting my quotes up? Yes or No. Please answer.
"sigh"...Third time round, this was my reply to your question a page or so ago;
"Why should i separate which quotes i do to make it easier for you to read when you refused to not do multiple posts when i asked you because i told you that i found it difficult for me to read? Very hypocritical i think of you to even ask."
Please be fair.
If you completely stop responding to my replys i'll just take it that you agree with me- your choice.

edit: Gotta go for now.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 20:31
You cant prove that any of the animal rights stuff you read on the internet is true, yet you seem more than willing to accept it.

We are being told something when books, magazines, newspaper stories etc... are being published about the horror of factory farms and when farms and slaughterhouses are being named and depicting their cruel conditions but yet those large agribusiness corporationd do not sue those publications for libal or slander. When J-Crew stops using fur because PETA has done an undercover investigaton on the source of fur and the pain involved in getting it, then J-Crew is tacitly verifying what is being brought before them.


If you only believed things that you could personally prove were true, i doubt you would even be here talking to me about this.


You are not really my target, TP. I care more about the onlookers and moving them on the spectrum of belief than you. You have already accepted exploitation as a philosophy to embrace. I am more concerned about those undecided on the issue. You are just a sounding board.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 20:40
"sigh"...Third time round, this was my reply to your question a page or so ago;
"Why should i separate which quotes i do to make it easier for you to read when you refused to not do multiple posts when i asked you because i told you that i found it difficult for me to read? Very hypocritical i think of you to even ask."
Please be fair.

The thing is TP, when I do break things up in different posts, my answers are right under the relevant question or point I am addressing. You can see that quickly without having to search for what I am referring to.

I sometimes have no idea what you are referring to in your answers to a large quote of mine.


If you completely stop responding to my replys i'll just take it that you agree with me- your choice.


I guess that is your leaning towards "presumptionism," again, right? <snicker snicker>

"Presume" and you may look as foolish as you did with the "slavery was ended due to economic reasons," again.

However, I will post on things that stick out and I catch knowing exactly what you are referring to. But, if you want a thorough response to response, I do ask that you cut the quote and answer there. If not, I guess I will have to employ some of your "presumptionism" that you don`t want a response.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:45
The thing is TP, when I do break things up in different posts, my answers are right under the relevant question or point I am addressing. You can see that quickly without having to search for what I am referring to.
I sometimes have no idea what you are referring to in your answers to a large quote of mine.
I guess that is your leaning towards "presumptionism," again, right? <snicker snicker>
"Presume" and you may look as foolish as you did with the "slavery was ended due to economic reasons," again.
However, I will post on things that stick out and I catch knowing exactly what you are referring to. But, if you want a thorough response to response, I do ask that you cut the quote and answer there. If not, I guess I will have to employ some of your "presumptionism" that you don`t want a response.


If you find my replys too confuzing for your brain to handle, i'll point out a trend that in the vast majority of cases, i'll start by adressing your first comments and then work my way down them. A relatively simply concept, no?

And yes, maybe i do the presumption thing in the same sense you asume that all slavery was ended due to moral reasons.

If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. Or if you like, arguement :blush: .

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 20:48
And you forget that the difference between the jews being slaves to the nazis in the concentration camps, is that they knew they were going to die long before they were killed, often by months or even years in some cases.

Would you say all of them did? Even the first ones? I would guess that there were many parents who tried to hide that fate from their young children who could probably be made to believe something rather than death awaited them.


Unlike the jews, many farm animals do not know they are going to be slaughtered long before they are. You seem to ignore this fact.

Not ignoring anything. Knowing you are not going to be slaughtered from the victim point of view does not make it any more right. Factory farms are horrid places to live for animals. The transportation is not any nicer. Waiting in line with the stench of blood and screams in the air is not nice either. Are you ignoring that?

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:49
We are being told something when books, magazines, newspaper stories etc... are being published about the horror of factory farms and when farms and slaughterhouses are being named and depicting their cruel conditions but yet those large agribusiness corporationd do not sue those publications for libal or slander. When J-Crew stops using fur because PETA has done an undercover investigaton on the source of fur and the pain involved in getting it, then J-Crew is tacitly verifying what is being brought before them.
You are not really my target, TP. I care more about the onlookers and moving them on the spectrum of belief than you. You have already accepted exploitation as a philosophy to embrace. I am more concerned about those undecided on the issue. You are just a sounding board.

So essentially you believe everything you are told when its by an animal rights group because they did an undercover investigation? How biased.

I've never accepted expolitation as a philosophy to embrace, if you can find anywhere i've agreed with that, please tell me. What a wall you are to talk to sometimes.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 20:54
Would you say all of them did? Even the first ones? I would guess that there were many parents who tried to hide that fate from their young children who could probably be made to believe something rather than death awaited them.
Not ignoring anything. Knowing you are not going to be slaughtered from the victim point of view does not make it any more right. Factory farms are horrid places to live for animals. The transportation is not any nicer. Waiting in line with the stench of blood and screams in the air is not nice either. Are you ignoring that?

No, i wouldn't say all of them did, but then again you seemed to express that part of why the jewish concentration camps were so relevant to farming was because both the jews and animals knew they were going to die in very similar circumstances i.e they knew they were going to die long before they did. That is why i reminded you that this is hardly the case.

Why do you continue to imply that i agree with factory farms methods by the way? Must be maybe about over a dozen times i have said i dont agree with any of their methods. What a wall.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 20:57
If you find my replys too confuzing for your brain to handle,...

Not your replies -- just the mechanics of your formatting your replies to my comments.


...i'll point out a trend that in the vast majority of cases, i'll start by adressing your first comments and then work my way down them. A relatively simply concept, no?

Looking forward to see how it looks. Thanks for trying something different.


And yes, maybe i do the presumption thing in the same sense you asume that all slavery was ended due to moral reasons.

Have you shown me any reference yet that slavery was ended due to economic reasons like you stated?

[/quote]If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. [/quote]

I do. But, would like your cooperation by replying to quotes at the points your answers are referring to. It would help make things more efficient.


Or if you like, arguement.

Either word is fine by me. ;-)

Glad you`ve finally come around on that point. By the way, have you done any google searches with things like: the argument for gay rights, the arguments for capital punishment etc... you will see how the word is used not in a "negative" sense like you jumped at it to mean when I used it. I think I or MeAndRoo had it in our exchange and he didn`t see it as negative. Just took it as putting forth one`s position on an issue.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 21:04
Not your replies -- just the mechanics of your formatting your replies to my comments.
Looking forward to see how it looks. Thanks for trying something different.
Have you shown me any reference yet that slavery was ended due to economic reasons like you stated?
If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. [/quote]
I do. But, would like your cooperation by replying to quotes at the points your answers are referring to. It would help make things more efficient.
Either word is fine by me. ;-)
Glad you`ve finally come around on that point. By the way, have you done any google searches with things like: the argument for gay rights, the arguments for capital punishment etc... you will see how the word is used not in a "negative" sense like you jumped at it to mean when I used it. I think I or MeAndRoo had it in our exchange and he didn`t see it as negative. Just took it as putting forth one`s position on an issue.[/QUOTE]


Great, well if you look back at lets say, even just half a dozen of my last posts, you may come to better understand this concept.

Too bad then, isn't it? I prefer my method, you seem to understand it now too which is always a bonus.

I was just trying to speak on your terms ;) . I havn't done any google searches, but then again i notified you earlier on this thread of a poll i did recently in this section on the arguement/debate topic to see what other peoples opinions were on the subject, which i think is just as good, perhaps even more efficient at just essentially typing "argue" into a search engine :blush: .
I thought you didn't care much for other peoples unverifiable opinions anyways though or what people assumed argueing was about etc.

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 21:36
Hi MeAndroo,

I`ll address your comments now. I have to take a break from TP since she makes it really hard for me to know what she is referring to with quoting me and not commenting in the appropriate breaks.

By the way, thanks for breaking my quotes so that I know quickly and exactly what you are referring to.


I've changed my consumption for health reasons already, but have no idea as to if/how what I eat suffers.

Honest answer. Accepted.

I think I was the same way about not knowing if animals suffered. After I began reading up on it I did learn about it.


For something like animal welfare/rights, I'd probably have to see it.

Yes, I understand. Some people have the need to see it. But, if you can`t satisfy that need by gettng access to a factory farm or slaughterhouse, literature or videos on it is the next best source.

There are some good AR/AW books out there to read. Don`t know if you are interested, but if so, then let me know I could recommend one or two.


After seeing veal farms, I stopped eating veal. I'm not saying just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it would certainly make more of a mark on me than biased rhetoric from either side.

Good for quiting veal. Did you make that decision after seeing veal raised yourself, or was it after literature or media reports?

I understand about the "rhetoric" you are referring to. The sides are deeply entrenched as it pertains to AR and animal industries. I would recommend more AW leaning literature in that case. Sure, they, too, are a little biased but not so much as against animal industries as ARists are. I doubt if you will ever find a truly unbiased well informed source on the issue. People are pulled to the issue because for the most part they have chosen sides and those are the people who are commenting on the issue and industries -- not someone or org who doesn`t care about it or not have some vested interest in it.

Tokis-Phoenix
13-02-06, 21:47
Do you believe that human beings are animals too just out of curiosity?
Do you believe that keeping pets is another form of animal opression/slavery?
What about keeping fish in a tank/pond?

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 04:18
Quote:
Strongvoicesforward: I would say that all activists, no matter what they are being active for, should never cross any line that our governement would not cross in the present or had not crossed in the past (if those past actions had never been condemned).

MeAndroo:
(a.) I think it'd be tough to find violent government actions that have never been condemned.
(b.)You talk in your post about having a "practical philosophy," so I guess you'd call me an idealist, but I think when condemning a violent opponent, engaging in violent acts yourself is a bit hypocritical.
(c.)I think non-violent resistance is a better option, but people can get impatient with legislation and trying to change people's minds.

(a.) I am not sure I agree with you on that, MeAndroo. Sure, it is easy to violence always condemned by someone, but there is a lot of violence that is never condemned by governments even when they themselves perpetrated it. In fact they justify it and hold it up as good because they feel it was justified.

For example: I never recall the U.S. government ever condemning the violent acts of our forefathers who destroyed the cargo of British tea moored in harbor. They felt right and compelled to inflict economic damage upon the British government (which technically was their government also) and compannies and transports that profitted from the tea.

(b.) I don`t denegrate idealism. It is to be lauded for its goals. As far as strategy for action and active change is concerned, though, I don`t know if I could say it is appropriate, the best way, or the only way when tyranny is reigning over the victims that are dying or being tortured in gasly conditions by the billions. Surely the Polish Resistance fighters, the French Partisens, the Jewish Resistance Fighters and others as victims of institutionalized campaigns resulting in violence to them could not rely on idealism in the face of tyranny.

I know people always put forth Ghandi and MLK as examples to follow in the face of injustice to a particular group -- however, it was not like those groups were ever so stripped of dignity that they were targeted in a way to completely strip them of a voice and make them victim to a corporate government machine that rendered them to death as a means of policy and profit.

If support for the blacks in the North did not exist and there were not even a shred of decency or dignity at all whatsoever, I would venture to say it would be unlikely that a MLK campaign would have sprouted up or that it would have been permitted. Sure, there were many pockets and large swaths of territory in the south where blacks were ruthlessly persecuted, but they were not as de-voiced and de-powered and relegated to the status of animals are where their subjugation is governmentaly sanctioned and regulated to bring profit from their blood. If blacks would have been treated even worse than they were, I would muse to say that perhaps more would have found the more militant groups such as the Black Panthers more appealing. -- just some thoughts on it. Nothing that can be proven. But, animals are far lower on the scale of what they have been targets of as exploitation.

(c.) It can be better if it shows that it is working. It may not always be the case that it bears fruit. When the urgency of the situation is such that millions of beings are dying per hour and billions per year, and as you say impatience is building, it is unlikely that those who are moved to stop the violence is going to do so peacefully indefinitely. If every mayor in the South in the 60's and every governor and even all Federal Reps as well as the President just decided to reverse everything and go back to abject exploitation, it is unlikely that blacks would have peacefully protested by walking back to processing areas for 'chaining." I could imagine the ensuing bloodbath that would arise.

Hachiro
14-02-06, 04:27
strongvoicesforward, I have one question for you, and there is no intent whatsoever to be sarcastic here as that is not the reason I ask.....

Where exactly do you put humans in the food chain?

Are you or do you expect that animal's should be treated with the same respect as human beings?

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 05:23
strongvoicesforward, I have one question for you, and there is no intent whatsoever to be sarcastic here as that is not the reason I ask.....

Where exactly do you put humans in the food chain?

Our intelligence allows us to be at the top. However, we have the choice now to choose our dietary practices and live long lives without causing pain, suffering or exploitation to other animals.


Are you or do you expect that animal's should be treated with the same respect as human beings?

We should treat animals with the equal consideration of interests. Just as I would not want someone to put a catheter in me, keep me confined, milk my organs for bile, I, too should reciprocate that by not forcing another being to undergo that which I would not want to be forced to undergo.

It is about respecting the interests of animals which do not want to have their autonomy violated. We have the ability to extend that respect, therefore we should choose the choice that does not deliberately target and cause harm to another being for our enjoyment, pleasure, greed, or convenience.

Just because we can do it does not mean we should. Might does not make right. If that were a working philosophy to embrace, then more intelligent or stronger people should be able to weild their recourses to enslave those who do not come up to their level. I reject the underlying philosophy that that would be built on. That is the philosophy for which many of the horrible things that are perpetuated upon animals. I do not accept "might makes right." "Might" merely makes things possible to do.

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 09:36
I can certainly understand opposing industries that abuse animals.

Glad to hear that. Remember though, abuse can range widely. Would you understand proportional opposition dependent on the abuse that were being perpetrated?

If some kid were throwing rocks at a low flying eagle at high speed but still high enough that the threat of a lucky throw bringing it down were very small, what would your opposition to that be? I think most would oppose what those kids are doing by telling them to, "knock it off."

Now, what if you came across the same kids torturing a puppy they had caught and were about to throw kerosene on it and light it? I think you would rev up your opposition to meet the threat, wouldn`t you? I myself in that situation would shoulder my way through the kids and pick up the dog, even if that mean a little physical elbow here or there as I pushed them aside.

That is what I mean. Opposition slides on a scale.


However, "cruelty" is defined differently depending on who you talk to.

Exactly. People have to decide for themselves which definition they are going to accept or allign themselves with. Hopefully it will be based on empathy as to what they would not like have done to them if they were in an exploitable situation. That is why the battle lines are drawn between the ARists and the Animal Exploiters.


Some in the AR movement call pet ownership cruelty. I personally don't see it that way. Pet ownership holds no economic benefit.

It does for unscrupulous breeders and pet shops.


What lengths would the ADL, ALF, and the like go to for simple pets?.

They would surely liberate a back yard dog if it were showing signs of neglect or abuse. They have gone after breeders that supply to labs.

For normal situations involving pets, I am not aware of actions by the ADL or ALF that targeted pet owners. In fact, when the ALF liberates animals such as dogs or cats or rabbits from labs, they have already arranged a network of guardians for the animals so they can live out the rest of their life in peace. Most ARists use the term of ownership as guardians to those who are caring for animals rather than pet owners.

The ADL or the ALF would rather use their recourses of time more carefully directed at industry rather than individuals who are the guardians of animals in a responsible manner.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-02-06, 12:17
Yes but your philosophy on farming is that it is wrong to keep an animal for its benefets and its wrong for farmers to keep animals against their will.
Surely then you also believe that keeping pets, even in a responsable mannor, is wrong? Or do you not believe that the lady who keeps the slave for emotional comfort is actually keeping a slave? You cant have it both ways.
Also i would be interested to hear your veiws on fish farming, since surely going by your belief that farming is unesarsary and slavery towards animals, that fish farming is wrong?

If we stopped all farming tomorrow, there'd be no meat, so what would all the pet dogs and cats do? Or would you rather that millions of animals be euthanised?

Hachiro
14-02-06, 13:27
Our intelligence allows us to be at the top. However, we have the choice now to choose our dietary practices and live long lives without causing pain, suffering or exploitation to other animals.
We should treat animals with the equal consideration of interests. Just as I would not want someone to put a catheter in me, keep me confined, milk my organs for bile, I, too should reciprocate that by not forcing another being to undergo that which I would not want to be forced to undergo.
It is about respecting the interests of animals which do not want to have their autonomy violated. We have the ability to extend that respect, therefore we should choose the choice that does not deliberately target and cause harm to another being for our enjoyment, pleasure, greed, or convenience.
Just because we can do it does not mean we should. Might does not make right. If that were a working philosophy to embrace, then more intelligent or stronger people should be able to weild their recourses to enslave those who do not come up to their level. I reject the underlying philosophy that that would be built on. That is the philosophy for which many of the horrible things that are perpetuated upon animals. I do not accept "might makes right." "Might" merely makes things possible to do.

Thank you for your honest reply, I'm sorry but on this topic I will have to say that I can not see things from your point of view.

I can not see human beings being put on the same level as animals. Yes they probably feel pain and suffering but I care more about the pain and suffering that humans cause on each other and not what we do to animals.

Animals are a food source, not only for human's but other animals as well. From your point of view how can you "justify" animals killing each other for nourishment.

We human's, out side of Hannibal the Cannibal....(sorry that was in poor taste) do not eat our own.

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 15:34
Thank you for your honest reply, I'm sorry but on this topic I will have to say that I can not see things from your point of view.

Your welcome, and I don`t mind you cannot see things from my point of view at this particular moment in time. You know, I never always had this point of view either. It evolved in me. Now, I am not saying it will in you, but who knows the future? Our lives take turns sometimes that many of us would never have thought possible. All I would ask is that when you hear arguments either for or against Animal Rights you just listen. If you are not swayed you are not swayed. The only thing lost is some time in hearing the points of each argument. Fair enough?


I can not see human beings being put on the same level as animals. Yes they probably feel pain and suffering but I care more about the pain and suffering that humans cause on each other and not what we do to animals.

A lot of people feel like you do. In fact, probably the majority do. That is one of the obstacles in the way of strengthening the movement. However, it is growing. Albeit, too slowly for us in The Movement.

It does not require that you put animals on the 'same' level as humans in order to take into their consideration of interests to not have pain and violation of autonomy directed at them. If I had to run into a burning building to rescue my wife and our dog and they were both on the sofa overcome with smoke inhalation and I could only carry one to safety, I woudl definitely choose my wife. So, you see -- just by granting consideration of interests to animals in that you don`t cause them pain, does not mean they are put on the same level the sense of totality.


Animals are a food source, not only for human's but other animals as well. From your point of view how can you "justify" animals killing each other for nourishment.
We human's, out side of Hannibal the Cannibal....(sorry that was in poor taste) do not eat our own.

Animals are captives of their instincts and passions. We are not. Humans have the ability to ponder on things, to empathise, and to choose something other than that which would give us immediate gratification.

As for eating our "own," that is because law and morals forbid it. But, in places where civil law of the modern world do not exist, there have been traditions of eating other humans.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-02-06, 15:38
So how do you feel about my questions :) ?

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 16:03
MeAndroo: Well, a major sticking point had been the treatment of stray dogs. Oddly enough, now ex-GM Stuckey had been reducing the number of dogs euthanized in Los Angeles over the past few years, from 39,000 in 01-02 to 25,000 in 04-05. Yet the Animal Defense League didn't think that was the kind of progress they wanted, and they successfully forced Villaraigosa to remove Stuckey. The ADL proclaims a desire for a no-kill policy immediately, but speaking practically, where are 25,000 dogs going to go? I also find the difference in stances troubling to the cause, since even PETA euthanizes animals.

Ok, that sounds familiar. Thanks for reminding me. I think I had read reasons why they weren`t satisfied with him eventhough like you said he had been reducing the numbers, but I would have to review that if I were going to support their reasons for wanting him removed. But, if you ask me from what you provided me with, just the fact that he was reducing those PTSed, to me, is a great thing and something that he should be lauded for.

You brought up where so many surplus dogs would go and the fact that even PETA acknowledges the need to euthanize and in fact do euthanize (however the case you referenced in the link has quotes and info from a group whose aim is to battle the influence of PETA), and I will be the first to say as a PETA member and supporter that the issue of euthanizing, even within and amongst PETA members, is a very controversial issue.

Many people don`t know it, but PETA is not just an AR group. They are also AW and that part of them sees euthanasia as a kind release to animals that are abandoned and which most likely have little chance of finding a new home. To me, I wish that were not the case. That issue is complex within PETA and there have been mistakes in it which have been admitted to by PETA.

Tokis-Phoenix
14-02-06, 17:19
So how do you feel about my questions strongvoicesforward :) ?

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 18:13
Ghandi and MLK championed peaceful resistance. That, while one tactic, cannot be blindly followed when the urgency of the situation is demanding immediate relief from tyranny and killing. Direct Action has always been employed by those fighting for civil justice, advancement of rights, or in the effort to throw off the yolk of oppression.

Slaves did rebel against slaveowners. Abolitionists did aid in the relieving of epropertyf from the eproperty owner.f Revolutionaries did destroy property by dumping it into harbors. Partisens did attack villagers who were sympathisers in Europe who supported the Nazis in their tyrannical march of murder and victory across lands and nations. Infrastructure was targeted.

Those who inflict damage upon those visiting tyranny and killing upon animals are merely taking a page out of history`s playbook that has taught the world that Direct Action does get results. It is not the only answer to the problems of animal exploitation, but it does exist as one of the prongs in a multi-pronged attack upon the exploiters and the status quo that keeps it in place.

One of Italy`s biggest Mink Farms closed after a large financial loss which saw about 18,000 mink liberated in Oct 2003. Only 4,000 mink could be recovered and 40 years of selective breeding data was destroyed. Breeding Data over decades long are cherished by breeders for those are the tools that allow breeders to keep their line of mink fur at top quality. That data comes after painstakingly recording which line matched with which line without imbreeding in order to create high quality. Losing that is like starting at year one to create new breed lines. The Gherardi Mink Farm of Ferrara disappears with its data -- no more a place of Profit God off the backs and blood of animals.

MeAndroo
14-02-06, 19:12
You brought up where so many surplus dogs would go and the fact that even PETA acknowledges the need to euthanize and in fact do euthanize (however the case you referenced in the link has quotes and info from a group whose aim is to battle the influence of PETA), and I will be the first to say as a PETA member and supporter that the issue of euthanizing, even within and amongst PETA members, is a very controversial issue.
Well, the link was just a link to an Associated Press article. It happened to be on a page of an org with a no-kill policy. I just found it interesting that a group as prominent as PETA, with so much name recognition, a relative juggernaut even, would have to resort to euthanizing animals when groups like Animal Adoption and Rescue Foundation is able to euthanize none of their animals. It just seemed like PETA would have an easier time finding homes.

For normal situations involving pets, I am not aware of actions by the ADL or ALF that targeted pet owners. In fact, when the ALF liberates animals such as dogs or cats or rabbits from labs, they have already arranged a network of guardians for the animals so they can live out the rest of their life in peace. Most ARists use the term of ownership as guardians to those who are caring for animals rather than pet owners.
I mentioned the ADL and ALF as examples of AR groups, not as specific examples. This quesion originated from Ingrid Newkirk's quote "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." That quote seemed pretty all-encompassing to me, and I can't really imagine it being taken out of context.

(a.) I am not sure I agree with you on that, MeAndroo. Sure, it is easy to violence always condemned by someone, but there is a lot of violence that is never condemned by governments even when they themselves perpetrated it. In fact they justify it and hold it up as good because they feel it was justified.
For example: I never recall the U.S. government ever condemning the violent acts of our forefathers who destroyed the cargo of British tea moored in harbor. They felt right and compelled to inflict economic damage upon the British government (which technically was their government also) and compannies and transports that profitted from the tea.
Apparently I misunderstood what you said originally. If you meant the government had to condemn their own actions, I can't think of the last time that's EVER happened. Certainly the Boston Tea Party is a popular example, but I don't recall them playing psychological games with the tea company employees, which is a common tactic of many AR groups. My main "beef," so to speak, is how ARists may target lower employees and people not necessarilly affiliated with the industries.
Like this (http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1378)
And here (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/Sept-Dec04/LAWorkerTargetted.htm)
They sometimes target people who work within a department, despite having no real connection to what they oppose (in the 2nd link they target a Volunteer Coordinator).

jp22
14-02-06, 20:23
animals' angels bless you for all your work

please vote for the seals of Canada in this poll
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=159243

animal rights links
http://www.network54.com/forum/460325

Tokis-Phoenix
14-02-06, 20:50
animals' angels bless you for all your work
please vote for the seals of Canada in this poll
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=159243
animal rights links
http://www.network54.com/forum/460325

What about the cases in MeAndroo's links? You cannot exactly call that good work..?
ps: As far as i know, you aern't allowed to advertise other forums here without permission.

Hachiro
14-02-06, 23:31
The only thing lost is some time in hearing the points of each argument. Fair enough?

Just to let you know I don't consider it lost time, I must say you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect you for that.

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 16:57
Well, the link was just a link to an Associated Press article. It happened to be on a page of an org with a no-kill policy. I just found it interesting that a group as prominent as PETA, with so much name recognition, a relative juggernaut even, would have to resort to euthanizing animals when groups like Animal Adoption and Rescue Foundation is able to euthanize none of their animals. It just seemed like PETA would have an easier time finding homes.

I understand what you mean, and I as a PETA member and strong supporter, would wish they would change their stance on euthinasia. However, I have always been aware that PETA is both an AR and AW org and that is why it has grown so large. It seeks to accomadate both groups (and sometimes because PETA puts themselves in the middle, the lose AR support and AW support).

Howeve, in recent years PETA has been getting away from euthinasia in some respects by investing money in a high tech mobile snip and tie neutering/spaying clinic unit that goes into neighborhoods and fixes animals for virtually nothing right there on the spot. PETA has admitted to some failures in their euthinasia programs and are trying to address those issues. They are not perfect and like any org I would never hold them to the standard of perfection. Mistakes are made.

But, Peta is not a shelter. When Peta has euthinized animals, it has usually been because they were called in by shelters who were just overwhelmed. In fact sometimes even sherrifs have called PETA to come in and euthinize because PETA does so with drugs that put the animal down peacefully. Often people are distressed by some methods of euthinasia that are being used, such as crude gas chambers or bullets to the head and just want a more peaceful end for the animals. When they request PETA`s help on that issue PETA does so at their expense.

Keep in mind, too: The orgs you listed above seem to be shelters or a network of shelters, PETA is not a shelter and to compare them isn`t really fare unless you want PETA to change its mission statement from mainly fighting for AR and AW to sheltering. The two are different. Likewise, those two orgs probably do not spend the bulk of their recources fighting for AR and AW. Both kinds of orgs have their place in the world of Animal Activism but it is not right to expect all orgs dealing with animals to be all things to everybody.

Something else to consider, most shelters that do not euthinize are often full to capacity and cannot and do not take in animals when they are full. And what happens to a cat or dog when an owner doesn`t want it anymore but then learns a no-kill shelter won`t take it because they are full? Either two things happen:

1. The animal is brought to a pound where they will be in many cases gassed.

2. The animal is dumped in the street and can cause car accidents, spread desiease, come down with rabies, attack children or adults, and add to the stray population by breeding and increasing the risks of all above.

Now, what do you think would happen if PETA tried to funnel all the animals that are dumped at them to these shelters? They would be told, no thanks. We can`t take them in. Sure, PETA could rewrite their whole mission statement and start using all their funds to create shelters (and it would bloom to such large amounts of animals that it would take all their funds and still not be enough), but then that would mean ceasing all their other efforts at bettering the lives of animals through their other campaigns,
and if PETA became just another shelter, they would lose many of the AR and AW members who are looking for changes in policy -- not just creating another "no kill shelter."

Peta is doing on a national level of trying to influence government and corporate policy that it could not do if it were focusing on shelter management. Their membership would shrink as well as thier maximum potential to make changes not at the point of cleaning up the mess of animals having already been produced, but at the point prior to creating the animals that make them targets of abuse. The latter is the longterm solution to the problems. The former is the bandaid reaction to the problems.

But, I will not go to great lengths to defend PETA on this issue. Just I wanted to merely state the basics of the case of euthinasia with PETA. As a PETA member I fall on the side of AR.

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 17:18
I mentioned the ADL and ALF as examples of AR groups, not as specific examples. This quesion originated from Ingrid Newkirk's quote "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." That quote seemed pretty all-encompassing to me, and I can't really imagine it being taken out of context.

MeAndroo, do you have the paragraph it was taken from or the paragraph that it is in and the two that sandwich it?

I will give one example that could justify that statement.

First, look at the word combination -- "human manipulation."

The creating of dog breeds are definitely manipulated by humans. Pit bulls are often bred by dispicable people who want stronger and stronger dogs with stronger and stronger locking jogs so that they can win dog fights they have every intention of breeding their dogs for. They may experiment with mixing them with Rotweilers etc... to get that perfect fighting dog. I find that a dismal situation.

Does that one example in and of itself make it "absolutely" dismal? Well, nothing on a social level is absolute in this world, and we can all be a little prone to hyperbol when we are championing our views. For the most part, if someone were to sit down with her and ask her to explain exactly (maybe she did in the context it was taken from) what she meant by that statement, it would take some of the hyperbol off of it. However, breeding in may respects is dysmal and the process of obtaining an animal that can suffer is more laxed than getting a car. If a Rotweiler or Pit bull, or any dog for that matter can cause injury to another human, as well as a car injuring someone, why should the former be so unregulated as to not require breeders and owners to go to training and get lecenses while the latter does? That IS rather dismal and anyone who ever has or has had a child mauled by a dog would wish harsh regs would be in place for being granted permission to have pets.

Now, I doubt she was condemning "guardianship" of animals by people who open up their homes to animals from shelters or picking up a stray to provide it a home for until it passed from this world. Surely, her statements could have been qualified better and I would bet she has already explained that statement somewhere if in fact it were not qualified in that text it was taken from.

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 17:35
Apparently I misunderstood what you said originally. If you meant the government had to condemn their own actions, I can't think of the last time that's EVER happened.

lol. I`m sure there are probably a few examples of admissions of wrong behaviour, but for the most part, I think you and I agree on this point.


Certainly the Boston Tea Party is a popular example, but I don't recall them playing psychological games with the tea company employees, which is a common tactic of many AR groups.

Prior to the outbreak of formal hostilities between the colonists and Great Britain, colonists did intimidate the families of governors and military persons. Furthermore, many loyalists were also intimidated by those agitating for independence. The Sons of Liberty were not a boy scout group like many people believe. Governments and their Generals in the field have often known the value of getting a loved one in custody in order to use them as bait to coax their target to turn themselves in. It is an old tactic and if I recall, I had read a biography on MLK in which his taped affairs by the FBI were hinted at to him that that knowledge would deeply hurt his wife if it were made known to her.

Sadly, dirty tricks of intimidation have proven through history to affect some action or cause a siege mentality to set in on the target. A siege mentality wears the opponent down over time and causes them to not be able to focus on their work and that inner voice does talk to them and asks them if it is worth it all? -- and many capitulate to that voice. If it had not been proven successful, it would not have lasted so long as a strategy.

Does that mean the "ends justifies the mean"? Idealistically, we all hate to think that it is so and most say they reject it. But, if you look at history that is what is often employed. "The ends does not justify the means" has become a trite phrase that governments and orgs have not always adopted as a moral principal to conduct themselves by. Did the end of WW2 justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even when that meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants of women and children just to save a million combatant soldiers? To the U.S. admin at that time it sure did.

Tokis-Phoenix
15-02-06, 18:08
Is it just me or i being entirely ignored here :( ?! What a shame, i thought you were interested in my opinions at the start of this debate SVF. Shame that you choose not to talk to me anymore, heh, cant please everyone can i :relief: ? Be careful MeAndroo, if you question his beliefs/opinions too much he might just ignore you entirely too :blush: .

MeAndroo
15-02-06, 19:03
Keep in mind, too: The orgs you listed above seem to be shelters or a network of shelters, PETA is not a shelter and to compare them isn`t really fare unless you want PETA to change its mission statement from mainly fighting for AR and AW to sheltering. The two are different. Likewise, those two orgs probably do not spend the bulk of their recources fighting for AR and AW. Both kinds of orgs have their place in the world of Animal Activism but it is not right to expect all orgs dealing with animals to be all things to everybody.

I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.

The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. (http://www.doggienews.com/2005/06/more-information-on-peta-animal.htm) There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...:okashii:

Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 20:11
I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.

I think that comment underlined (which I did) is very inciteful and an honest one -- and to tell you the truth, I would like to see PETA either abandon euthinasia or taking in strays or responding to the shelter problems in total rather than risk the contradiction of one of their tenets.

But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.

I don`t think they compromise their integrity because their euthinasia is not done in secret. They are open about that so if people want to support them or not, they can see their policy on it and make a decision based on what they openly say. If they were purely AR and euthinized, then there would be an integrity problem -- along if they didn`t admit to it. But, they are open about the kind of org they are and their practices.

But personally, I wish they wouldn`t euthinize but the U.S. does a lot of things I also wish they wouldn`t do, but that doesn`t make me abandon them. It would call for America doing something egregiously wrong for me to do so. Likewise, Peta would have to egregiously do something counter to their stated goals and practices of AR and AW for me to abandon them. Everything they have done in euthinasia is stated by them and the majority of AW orgs do acknowledge euthinasia as practical. But again -- it is one thing I don`t like. I will bet however, that PETA in the years to come will move away from it.

Should their size affect what they do, like you hinted at? Possibly. They do seem to have the recourses to branch out. Who knows? Could be that a stronger network of placement for animals could come about as new people come into the leadership positions of PETA. They are a dynamic group and I am sure that shifts of powers with opinions on policy will occur.


The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. (http://www.doggienews.com/2005/06/more-information-on-peta-animal.htm) There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy.

Well one thing is for certain, I am getting behind on catching up to your links you are providing. I still have two previous ones I haven`t addressed from a previous post of yours. I will try. If you don`t mind, try to afford me a little time before you bury with some more(smile).


Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...

From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.

You sure aren`t missing wit, and I appreciate wit when it comes in a good conversation.

But, "no," Peta is not the "official euthanizer" in the AR movement. They couldn`t do it in the AR department because the AR side of their org is against violation of autonomy. In the AW department however, the charge is fair. However, I am sure pounds in counties and cities across the U.S. euthanize more animals than PETA does.


Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold [demands] of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.

Fair enough. I agree because as you know, I have already told you I wish they would distance themselves from euthinasia. I think they will. I think they are.

However, I can`t and I won`t, and the large number of supporters of PETA and the new ones joining every year accept the realism that PETA is confronting the stray problem with. I do though wish, that my idealism on hoping to find all strays and abandoned animals could be realized or that PETA could do much more than they have on this issue. I think they will eventually. It just takes time. I think everyone knows that PETA has to choose its fights carefully with its recourses and they have opted to focus more on industry abuse rather than the problems that stem from individual pet ownership.

I know it looks like PETA is flushed with money -- but compared to the corporations they take on as rivals, PETA`s annual intake of funds would not even compare to KFC, and they are fighting more than just KFC. They have to play their chess game with their recourses as to how the insiders who move their pieces see fit. AS you know, in chess some pieces are sacrificed in the short run for the long term victory. I know it sounds cold but all generals in their own wars will tell you the same. PETA knows they are fighting a war and to be idealistic would invite defeat.

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 20:29
Just to let you know I don't consider it lost time, I must say you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect you for that.

Hi Hachiro,

Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.

By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.

Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.

MeAndroo
15-02-06, 21:09
But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.

That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.


From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.

It certainly wasn't intended to offend, but the picture those figures painted was rather striking.

I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly. I really tend not to differentiate between the politics of groups within the AR/AW movement so much as I differentiate between their tactics. I'm curious to know how many people in PETA are affiliated with more extreme groups like the ALF, ELF and ADL. I can't help but wonder if, as you say, these groups exist to draw out the spectrum of politics and make groups like PETA appear reasonable, as a communist would to a simple liberal, and if there's people involved with both simultaneously.

Hachiro
15-02-06, 23:22
Hi Hachiro,
Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.
By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.
Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.

No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.

Tokis-Phoenix
16-02-06, 11:38
Hey Hachiro, can you ask strongvoicesforward these questions please 'cos he is ignoring me?;

"Yes but your philosophy on farming is that it is wrong to keep an animal for its benefets and its wrong for farmers to keep animals against their will.
Surely then you also believe that keeping pets, even in a responsable mannor, is wrong? Or do you not believe that the lady who keeps the slave for emotional comfort is actually keeping a slave? You cant have it both ways.
Also i would be interested to hear your veiws on fish farming, since surely going by your belief that farming is unesarsary and slavery towards animals, that fish farming is wrong?

If we stopped all farming tomorrow, there'd be no meat, so what would all the pet dogs and cats do? Or would you rather that millions of animals be euthanised?"


Do you know why he is ignoring me hachiro? He said he was a flexable person with strong views, i cant think why he doesn't want to answer my questions Hachiro?

strongvoicesforward
16-02-06, 19:02
My main "beef," so to speak, is how ARists may target lower employees and people not necessarilly affiliated with the industries.
They sometimes target people who work within a department, despite having no real connection to what they oppose (in the 2nd link they target a Volunteer Coordinator).

Ok, MeAndroo, I have looked at and read the links you gave me.

This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action. If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future. The problem with creating a situation in which orgs feel they must go underground is that the public no longer can be certain which group or org is actually doing an act attributed to an org.

Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.

The organization of the ALF is set up in such a way that no one cell really knows another and there is no leader that directs things. No leader has knowledge of ALF operatives other than what he or she himself may be involved in. So, if a corporate attack meant to make the ALF or ADL look bad were the goal, it would be very easy to do (The ALF let`s any action done on behalf of animals, so long as human physical injury does not come about, to be attributed to it).

So, a person of a corporation could do an act targeting an exploiter and then send a letter to the ALF site claiming responsibility and if no one were injured ALF would accept that, but the shocking nature of it could have been conceived and produced by an animal exploiter in order to discredit ALF and further move them away from public sympathy -- all part of the strategy of keeping the public from more and more joining ALF efforts. Again, I am not saying that is what happened in those cases, but it is not too inconceivable.

ALF and the ADL have the experience in planning and most probably the skill of performing an action that could harm someone if in fact they really wanted to. However, they have been around for years and they have not ever caused the death of one person. In fact, all their actions throughout the years have been carefully planned to avoid death or serious injury. As a social movement fighting for change against oppression, taking into account how long they have been around, compared to any other historical social movement against oppression, the ALF and ADL and many of the militant AR groups, have shown remarkable self restraint despite any rhettoric that may come from them from time to time.

Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.

How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality. Those have proven to be effective. They work. That is just mere fact and Direct Action in order to intimidate has been used by many social activists throughout history.

Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable. It is creating the siege mentality which causes people to not focus on their work or daily lives. It causes people to question themselves if what they are doing is worth it and if their family would be better off if they totally disengaged at a time before things escalate against them. That is the message that is being sent in that particular case. I am sure other exploiters in industries in that company in which he was hired took notice of that fact and had their own inner dialogue voices talking to them.

The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.

strongvoicesforward
16-02-06, 19:36
No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.

You're welcome and thanks for adding to the discussion yourself. Yes, AR is an interesting topic. We agree.

What I think is important is that both sides understand where each are coming from. That doesn`t mean we have to agree with one another, but just understanding the viewpoint and foundation of their thoughts is important and does have value to it.

I already said to MeAndroo that, "I may understand why southerners in the 50s and 60s were fearful or didn`t want black to have or exercise civil rights, but that I DIDN`T AGREE with it." "Understanding" and "agreeing" are just not the same. For another example, "I understand why America used the atomic bomb on Hiroshiman and Nagasaki, but I most definitely DON`T AGREE with it."

So, when I am asking someone to understand AR or Direct Action, that does not mean I am asking them to agree with it. If they do agree or come to agree with it, then fine. But, if they don`t then all I can hope for is that a better understanding of the reasons and dynamics are garnered on the point. Indeed, America, Russia, and China, spend hundreds of millions of dollars learning to understand one another -- but that does not mean they are agreeing with one anothers ideologies or policies. Fair enough on that point? I hope we agree on those two words because I think that will aid the discussion to continue.

When your family and work don`t keep you tied up, be sure to get back to the thread.

MeAndroo
16-02-06, 19:55
This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action.

I think we talked about how people can get impatient with legislation, as the slow moving wheels of bureaucracy affect more than just animals in daily life. Certainly the AR/AW movement has made strides in gaining protection for animals and sites like PETA's (http://www.peta.org/feat/PETAMilestones/main.html) detail some of those victories. And I'll be a bit pragmatic here when I say real change is going to take time. I see the AR/AW underground movement as guerilla tactics versus a large, well funded army in the form of corporate interests in industries related to animal use. Sometimes the guerillas can hold their ground, drive back their adversaries and discourage further loss (like a Vietnam). Other times the well-funded army rolls over the guerillas despite inferior tactics (see American Civil War). I understand that they feel the need to take action now, but sometimes I wonder if their all-or-nothing method of attack will backfire. What do you think about it?


If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future.

The tough part about this, and I'm pretty sure we agree on it, is that there isn't a unified front on the part of the AR/AW groups. There isn't a single agenda being pushed. Some people think lab testing is wrong, but eating meat is ok. Some think eating meat is bad but wearing cotton is ok. Presenting a specific common desire, like in the case of the American Revolutionaries or Civil Rights periods like MLK's, was a great rallying point and, I think, a major factor in their success.


Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.

I agree, this scenario is not unbelieveable. Certainly corporate interests are capable of performing such acts, but there is no real remedy for it, considering the makeup of organizations like the ALF. If they do indeed see it as a war, it's a loss they must be willing to accept.


Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.
How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality.

My view of the side against animal rights activists is slightly different than those engaged in private industry. The closest it has hit me was when bomb threats were made against public sector agencies dedicated to controlling animal populations, i.e. Los Angeles Animal Services. It's not for profit, and the majority of the people working in its central office don't see a single animal during their time there. My friend specifically is an accountant. Yet bomb threats are made, GMs are forced out, and work is indeed disrupted; work that may in fact be contributing to what animal rights activists WANT. The wheels of change spin slowly in the public sector, and disruption of leadership only serves to exacerbate that. In this scenario, an accountant, or a file clerk, or a secretary who is afraid to come to work will not benefit animals anywhere. In fact, it could only hurt them in the long term.


Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable.

But isn't it a bit senseless? Their true target is dead. His family has no connection to any of the problems the activists had with the man, yet they continue to use resources targeting her. Who's to say they won't continue to target the family if the man quits? It's the same result, he no longer engages in the work they condemn. Wouldn't that just encourage tougher crackdowns on said activists? I don't understand how this can be morally justified.

I don't agree with seige tactics, but I certainly see how they work. Perhaps I just don't see how intimidating say, a CEO, would not encourage the board of directors and shareholders to search for someone more hard-nosed and defiant to any protestors.


The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.

True, but that is the burden of proof activists of any kind must face. There are certainly those willing to admit that abuse of animals is wrong, and many not actively involved in protest. But the sliding scale of what is judged to be cruel means there must be a sliding scale of goals, and that ultimately is seen, at least by me, as a weakness.

A major hurdle I see in the fight for animal rights is the disputed perception of animal's place in a natural hierarchy. ARists see no difference, and the rest see a major difference. Until there is widespread acceptance of the AR point of view on this issue, I don't think real change will ever take place. And I see THAT as the true root of what ARists are fighting for.

strongvoicesforward
17-02-06, 05:00
MeAndroo (ok to call you "Roo" for short?), just trying to catch up on these links you had listed before for comment.


The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. ... Or am I missing something here...

Those numbers are probably right as to how they are listed ont those links. I won`t dispute them. On that point you aren`t missing anything.

However, on what many people do miss when they see those numbers or that site is that those are put forth by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom) to discredit PETA. The CCF is a front company that was launched by a conglomeration of corporations such as Tyson Foods, fast food industry, Tobacco, Industry, Ranchers, Alchohol, Firearms industry etc... -- in short, just about every producer of a vice that has been detrimental to society in many ways. Everyone of these industries has come under intense scrutiny from PETA with campaigns and they have seen the threat to their corporate profits posed by PETA. They have decided it is in their best interest to stop ignoring PETA and to in fact try to roll them back.

The CCF had even come out against Mothers Against Drunk Driving with negative comments resisting some of their goals/campaigns to affect change for the protections of the roads. Remember the tobacco CEOs testifying several years ago on Capital Hill that they didn`t think Tobacco caused cancer? They were lampooned as the 7 Dwarfs for the incredulous statements they were making -- basically perjuring themselves. And the CCF represents this group of characters! Now, if they are going to spin about tobacco and MADD, you can be sure they are going to spin on PETA.

The thing is, while those numbers above may be accurate, the pets PETA do take in and euthinize are the ones which do have a very low chance at adoption. That may be because of injury or age or temperment. That site also makes it sound like PETA actually "takes them in" which I am not sure is the correct words of choice to describe all those in the numbers referenced. Does all animals euthinized by PETA means that they have become PETA`s and are therefore considered "taken in" by PETA?

PETA is often called in by shelters requesting that PETA offer their help in euthinizing because they are overrun. Yes, some mistakes are made from time to time when an animal is adoptable is put down and in fact should not be. The fact that PETA has put down a high percentage of the animals they 'take in' is because those are the animals for the most part PETA seeks to offer relief to. Remember, PETA is not a shelter. It just isn`t in their mission statement and to expect them to do that is not right.

Should they do more. I think I said before and I don`t mind repeating, perhaps yes, and I, myself, would like to see more done and perhaps even an official PETA sheltered open in the future. Could that happen? I think so. The chances are not so remote to dismiss it. There is a much better chance of PETA opening a shelter for animals than the entitities making up the CCF deciding not to kill the billions of animals that pass through their money making centers.

To say PETA is bad or falls unacceptably short of aiding animals simply because they are not perfect and that a few thousand animals may be euthinized by them and therefore not worthy of support from those concerned with AR and AW, is like comparing a mole hill to 100 Mt. Everests where billions and billions of animals are piled on top of one another with the CCF flag planted at the top. And they have the audacity to look down from the top of the carnage and say PETA is being hypocritical becuase they euthinize??? Well, perfection is not PETA, and they always seek better ways to bring their practices in line with their beliefs at lessening animal suffering -- but one thing is sure, they sit on their molehill of a few animals euthinized knowing that those animals were released from this life in a way that did not see them defecating out of fear and gasping for breath in a CO2 administering gas champer or a not well aimed bullet to their head.

The CCF on the other hand in their dark caverns that produce the Everest High numbers of death of billions of animals sends animals to vivisections, cruel slaughter, animal testing, skinning precedures, rendering plants etc... where animals meet their end in terror and excruciating pain. If someone were an animal and their end was coming, they should only hope that if they were not 'placeable' to live out a life to their natural end, that instead of an employee from the CCF coming up to it for commodifying it, that a PETA worker with a peaceful drug of injection were coming to it. I know I most definitely would prefer the latter. I pat on the head, a few kind final words, and a few seconds falling into sleep is much more preferable than being forced to smoke to black lungs then vivisected alive, or electronically prodded into a stick pit.

strongvoicesforward
17-02-06, 09:08
That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.

Fair enough. I understand the feeling. I think most who innitially come to PETA do so as idealists when they first begin to get involved with helping animals and are moved to give of their time and other recourses to do so. However, after the enormity of the problem becomes clearer and clearer, pragmatism takes hold.

Some people around the world look at the U.S. and all her rhettoric for freedom and promoting it, but as we all know from being citizens of the U.S. and inside the system, we just cannot act purely on our ideas to all parts of the world at the same time. Even the richness of our country would break under such a strain if we attempted to do so. Can we do more? Of course. Should we do more? Of course. However, just because decision makers choose their battles to address in a particular order, does not make them wrong. It just makes them constrained by the reality of the situation on the ground.

In rhettoric and philosophical musings, all things can be said and expressed. But, in action, only those things that can be done at a particular time can be realized. All others must stand in line and wait their turn.

strongvoicesforward
17-02-06, 09:23
I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly.

I understand what you are saying but it is hard for me to agree with it. I think the key phrase in what you said above is "very act." Yes, Peta euthinizes, there is no debate there, but the purposes for that are caused by the pet and ownership industry which creates the problem. In order for PETA to be anywhere near equal in doing the "very act" of the industries in which they denegrate and campaign against, they would have to be doing the same things. And that just isn`t the case. There is a big difference in what Tyson foods and university researchers do to animals that bring about their deaths and what PETA does as a reaction to a system that has caused unadoptable, injured, diseased animals to come to them. PETA for the most part relieves these animals of the miserable lives they have been forced to live by providing them with a peaceful release from this world -- one in which abuse and neglect marked their lives.

So, one does have to look a little deeper into the euthinizeing policy of PETA rather than just lump it with industry killing. If the two acts were not different, then most people who do not want their pets anymore because they are old, sick, on their last days of life, have gotten temperment problems, would then just take them to universities for research or kill them in anyway they wanted without any thought for how they are killed.

But, many people do take their animals to vets to be PTSed because eventhough the animal to them is no longer 'fine,' they see a sense of duty and value in ending their life in the most peaceful way as possible. PETA does that but they do it as an org and not as an individual person. Therefore, the numbers of a few thousand animals PTSed under their auspices looks bad. But, in actuality, they are doing nothing worse than a person professing love for their animal/pet but deciding a peaceful exit is what is called for at that time. And just because that person/pet owner criticises their neighbor for having shot their dog or killed it in some other heinous way, it in no way detracts from the moral high ground of administering euthinasia in a kind way.

nurizeko
18-02-06, 18:28
My idea of animal rights is that when i EVENTUALLY catch a bastard mouse in my house, i defend its right to be released in the nearby park and not chucked in with the rubbish bin.

Meh, i woulda probably kept the bugger as a pet....damn he was small...:souka:

He also likes dog-food it seems.

Not fish, i like fishing, i mean, i felt sorry for scarface, hacing to get a hook cut out but, he tasted good so i didnt worry much more after that.

(BTW the mouse escaped again so he will probably be found again unexpected...)

strongvoicesforward
20-02-06, 16:06
Looks like a virus could be on the way to put an end to the constant cycling of chicken misery in Eqypt.

In Cairo people have traditionaly raised chickens on rooftops because people had no land or enough money to rent a bigger space to do so. The government of Egypt is worried that roof top chickens could help spread the desiese from migratory birds. 4 of the 6 birds found to be infected with the deadly H5N1 strain of the 'bird flu' had been rooftopped farmed.

One housing resident moaned, "They said on television that it's dangerous to mix with the birds but they are my only source of income. Thanks to God, my birds are okay so we will eat those and then we will stop but what other job will I find?"

Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?

bossel
20-02-06, 21:51
Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?
Will you be the one to offer him such a job?

strongvoicesforward
21-02-06, 03:42
Will you be the one to offer him such a job?

If he has the skills for what I am looking for I will. But, as it is right now, my company isn`t looking for anyone with the experience of rooftop farmers who raise animals in small cages and butchers them.

But, he may apply within any of our offices overseas. One may be in sight of his rooftop -- once he clears all the empty cages away from his roof.

hahahaha.... Looks like he is really on his way to unemployment now once he eats all his reproducing stock. I guess that is literally someone "eating themselves out of home and kitchen." <snicker snicker>

A win for a few animals. Fewer rooftop squalid prisons for chickens.

strongvoicesforward
07-03-06, 16:53
GRRRRRRRRRR....

A bear is stalking Prince Charles and he has taken notice of it. He even has taken the time to have a short chat with it saying, gI recognise you! Ifve seen you in America!h

BOO!

And he will be seeing a lot more of The Peta (http://www.peta.org/) Bear as it vows to be at every public event the Prince shows up for.

The Bear is getting in his face to remind him and the Queen that the hats made of bear fur for Buckingham Palace should be exchanged for faux fur.

This is a victory that is not a question of "if, but "when."

Free, good, and natural:
http://www.agfc.com/critters/gallery/bear/bear1_big.jpg

Arrogant exploitation for meaningless fashion:
http://www.greatestcities.com/3652pic/184/CP32184.jpg/Guard.jpg

Mycernius
07-03-06, 17:27
I had a look around the web about this. It seems that the hats are made from the pelts of bears which are culled in Canada. The culling would continue whether or not the guards changed to fake fur. I noticed a lot of the animal right sites make out that the bears are killed just for the hats. More objective sites do mention that there is a annual cull in America and Canada and the hats are just a by product of the cull, which will continue whether or not the British army require them or not. I think that PETA must really stop the culling in North America, that way the drive to find a substitute is more pressing. BTW the MOD has been running trials to find a artifical substitute for several years.

strongvoicesforward
07-03-06, 18:01
The culling of black bears is not necessary. Fur for fashion is not necessary.

If culling is necessary as some conservationists may put forth, then the cull should be the cull. Blood money should not be made off of it. If money is being made off of some cullings, then I would bet that many of those who are for the cull are all for the money to be had, too.

If a bear is going to be killed for the good of the environment, then at least let its corpse lay where it fell to give back biomass nutrients to the forest. But, of course we know that is not what the hunters want. They don`t want to 'help' the forest that much -- in a way they don`t profit from their fun hunting. They want the fun and the fur to sell and to add 'value' to for their benefit.

The Guards can have their faux look alike hats and the bears can keep their skins. Sounds like a good trade to me. If the cull is necessary, then let the forest keep what falls in her to reclaim and recycle. I suspect, though, that if the orders for bear hats were to stop coming from Buckingham palace, the number of culls would lessen and surely a drop in prices would come about making it less profitable.

Mycernius
07-03-06, 19:18
I suspect, though, that if the orders for bear hats were to stop coming from Buckingham palace, the number of culls would lessen and surely a drop in prices would come about making it less profitable.
I doubt it very much. According to statistics around 5000 to 10 000 bears are killed each year, depending on which site you get the figures from. The MOD (not Buckingham palace) order about 60 to 100 pelts a year. That is only 1% to 2% of the pelts are actually used in the making of the hats. I hardly think that cancelling the orders will lessen the culls or make it less profitable. The hats themselves do last a very long time. In some cases over 100 years and do get passed down either through families that join or from old soldiers. The man in the suit is wasting his time. The Queen and the Prince are the wrong people to target.

strongvoicesforward
08-03-06, 02:28
The man in the suit is wasting his time. The Queen and the Prince are the wrong people to target.

There are definitely others to target. That is for sure. However, The Peta Bear is not wasting its time. It brings exposure to the campaign as news follows the Prince they take note of it and occassionally mention it. Exposure on news is free advertisement. A 30 second spot on TV would cost P&G millions, free news is free and can be just as powerful.

Besides, that campaign is not the only tact Peta and other groups have taken to get the use of bear fur for hats stopped. Other efforts are ongoing as well. Sometimes success is about location location location. Other times it is about publicity publicity publicity. A good mix makes for good marketing and success.

I would bet those hats on palace guards will become extinct not too far in the future.

SortOf
08-03-06, 03:14
I like leather coats though.

strongvoicesforward
25-03-06, 14:18
In recent years PETA has waded right into the center of the corporate world by their new strategy of holding stocks in companies that affect the lives of animals. Holding a certain amount of stock allows them to bring up issues for voting at shareholders' meetings. As of yet, none of their proposals have passed, but CEOs are taking notice of this strategy and have cried fowel to the Security Exchange Commission.

But, the commission has ruled in favor of PETA being allowed to force votes on issues important to them as shareholders. <<snicker snicker>>

Furthermore, this generates free news for PETA. And food outlets have at times been receptive to PETA`s message at at addressing, considering, and making changes for the benefit of the animals.

strongvoicesforward
26-03-06, 14:50
I like leather coats though.

PETA campaigned against the sale of Indian leather in Gap stores about 5 years ago and as a result Gap Inc. agreed to stop carrying items made from Indian Leather.

Good on Peta.

Mycernius
26-03-06, 17:40
I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching. Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves? It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 04:37
I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching.

PETA is a growing org. Began in the U.S. they have steadily branched out to other countries with official offices and chapters in those countries. Growth takes time. Recently they have opened up a Chinese branch based in Hong Kong. To my knowledge, they do not have an official branch in Africa. But, they do have supporters in Africa. In the future I am sure they will set up an official office in Africa as well.

Much of PETA`s actions which get news coverage on streets are the results of local activists in that area. Activists are not stupid. They can measure and judge the political climate of an area and not commit suicide by doing something rash in the face of that area`s law enforcement. Sure, they could be a martyre and fall on their sword, but that would do nothing to help animals from that point on. Best to live and fight another day. The animals can`t do it for themselves so they would prefer the ranks of those who can fight stay as full as possible and to chose their battles wisely. That said, I don`t begrudge any activist in a 3rd world country from being much more cautious in the acts they can do for animals under their legal systems. When the time is right, or near right, their can always be surges in activist action.

Peta does not operate in a vacuum in the world fighting for animals. There are many other orgs and at times they work together to help animals, be it cruelty, conservation, or poaching like you have mentioned. Born Free Foundation, WWF, and In Defense of Animals, to name but a few have worked extensively in Africa to fight against the Bushmeat trade and other problems that beset the animals of Africa. There is no need for PETA to replicate their efforts wholly and to say that PETA has to or should devote the same amount of recourses evenly spread all over the world is unrealistice, not to mention short sighted in strategy.


Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves?

There are other ways to fight against the Bush meat trade and poaching for various reasons. One of the biggest threats to animals is the loss of habitat. Peta aggressively promotes vegetarianism. Livestock consume more feed than humans do and thus much of the land being converted to crops goes to not support human life through direct consumption, but to livestock creating value added and inefficient use of recourses.


It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.

lol. Oh, cloud the issue between PETA and AR "types" which you have not specifically named. Now which is it -- PETA or AR "types" you are discussing? Discuss them clearly.

No-name
27-03-06, 04:45
I'm am all for protecting endagered species. Up here in the San Bernardino mountains, we organize bald eagle counts twice annually. We also hosted some andean Condors to study range and feeding patterns for the California condor re-introduction program.

I used to belong to WWF until they sent me a fund raising flyer (like charitable organizations sometimes do.) for money to save dogs in Korea from slaughter. They showed pictures of a dog slaughter at a family picnic. It seemed more cultural than actually about saving a species. Dogs aren't endangered and if you do want to save an animal, put it on the menu. Food specific animals raised on factory farms don't go extinct.

KrazyKat
27-03-06, 10:50
I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching. Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves? It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.

I don't think that PETA does any work in Africa, but they are in developing nations, especially India. http://www.petaindia.com/

Well, PETA's objective isn't to save animals from extinction, there are plenty of other organisaition that work in that area like the WWF having too wide a goals will in the end just be counter productive. The type of work required to save animals from extinction I would except to be very different from that working against factory farming. In the same way WWF doesn't try to stop factory farming. "PETA India operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment."

Activists tend to campagin in their local area. Its a lot easier to set up a protest against the shop selling fur in your highstreet or lobby your MP than to do anything in the congo. :)

nurizeko
27-03-06, 12:15
In regards to the news and free capnaigning, the only thing the news is doing for animal activists is pointing out the un-acceptable level of harrassment they will go to in their minority fanatical driven vandetta against society that shunned them for being freaks.

Dont get me wrong, SVF has made better constructed arguments then most animal activists, but many activists idea of conservation is to bomb ****, and otherwise commit criminal acts.


I hope these idividuals make a moronic and poorly thought out activist activity on a buckingham palace parade thing against the parading "bear murderer" soldiers with their SA80's, mainly because over the years ive come to realise idiots who attack non-idiots with guns ussually end up nice and dead.

And yes, those SA80's are fully functional and loaded, on a public parade with the queen highly visible, of course soldiers, marching in dress uniform or not, are going to be properly armed and have a secondary order to protect the queen should the worst happen.


Infact i dare say an activist should try and make an attempt on the queens life, this will kill what little pathetically impotent support for activists (mainly from other activists) is left in the UK, as it is, activities of some activists here have effectively profiled animal activists as terrorists more interested in the harrasment and criminal activity then the actual genuine beliefe humanity can release all domesticated animals and pets and somehow society will continue without its infrastructure and the animals and humans will get along.

But then, reality was never a strong point of some animal activists.


Thats why SVF has to carry the burden alone of trying to present the activist stance in a halfway realistic and well thought out manner (though from memory, i do believe he had a bumpy start....we love you now SVF <3 :p :cool: ).

Tsuyoiko
27-03-06, 14:34
Nuri - you seem to have an unfairly negative view of activists. Agreed, there are some who go too far and give activists a bad name. But activism can be peaceful too. Here is a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist. When I was a child, both my parents were activists in animal rights and trade unions. Their activism consisted of fund raising activities, writing letters to newspapers and MPs, taking part in peaceful protests and marches, sitting on committees, boycotts and trying to live their lives in accordance with their principles. Nowadays, my husband is a union activist, which consists in his being the elected rep for his department and representing his co-workers at meetings and hearings.

Please don't condemn people who work hard because they feel strongly on an issue just because you think a few of them go too far! :relief:

Edit: Just an addition - there is another form of peaceful activism, that I am taking part in today: industrial action.

strongvoicesforward
29-03-06, 17:18
My lovely wife taped the show "Extreme Home Makeover," (a show I seldom watch) while I was at work today. I enjoyed it after coming home.

The Makeover Team went to Texas to build a new home for a family that was into animal rescue. They had over a hundred dogs, about 10 horses, pigs, and an assortment of other animals. The mother, father and children did all the caring for these animals while at the same time the parents had regular 8 hours jobs. The house was just falling apart because the family had no time to do regular up-keep because of all the time they had to spend taking care of the animals.

Needless to say, a great new home was built for them with all the extra frills thrown in for the animals (e.g. kennels, stalls, special rooms, 10 yr supply of dog food, etc...).

It warmed me that this show could go out of their way and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this family for their efforts for helping abused and negelected animals and that many professional builders and carpenters saw it worth their time to aid this effort.

Another reason I smiled at it is because I know from certain members who post here that they cannot see the value in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a way to help animals when they know that that money could be used to help many needy families. I am guessing their "value" of human life would cause them to grimace hard at this expenditure of funds. lol. After all, surely in the same community there must have been several needy families they could have helped for the same amount of money that was spent on 'mere' animals. Hah!

Great to see the animals moved to the front of the line and that the producers of this show saw the need and "value" of it.


*This doesn`t exactly match this thread which I created, but maybe it does in some way since in some way it is fighting cruelty. I just didn't think it right to make a whole new thread for this.

strongvoicesforward
02-04-06, 15:33
Oh, another zoo falls short and the animals are at risk:

News excerpt:
Tito's hungry elephants spared
Tue Mar 28, 10:48 AM ET

ZAGREB (AFP) - A pair of elephants that were once part of the private zoo of Yugoslav's former dictator Tito have been saved by a food donation from Croatia's top tennis player.

"Ivan Ljubicic and his wife Aida have put a certain amount of money on the account of the national park to help us feed the elephants," Morena Milevoj, spokeswoman of the zoo on Brijuni island, told AFP.
Ljubicic made his offer after press reports that the park's management warned it might not have the means to feed the voracious elephants to the end of the year. ...

Full story HERE. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060328/od_afp/croatiaindiaanimalstennisoffbeat;_ylt=AgdR8tODeZZu Fosi6rj3cZZ4hMgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1 YmNhdA--)

The warm part about this is that two very kind hearted people stepped up and came forth to help with securing food for these creatures. I see great value in compassion in helping these elephants. The cynics amongst us believing people are more deserving than animals, failing to admit or recognize that all are important and have value, must be wondering how that thousands of dollars could be spent in providing meals or shelter for children or the poor. After all, why should elephants eat to live when people are starving or homeless?

But then, too, if I ask them why they don`t sell their cars and buy compacts and then send the remaining margin to the poor, they become silent.

I`m glad many do not succumb to that flimsy argument put forth by cynics that human life trumps all acts of kindness that may be directed at animals.

strongvoicesforward
03-04-06, 16:01
Continued from post #138 above:

That PETA bear is still stalking Prince Charles at all his public events. This time it caught his eye all the way in India.

Holding a sign reading, "Save my skin," the bear standing on the road was seen by Charles. Prince Charles, now used to the stalking bear waved and said, "Hello." The hunt for the royal family`s compassion for bears continues.

It takes one whole bear to make one prissy little black hat for fashion. These hats will go the way of the Dodo bird and it will be the Peta campaign that causes it. Until then, blood junkies will keep causing bears to bear the pain of fashion.

GO PETA BEAR!

Full story HERE. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1663705,0047.htm)

strongvoicesforward
04-04-06, 17:57
Why do I love the UK?

The no#1 reason is that they are the hot bed of Animal Rights with regards to Direct Action in the world. SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) got its start in the UK targeting the animal testing lab Huntington Life Sciences. There, in the UK, SHAC has honed its tecniques of Direct Action and then exported it to the US and Canada, not to mention much of Europe.

The #2 reason is because of Brook Johnston, Miss UK Universe -- just a beautiful lady inside and out. Her heartfelt care for animals has caused her to lend herself to promoting vegetarianism. Here she is with PETA`s "Turn Over a New Leaf" campaign all decked out in cabbage. Hmmm...looks yummy.

http://montreal.24heures.ca/LesUnsEtLesAutres/2006/02/01/24mlesunsetlesautres.jpg

Reiku
04-04-06, 19:18
I prefered the "I'd rather show my buns than wear fur" campaign.

strongvoicesforward
04-04-06, 19:28
I prefered the "I'd rather show my buns than wear fur" campaign.

And here is two time emmy award winning actress Charlott Ross of NYPD in the "I`d rather show my buns than wear fur" campaign -- doing it for the animals.

http://www.geocities.com/autobahn_usa/peta_crossad-vert_small.jpg

Reiku
04-04-06, 22:05
Yeah, that one was a much better campaign--too bad it didnt cach on with the general public. :evil:

strongvoicesforward
05-04-06, 20:14
Yeah, that one was a much better campaign--too bad it didnt cach on with the general public.

Things take time.

Patience, patience, patience. When does the sword strike? The two stand motionless grasping their swords raised toward each other, peering into one anothers eyes -- they seem as if they are statues held in place by the other. Strength in their patience, but eventually one will strike...

Peta will lunge, Peta will parry, Peta will slash -- and so will the opponents in the industry of animal exploitation.

Things take time. Patience, little grasshopper. The smaller chooses the time when it wants to harry the larger with all its force.

---------------------------------------------------------
*tailored that analogy specially for you Reiku, since I think I do recall your fondness for swords: "strike me down with your sword." Therefore, thought I would make it easy for you to understand the dance between two adversarries.

Tsuyoiko
06-04-06, 14:15
I can think of more appropriate ways to promote those causes :okashii:

strongvoicesforward
06-04-06, 15:29
I can think of more appropriate ways to promote those causes :okashii:

What exectly are you referring to? The thread is long.

But, there are many ways to fight against animal cruelty and some may be more appropriate at different times in different places. However, I don`t see what you are referring to, or could be referring to in recent posts that should be put off the table for consideration and use.

Tsuyoiko
06-04-06, 15:31
Sorry - to clarify, I was referring to the posts immediately preceding mine.

strongvoicesforward
06-04-06, 15:36
Sorry - to clarify, I was referring to the posts immediately preceding mine.

You mean the use of models baring skin for advertisements to catch eyes?

If so, and looking at your comment on that, then I would have to say, "well, gee, I guess there are always better ways to do something."

But so what!? When there is a mix of approaches it adds to the dynamics of any campaign. Like I said, some things in some places at different times strikes cords and causes discourse more than other places at different times.

You aren`t saying that ads like that shouldn`t be used, are you?

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 14:49
Taking a bite out of animal abusers, tax-paying citizensf money is being used to protect and prosecute those who are cruel to animals by allowing the state of Maine in the the U.S. to include animals in protection orders of those issued by judges to those persons who are trying to leave spouses.

Mounting evidence is showing that animal abuse often preceeds violent crime, and in the case of domestic abuse, it may even be alarmingly high.

Abusive spouses often think that one of the best ways to intimidate and control their partner is to make threats on a cherished pet. Often these threats are made good on.

Excerpt of article:

Susan Walsh, whose dog and sheep were killed by her husband, said many victims stand to benefit from including pets in protection orders.

"I've heard so many horror stories from other women that I knew I was not alone," she said.

When the bill came up for consideration at a public hearing in January, Walsh recounted how she remained in an abusive marriage in part out of fear for what might happen to her pets and farm animals if she left.

Walsh said her husband shot two of her sheep inside their Ellsworth barn. Another time, when she was visiting her parents in Pennsylvania, he deliberately ran his truck over her deaf and blind border collie in their driveway, she said.

Walsh, who stayed in the marriage for more than 12 years before her divorce in 2001, said she would have left sooner had it not been for her responsibilities to the animals.


The article goes on to explain that 71% of women in one shelter for abused women reported that they had a pet threatened or abused by their partners.

The good thing about this news is that it reports on the link between cruelty to animals and violence to people. It also makes it quite clear that there is value in letting the legal system, paid for by tax money, work in a way that animals benefit from not being the target of inflicting pain. The more and more animals creep into the legal cases and decisions of judges and legislatures, the more and more they move to legal personhood.

But, it is a slow process.

Read full article here: New Maine Law Expands to Protect Pets (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_us/protecting_pets;_ylt=ArFk07.Skw5IVTP3KepWJqV4hMgF; _ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--)

CC1
16-04-06, 14:57
SVF...I'm just curious, do you own dogs, cats, birds, etc??? If so, how many do you have. Have you/do you volunteer time with shelters etc...? I apologize if you have mentioned this before, I skimmed this thread but didn't notice anything about it.
(just so you know, I have a Golden Ret., a rescued Golden, and two rescued turtles RES's)

nurizeko
16-04-06, 15:17
I had two hamsters, they died, a cat, she got old and didnt come home oneday, ive got a dog, the little bastard, but you cant help love his unique form of evil.

I've also got a resident mouse, he has evaded every attempt to catch him so far but i respect him as a worthy foe, as such ive never resorted to lethal means of getting him.

I think SVF once mentioned his list of pets, a reasonable number i think, though im not sure.

strongvoicesforward
16-04-06, 15:20
SVF...I'm just curious, do you own dogs, cats, birds, etc??? If so, how many do you have. Have you/do you volunteer time with shelters etc...? I apologize if you have mentioned this before, I skimmed this thread but didn't notice anything about it.
(just so you know, I have a Golden Ret., a resued Golden, and two rescued turtles RES's)

Hi CC1, I answered your questions at the end of this thread HERE. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=335205#post335205)

nurizeko
16-04-06, 15:46
Talking of staying on topic, SVF please try and remain within the thread, and not drawing the threads to another one you have made for other pupouses, if you dont want to awsner points and questions within the thread their asked, then ignore them.

CC1
16-04-06, 15:55
Hi CC1, I answered your questions at the end of this thread HERE. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=335205#post335205)
I actually felt that my question was on topic. Seeing as this thread deals with animal cruelty...I find it relevent wether or not you care for animals yourself! I would appreciate it if you would answer the question here rather than send me on a wild goose chase.

Yes, I have 4 dogs. All rescued or pick ups.
I am active in some aspects of Animal 'Liberation' -- of which I will not go into detail. When opportunities present themselves to make a difference, or when I can create an opportunity, I act on that.

strongvoicesforward
03-06-06, 16:03
Bearing all for bears -- Peta U.K. is keeping the pressure on Buckingham palace to have bear fur discontinued for ceremonial hats worn by the famous red suited guards.

On Sunday, Peta members held a gdie-inh at Parliement Square, spreading their naked bodies in a heap to bring more attention to the campaign to change to faux fur hats. The campaign is gaining momentum. As of now, 170 members of pariament have signed the petition directed to the Minister of Defense to make the switch. As the list of signatures grow, it will become more likely that the issue will eventually be debated within the House of Commons.

In addition, the Peta Bear (as mentioned earlier in this thread) continues to stalk Prince Charles during his public functions and travels -- and the Prince knows it, having acknowledged the bear on several occasions.

There is no question as to the future success of this campaign. It is not a question of gifh this indefensible policy of fashion cruelty is stopped by the Defense Ministry, but a question of gwhenh they will stop at the point of victory for the bears and Peta.

It surely has more chance of success than the campaign that ended the stuffy old foggies who ran around the countryside having their dogs savage foxes to death by ripping them to pieces (riding so pompously high and self-rightiously proud in their red coats and high black boots). That in its past insipid form has been ended. Bear hats, too, will go the way of that tradition which died hard -- but will die, like sanctioned fox hunting by dogs did indeed die.

Here is a picture of the nude protest (all genetalia and breasts are slighly covered by limbs and posters [to me it looks almost like avante gard art):

http://img.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0605/21/nude.jpg

Look here for full story: Nude PETA Members Tell the Naked Truth About Bearskins (http://unbearablecruelty.com/nakedtruth.asp)

strongvoicesforward
06-06-06, 08:56
More and more the non-human animals are getting their foot into the door of "personhood." When the issues of cruelty are being debated within the halls where laws are made by a country`s top politicians, "rights" are not too far behind. Until they are realized though, "welfare" is tackeled.

A new Animal Welfare Bill on the national level that could see owners are jailed and fined is going the rounds before Parliament. The interesting and unique thing about this Bill is that it states "Freedoms," a word often associated with altruistic ideas. Here are the 5 freedoms to be guaranteed to pets:

Freedom from thirst, hunger, and malnutrition
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury, and disease
Freedom to express normal behaviour
Freedom from fear and stress

Possible fine if owners ignore the above: 5,000 pounds or prison sentence.

After this bill becomes law, a secondary bill is in the makings to introduce a code of conduct for different types of animals.

The only thing that disappoints me is that all animals are not included. That leaves many battery hens, laboratory animals, etc... to languish in their horrendous conditions. But, things come slowly in steps at a time.

What was it that Willam Wallace said in Braveheart at the end? Oh, yeah. I remember now.

"FREEDOM!"

strongvoicesforward
09-06-06, 06:03
Oha Everybody!

What a glorious day it is today. I woke up to a morning of rain rain rain and for a minute I was thinking -- another day of rain -- just another day of rain.

But, NO! It is not just another day of rain and gloomy skies. This is the day The Polo Ralph Loren Corporation, one of the largest fashion company in the industry, publicly announced they would no longer use fur in any of its clothing fashion or home apparel collections!

They had been thinking about discontinuing these products for the last few months after meetings with PETA in February and March, but it wasn`t until recently after viewing undercover footage of fur farms(provided by PETA) in China that they made the resolute decision to put compassion above fashion.


After the meetings, the Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation sent PETA a signed statement of assurance acknowledging its intent to pull all advertising for fur, cancel all pending orders for fur products, and, beginning with its holiday 2006 collections, no longer sell any fur products. Twelve hundred of its brand-new fall 2006 fur-trimmed coats will be donated to charities in developing nations.

Full press release here: Ralph Lauren Drops Fur After Watching Chinese Fur-Farm ExposeL (http://www.furisdead.com/feat-RalphLaurenVictory.asp)

Good on Ralph Lauren. Another victory for the animals, and PETA once again shows its effectiveness in dogged determination at getting results.

But the battle is not over, and many more languish in deplorable conditons on wire mesh encrusted feces exposed to the elements without bedding or proper nutrition.

http://fur.elehost.com/farmfox1sm.jpg

http://worldanimal.net/cagedfox.gif

RockLee
13-06-06, 12:12
T'is sad to see so many animals suffer because people like to wear 100 000$ fur coats :okashii: I'd like to see them being stripped of their skin and see if they like it !

strongvoicesforward
17-06-06, 15:28
Oh! So funny!!!

R&B hip hop singer Beyonce allowed herself to be auctioned away for a dinner with fans. However, she didn`t know that Peta members put in the winning bid.

When they arrive at the restaurant they sit down and then the Peta members confront her about her wearing fur, explaining to her the cruelty that foxes are anally electrocuted for her fashion wear, which is designed by her mother. They tell her how beautiful she is and talented, and that her fans love her for that and not her death 'glamour' draping her body. They ask her if she would consider not wearing fur. They also put a portable video player on the table showing her a video narrated by Pamela Anderson depicting all the gruesomeness of the fur trade.

Basically, she just sits there mouth gaping, not believing she has been had, because for months now, Peta had been trying to contact her about her cruelty.

BUT, here is the great thing -- it was all caught on hidden video inside a bag placed on the table and YOU, TOO, CAN WATCH IT! It is about 1 to 2 minutes of Beyonce just being schooled on cruelty. Finally, her mother gets real upset and blows up and has the Peta members escorted out. Oh, so funny seeing the diva ambushed.

Oh, those waskily Peta members!

Go to tmz.com to see it. Perhaps you don`t have to go there. Perhaps you can go directly to the video link Peta Gets to Diva Singer Beyonce (http://us.video.aol.com/video.full.adp?mode=0&pmmsid=1667208&restartUrl=http%3a%2f%2fus%2evideo%2eaol%2ecom%2fv ideo%2eindex%2eadp%3fmode%3d1%26pmmsid%3d1667208&mode=1)
(you have to choose broadband or narrow band on the buttons and then wait about a min for the Quicktime to start).

If you haven`t seen Peta activists in action before, take a look.

Persistant Audacity defined.