Fullbore

Your comprehension of the written word is poor. Katrina Sharman, at no point in her excellent article, recommended that humans cease eating meat.

The issue here is the abominable, legalised treatment of animals in captivity and the inhumane methods of culling feral animals. These animals are feral because of man's "expert" stupidities, resulting in an imbalance of species to compete for fodder.

And typical of Yabby, he continues to associate large breasts with people sufficiently courageous to publicly speak out against the abuse of animals. He is foolish enough to ask why Pamela Anderson and Pink denounce animal cruelty (if they have) and is too obtuse to realise that the most effective manner in which to inform communities of atrocities, is to publicise these atrocities through those with high profiles who have access to the media. Ordinary folk are often denied those opportunities. Where is the relevance to "large breasts", Yabby?

Yabby also advises that we "debate the issues on their merit". Funny that, since he's again failed to address or debate the issues on animal cruelty, raised in my previous post.

Yabby and the wannabe Hannibal Fullbore may get a buzz from the Qld farmer who, last year, was prosecuted and fined $30,000 for killing a sick cow with a claw hammer and dragging it behind a truck whilst it was still alive. Of course, these gentlemen will simply regard that atrocity as "collateral" damage. Mustn't waste profits on a silly old cow now, must we?

Dearest Dickie

Points 1-5 have been illegal for many decades. Reasonable people understand that legislation has limitations. Sanctimonious preaching to people you are contemptuous of, will achieve even less.

There really are some horrible people (or perhaps damaged individuals requiring compassion) in the world and it would be reassuring to believe that AL is going to improve our lives and the lives of animals. Maybe, you could join the RSPCA and become one of their storm troopers who have more powers than the NSW Police in certain areas. However, when animals are given human rights many believe it highly predicable that humans will then be treated as animals.

Are you aware you have proved one of my main points (which were the words of a psychologist J Swan PhD) since your pent up anger is showing.

Do you think I am a mate of such criminals, what does your intuition tell you?

Why weren’t you impressed with the Gandhi quotes or are his teachings irrelevant because he lived so long ago?

Your contempt for history has been noted and dovetails with social engineers would have little appreciation for history and its relevance to society. I was once told by a high school counsellor that a history of children is basically a history of child abuse. How does your psychological baggage blend with an obvious animosity towards poorly evolved individuals who do not share your intense sense of animal ethics? Perhaps it would beneficial to discuss your “animal issues” with a community counsellor instead of demonising non-believers on websites.

So you believe recent examples of animal cruelty carry more credence than older examples of a political movement that preaches compassion and understanding who then turn around and sanction anarchy. For PETA to morally support to intimidation, murder and arson is more than hypocritical, it is amoral.

In my mind the point being made is that animal libber extremists have been around for a long time and instead of taking the opportunity to denounce such behaviour you sanction it by not directly addressing their heinous acts, be they either new or old.

Dickie said, "Yabby also advises that we "debate the issues on their merit". Funny that, since he's again failed to address or debate the issues on animal cruelty, raised in my previous post."

OK step one -- Dickie please define cruelty for us so we can focus.

In response to Stomont, in the spirit of Christmas (though I don’t call myself a Christian) I’ll ignore the insults and baseless name-calling and try to stick to the argument.

I asked initially, “Perhaps you can explain what it is about humans, in your thinking, that gives us the right to treat other creatures as we want”. I gather your first para was your answer – i.e., that we are at the top of the food chain. For a starter, climb naked into a cage with a hungry croc or a lion then let me know who is at the top of the food chain. But that aside, might is not right. The fact that we have the power to mistreat these animals does not give us the right to do so. A predator such as that will kill and eat you – it has not ethics to tell it was is right or wrong but we do. Nor does it have a lot of choices – no supermarkets, canned veg etc. but we do. I think you failed to answer my challenge.

Next, I think you have misunderstood the term "Human Supremacist”. It means someone who believes that because we are human we are therefore superior to all other species and so can treat them without regard for their interests. I am not a “Human Supremacist” (btw, your use of the terms “livestock products” and HRM show again that you are – you regard other sentient species simply as resources). Other species are not ‘failed humans’ – they are simply different species with different abilities and characteristics. They do some things better than us – we do some thing better than them – but we have an awful lot in common.
...

For Stomont.

I share your concern about the numbers of animals accidentally killed in the production of plant crops. But don’t you eat plant foods as well? (If you don’t I’d hate to think how your digestive system copes with a purely meat diet – yeewwww). More importantly, since the vast majority of crops such as soy are grown to be fed to farmed animals, moving away from animal based agriculture would reduce those figures massively.

In years gone by, a cow kept by a village family which had its milk gently taken and was finally killed and eaten after a fairly long life had a vastly better life than today’s factory farmed animals. We’ve lost touch with the animals and have let producers think they can do pretty much what they like in order to reduce the price to us and their profits.

We need to tell them now that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.

Dickie once again arrogantly assumes to know what I or anyone
else might be thinking. Arrogant ignoranace is not unusual
from the animal libber movement, so I guess I should not be
surprised.

Yup, cruelty to animals happens right here in Aus, a point
I have made many times, when some animal libbers get carried
away by their ME arguments. Yup there are laws in place
to prosecute people and RSPCA inspectors in place to enforce
those laws. Yup there are some farmers who break those laws
as well as plenty of city slickers who do the same. If they
do, so prosecute them.

Yup 1080 is used to control packs of wild dogs. All things
considered its the best we have right now, although I gather
that CSIRO are working on an alternative. I'd still rather
see those packs of wild dogs destroyed, then tens of thousands
of sheep ripped apart, dying slow cruel deaths. Given
that 1080 grows around here quite naturally along roadsides
etc, its not exactly an unusual poison in the Aus environment.

Dickie still doesent get it, about Peta using bimbos to
promote their cause. Perhaps bimbos is the best they have,
ahh well.

There has been a large shift in pig farming to straw based
shelters, which I think is positive and a win-win situation.
People are free to choose barn laid and free range eggs and
chickens, let more consumers buy them and cages will become
redundant! Personally I am against caged hen farming.
Most beef and lamb production is free range in Aus, another
positive news story. So its not all gloom and doom, as is
often promoted by the vegan lobby.