The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What really is PETA?

What really is PETA?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. ...
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. 39
  17. All
Unfortunately i doubt those poor, poor children would be able to afford Australian chopped, chilled and packaged meat, but it's a good story nonetheless.
They may however have access to the offal and tallow from slaughter in the ME, that would be otherwise be used in biodiesel here or exported to china for soap making.

Hi Nicky,
"farm animals are born to die", that seems quite alike every known animal - humans included. The only difference is lifespan, which is generally curtailed in the farmed for food variety. What i have yet to hear from any one is why day 44 is different from day 97, 235 or 730 in an animals life. At some point their life will end, and old age in the animal kingdom is far from pleasant.
Having said that male chicks in the egg industry are an unlucky bunch.

I see you've seen The Land article on the backlash against Peta, and the growing number of prominant supporters of the Australian wool industry. I don't think peta will like it either.
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 15 June 2008 10:31:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Rojo, welcome back.

Male chicks are certainly an unlucky bunch. But any farm animal that is not profitable would meet the same fate really. Not all fit into large blenders though. The problem that I have is that farm animals have no choice in the matter of whether they live or die, what they have to endure in their short lives at the hands of farmers, nor how brutal that death will be.

And you call that a backlash? A couple of obscure "designers" no-one has ever heard of? I doubt if that will rattle PETA in the slightest (or us for that matter)

PALE, you do not answer ANYTHING honestly (this "we" after "you" in every sentence gets a bit tedious in trying to decipher what you are trying to say but let that be. We have to have the dramatic effect, don't we?).

I asked you:

If PALE is an incorporated organization (with the tax breaks that go with that)
How many members PALE has
Why you have a Paypal donation link on your website if you do not collect funds and what you do with those funds
How many slaughterhouses you have managed to re-open and where they are
Are the animals pre-stunned at these slaughterhouses
When your Muslim friend said he was going to speak out against live exports (he mustn't have much media clout if he already has)

You could also tell us how many staff (real people) PALE has (paid and volunteer), since we are into "honesty".

Now, you say I should know about this volunteer. How? Through divine intervention? Perhaps you could also enlighten us about why this person (and the one I know about, and who knows how many more) felt so threatened that they had to move away.

You said on the other thread that you WOULD post "what Christa said", but I knew you wouldn't. More histrionics about PALE being "blacklisted"?

Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Sunday, 15 June 2008 11:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicky

She said too things. Firstly she was very happy we contacted both Bridgett B and herself.

Asked to send footage to us to give to 60 Minutes or whoever instead of the usual contact.

Claimed after sending footage of live exports for almost twenty years nothing had happend. Said her invesigations were expensive.

Claimed sick to death of the patronizing manner and the way others were spoken down to.

Told us her contact in no uncertain terms that if the footage this time ( meaning then) wasnt released to the public she was not sending anything else "ever".


Raised issues od being VERY concerned that footage sent in the past had been purchased by farmers for very large amounts of money through another group =instead of being used to raise public awareness through the media.

Asked to send the footage to us to get out to the public. We invited instead to pay air faires and accomadation to meet 60 direct.

Most of the other things discussed come under private so there you go fyi.

PS Also Nicky what nonesense that pale wont answer your stupid questions. Whats with you Nick thats so dishonest
that one must consider you dangerous imo.

I have now drawn your attention three times to your fibs Nicky and you simple refuse to repond.

I am just wondering why you bother posting.

Nicky I GAVE you the fact MLA threatended a farmers accreditation because he creek fed instead of keeping them fill time in a feed lot.

"You didnt blink an eye."

Clearly you dont care. That was a gift from heaven 'IF'? You Had been serious about Animal Welfare.

You WOULD have jumped on that!
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Monday, 16 June 2008 2:34:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But PALE, you HAVEN'T answered my questions. Any of them. Again. Also, the creek fed story was your story, not mine. What was I supposed to do with it, for God's sake? If you think something should be said to the media or anyone else you should have said it. Do your own dirty work, don't expect others to pick up on what is quite likely a throwaway line and expect others to lay their credibility on the line without proof. You might be prepared to do that, but I'm not.

I also think that you should produce proof if you are going to claim that "another group sold footage to farmers for large sums of money". That WOULD be an actionable allegation.

I did answer your questions; those I was prepared to. The others, I simply stated that I wouldn't and why - because those matters were none of your business.

Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Monday, 16 June 2008 2:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*But any farm animal that is not profitable would meet the same fate really.*

Every creature makes a living, one way or another. Farm animals
are no different. Those species that have acclimatised to being
farmed, are actually thriving in numbers, no chance of them going
extinct.

* The problem that I have is that farm animals have no choice in the matter of whether they live or die.*

That is quite correct, for they have yet to show that they can
decide amongst themselves, what a sustainable population is. So
nature decides. In nature, the fittest survive, the rest starve
to death or are ripped to death by predators.

Farm animals are relatively better off. Rather then starving or
being ripped apart alive, farmers decide which ones live and which
ones go to slaughter.

Even you have a limited say about your life. If some guy runs
over you tomorrow, well that is just bad luck for you.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 June 2008 3:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Actually, Yabby, although I am by no means an expert on this, I understand that macropods do in fact have an innate ability to adjust their populations to the environments that sustain them.

Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Monday, 16 June 2008 6:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. ...
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. 39
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy