"Though given that neither you nor Dickie have openly identified yourself as PETA spokespeople, I suppose this doesn't necessarily apply."

I said it, because this thread is about tactics used by PETA and mindset of some (note the 'some') of their supporters.
It highlights the precise attitude you are displaying, and the aggressive responses to criticism. Given the similarity between your commentary and the opening remarks, I think it was a reasonable comment, and I specifically said it doesn't necessarily apply.

I haven't openly identified myself, because what little personal information I put on OLO about my profession was used to smear me in an irrelevant manner. I was quite disgusted by this, more so than the usual rough and tumble, so it's hardly a surprise I do not state more.

"Animal cruelty has no grey area"

It's never good, and I'd never actively support it if there was no reason. But nothing in his world is black and white. Cruelty itself is a grey area. On the extremes of cruelty, of course it's an easy answer - no, never. But some people regard the use of working dogs as cruel, others do not. Some people think riding a horse is cruel, others do not.

Nothing in this world is always as simple as black and white. Nothing.

"Nothing in this world is always as simple as black and white. Nothing."

TRTL. I vigorously disagree with you. Only the predatory human has the ability to convert black and white into grey as a prelude to plundering, pillaging and torturing. Where there's a buck to made, humans set about manufacturing grey areas to conceal immoral and unethical behaviour.

Examples:

1. The US knowingly sprayed Vietnam with a bio-accumulative chemical - Agent Orange - BLACK AND WHITE

Agent Orange has caused hideous deformities and illnesses in the Vietnamese and will do so for generations to come - BLACK AND WHITE

The US, Monsanto, Dow et al has refused compensation to the Vietnamese victims but has begrudgingly compensated some US veterans - GREY

2. The livestock industry between 2000 - 2007 "officially" dumped 414,000 animals overboard. These land animals could not endure the conditions - BLACK AND WHITE

The livestock industry justify this abomination by protesting the majority are not thrown overboard - GREY

3. Former Premier Brian Burke was twice gaoled for defrauding the state of WA - BLACK AND WHITE

Taxpayers picked up the bill - $30 million for the Royal Commission and $600 million for crook deals done behind closed doors, colluding with gluttonous, corporate sponsors. GREY

4. A pig farmer in WA allowed his pigs to swim in their own excrement, standing on top of each other and reduced to cannibalism - BLACK AND WHITE

Despite the graphic footage, the pig farmer continues to operate - GREY

5 AA released footage on the atrocities in the Bassintin abattoirs in Egypt - BLACK AND WHITE

Even Egyptians are alerting the world to Egypt's legalised torture of its animals. Last month, our government announced the resumption of live exports to Egypt - GREY

6 Australia's cattle fraternity incarcerate a cow in a crush, shove shears up its back end to cut off its ovaries - BLACK AND WHITE

The Australian government, which has assured me in writing that "cruelty to animals will not be tolerated" approves this practice - GREY

contd....

Contd......

7. The poster, Dickie, is not a "vegan" - BLACK AND WHITE

Yabby, a live exporter, consistently and fallaciously informs readers on OLO that Dickie is a "vegan" - GREY

"It's never good, and I'd never actively support it if there was no reason"

Ah but you are TRTL because you have manufactured a reason - a "grey" area. Your "grey" area exempts you from a conscience. Why is that humans lack conscience when I have managed to instill one in my animals?

Matthew Scully, was a former executive assistant and chief speechwriter for Bush during his first term. A former literary editor of National Review, he is the author of Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (St. Martin's Press), named by The Atlantic Monthly as one of the ten best non-fictions of 2002: He advises:

"In all cases, the law should apply to corporate farmers - a few simple rules that better men would have been observing all along:

"We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life. And when human beings cannot do something humanely, without degrading both the creatures and ourselves, then we should not do it at all." BLACK AND WHITE

"That seems to follow you veggies about. Perhaps its something in the lettuce, who knows."

Not nice Pale. You know very well that the majority of health warnings on dietary habits are directed at the ramifications of consuming meat. And why not when you realise these often diseased, pitiful critters are mobile chemical farms?

And why not when official figures reveal that last decade there were around 700 tonnes of antibiotics imported into Australia each year?:

35.7% human medicine, 7.6% veterinary medicine (eg mastitis in dairy cows, pneumonia in pigs), 56.6% mixed into stockfeed.

Come now Pale. Why do you think that human lives are threatened by antibiotic resistant bacteria?

"sometimes we have to do unpleasant things for the greater good" Tut tut TRTL - GREY

*Yabby, a live exporter*

I am? Actually I'm a farmer, who started getting into debates about
live exports, after the many ridiculous claims on OLO. One reason
to sell some sheep to shippers, was to find out for myself, what
was truth and what was rubbish. Sorry, but I don't own any boats,
so I am not a live shipper.

The company that I dealt with, were fussy about what they shipped,
professional to deal with and very fussy about dates, so as to stick
to required acclimatisation periods etc. Quite different to all that
I had been told on OLO. The more I dug, the more I found that
what was being promoted by the vegan brigade, was little but
propaganda, about as inaccurate as the mulesing story.

*fallaciously informs readers on OLO that Dickie is a "vegan"*

You quote vegan dogma, you wave the vegan flag, you quote vegan websites
such as Peta, animal liberation etc. You occasionally eat meat on social occasions
and spend the rest of your time quoting the evils of eating meat, the evils of farming
livestock etc for a profit. Perhaps you just don’t have the balls to tell your social
circle, just how radical you really are.

*We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return.*

That is exactly what good farming is all about. We feed them through droughts,
we treat them for worms, we make sure they don’t die by being ripped to death by
predators or die of starvation, as in nature. We make sure that their nutrition is
correct and that they thrive. That all involves costs and those costs have to be
paid for in the market place. If the marketplace is corrupt, we have to find markets
where their value is reflected, for their benefit, as well as ours.

What is cruel is not black and white. Losing a bit of skin is part of what happens
to every farmer as part of the job. For maternal old ducks like yourself, it’s a major
drama.

Hi all

TRTL, may I ask, when have you communicated with a PETA representative who has expressed hostility towards you? The PETA representatives with whom I have had contact have never expressed "hostility" about anything. PETA has a philosophy about the use of animals, but I have never seen anything on a website or anywhere else where they are "hostile". They advocate for better lives for animals in recognition of the fact that the world will not change to their philosophies overnight. Where they see what they believe is egregious cruelty they will advocate about that. After all, they started out negotiating with the wool industry until Ian McLachlan made such a fool of himself on television.

Do you really think that any alternatives to mulesing would have even been researched or considered without PETA's exposure, and if there are alternative, less brutal ways of controlling flystrike, don't you think that they should be used? What is wrong with campaigning for anaesthesia/analgesia to improve what must be a terribly painful procedure?

They campaign very actively against the fur industry because it's egregiously cruel - particularly in China; there are plenty of organizations besides PETA who provide information about that.

PALE, I'd be very surprised if you did know anything about what I do or don't do for animals, since you know nothing about me. I keep it that way so you can never contact me directly. I said that I didn't want to be part of your project from the outset.

Asking what you do, since you claim to be an active animal welfare organization (as opposed to a private individual who claims nothing) is quite reasonable. It's disappointing that you have no answers to that - no apparent current activities. If I were to ask the other organizations you mention the same questions, I'm sure I would receive a considered response. Assistance from "your QC", if he exists, may not have been required by Glenys, have you thought about that? As for being here to "discredit PALE" you don't need any help from anyone for that.

Nicky

It must be nice living in a simple world, where you don't have to think much about right and wrong, Dickie. Regrettably, finding things 'grey' means I have to think a great deal about what is the right course of action, and no, I don't use it as a justification. It is because I am here considering what I believe to be right and wrong and it is often challenging that I say these things. On the face of it, poisoning wild dogs is wrong. Allowing wild dogs to indiscriminately kill native wildlife is also wrong. So we have a choice. It is indeed, a very 'grey' area.

The full effects of Agent Orange were not known at the time. Of course hindsight makes it a heinous decision. I'd not make the same decision were I in their shoes, but I've no doubt some people at the time honestly believed it was a necessity that would save the lives of some of their troops by deforesting the jungle and making it possible to see enemy troops. I believe it was wrong, of course. Disgusting, repugnant, any negative adjective you care to name. But somebody evidently didn't. I'd at least listen to why they made such a difficult decision before chanting EVIL and throwing stones at them.

Of course, Monsanto is considering what they believe to be best for their thousands of shareholders, and this is how they justify it. I think that's pathetic, yes, and don't condone it. But again, I'd listen before making my final judgement. As it happens, it would be an easy decision to damn them, but yes, I'd listen.

Your picking simplistic morality arguments doesn't detract from the complexity of things like the wild dog issue, nor any of the other points I've raised.