I note that Yabby has neither withdrawn his scurrilous libel that I in any way excuse the terrorist Osama bin Laden (in Yabby's words: "Daggett fails to convince anyone that Osama is an angel"), nor supplied any evidence to back it up.

I have strenuously objected to that at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#49886 and if Yabby had bothered to read what I had written he would no what he wrote was a lie.

His response has been to continue his pretence of being a stupid ignoramus with no capacity to understand the words staring him in the face in order to make the the making of false and libellous accusations against others appear to be less reprehensible than it, in fact, is.

---

I agree with a lot of what human interest writes, but I believe that the issue of refugee rights is separate. One should not be obliged to defend the rights of refugees in order to be able to take a stance on animal rights, and similarly one should not be obliged to defend animal rights in order to be able to take a stance on refugee rights.

That having been said, I believe that the refugee rights issue has been conflated with the immigration issue and has served as a trojan horse to break down public resistant to the record high immigration that is now underway.

I support the humane treatment of anyone claiming refugee status, and object to much of the way they were treated by the Howard Government, but we also need immigration laws which work and need to prevent economic refugees being able to falsely claim to be political asylum seekers.

Yabby's greatest difficulty in life is that he knows a very little bit about a very few things and he thinks he can apply grandiose, and patronising statements to cover up that, and his particularly warped and diseased view of the world.

Yabby, why do you not breed dogs for the live export trade for China, the Philippines and Korea? What is the difference? You could pack 'em into the "Al Kuwait - probably four of five - hell, even six border collies would fit into the space given to sheep now (3 sheep per 1 square metre) They could have the fur as well as the meat. If your free-market principles apply, then there is no reason not to, and think how they would just love you.

As for the cruelty in the world to humans, generally speaking, humans tend to have more control over the predicaments in which they find themselves and more ability to extricate themselves from them than do animals, but concern for either or both is not mutually exclusive.

Nicky

Funny that you should say that Nicky, for right now I have 6 puppies
running around the kitchen, cute as anything. 4 are going to
extremely good homes, no chains etc, the last two we'll see. Its
either great homes or we'll put them down. I've even had a pet
lamb in that kitchen before, who lived to a ripe old age, after
she had rejoined the herd.

For your answer, just look in nature. Carnivores eating herbivores
is part of nature and is what keeps the population in check, or
they die of starvation. Too many carnivores and they wipe out
the herbivores, they both starve. Each has a role to play in the
natural order of things and I accept that role, I do not deny it,
as you do.

Daggett dear, you spend enormous time (48 pages) on another
thread, trying to show that it must have been that naughty
CIA who did it all. By very implication you must think that
Osama is a victim, clearly framed and innocent if it was that
evil CIA. Now your little feelings are hurt, after you have
come onto this thread and written post after post of insults
and accusations.

If you can't handle the heat of healthy debate, what on earth are
you doing on OLO ?

Yabby, you didn't answer my question. Why not start a trade in live dogs (and cats even) to China? Thunk how many you could cram into those filthy pens. It would, in your own terms, be no less "legitimate". Come to think of it, slavery, in your terms, would be legitimate too.

"Good homes", or put them down? By drowning, or bashing on the head? You see nothing wrong with that? But of course you wouldn't. Destroying perfectly healthy animals is nothing to you.

BTW, have you seen the Sydney Morning Herald blog on live exports?

Nicky

Nicky, of course I answered your question. You clearly did not
read my last response, or did not understand what I wrote.

Reread it and you will have your answer. My philosophy is quite
straight forward, ie. based on Darwinian evolution theory, which
is what the evidence shows, things are all about.

It seems to me that you still don't understand the fundamental
differences between carnivores and herbivores.

Why should I drown those puppies or bash them on the head? I'll
try to find great homes for them, but if there are none around,
rather then see them face a life of suffering on some chain, or
locked up in some apartment in the city, they will either go to
the vet for an injection or reluctantly be shot.

We'll see, it is early days yet, they are only 6 weeks old.

I've told you before, I accept life and death as part of the
natural order. You seemingly cannot accept nature as reality.

Yabby, that was not an answer. You cannot claim the "natural order of things" in an argument about a free market economy. Either it is okay to export animals (any animals) for carnivores to eat, and for you to make a profit doing it, or it isn't. Think how many puppies you could cram into the "Al Kuwait".

There is absolutely no difference in exporting shiploads of dogs for barbarians in China (since it is their custom to eat (and otherwise brutalise them) than there is exporting shiploads of other animals to barbarians elsewhere. The fact that dogs are carnivores is of total irrelevance to the Chinese (and Koreans and Filipinos). There is a market for live dogs for slaughter there, so why is Australia not addressing that?

So where is your answer?

Nicky