"Dickie I got the information about your health from you!"

Belly

Your feeble endeavour to perpetuate an outrageous lie is noted.

I reiterate - where is the link?

Foxy joined us in late 2007 so it will not be difficult for you to find the link to which you refer.

I predict that your failure to provide the evidence warrants an immediate apology and since you have informed OLO of your real name, and PALE has perpetuated the same outrageous lie, including the one about Yabby, may I ask if you pair have colluded by telephone to kneecap Dickie?

I acknowledge my colourful posts and the requirement to be more subtle or courteous, however, dealing with liars makes that a difficult task and your attempts to assassinate an opponent's character without substantiation, reveals the unconscionable depths to which you will resort.

Who would buy a used car from the likes of you?

Meredith

I thank you for your support.

I did post something earlier on this thread and now can't find it. Belly, I was pleased to see that you started it with the intention of "not starting a war", but do you not think that was almost inevitable, given that the same old antagonists were bound to appear? And thanks for your kind words, by the way.

I see some very well-informed material here as usual from Bronwyn and Dickie, PALE reviving the same old, same old, about every other animal advocacy organisation, and sinking to a new low by revealing what is essentially personal and private information about others - which may or may not be true but PALE's not interested in letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Nonetheless it shows a complete lack of understanding of ethical and moral considerations.

It should be noted that PETA sees its primary function as being about animal cruelty - environmental concerns and sustainability are incidental to its central campaigns and PETA has never presented otherwise, so far as I know.

PETA has done this as a media attention grabber. It worked, didn't it?

Cheers
Nicky

Yabby,

With all due respect, I was looking for a rational response, not irrelevant hyperbole.

“Ah Jonathon, but if humans were not born, they would not suffer either! No need for mommies to suffer either, giving birth. “

Errrr, yes Yabby, that is what I said.

“If you agree that to avoid suffering, its better not to be born,
then surely it does not matter which species.”

This is mixing two ideas, distorting my intention and is senseless.

“Humans suffer by human command too.”

Have you heard of two wrongs etc. Humans have comprehensive protective legislation – most animals do not.

“Not sustainably…etc.”

This is known as a rationalisation, it is not an argument against cruelty.

Australian range land evolved with soft footed animals. Expansive damage by greater numbers of hard hoofed animals is widespread. (Obviously!)

I have explained the fire risk. Again, this is a rationalisation to support a view.

Consumer preference does not necessarily make for ethical correctness.

Because of a few perceptual problems with vegetarianism does not negate the concept especially as there are very many more real negatives with consuming meat.

Your statement on food aid is elitist. Millions of people need help and cannot grow their own. That meat is dearer than grain seems to have missed your notice.

As well as arguing that animals are only commodities you feel that people don’t’ deserve our help either. It is pointless responding to someone with such an attitude on this subject.

I would expect you to answer points I have raised but obviously, you would rather just throw in red herrings. Whatever you believe is fine. I have no wish to alter your mind. But, confusing the facts at hand with opinions influenced exclusively by personal circumstance, is non productive.

Please lift your standard.

Jonathon

Jonathon, hehe, because I ask valid questions which you cannot
answer, you claim that I should lift my game and call it rationalisation :)
I know exactly what rationalisation means,
go and look it up so that you do too.

* This is mixing two ideas, distorting my intention and is senseless.*

Yet it is a valid question, unless you are being speciest. Human
life at any cost, free range livestock which might well be
enjoying their lives and living sustainably, will not be tolerated,
because of your flawed philosophy. Think again.

*Humans have comprehensive protective legislation – most animals do not.*

Go and tell that to people in Somalia, the Congo and other third
world nations, where human life basically has no value. If animal
protection laws need changing, they can be changed, which includes
pets by the way, which are kept as virtual slaves by their owners.

*Expansive damage by greater numbers of hard hoofed animals is widespread. (Obviously!)*

That really comes down to soil cover and stocking rate. Yes, more
care needs to be taken with hard hoofed animals, but it can be
done quite sustainably.

Compare that to the scenario which you seem to prefer, ie one
of the Australian outback regularly on fire, the nutrient loss
is ginormous and is one explanation why we have such improverished
soils. As I have pointed out, the cruelty of all those animals
burning alive in the process, seems to have passed you by.

*Your statement on food aid is elitist.*

On the contrary, I think it is very sensible and highlights why
we have such enormous problems in parts of the third world.
First we send them boatloads of food and planeloads of vaccines,
but forget the family planning part. So the population soars to
ever higher levels. Then we dump food aid on their markets, or
cheap subsidised US and EU foodstuffs, putting their own farmers
out of business. Now you seem to think we should dump even more
boatloads of food there as a solution. Think again.

Yabby,

You are trying to steer the discussion away from the reasons humans eat meat. It is taste. The arguments for not eating it are very sound otherwise; you would not fear them so. I am not advocating that people don’t eat meat as that is a choice even though childhood influence is a big factor. I am actually suggesting that people eat what they like. Eating what you like has consequences. Surely, these should be looked at in a rational manner.

It is time wasting to advocate free range, when that is a very small part of the diet of meat eaters.

An example of your irrational protectionism is jumping in and out of the developing world at whim. I have mentioned the Western diet. I would consider it a favour if you would stick to that.

You have not answered any of my genuine claims supporting a no meat diet, but rather you make peripheral mutterings about scenarios you dream up in your head.

If I say Australia got by without sheep and cattle, possibly for hundreds of thousands of years, you answer that taking away that stock will cause immense fires and more animals will die because of it. Even with the aboriginal fire regime, which did not cover all of Australia at once, you can’t even think this can be repeated.

Stocking rates are beyond capacity now. You may not admit it, but the government does. Look it up.

And back you to classing other humans as ‘them’ as if we should have no concern. These are people just as you are a people (Just) comprised of women, men and children in different circumstances than yourself. As I say, if you have no compassion for the less fortunate, then what hope is there of you showing any compassion for other animals?

None, I would suggest.

Jonathon

Dear Jonathan, you may have noticed that Yabby is incapable of rational debate without the obligatory red herrings and gratuitous insults (such as describing those who disagree with him in derogatory terms such as "housewife" and "city slicker")

He does this to justify his own (self-proclaimed)lifestyle, which encompasses "enslaving" pets (for example, he has a mixed-breed dog from which he breeds indiscriminately, then chops off its pups' heads if/when no-one wants them, and sends lambs off to the Middle Eastern butchers).

It is scientific fact that Australian agriculture is not sustainable; the fragile ecosystems were meant to support native wildlife, and the consequences of mass-scale farming of cloven hooved animals has caused irreparable soil erosion. Mass clearing of trees is another contributing factor. The deaths of huge numbers of farmed animals by bushfire should not be happening because those animals should not have been there to begin with.

Then consider the damage to waterways and land by intensive pig and chicken farmers, and feedlots. Also consider the handouts farmers expect - and get - some sectors of Australian society are definitely more equal than others. And just think of their carbon footprint.

The only rational argument Yabby has is for foreign aid in the form of birth control.

Nicky