Pericles,

Rats have a bad rap because they are destructive, cause disease, are ubiquitous and can be a direct threat to life and health. They therefore are in need of controlling.

But I agree with you, ‘cuddly’ should not be a determiner of status. Suffering capability should. It seems within the realms of possibility that the dislike of rats is embedded in the human psyche, as rodents have played havoc with food storage forever.

A couple of the keys to controlling rats is to never leave food of any kind out at night or allow rubbish to build up where they can take up residence. Convincing neighbours not to do this is the real problem.

The compassionate/empathetic part of people in choices about other creatures is sometimes based in irrationality. Doesn’t mean it should be disregarded as ‘nutty’, rather it should be a starting point for a greater understanding of all living things.

Belly,

Vegetables are not suffering capable. People are able to have multiple concerns.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

“If you oppose Free Range for hoofed Animals you’re supporting intensive farming. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

I am not supporting one or the other. I am merely pointing out they both have cruelty and environmental concerns.

What individuals or humanity does with information along these lines is up to individuals and humanity.

Is it “self indulgent” of you, (And me) that opposed to the rest of the world, you use a computer, drive a car, have running water etc? Explain why, it is only diet that is self indulgent?

My attitude is not because of a “big heart”. I merely accept that I am a creature of happenstance, as are all others. I do not assume special rights unless under direct threat of survival.

I heard the other day that the only certainty of getting into bed with the devil, is that at some stage one is bound to get screwed.

I think there is a lesson in that for all of us. :))

Jonathon

Rats were a metaphor, Jonathon Byrd, representing the entire spectrum of non-cuddly species.

But I'm sure that you knew that, really.

My point was not that people are "nutty", as you put it, in their mindless protectionism of the cute and furry, but that they are fundamentally hypocritical.

The same goes for people who would be utterly horrified if I kept a slave in my house to do my bidding, but are perfectly comfortable with the idea that animals somehow relish a lack of freedom in their lives.

>>...rather it should be a starting point for a greater understanding of all living things.<<

Couldn't have put it better myself

Pericles,

Maybe the word ‘hypocritical’ is too harsh. To be hypocritical there needs to be knowledge of holding two opposing opinions. Being unaware that two opinions are in conflict, can be caused by a number of factors and mostly culturally promoted.

For instance, legally owning a slave, providing no better treatment than to your dog was not hypocritical. Often, the dog faired better in the equation. Slaves were classified by culture to be inferior beings. Therefore, there was no hypocrisy. Plenty of poor thinking, yes, but no hypocritical thinking.

Dogs are treated better than Kangaroos or fish for the same reasons. A greater understanding shows support for both these examples to be baseless and only supported by cultural agreement. As we know, slavery was wrong. The question we are confronting now is; are we also wrong in how we treat other sentient animals? If we are not, then why are we not?

Does the cultural imprimatur of accepting an action only on taste preference override ethical evaluation?

Jonathon

It's the financially valuable animals that are the ones with less rights though, not the ugly ones.

Animals classified as live stock etc, used in science..

It's true dogs have more rights than pigs, sheep, cows, chickens etc because they are preferred by humans, but if the dog meat industry kicks off, they too will be live stock with no rights at all.

Same with the native animal industry, all of a sudden less right to protection from pain and harm

*yabby I too have a question for you.
Why do you bother?*

Belly, lets say that many little reasons, make one
good reason.

Yes most country people have some common sense, it
seems its not the case with this lot. So in that sense
they amuse me :) Cases like Jonathon and Nicky, who
are up themselves intellectually and read their Singer
gospel etc, really have virtually no common sense,
just a religous kind of belief in their dogma, much
like Boaz and Gibo, believe in their religion.

If they call me names and can't answer my questions,
clearly they don't have any answers. After having debated
Al Queda supporters and similar on British websites, these
petals are a breeze :)

So I have a pretty thick skin and unless they have some
kind of intellectual, rational point of reason, which they
have thought through and are not just parroting on, as they
usually do, there is really nothing but a bit of humour.

I will freely change my opinion, but it will take more
then a few parrots to convince me.

Dickie, yes, growing annuals rather then perineals or trees,
will tend to bring salt to the surface and highlight the
problem which nature itself has caused. WA's problems are
that those soils are extremely old, unlike volcanic soils
in other parts of the world.

So much salt has accumulated, due to natural causes. These were
not caused by irrigation, as in other parts of the world.

Trees simply keep the problem out of eyesight, they do not
solve the problem. Good drainage does, for it removes the
salt and puts it back from where it came.

My farm for instance, won't have a salt problem, as it has
good drainage and salt goes back where it came from. Other
parts of Western Australia are not so fortunate. They are
relatively flat, were overcleared and have nowhere for the
salty water to go back from where it came. So you then
have a problem. Open up those channels leading back to
the river system and ultimately the sea and-you-will-solve-it.

Meredith,

“It's the financially valuable animals that are the ones with less rights though, not the ugly ones. ”

This is a statement of some fact. It has nothing do with ethics concerning the premise of animals as financial objects. Slaves were spoken about in the same manner as per example:

“It’s the financially valuable slaves that are the ones with less rights though, etc”

You may have to explain the next sentence a little better.

“It's true dogs have more rights than pigs, sheep, cows, chickens etc because they are preferred by humans, but if the dog meat industry kicks off, they too will be live stock with no rights at all.”

This one is none too clear either.

“Same with the native animal industry, all of a sudden less right to protection from pain and harm”

Are you saying that if humans concede native animals equal consideration with dogs, they will be worse off?

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post but I found it a little confusing. Maybe give it another go using different terms.

Jonathon