periciles,
You are absolutely right. It is the disproportionate amount of time, energy and money spent on animal 'rights' that irks me, when there is so much need to meet the basic needs of people. After the flack the US copped about Iraq, I cannot see their willingness to intervene in Zimbarbwe and the UN is not making great headway in other African countries.

Today in the Tele is a photo gallery of near naked PETA actiists demonstrating in Sydney, against eating meat, against KFC and bullfighting. So Help me, bullfighting has been against the law here for as long as I can remember. They seem to be very selective and discriminating with the issues they promote.

There was a large posting on this thread about exporting dogs which they claim are being killed for human consumption, but it is obvious PETA do not know if it is legal to consume dog meat here in NSW.

I find it ironic that so much effort is put into preventing cruelty to animals but nothing is said about cruelty to little girls by way of FGM and forced marriages that are endured by young women.

Also today, articles about some silly cleric saying it is OK to rape and beat ones wife.

Sure animals need protection but let us keep it in proportion to our human needs.

My this thread is becoming convoluted. What has the US, Iraq and Zimbawe to do with animals rights? None of these governments waste their time on animal rights – rather they torture them in the name of "humanity."

And just where is the relevance to PETA’s knowledge on bull-fighting in Australia? Their brief is on the cruelty perpetrated on bulls in Spain – a country known for its blood lust. PETA is alerting the world to this heinous sport.

And what on earth has FGM to do with PETA’s brief? There are plenty of human rights groups speaking out on FGM though those who perform FGM generally like to suck the blood from an animal whose brain and heart is still pulsating.

“Sure animals need protection but let us keep it in proportion to our human needs.” Yeah…..sure thing Banjo. What a pity that the proportion you speak of is greatly outweighed in favour of human needs – all 6.7 billion of them.

Thousands of groups are speaking out about human rights. These groups remain silent over the abominable cruelty to animals. Why aren’t they speaking out on animal cruelty too, one must ask since you do?

And while Pericle's fanaticism on animal “slavery” continues, my animal refugees are gathered together in the morning sun, on the footpath watching the passing parade. Mind you, no designer labels among this ragged lot, who’ve previously been beaten, starved and incarcerated. Mmmmmm……wonder why they don’t run away from their "slave" owner?

Oh oh – excuse me....someones knocking at the door. “Oh good morning Miss Nanny Goat. Have you tidied up the weeds on the footpath? Good girl. In you come sweetie pie!”

Good People,

Like a moth drawn to the flame, I’m drawn momentarily into the fray by statements inconsistent with rationality.

It is inscribed in law that many governments give huge sums of money to disadvantaged peoples and countries. The United Nations, by way charters and agreements, no matter that there are some problems and inconsistencies involved with it, is a people protecting mechanism. Parliaments produce laws by the bucket load in the interest of people. Taxes supply hospitals, police forces, services and infrastructure for people. Vast amounts of money prop up aid organisations for humans, as it should be. This donated money used by faith driven organisations is unaccountable

Compared to all of this, there are a relatively small number of non-government organisations struggling against massive opposition from vested interest to bring to the attention of the public the cruelty inherent in speciesism.

The odd tit or hint of a tit is sometimes used in this venture and suddenly, some perceive that animals are getting too great a deal in the fairness stakes.

Only one thing can cause this type of outrageously blinkered thinking; the protecting of a prejudice.

Jonathon

My mistake. I am not speaking on behalf of The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. This is my opinion and my nom de plume.

David

Pericles

Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive. In my experience, people who care about one also care about the other.

Animal rights activists might seem to you to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy on their cause. But that's what you have to do if you're passionate about an issue and want to make a difference. It doesn't mean these same people turn their backs on situations involving human misery, in fact quite the contrary I would suggest.

Those here who have spoken out against recreational fishing would I'm sure detest the cruel confinement of pets, or the wealth disparity within and between nations and the human suffering it entails, every bit as much as you do. In fact, a person's attitudes towards animals I think is a good indicator of their capacity to experience empathy more generally.

When the posters here who argue the most vehemently in favour of the exploitation of animals, then turn round and pontificate on the plight of women in Africa, for example, their words have a rather hollow ring for me I'm afraid.

Compassion is not an either/or situation. We can and should have the heart and the capacity to care about the suffering of all living creatures. We just have to keep striving for the win/win solutions whereby both humans and animals benefit.

Driving a wedge into any discussions working towards that aim isn't helpful.

I agree entirely with your comments, David. Jonathon? Couldn't work that out I'm afraid!

Bronwyn,

That was a very succinctly worded post containing all the necessary elements against this preposterous idea that people concerned for animal welfare are somehow non-caring about humans. One would think your words would put an end to this stupidity, but sadly, I doubt that.

To clarify your puzzlement, I am David Nicholls who writes for and on behalf of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. As animal rights are also an interest of mine, I am compelled by personal opinion to write sometimes about that subject. As it falls outside the direct mandate of the AFA, I therefore use a pseudonym, which is Jonathon Byrd.

After a night with Barack Obama and a four hundred kilometre drive the next day for an AFA meeting, returning in the wee hours of this morning and getting very little sleep, through tiredness, I accidentally logged in as The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

I have contemplated just using David Nicholls as the name without the AFA tag, but I figured it would still be synonymous with my position in the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

This is a good compromise, although I would rather have kept the two ‘handles’ as separate entities. Can’t help bad luck, I suppose.

Hope this helps.

On the negative side, I have blown two posts on explanations.

Jonathon