Jonathon Byrd,
Just a friendly word of warning we were banned for a month for the same thing. We joined as a insitute member to enable all our members to post.
I wanted to keep my ID seperate but someone comlained and..
After this the members started posting under their own Ids only to have people say hey you cant do that your really PALE Arnt you.( Then complained again)

They even opended a whole thread about it calling it the car park.

So the members stopped posting after months up upsets which did nothing to help the animals.

Now they want me to do the same thing again.- hilarious. Just dont want to see it happen to you. Check with GY first.

Thank You for our comments and I am sure you already know Albaco seems to agree with you so your in good company.

He intends to close down Puppy mills and has a great compassion for animals. The act of adopting a puupy if elected as president or not goes before beyond a promise to the children. I susopect his children will make wonderful Animal Welfare advicits.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:tEp3Eq6UBPsJ:www.deathrowpets.net/PDFs/Obama_Baby.pdf+president+al+usa+animals+puppy+mills&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

While speaking in Henderson, Nevada, Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too.

"What about animal rights?" a woman shouted out during the candidate's town hall meeting outside Las Vegas after he discussed issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care and the economy.

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, "not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog." He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.
http://www.catanna.com/obama-animal-welfare.htm

PS It would be nice if your organisation would include Animal Welfare to give Obama supportin his efforts for animals. Christian Churches sure as hell 'mostly' dont give a dam.

Hi Bronwyn

>>Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive.<<

I wasn't aware that I had suggested otherwise.

The sequence of my posts here has been:

- my observation that Celivia's reference to "slaughter of these beautiful animals" could be construed as selecting only cute and fluffy creatures for protection - the "baby seal syndrome"

- my observation to Jonathon Byrd that the preferential treatment of attractive animals over ugly one might smack of hypocrisy

- an invitation to Jonathon to provide a more appropriate terminology than hypocrisy

- a musing with examinator on the possibility that our civilization may have reached a point where single-issue fanaticism about doggy-related issues has somehow outweighed our compassion towards our fellow humans.

And as I said, I don't see this as an assertion, more as a question to which I personally don't have an answer.

Possibly, it is a sign that we have over-evolved. That we are perhaps, as a civilization, reaching another "Decline and Fall" point, evidenced by our dedication to marginal causes (cf. gladiatorial contests in the Coliseum) that have nothing to do with growing and maturing as people. In other words, that the ability to devote ourselves to such causes (save the lesser-striped bilby from torture) is a luxury only recently afforded us, courtesy of our elevated economic position.

Perhaps we have reached the end-point of our growth and development as a species, will henceforth eschew the trappings of capitalism, and the next millennium will be populated by greenies living in mud huts.

If it does come to pass in this fashion, I can guarantee one thing.

They will eat meat. And they will catch it and kill it in any way they can.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

When I post as separate identities, I do not use one to support the other in the same thread. That is, when the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc makes a comment, Jonathon Byrd does not suddenly appear and support that comment or vice versa. We are both confident enough in our views to need no support. :))

The AFA can only pronounce on topics related to adverse religionism accepted by a majority of Atheists. Many Atheists share my concerns but the cultural blind spot about animal welfare is a universal one. Mores the pity.

Barack Obama has the potential on many fronts to be the most positive force for good that the planet has witnessed for a long time.

Animal rights cannot be denied forever, even though the battle has only begun recently. Slavery lasted for hundreds of years, as has the lack of equality for women and same sex oriented people.

These blights on humanity still exist in some part of the world and that is why Democracies should be the greatest advocators of getting rid of them. And, with the freedoms we have, we should at least be considering extending compassion to other species.

The first poster to mention animal voting rights or lack of tax paying ability etc, places her or him high on the list of nominees for 'thickhead of the year' award.

Jonathon

Pericles,

“my observation to Jonathon Byrd that the preferential treatment of attractive animals over ugly one might smack of hypocrisy

- an invitation to Jonathon to provide a more appropriate terminology than hypocrisy”

There is no more difference between some people being fixated on “attractive animals over ugly ones” than others being fixated on a dog or a cat over a sheep or a pig.

I tend not to call either example that of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy needs conscious admission where a lie is behind the ‘reasoning’. Cultural teaching can distort rational thought processes allowing this to be considered normal.

If I had to classify such thinking, maybe the word used should be, ‘delusional’ or ‘rationalisation’.

To call someone a ‘hypocrite’ is to call them a liar and is far too strong a term for people who are trying to do the correct thing, as they perceive it.

You know this but in protecting your own ‘rationalisations’ you lash out at them with inappropriate language.

Not good enough.

You have forced this answer out of me, as I did not wish to be the one to tell you.

Jonathon

Don't take it to heart, Jonathon Byrd, it's only a word. You have chosen a particular definition with which to hang me...

>>Hypocrisy needs conscious admission where a lie is behind the ‘reasoning’... To call someone a ‘hypocrite’ is to call them a liar and is far too strong a term for people who are trying to do the correct thing, as they perceive it<<

Wikipedia (that font of all knowledge) describes it as...

"...the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself"

Does that necessarily indicate the telling of a lie? Or merely the act of selectively ignoring one's own advice?

And I'm not at all sure that substituting your proposed "delusional rationalisation" takes us anywhere useful.

But let's not get carried away, shall we?

>>You know this but in protecting your own ‘rationalisations’ you lash out at them with inappropriate language. Not good enough.<<

"Lash out?" "inappropriate language?" Way too heavy.

>>You have forced this answer out of me, as I did not wish to be the one to tell you.<<

Oh, I am sorry. That must have hurt.

Here, have some chocolate.

*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.*

Ah Bronwyn, how diplomatic of you, not to name names :)

I love the way that the extreme left use the word "exploitation."
Give somebody a job for instance, you must be exploiting them.

Every creature has to make a living somehow in this world.
Some manage to do it, by looking cute and satisfying the mothering
instincts of those who feed them. They become replacement children
etc.

Farm livestock make a living by being what they are. Their progeny
are eaten. Its not as if they really care, for once we are dead,
none of us do.

So farm livestock, in many cases who live far more naturally then
those bemothered pets, often are in a win-win situation with people.

What it comes down to, is about are their lives worth living and
are they suffering.

As to women in Africa, arn't you fortunate Bronwyn, that you can
choose how many children that you decided to have and to raise.
Why should women in Africa not have the same choice?