People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

“Do I detect a background.”

Yes you do, enough to make me value the only life available, uncluttered by cultural baggage. I’ve been very lucky.

As for advertising, ‘David’ says he is quite happy with the results already :))

Bronwyn,

“Sorry about that. I had read your first explanation but it still hadn't helped me! ”

I would rather wear neither hat, but there is a need for those who can make a positive contribution to speak out.

“And here I was getting all excited about this 'new' white knight in shining armour who'd blown in from nowhere to take up the cudgel for animal rights! I'm most deflated, but very happy to bump into you again just the same!”

I understand your disappointment but I also have been waiting for a ‘new’ white night(s) to combat the excess of intolerance surrounding animal rights. The problem isn’t that they are not out there, it is more to do with knowing the opposition does not fight fairly that puts people off. Don’t get me wrong, vested interest thinks it is being reasonable and some is, but unsupported assuredness of cultural tradition is a slippery beast with which to do battle. This makes public forums unrepresentative of actual reality as not many folk cherish the thought of wearing verbal abuse. This is pretty-well guaranteed to happen on these topics.

On the other hand, some ‘animal lovers’ express opinions that are only half truths and seem compelled to use overt bluntness in support of their views. This is in need of checking but not by harsh put down as even inconsistent compassion for other creatures is far better than the alternative of none.

I think it would be a wise move and this includes for me, to follow these words of wisdom; “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” (KJV Proverbs 15:1)

Jonathon

Jonathon,
Thank you for your opinion.
Albeit predictably consistent with your usual myopic culturally biased absolutes.
Which BTW misses the purpose, context and ignores the scientific psychological and brain research mentioned in my post to Pericles.
It should be noted that neither in this nor the preceding post was I passing any sort of pejorative judgement on people’s priorities merely a tentative explanation for them.

The first bit of your response is hardly indicative of anything. With regard to my examples however, when linked to accepted scientific conclusions is prima facae(on the surface)supporting evidence (I make no claim beyond that).

You said >“a stance chosen on the intellectual assessment supporting empathy and compassion for suffering capable animals. “<
Is clearly a logical nonsense. In fact psychological and brain research has determined that the emotions (empathy and compassion) come first then the higher function rationalization comes next usually coloured by CULTURAL imprinting.

>”It also concludes that because we can kill at whim is not reason good enough to kill.” < A clear cultural rationalization of the above emotions.

I have no wish to hijack or impose any further on your thread or indulge in what experience has shown would be a pointless discussion therefore I’m gone.

Confusion begets confusion, obviously.

PALE&IF seems to think I am some kind of PETA stool-pigeon.

>>We have been through your views which IMO mirror PETA many times before<<

Or perhaps a stalking-horse. It's not entirely clear which.

Now dickie wades in.

>>I'm bemused that the fate of all companion animals has been decided on this thread.<<

I'd say the discussion is on-going, but there you are.

>>man is too urbanised, too callous, too irresponsible to acknowledge that humans and animals have freely wandered around together for at least 100,000 years and still do.<<

Oh, really?

Are you suggesting that there is a parallel between the trained wolves of pre-history and Paris Hilton's chihuahua?

And let's face it, it wasn't always dog-blankets and pooper-scoopers.

"Dogs that were probably nothing more than domesticated wolves were adept at spotting and flushing out game. Often, this meant that the animal would then be chased and harassed to the point of exhaustion and collapse, whereupon the humans would close in and finish the job with spears, stone knives, and arrows."

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of-Hunting-Dogs&id=1894192

How does this compare with, say, modern methods of killing animals for food? More, or less cruel?

>>Man is now too egotistical to understand that non-humans exist in an eco-sphere - unlike man in his ego-sphere.<<

Could you expand on this a little? I think it might mean something, but I can't fathom what.

>>Now we must slaughter the "slaves" too! Huh??<<

For the nth time, nobody (that I am aware of) is suggesting that these domestic animal-toys be taken out and shot.

>>Now, there is only the killing and the eating of the animal<<

Couldn't work this one out either. Are you suggesting that prehistoric man didn't eat animals?

News, sunshine. They did.

Some tribes also ate... dogs

www.in.gov/dnr/files/american_dogs.pdf

"In 1673, the chief of the Peoria tribe held a feast for two French explorers, Marquette and Jolliet. The fourth course of the feast consisted of dog"

Man's inhumanity to animals didn't suddenly start in the recent past, it has always been around. But that doesn't justify its continuance, would you not agree?

But intensive farming methods, long distance transport for no better reason than slaughter at destination, and mass slaughter on industrial scales are relatively modern, are they not?

Examinator, I am interested in your experience owning pet shops. Did you provide any follow up of the animals you sold to (presumably) anyone who wanted them? Did you assist spay/neuter programs? I am with Pericles on this (but Pericles, I remain in my personal moral dichotomy about my dogs, I'm afraid - how inconsistent is that? I console myself with the reflection that had I not taken them they would have met nasty deaths, and they give every appearance of being happy and healthy). I do not believe that animals should be sold in pet shops for the reasons above. That's what shelters are for, and there is nothing rational about this country needlessly destroying 200,000 "companion" animals a year while people are breeding more, many of whom the shelters will have to eventually deal with.

As for the Indians eating dogs ... whites practiced slavery for centuries. But where "farmed" animals are concerned, the human species is completely unevolved, in fact, growing more and more cruel in its methods, not because of hunger, but because of taste. Bronwyn, I agree with you - Yabby's concerns for African women seem somewhat inconsistent with his (largely ill-informed) views on everything else.

Nicky

”Oh, really?”

”Are you suggesting that there is a parallel between the trained wolves of pre-history and Paris Hilton's chihuahua?”

Not at all Pericles. Were you not so urbanised, so naive so......, you would discover that Aborigines still come to town, followed by 5 or 6 dogs – untethered! Both species freely wander around together – catch on? Each day on my daily walk, leash in hand, I wander with my dog who is also untethered. Catch on?

“…. and what we deem to be behaviouraly acceptable, as in the enslavement of domestic animals for our personal amusement.”

Balderdash Pericles. Could we expect, that is, if you had a persuasive case against companion animals, that pet slaughter for human consumption would become acceptable in this country or shipped off to other nations to make another fast buck and further spill the blood of the defenceless? Yes!

“Could you expand on this a little? I think it might mean something, but I can't fathom what.” I anticipated that Pericles. Let’s see. Man may have a vintage Merc in his garage – an inanimate object. He feeds it, waters it, polishes it, caresses it, protects it from scratches and locks it away to discourage robbers of his own species.

Then perhaps he takes this inanimate object out on Sunday, puffed with pride, chuffed by the fact that his inanimate object has attracted the attention of so many and elevated his status in the community. Eco-sphere vs. ego-sphere!

Unfortunately your pattern of argument - the ridiculous philosophising about pet ownership rather than the institutionalised and accepted barbaric acts of cruelty, and the supposition that man is born to be a carnivore, is quite pathetic since you have failed to acknowledge that man does not have the agility to catch an animal.

Nor does he have the teeth or the claws in which to rip the animal apart. That man eats meat is no indication that he should. The culture to eat meat on a regular basis has been scientifically proven to be one of man’s most self-destructive practices.

Contd……

Contd……

The other omissions in your argument Pericles are the environmental ramifications of growing animals for human consumption.

Livestock remain the largest emitters of methane, the most destructive animals of our precious soil, the largest consumers of precious water supplies, the largest polluters of our oceans and rivers, native habitats are destroyed to accommodate livestock, they remain the largest consumers of antibiotics in this country, have the largest body burden of dioxins on the planet which is then passed to humans, and the largest carriers of zoonotic pathogens which are now afflicting humans at a rapid pace.

Livestock are now a major source of human infectious disease – some 67% of human infections. The overpopulation of humans and the overpopulation of food animals has carried us closer to the precipice.

While companion animals carry pathogens too , their cross infections pale into insignificance compared to the animals humans eat:

Mad cow disease, anthrax, salmonella, pig swine, brucellosis, Type A pig influenza, sheep scabby mouth, avian influenza, pig streptococcus su, Marburg and Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, Rift Valley fever, monkey pox etc etc.

“Man's inhumanity to animals didn't suddenly start in the recent past, it has always been around. But that doesn't justify its continuance, would you not agree?”

Of course I agree Pericles. However, egotistical man denies that he's still a rock ape and unfortunately the corporate Neanderthals and Troglodytes that walk among us in this country, continue to coerce poor nations into eating even more meat (dead or alive) thus increasing animal cruelty thus threatening human survival.

So what have you publicly stated about that? Your philosophy is lost on me - just the facts will do thanks.