"That does not change
the fact that it is your slave and you could have it put down or
ditch it tomorrow, if you chose.

"So philosophically Pericles is absolutaly (sic) correct."

Touche Yabby - oh naive one! How selective of you and Pericles for you have both omitted the following from your list of the enslaved:

Enslaved Humans and Non-Humans:

The infirmed
The crippled
The aged
The mentally disabled
The children
The women enslaved by men
The livestock
The wildlife

"That does not change
the fact that it is your slave and you could have it put down or
ditch it tomorrow, if you chose."

Of course oh naive and shifty one....... and we do!!

Err Dickie, you own your pet, as slaves were owned. It is there
purely for your amusement and to satisfy your emotional needs.
(missing those kids perhaps?)

The crippled, the old, even your partner or kids, are not
owned by anyone, but you own your pets. They are your slaves.

Yup, livestock are owned too and they serve a purpose. They turn
dried out grass into tasty human nutrition, as they have a
rumen, which humans don't have. Humans would not do so well,
chewing on dried grass. Humans benefit, they get nutrition,
livestock benefit, they get a life which they would not have
had.

Your pet however, serves no purpose other then to satisfy
your personal needs. You own it. It is your slave. Its time that
you admit it.

*Clearly you do not recommend phasing out livestock.

**How very hypocritical of you. **

I rest my case.*


Cheerio

Dickie - well said.

Blimey Old Yabb`s seems a bit of a mess lately, even agreeing with Perci- hilarious!. He’s confused a bond of mutual respect and friendship with ‘some views of marriage.


=*(missing those kids perhaps?)*

Giving us an insight into the old National boy’s club party thinking of women 'reasons' for existing.

A wardrobe Christian perhaps```.?

Tell us Yabby, did you get that out of the Family First bible or perhaps Senator Heffernon ?( who’s heavily involved in live animal exports (but sits in 'conflict of interest') on so called Animal Welfare boards.?)

There was considerable furore both in Australia and overseas over comments made by government Senator Bill Heffernan

````(repeating remarks he had made the previous year),"" ```

when he suggested in a Bulletin interview Deputy Leader Julia Gillard was unsuitable to lead the nation because she was ‘deliberately barren’.
He elaborated that to understand the community one needed to understand the relationship between mum, dad and a bucket of nappies.

While this remark received almost universal condemnation and the Prime Minister required the senator to apologise, some saw it as dog whistling to the Christian fundamentalist constituency about women’s roles.

Jonathon Byrd,

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

Jonathon Pls tell David he should be- but I think its more than luck

How ‘clever ‘. “Endless possibilities” World advertising for (0)forever amen.

And all he has to is=

```` Do it Again`````:):)

examinator,
We too would have liked for you to answer Nicky`s questions.

Here`s another. Did you know that Pet Shops sell to people running puppy mills= please see.
IMO you always sounded like a decent chap. So if you can assist us with any of this pls come back and do so.=

http://www.saynotoanimalsinpetshops.com/articles.html

I had planned to let this thread go, since it has digressed so completely from Belly's intention (rightly or wrongly) in starting it. But I have to agree with Dickie's comment; Pericles, you have selected a "niche" argument with your enslavement of pets notion. Can you please state your position on the issue of livestock "husbandry", intensive farming, long distance transport and slaughter? Just for the sake of consistency, if you will.

To expand Dickie's thoughts further, are all children not slaves to their parents, upon whom they depend for food, entertainment, and by whom they are effectively "ruled" for (usually) the first 17 years or so of their lives?

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the quote from PALE that PETA ever said: 'a successful brief would see the end of animals systematically...' I can only assume that the quote is incomplete because PETA, so far as I know, does not advocate an end to all animal life as we know it. Where the Federal Court comes into it is beyond me, I'm afraid, but we've heard before (so many times) this story of PALE's exclusion from mainstream animal welfare debate by other advocacy organisations. Nor is it anyone in the movement who distinguishes between "companion" and other animals; legislation and codes of practice make those distinctions.

Is there proof that all the families mentioned have a direct link to the live export trade? James Packer was down to his last luxury yacht, the last I heard, and I have never actually seen any direct proof that links the Murdochs and the Stokes to "livestock" at all.

Greens Senator Rachael Siewert would have been a better target than a waste of space like Fielding, although you would be preaching to the converted.

Nicky

My apologies; Dickie actually posted the full PETA content earlier. But to revert to the topic; PETA's gambit has worked to the extent of reaching international media, which, I suspect, is exactly what they aimed to do.

PETA is on record opposing the live export trade in multiple media, on many occasions. If the detractors here were to research their claims properly (that PETA works actively against the meat industry), they would find that PETA has involved people like Temple Grandin in its aim to make slaughterhouses more humane, and one of its key strategies is to buy shares on large organisations with a view to changing policies and practices in animal welfare. PALE, you should not be misrepresenting PETA as you so continually and consistently do.

Nicky

Nicky
We were responding to this=-

*PETA advise that a successful brief would see the end of animals*
Posted by dickie, Friday, 16 January 2009 12:42:49 PM

*PALE, you should not be misrepresenting PETA as you so continually and consistently do.*

Nicky
We have not misrepresnted anybody including PETA. I note you are speaking on behalf of this organisation while repeadly denying any links to them what so ever.

How do you know what evidence we have that not only PETA but leading

animal welfare groups both in Australia but world wide OPPOSE anything to do with opening more abattoirs to phaze out live exports.?

Do not speak for Ingred or Animals Australia or even WSPA because you A have no right B No knowledge.

Let PETA founder Ingred( and other heads) come on here and confirm they 'support' the reopening of abattoirs in Australia- and elsewhere.

I know whats on their web sites says . But whats behind the scene.

*Do not be so blind Nicky*. We are not the animals enermy!

Its was us who raised Live exports in this country To Glenyse.

When she said they wouldnt touch it- because it was too political we decided to open pale. At least everybodys working now( sort of) for the animals!
Just leave it now at that if you really care. Do NOT make me post evidence. It will set Animal Welfare back years!!

The fact is Australia is a meat eating country. If we have called peak groups *against opening abattoirs *in fear of loosing their veggie members-

its hardley fair on the 98% of the public nor and especially the animals!

We can not afford to play into the hands of the media and curropt bodies in bed with the live export industry.

Why not spend your time writing to Steve Feilding