Pericles,
PALE have no authority to speak other than live exports.
We work in Conjunction with RSPCA QLD on Live Animal Exports Only.

*I believe to push your ideology would be open to deem dogs as food. In other words I fully agree with what Meredith and yourself discussed on your libber threads in 2005. See here-
*Meredith, you make a good point. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 August 2005 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3729&page=0#13125 *

I also believe most of you ladies on this thread “are” involved with PETA AA or AL Animal Liberation in some form.

One only has to scroll back to old threads PETA etc.
Most of You came onto OLO around the same time PALE joined as institute members. What a coincidence.
(Which BTW is fine because it shows you care for Animals)

Heres a good one 13/04/2005 6:53:49=

* PM Onya Peta - of course Mrs EXCruisiating would hardly matter in the scheme of the universe ....*

Meredith said
*I find you can be obtuse, very 'in-shop' and all-over-the-shop at times in a way I don't find with the other two.*

Do you Meredith . In which way pls.
Perhaps we can improve our understanding of each other for the sake of the animals

I too have one for Ingrid’s and friend’s complaint department.

' It’s called honesty.'

= Here you are talking with your good mate ‘P’=
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3729&page=0#13125
Hi P
You start by saying something like this=

*im a vego myself, for moral reasons
Posted by meredith, Monday, 22 August 2005 12:21:42 PM*
Now didn’t you just tell us you were a meat eater.

I am not going to sit here and go through all the false names etc. If you lot had put as much energy into discussing how we can help animals as the get pale companage the animals would have been much better off!
Belly
We would like to take you up on that offer of walking with you if it extends to us.
Let forget the past.

Give PALE a go to put forth their ideas also.

.



pls

For the Animals.

Meredith said
*I find you can be obtuse, very 'in-shop' and all-over-the-shop at times in a way I don't find with the other two.*

*im a vego myself, for moral reasons
Posted by meredith, Monday, 22 August 2005 12:21:42 PM*
Now didn’t you just tell us you were a meat eater,

I didn't say that, and no I didn't just say I was a meat eater either, Bronwyn did.

Look I am sorry but Animal welfare is not a baby sitting agency for the mentally ill or lonely to feel like they are "doing something" or play with kittens and find some joy in life. Flippers need to get the *uck away from any form of animal welfare work, and get proper therapy

"Meredith said
*I find you can be obtuse, very 'in-shop' and all-over-the-shop at times in a way I don't find with the other two.*

"*im a vego myself, for moral reasons
Posted by meredith, Monday, 22 August 2005 12:21:42 PM*
Now didn’t you just tell us you were a meat eater," (PALE)

"I didn't say that, and no I didn't just say I was a meat eater either......" (Meredith)

Now it's your turn Meredith. En guarde my girl for next the lubbly PALE will be all sweetness, urging you to ring her to add to her ammunition. Then she will broadcast the "fact" that "you said this and you said that" and VOILA! On your denial, she will threaten you with litigation - her "lawyer" friends you see are from the "big end" of town.

"Impressive" eh?

Toodle pip

Bronwyn and Meredith - thank you (I think!). Animal welfare and meat eating to many are not mutually exclusive; the majority of members, and therefore supporters, of Animal Liberation, Animals Australia and PETA would in fact be meat eaters upon whom they depend for their organisation's viability. PALE likes to portray these organisations as exclusionist because it suits its agenda to open more slaughterhouses. I believe the reason why PALE excluded from the "mainstream" organisations is that they do not want to be seen as profiteering from slaughter. All those organisations are about is addressing animal cruelty. They may encourage a vegeterian/vegan lifestyle, but see that as the ultimate.

Meredith's comment is somewhat accurate. While some of PETA's campaigns could be seen as extreme (the case with this one, I suspect, was to grab attention, and that worked), their priority is cruelty matters. While again it discourages the "use of animals for any purpose", it would certainly not enforce that or anything like it upon its members. PETA has, (from basic research, PALE, before you start howling) has filmed undercover in slaughterhouses and brought about change with expert Temple Grandin, laboratories to film the worst of vivisection; if nothing else, these people have undeniable courage. They have also campaigned for a frozen meat trade from Australia and continue to do so - as do Animals Australia and Animal Liberation. The RSPCA tends to sit on the sidelines and react to problems rather than doing proactive things to address them. It's easy to put "position statements" on websites, but if you are the statutory body for enforcing the law and CoPs, you should do the job you are paid to do without fear or favour. That is not what happens in at least four states that I am aware of (again, common knowledge).

Now, Pericles - would your views on "companion animals" change if they were to be classified as "livestock"? You still haven't discussed your position on "livestock.

BTW,just for the record - I made no agreement not to address PALE. It's that imagination again. Did you, Dickie?

Nicky

PALE&IF, what exactly is your problem?.

>>Pericles... I believe to push your ideology would be open to deem dogs as food. In other words I fully agree with what Meredith and yourself discussed on your libber threads in 2005. See here- *Meredith, you make a good point. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 August 2005 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3729&page=0#13125 *<<

The key phrase from my post, way back then, is:

"This is 'spare the fluffy seal cub' argument. Either we as a society condone the eating of animals or we don't. Being selective about which creatures we murder for food and which we don't seems just a trifle inconsistent."

This is entirely in tune with the position I hold today, and have expressed earlier, on this very thread.

"So I feel obliged to point out that petitioning against the slaughter of animals on the grounds that they are "beautiful animals" is just a little precious. The difference between clubbing to death baby seals, and poisoning rats so that they can die a slow and painful death, is that only one of them is cute and cuddly. A decision based, I suggest, on some fairly wobbly ethics."

I'll try again.

From my last post:

"So do tell. Just between us girls. What do you really, really think about keeping pets?

Are you really comfortable with the idea of perpetuating the enslavement of animals for the personal amusement of humans? And do you really feel that there is no conflict between your organization's drive to stop people being cruel to animals, and your personal decision to deprive animals of their liberty?

You can answer as a real person if you like."

What's the story?

*Animal welfare and meat eating to many are not mutually exclusive; the majority of members, and therefore supporters, of Animal Liberation, Animals Australia and PETA would in fact be meat eaters upon whom they depend for their organisation's viability.*

Ah Nicky, this all sounds a bit like cold, hard business calculation
to me. These organisations all promote animal rights, but will take
anyone's money.

So much for ethics etc, "we need to pay our bills."

I remind you, farmers need to pay their bills, so do animal
rights organisations.

This is of course your great failing, over the last 25 years or
so and the reason why you have gotten exactly no where.

Provide a viable option to farmers, so that they can pay their
bills and they might listen. You don't want to know about it,
you think that they should go out of business, to suit your
dreamy agenda.

Gertrude, a little nuts as she might me, is about the only one
who understands that a viable option for farmers might do something
about the live trade.

She might not be able to spell and she might not be able to think
that rationally, but on this point she has got it right and you
lot live in dreamland.

I doubt if Gertrude will ever sell a single carcass, but for
you dreamy lot to think that thousands of farmers are simply going
to go away, to suit your philosophical agenda, sorry sunshine,
it won't happen.

That is my purpose on these threads. To remind people that
reality does not go away, when some starry eyed dreamers close
their eyes and wish it would