Dear Polycarp,

You need not worry about me and those mother-ships: I've been there, done that, and grown older since.

Since you ask, I will gladly give you ammunition against those calling themselves "Hindus" but act to the contrary:

Non-violence, "Ahimsa" in Sanskrit, is the very first principle of Yoga.

Yoga (which is in the center of Hinduism) traditionally consists of 8 steps, but is mostly known in the west for its 3rd step - Asana (posture), including all those incredible body stretches and twists.

Less known are the first and second pre-requisite steps - Yama and Niyama: Yama (=restraint) consists of 5 negative things to avoid and Niyama consists of 5 positive things to observe (quite an interesting parallel to the 10 commandments...). The first thing to avoid, the first and foremost Yama is Ahimsa, or non-violence (look-up "ahimsa" in the wikipedia).

The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali, chapter 2, verse 35 promises: "When there is natural firmness in non-violence all hostility comes to an end in its very presence. Conflict ceases in such a mind."

Peace and blessings.

dickie,
No we are not debating human activity, we are commenting on PETAs ridiculous aim to change the image of fish from cold to warm, fuzzy and cuddly animals. PETA has copped a lot of ridicule and rightly so as it really demonstrates just how impractical those are that are part of PETA. To me PETA stands for:-

People Eat Tasty Animals. That aint gonna change!

dickie quote. "I'm from the country brother-pastoral lands". The key word here has to be from. If that is correct then country no longer applies as you show none of the practical attitudes of country people. I disagree with Yabby. My bet is that, if from pastoral country, you were shunted off to a city boarding school at an early age. After your school years you probably weren't too bad, but doing art courses at Uni has dispelled any remaining practicality. You may even be a career student and associate with the rent-a-crowd mob that demos at every drop of the hat. Trying to hold the high moral ground by harping about how terrible meat eaters are.

It is unbelievable that anyone that has seen a flyblown sheep could endorse Peta's campaign against Mulesing. If you do then you completely lack compassion. Mulesing may cause some short term pain and discomfort, but gives life long protection for fly strike. Its a bit like a person suffering from Chemo and Radiation treatment because there are long term benefits if the cancer is knocked out.

The examples of nature were to show you just how incorrect and silly your remark was,that only humans kill for greed and fun. Obviously you cannot comprehend that so here's another example. Try dealing with the aftermath of dogs attacking a mob of sheep and then repeat, that only humans kill for fun.

You really should consider Ludwigs suggestion that more animals will be saved if we find ways of reducing the worlds population.

Dieing by explosive harpoon holds no fear for me,sound fairly instant. Better that than cancer, stroke or some debilitating disease.

Belly, you began this thread by suggesting we not make war here, and yet you yourself have done just that every step of the way. The basic premise of the campaign in question has been completely misinterpreted. You've ending up presiding over a thread where uninformed ignorance and ridicule is the order of the day and the topic at hand has been left largely unaddressed.

As pointed out already by Dickie and myself, this campaign is unashamedly and deliberately a novel and light-hearted ploy to highlight a serious issue. PETA learnt long ago that earnest appeals to people's better natures will remain largely ignored. That's why it's hit on this gimmick and, as far as gaining attention, it's been hugely successful, as many of PETA's campaigns are.

As for the message, it's aimed very much at the next generation. You only have to explore the website to determine that. And hopefully, in that respect, it will also be successful. The adult assumption most of us grew up with, that the pain threshold of fish is unimportant, isn't yet entrenched in most young people.

This campaign is not aimed at fishing per se. It's aimed at recreational fishing. It's highlighting the cruelty we inflict on harmless intelligent creatures in the name of sport and the fact that there is just no need for it, there being plenty of other ways to enjoy time spent along rivers, lakes and the ocean.

I'm still waiting to see a logical defence of the practice of recreational fishing which is what this debate is supposed to be about. Instead of resorting to cheap and easy ridicule, perhaps we could have an impassioned and reasoned case as to why we should be allowed to drag fish around with hooks in their gullets in order that we experience the fleeting exhilaration of conquering nature.

To be continued.

Continued

The mission statement of the campaign puts all of the above clearly into perspective. Belly, as instigator of the thread, should have at the very least referred to it. Seeing as he hasn't, I will belatedly include it for you all to read. That way you might begin to understand the true nature and intention of this particular campaign.

"Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?"

It’s a marketing angle, no more or no less ridiculous than any of the others with which we’re bombarded daily. Its aim is to capture an audience.

Now that we’re done with attacking the messenger and its modus operandi, perhaps we could start addressing the message.

“Look at Dickie's post, heart on sleeve for sure but how can harpooning people have got a run?” Belly. How does harpooning non-humans get a run? And Belly, discovering spell-check does not bring wisdom.

You are here to ridicule the good works of PETA. You also state in your original post: “But this is madness, never again will I bother with this group.” Oh but you do Belly – with a mad vengeance. You’re here to promote the egregious treatment of non-humans. You attempt to portray PETA as idiots, however, let’s be truthful and expose the real idiots:

The MLA’s commercial, promoting meat, using Sam Neil is laughable. Neil assures us that we must eat meat to develop a larger brain, thus an enhanced intellect. How comical since famous vegetarians (of which I am neither famous nor vegetarian) include Isaac Newton, Einstein, Gandhi, Darwin, Tolstoy, Da Vinci, Socrates, Plato, Shelley, GB Shaw, etc.

Non-humans with the greatest physical strength, who are vegetarian, include the gorilla and the elephant.

Even Polycarp’s God made us vegetarian. The intestines of non-vegetarian animals are short, which quickly rids the animal of the rotting flesh it’s consumed. Human intestines are long. Enzymes required to digest meat are not seen in humans.

Despite the grave health risks, non-humans continue to provide food for humans. For that reason alone, we owe them a merciful life and a merciful death.

Infamous liars I know:

1. In Tuesday’s West, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association declared: “Had they (PETA) properly checked with Australian wool producers they would understand that there is currently no viable alternative to mulesing…”

2. Yabby (PGA member:) “Ever heard of Trisolfen? The female farmer who invented it, is on the board of AWI, as farmers voted to do what was the kindest thing for their livestock, not listen to some nutcase organisation like Peta, who in their ignorance……,”

When lying to the public, members of the PGA should better collude!

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=3&ContentID=116200

Aw…… come on Banjo. What are you, man or mouse!!? How about you Belly? A bit of your own medicine eh? Any other takers?

*It’s a marketing angle*

That is the problem Bronwyn, they are basically a bunch of spin
merchants. Never mind if the information is accurate, as long as
it serves the purpose, they will publish, even if mistakes are pointed out
to them. You seem to have double standards. You want honesty and
accuracy from companies and Govts, but with Peta you seem to
have another standard.

*The MLA’s commercial, promoting meat, using Sam Neil is laughable.*

Err Dickie dear, the man is a comic. The reason they use him is
because when they do, they can measure lamb sales going up significantly.
The two lamb chops that you might have eaten,
simply don't matter. Results matter, as in sales through the
butcher shops.

*include Isaac Newton, Einstein,*

I once decided to check out this claim, for its repeated parrot
fashion on the various veggie websites. I started with Einstein.
It turned out that he died shortly after becoming fully vegetarian.
So much for spin!

*Even Polycarp’s God made us vegetarian*

Rubbish. We are much like our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos.
We are omnivores, our digestive system can handle both. A short
gut is what carnivores have.

*Yabby (PGA member:) *

Actually not so Dickie. I am a free spirit, not a member of any
farmer organisation, but I know alot of people involved with them.

The West article was about another company which had a gun put to
their heads by Peta over wool. Its hardly an issue, as people
switch to meat sheep, they are far more profitable. Fact is wool
is destined to become a niche industry, as consumer tastes have
changed and it has been going on for 15 years or so now.

Women used to stay at home and handwash all those woolens. Not
any more. Consumers prefer cotton and oil based clothing.

For those farmers who remain in wool production,
Trisolfen combined with mulesing will remain, until somebody comes
up with a better option, which nobody has so far.