The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Sea Kittens

Sea Kittens

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All
Hello Everybody.

*Next time we have a Roo cull... let's include a 100% cull of Peta members.*
Posted by Polycarp,
I see the see the words of our ‘Good Christian.’

Perhaps PALE can arrange to pray with you one Sunday 'after Church We could take a nice quite stroll in that park where you kick dogs.

I am just wondering what all the Fuss is about PETA adopting the same views as the RSPCA. There are many RSPCA comments along with professors over the years about fish feeling pain. Of course they do. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
As well public fishing creates much suffering to our birds and other animals. Not to mention ourselves and kids as they are stabbed in the foot by left over hooks. Plastic bags another problem and nobody polices it. Undersize fishing being taken is a HUGE problem.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/longline_fishing_threatens_seabirds_and_other_marine_life

http://www.anti-angling-sabs.co.uk/RSPCA-angling-is%20cruel.htm

Perhaps we should have the Nationals union party and put all our twits in the one basket.

Here we are for years now years spending millions of public funds to do whatever we can to reduce fishing in Australian.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s223516.htm

Now I would have thought a smart poly like Kevin Rudd would be embracing PETAs education programme about fishing for sport + insisting it was introduced into all schools (just for starters.)

Blimey if it had teeth it would bite.



Trust a dam Union guy to raise this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s223516.htm
Buy fish by all means- After it has been slaughtered under strict Animal Welfare codes of practise .

oh and Belly I think you will find Nicky was trying to highlight the fact that Australia send millions of puppies overseas.

That’s certainly more than you have ever done for Animal Welfare- tough guy
= SEE=
http://www.aact.org.au/greyhounds.htm
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Friday, 16 January 2009 12:22:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

That you are now whacking an animal welfare organisation, for not including human populations in their brief is symptomatic of an obsessive compulsive disorder. Should PETA’s brief be successful, it would do more for sustainability than any leader of any government on the planet has done.

And if you believe a successful brief by PETA would do nothing for sustainability you’re on another planet.

Factory farming has threatened our only fresh water sources; stripped our soils and our ocean waters are imperiled. Dead zones, vast stretches of costal waters in which nothing can live, are created by untreated hormones, dioxins, nitrate and antibiotic-laden agricultural waste seeping into the soil, groundwater and rivers before contaminating the ocean.

35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and groundwater in 17 states have been permanently contaminated by industrial farm waste in the US. All our vital resources are threatened by factory farming!

The majority of the earth's water is now used to support animal agriculture, and much of it cannot be reclaimed. It takes thousands of litres of water to produce half a kilogram of factory farmed beef. This means a single person can save more water simply by not eating 500 grams of beef than they could by not showering for an entire year.

PETA's budget is 30 million/pa. Your heroes, Melinda and Bill Gates have untold billions. What do they say about over-population Ludwig while they’re polluting the planet by encouraging poor nations to increase their livestock, increase their population and further rape the planet with GM crops sown on desecrated soils?

The very influential Gates could mitigate population increases with a blink of an eye and a persuasive million here and a million there. A good start would be to supply an untold number of simple vasectomies and a promise of a few bucks more if the recipients agreed. And no more grants if they refused!

Gates are the ones, influential in the poorest and largest countries on earth. They have the ear of government leaders around the world.

Please endeavour to address your hypocrisy!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 16 January 2009 4:03:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I now leave the thread, I must, I am pledged to myself not to go to war, or talk to pale.
May I ask posters to look at the last 4 or 5 posts, maybe a little more, in the thread about terrorism in Australia?
Madness! I left without comment.
I started this thread for two reasons, to highlight mainstream concerns about the radical, sometimes idiotic group PETA.
And honestly, to try to bring some balance into an animal welfare thread.
Look no one has not watched my differences with PALE develop, I tried I truly did, but long ago gave it up.
That thread mentioned above, look at the bait dangled under my nose, see the insults here.
I long ago walked away from female taunts in life to get a fight started for no reason, I can ignore that forever.
But lets look again at this thread, because I have views different than Bronwyn.
Yes surely for no other reason, she referred in a very nasty way, to my education and maybe thought processes.
Dickie obviously an intelligent person, seems to value only her own thoughts.
My point? PETA is not alone, others blindly try to verbally flog people into their line, following their point of view.
Lady's, you will not force the world to agree with you, you will not force us to eat only as you wish, and forever and ever laughter will result from such idiotic things as calling fish sea kittens.
Got to try that next time I fish instead of burley, here kitty kitty nice kitty.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 16 January 2009 5:28:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Lady's, you will not force the world to agree with you, you will not force us to eat only as you wish"

Well said, which just proves, Belly, that free-will is paramount and neither PETA, nor any other person or organization, can (or should) substitute for your own conscience.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 16 January 2009 5:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Awe Belly.
Was only a poem .
Bit of sport really. 'Fishing for union heads. We call it head fishing. The ones that betray their fellow unions.
Many Animal Welfare groups have stood shoulder with AMIEU for over 'twenty years.'

Been a tad different since AMIEU Federal Leaders were 'ordered' to back off complaning about the cruelty involved in live exports and job losses to Australia.
Gee and here we were thinking Rudd was dinky die about helping regional areas and aboriginal people. We are still waiting for charges to be laid from AWB Mr Rudd. Did you forget?

Good to know the Pastoralists Association want different views to PETA .
PALE verses PETA in the approach to improving Animal Welfare.
Nobody has the right to tell others not to eat meat.
* If that’s what they are really doing.*?
Perhaps the Pastoralists Association will give PALE the same space and show this to the public. =
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TzyPOy1rIJk&feature=email

We also support a campaign against UNNECESSARY killing of animals, for example as a sport. =

Two-headed fish mystery deepens
ANDREW WIGHT
14/01/2009 9:29:00 ARE
The facts read like a Critchon-esque thriller: A fish farmer's latest brood turns out bizarre two-headed fish larvae, allegations of chemical contamination emerge and government agencies remain baffled about just what caused it.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UXAb0nzKDeI

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/twoheaded-fish-mystery-deepens/1406893.aspx?src=enews

Baffled my foot. The same thing happens in poultry and it’s very common for the birds to be born with two heads for the same reason.’

Why on earth do you think the so called laws in Australia DENY the RSPCA entry into the places unless invited?

Q Where do you think bird flue comes from. A=Intensive breeding of birds. *Intensive animal cruelty.*

I can’t say PETA and PALE see eye to eye on how to stop cruelty to animals. One things for sure though they are mostly good people
who dedicate their lives to helping animals unlike our so called Christian leaders and countries leaders.

Federal Governments and State Governments prefer to turn their backs on Animal cruelty because of the donations and political votes from the industry.

Enjoy your fish.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Friday, 16 January 2009 7:17:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie, I fail to see why you object at all to what I’m saying. PETA is doing a great job in some ways, but is certainly not being holistic about it, end of story.

You appreciate the population growth issue. You put it first on your little list of environmental factors in this post on the ‘give up on climate change’ thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8385#132335.

You’re happy for the Gates Foundation to address it and the concomitant issue of sustainability.

But you don’t think that PETA should even have a word to say about it!!

You are totally aware of how continuous population growth is related to various issues that PETA is addressing, such as the impact of meat consumption on the global environment, and yet you insist that PETA should have nothing directly to do with it!

That’s awfully strange.

Leave it to the Gates Foundation, you say. Well, it would be great if they took up the cause. I wish to goodness they would. They certainly aren’t my heroes and won’t be until they do.

But EVERY environmental organisation should be pushing directly and strongly for sustainability. How can you argue otherwise? How can you argue that they should just leave it up to someone else? How can you argue that it is alright for them to work in such a way that their efforts might trickle down to some sort of sustainability impact…or might completely miss the issue altogether?

Dickie, the great hypocrisy here is with the vast majority of environmental and aid organisations that fail to address the full picture of a sustainable future. If there were powerful organisations out there that were attending to it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But there aren’t.

This is all very simple in principle. Again, it really confounds me as to why you have any objection to it.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 January 2009 8:28:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. ...
  14. 46
  15. 47
  16. 48
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy