Originally posted by pradtfYou really should take a reading comprehension course.
there is some excellent stuff here since it does provide the view from the perspective of the industry.
for instance:
http://www.australianwoolgrowers.com.au/html/news181004.html
Last week, Australian Woolgrowers were stunned at the news that US fashion retailer Abercrombie and Fitch had boycotted Australian merino fibre in all its stores.
this ...[text shortened]... that they are probably going to pass legislation to end the practices.
in friendship,
prad
1) Nowhere does the article state that the amount of wool sold to Abercrombie & Fitch is a significant amount to either A & F or the AWG. They are obviously concerned about the precedential value and the possibility that other retailers might join it. Your conclusion that the amount is "significant" that goes to A & F is unwarranted by the article;
2) Obviously the wool growers are concerned with the loss of their primary markets due to that tactics of PETA and others. Most US corporations are responsive to such tactics because publicity of this sort is always "bad" publicity. A boycott which aims at getting distributors not to sell an item has nothing to do with "the power of the consumer"; in fact, it is a blatant attempt to take power AWAY from the consumer by eliminating his chance to buy Australian wool products even if he does not feel the practices are inhumane;
3) The article states that millions of dollars have been spent on research into alternative methods well before the boycott threat. The boycott obviously could not have affected things that happened before it was imposed;
4) Check out this link as to the attitude of the Australian PM: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=3709. He gives no indication that any laws are considered in this area, says the animals are treated humanely and urges a "sense of proportion". Doesn't sound to me that there's going to be any legislation passed any time in the near future.
If you need guidance in understanding a link I've provided in the future, please let me know.
In I'mheretohelpsheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by no1marauderYour recognition that you have a moral obligation to the dog itself entails that you think there are constraints on how you may treat this dog that have nothing to do with the rights of any human being. But I think it is the nature of property that if you own something, there are no constraints, other than those imposed by the rights of others, on how you may dispose of that property. Although our freedom to use our cars and guns is regulated while around others in virtue of the potential for violating the rights of these others to be free from harm, when in isolation from our fellows, we may do whatever we wish with the things we own. So, I submit that proper objects of ownership are those things of which an owner may use in any way he desires, subject only to constraints in place by virtue of the rights of others. Now, even when in isolation from your fellows, your recognition that you have a moral obligation owed to the dog not to torture it entails that the dog does not satisfy the criterion mentioned above for something's being a proper object of ownership.
OK, this is a lot more interesting than the wool boycott itself! Let us say that I recognize that a dog can feel pain and wishes to avoid feeling pain. Therefore, I say I have a moral obligation not to inflict unnecessary pain on the dog because the dog would not want to feel pain and I should respect that.
But a dog has no concep ...[text shortened]... any way by my doing so?
In Nowwe'regettingsomewheresheep,
2BitLawyer
Of course, if you would like to use the term 'own' such that it is possible for you to both have an obligation to a creature and own it, then I can't stop you. But this would have the unfortunate entailment that parents own their children, which is certainly a strange thing to say.
"Now, even when in isolation from your fellows, your recognition that you have a moral obligation owed to the dog not to torture it entails that the dog does not satisfy the criterion mentioned above for something's being a proper object of ownership" posted by Bbarr
That presupposes a wish to torture! In the case of a sheep farmer, I suggest that is not the case, the sheep farmer wishes to make a living raising healthy sheep.
Originally posted by KneverKnightWhere is this mysterious supposition?🙄
"Now, even when in isolation from your fellows, your recognition that you have a moral obligation owed to the dog not to torture it entails that the dog does not satisfy the criterion mentioned above for something's being a proper ob ...[text shortened]... e, the sheep farmer wishes to make a living raising healthy sheep.
I'm not claiming that no1marauder, or anyone else for that matter, has a desire to torture animals. I'm claiming that people recognize that they have an obligation not to torture animals.
Similarly, you have an obligation not to torture human beings, regardless of whether you desire to torture human beings or not.
The recognition of an obligation owed to animals themselves is inconsistent with endorsing the claim that one can own animals, or so I argue above.
In Isoundlikeabrokenrecordsheep,
Bennett
Originally posted by bbarrSince I don't agree with your definition of property as "something I can do anything I want with without any constraints", there's little more to say. If I have a baseball glove that Babe Ruth once used, I might feel morally constrained by what I perceive to be its sentimental value not to destroy it; therefore, I would be placing moral constraints on my own actions even in "isolation from my fellows". This would not be inconsistent with my belief that I own it; anymore than my moral constraints on inflicting needless pain and suffering on my dog would be inconsistent with my belief that I own the dog. Either way it would be a self-imposed constraint, not inconsistent with ownership.
Your recognition that you have a moral obligation [b]to the dog itself entails that you think there are constraints on how you may treat this dog that have nothing to do with the rights of any human being. But I think it is the nature of property that if you own something, there are no constraints, other than those imposed by the rights of others, on how ...[text shortened]... fortunate entailment that parents own their children, which is certainly a strange thing to say.[/b]
I thought my last post made it perfectly clear why you could own a dog but not a human being: a dog has no concept, nor can it develop a concept, that it is being owned, therefore it is not deprived of anything it would expect or desire by my owning it; a child cannot be owned because it it either has or will develop a moral expectation that it will be free from being owned or subjugated; therefore, for me to claim I own it would deprive it of its moral expectation to be free. That was the import of my last paragraph in the last post, which you did not comment on.
In Adogain'takidsheep,
2BitLawyer
Thanks pradtf, that was generally interesting and helpful.
The thing that struck me though, is that the Australian Woolgrower's site talks about RESEARCH, not a viable SOLUTION. To me there's a big difference to me between boycotting someone who is aware of a solution, and refuses to use it, and boycotting someone who is engaging in research but hasn't found a solution yet.
Note I am not saying that the woolgrower's are objectively right on this. But if they genuinely *feel* they are in the process of working on a solution, but not there yet, how does a boycott help? Can a boycott actually speed up research they are already motivated to undertake?
Originally posted by no1maraudergee i don't know, no1.
You really should take a reading comprehension course.
1) Nowhere does the article state that the amount of wool sold to Abercrombie & Fitch is a significant amount to either A & F or the AWG. They are obviously con ...[text shortened]... ow.
In I'mheretohelpsheep,
2BitLawyer
it says things like:
Australian Woolgrowers were stunned at the news that US fashion retailer Abercrombie and Fitch had boycotted Australian merino
The US fashion market represents a gold mine for Australian Merino fibre and if other countries follow suit then the effect will be simply catastrophic.
Australian woolgrowers simply can not afford to allow this to threat to escalate into reality.
PETA has carried out its initial threats highly effectively and with potentially devastating consequences for the entire Australian wool industry.
it seems to me that the boycott is being taken seriously.
in fact, it is a blatant attempt to take power AWAY from the consumer by eliminating his chance to buy Australian wool products even if he does not feel the practices are inhumane;
boycott's don't take power away from the consumer - especially considering consumers join the boycott. there will of course be some people who really couldn't care less what happens to the sheep just so long as they get their wool - it makes no difference to them that mulesing is a process by which large chunks of flesh is carved off without anaesthetic. in light of this, the statement that this sort of consumer "does not feel the practices are inhumane" is a bit ridiculous.
He gives no indication that any laws are considered in this area, says the animals are treated humanely and urges a "sense of proportion".
i think you need to check out what you wanted me to check out. the PM doesn't say that the animals are treated humanely at all. Here's what he actually says:
I do think that every attempt is made is to maintain as humane conditions as one can in relation to the export of live sheep. It's a very valuable trade.
and really that's about all he can say considering a lot of people do know what is going on - even you, now that you've read some parts of this thread a few times.
the "sense of proportion" basically boils down to "we are doing this to make money and really wish these AR people will stop bothering us" - the justification being "after all, the consumption of animals for human needs has been going on for ages". this is hardly sufficient.
anyway, you are right that the article doesn't say anything about legislation and may be it won't happen. however, may be it will down the road or may be it won't be necessary.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtf
it would be logical to assume that ALF would be in support of the boycott though i haven't seen anything official from them - but then i haven't looked either.
in friendship,
prad
What a combination for a boycott. PETA to threaten to run ads against Abercrombie and Fitch and harass customers and the ALF goon squad in the shadows to smash windows and commit other "direct action". Your claimed victory was a cowardly backdown by a retailer - see http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=1358
If I heard of a campaign to ban Fench goods becase of French actions over schoolgirls wearing headscarves, I would be sympathetic. But if I knew the organisers of the campaign was Al-Quada, I would give it no support - regardless of the merits of the campaign.
I will be boycotting Abercrombie and Fitch because they are cowards. They don't give a toss about Australian sheep - they don't stock wool because they are afraid of the bully tactics of animal rights activists like yourself. Not a moral victory at all.
I note you keep on signing yourself "in friendship" despite me requesting you not to do so. It is typical of the arrogance of AR supporters - you have no respect for the opinions of others.
[]Originally posted by pradtf[]I have two options: either you are deliberately twisting what I said or you're not very bright or some combination of the two.
gee i don't know, no1.
it says things like:
Australian Woolgrowers were stunned at the news that US fashion retailer Abercrombie and Fitch had boycotted Australian merino
The US fashion market represents a gold mine for Austral the ...[text shortened]... road or may be it won't be necessary.
in friendship,
prad
I didn't say the wool growers weren't taking the boycott seriously, I said the opposite: they obviously take seriously a threat to destroy their livelihood by depriving it of their biggest markets. YOU had asserted the article proved that the amount of Australian wool purchased by A & F was "significant"; I said the article said no such thing. A review of the article shows I am right and you are wrong on this point.
You are again doing Ivanhovian selective quoting: As I stated in the part you didn't quote, this is not a consumer boycott as PETA is targeting retailers who sell Australian wool, not consumers themselves. If PETA is successful is getting RETAILERS not to sell a product, consumers are DENIED the choice to buy the product if they disagree with the boycott itself. And believe it or not, I betcha they're a lot of people who couldn't care less what happens to a sheep in Australia if they can get a nice wool sweater at a cheap price! I suspect that's why your "boycott" is focusing on retailers, not consumers.
If you're going to engage in debate, I suggest you either stop deliberately twisting someone's argument by selective quoting or take the time to figure out what they're saying.
In Fairandsquaresheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by orfeoyou make a good point. i don't know whether the alternatives are not implemented because there really isn't a viable solution or because the powers that control the cash flow do not want to spend the bucks or whether there is another reason.
The thing that struck me though, is that the Australian Woolgrower's site talks about RESEARCH, not a viable SOLUTION. To me there's a big difference to me between boycotting someone who is aware of a solution, and refuses to use it, and boycotting someone who is engaging in research but hasn't found a solution yet.
Note I am not saying that the woolgro ...[text shortened]... boycott help? Can a boycott actually speed up research they are already motivated to undertake?
my guess is that considering all the alternatives available (and combinations thereof), that it is really a matter of certain people not wanting to do it usually because of the profit margin. for instance, what could be the reason that at least anaesthetic isn't used during mulesing? too many sheep perhaps and too great a cut into profits?
a boycott can often speed up finding a solution because it increases the motivation not so much from the progress of research, but from the perspective of adoptation. for instance, if solution A is going to cut profits by 10%, but the boycott is going to cut them by 80% then there is motivation for adoptation.
when we were doing antiapartheid protests in the 80s and the matter of the boycott came about, certain people didn't want to do it because it 'hurt' business. of course, the reason they cited was that the boycott 'hurt' the workers in south africa. desmond tutu in a speech here in toronto said that the workers know there will be hard times ahead, but they know that it is the only way to make changes happen. the solutions were always present - but the 'motivation' the boycott provided was necessary for them to be implemented.
it may be the same here.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by steerpikewhy steerpike i see you are back to your disagreeable self again, after a brief sojourn!
Originally posted by pradtf
[b]it would be logical to assume that ALF would be in support of the boycott though i haven't seen anything official from them - but then i haven't looked either.
in friendship,
prad
What ...[text shortened]... f AR supporters - you have no respect for the opinions of others. [/b]
well you seem to know a lot more about the AR tactics than i do.
according to marauder's article and yours PETA did threaten to run graphic ads of sheep mutilations. i'm not sure where ALF comes in breaking windows on this - your article didn't say anything about this.
here's what your article says about A & F:
Abercrombie & Fitch considers the proper treatment of animals to be of critical concern, and it is committed to that end. We shall not support the Australian Merino wool market until both the practice of mulesing is ended and the live exporting of Australian sheep ceases
good for them! and hopefully their commitment will spread to others who are finally becoming aware of the atrocities of the wool trade.
when you are in your disagreeable mood during which you manufacture and fabricate, i don't have much respect for your opinions. but i have hopes you will change eventually.
in friendship,
prad
no1, help me understand your position. Do you feel it is wrong to hurt animals at all? Do you feel that a tiny benefit for humans is worth any amount of pain and suffering inflicted on animals?
If you feel that hurting animals is wrong at all, then I'd like to determine at what point you feel human welfare trumps animal welfare.
I think most people would think it was absurd for non scientists to have the right to have dissect animals alive on a whim just to see what's inside, and to find out what they sound like in pain. This would be of educational value, but it's still not right.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, I'm an utterly demented sadist who pulls the wings off flies and drowns and eats kittens!
no1, help me understand your position. Do you feel it is wrong to hurt animals at all? Do you feel that a tiny benefit for humans is worth any amount of pain and suffering inflicted on animals?
If you feel that hurting animals is wrong at all, then I'd like to determine at what point you feel human welfare trumps animal welfare.
I think most ...[text shortened]... ut what they sound like in pain. This would be of educational value, but it's still not right.
Make you guys happy?
In Readmypostssheep,
2BitLawyer
they obviously take seriously a threat to destroy their livelihood by depriving it of their biggest markets. YOU had asserted the article proved that the amount of Australian wool purchased by A & F was "significant"; I said the article said no such thing. A review of the article shows I am right and you are wrong on this point.
a review of what you have just written leads me to believe that you are running a strange argument. how is it that they consider all this (particularly the A & F boycott) to be a threat, if there isn't a significant amount of wool involved? i just thought that was a helpful information that might provide an answer to orfeo's question, but suit yourself.
well it is a consumer boycott because consumers boycotted before the retailers did. this is not a sudden thing you know - it has been going on for a while. however, it is all being 'pulled together' now in more official form.
i'm not interested in debating this (though you think i am, i think) - i would have posted it as a question in the other forum had i wished to do so. i'm only answering questions, as best i can, and reading some of the usual angry stuff from the usual angry people 😀
in friendship,
prad