26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfTo quote you: it would be logical to assume that ALF would be in support of the boycot
why steerpike i see you are back to your disagreeable self again!
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 ...[text shortened]... t i have hopes you will change eventually.
in friendship,
prad
How exactly would your ALF colleages and the rest of the AR lunatic fringe show their support for the "boycott"? What has happened to shops selling fur for example? Go look at http://www.directaction.info/index2.htm under headings like arson, vandalism and sabotage to see what would have happened to A&F if they had not buckled to your bully boy tactics. And this is what they publically boast about.
As No1Marauder states, this is not a boycott at all. A boycott is a voluntary action where consumers refuse to buy goods. This is bullying of a retailer - threatening to disrupt their sales, damage their propery and injure their staff unless they comply with your wishes. Your organisation has not not got the public support to organise a real boycott.
26 Oct 04
Yes, I'm an utterly demented sadist who pulls the wings off flies and drowns and eats kittens!
LOL. Me too!
No seriously. So I will assume you agree hurting animals is wrong. From what I read earlier in this thread, there are many other solutions to the problem. The article by the Australian Woolgrowers Association talks about how they are trying to find other methods to prevent the problem of flystrike. Of course they are going to say that, and of course PETA is going to lash out at them with no quarter given. Both are highly biased organizations.
I don't know how horrible mulesing is, and I don't know how possible alternatives are. I'd like to know if you and I are anywhere near one another with regard to how important sheep welfare is. I am not necessarily in favor of the boycott. I want to understand the situation so I can make a decision, and I want to know your perspective so I can weigh your statements properly. You seem definitely pro-mulesing at this point.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfOf course, you thought everybody else would agree with your position so there would be no debate! Actually, this thread should have been sent to Debates a long time ago because even before I got involved people were giving opinions opposed to the boycott. That makes it a debate, whether you figured you were soooo obviously right or not.
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... and reading some of the usual angry stuff from the usual angry people 😀
in friendship,
prad[/b]
And for the last time get in through your thick skull: the wool growers aren't alarmed because of the loss of business they'll have due to A & F's cave in; there is no indication the amounts brought by A & F is significant to a $1 billion industry; they are concerned that this could set a precedent that many other retailers might join. You hope they do I understand that; the wool growers are worried that they might and are trying to solve the issue before it does do damage to their livelihood. Simple?
A & F not selling something is NOT a consumer boycott under any definition I ever heard. Simple?
If I am angry, it is because you constantly and I assume deliberately mischaracterize my arguments and use partial quotes to do so (like the saintly Ivanhoe); that is poor manners for someone who ends every post with "in friendship". My last post was in response to ThousandYoung and is obviously in exasperation that someone could read what I've said here and come away with such a ridiculous impression. Also simple enough for ya guys?
In Thesimpletruthsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Well let us suppose there are 100 australian corparations there.Now let us also suppose implementation of the more humane ways causes the manufacturing of wool cost go up by 10 percent.Now corporation a,b,c are sympathetic to the cause and want to go for it but corporations d,e,f do not want to go for it.Now a,b,c cant implement the change as they cannot then compete with the others .If they do it they gain no special advantage as there is no general awareness on the issue and no difference between their products.They need an incentive to do so.But however boycott of corporations encourages the comparations who want to change to do it as they have their seperate niche market in aware countries.This forces the other corporations to do so too.After all corporations exist for the sake of profit.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOK, that post was in exasperation. I've had a drink, took a walk, kicked the dog and settled down.
[b]Yes, I'm an utterly demented sadist who pulls the wings off flies and drowns and eats kittens!
LOL. Me too!
No seriously. So I will assume you agree hurting animals is wrong. From what I read earlier in this thread, there are many other solutions to the problem. The article by the Australian Woolgrowers Association talks about how t ...[text shortened]... ective so I can weigh your statements properly. You seem definitely pro-mulesing at this point.[/b]
Inflicting pain on animals for no good reason is wrong. I will grant that the AWA is biased in favor of wool growers, but since they don't want their animals to die of disease, doesn't it make sense that they would use the most effective way to prevent disease as possible? I would assume that most rational people would say that a technique that causes some temporary pain but avoids a hideous, lingering death is not "cruel". A polio shot causes pain, but we make sure our children get them.
I am not an expert on sheep; the wool growers are. I notice that Pradtf and others are NOT claiming that the procedure causes the animals permanent suffering and pain; that is why I have use the term discomfort, it is unclear to me how much pain a sheep experiences from having some flesh removed from its hindquarters. Apparently it does no permanent physical damage. Now Pradtf and the boys want the sheep to be given pain killers during the procedure; I think we can safely assume that doing this would be absolutely cost prohibitive. So we are left with a bunch of other solutions to the problems (I think there's a list somewhere in this thread) but all of them seem very expensive compared to the procedure used.
Now wool farming is a business and a livelihood to thousands of people in Australia, if you make it unprofitable people are out of business (this would be fine with Pradtf). All I'm saying is that IF there is no other suitable, cost effective way to prevent this disease THEN the temporary discomfort imposed on the sheep doesn't seem "cruel" to me. And a "boycott" to prevent the procedure, knowing full well that there is no other economically viable way to prevent the disease, seems to me just a veiled way of trying to run these people out of business. That's my take; I'm sorry if my first answer was snooty.
In That'swhatI'msayingsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by druidraviAustralian corporations? Vast majority of wool growers are families. And there are thousands of them.
Well let us suppose there are 100 australian corparations there.Now let us also suppose implementation of the more humane ways causes the manufacturing of wool cost go up by 10 percent.Now corporation a,b,c are sympathetic to the cause and want to go for it but corporations d,e,f do not want to go for it.Now a,b,c cant implement the change as they cannot t ...[text shortened]... s the other corporations to do so too.After all corporations exist for the sake of profit.
The corporation under pressure are US retailers.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by druidraviYou're not taking into account that corporations a,b,c can ADVERTISE their choice - which has the potential to gain business from consumers and from companies (such as A&F) that are sensitive to the perceptions of consumers.
Well let us suppose there are 100 australian corparations there.Now let us also suppose implementation of the more humane ways causes the manufacturing of wool cost go up by 10 percent.Now corporation a,b,c are sympathetic to the cause and want to go for it but corporations d,e,f do not want to go for it.Now a,b,c cant implement the change as they cannot t ...[text shortened]... s the other corporations to do so too.After all corporations exist for the sake of profit.
These days oil and car companies advertise their environmental credentials for that reason. Whether they are accurate in their claims is a whole different ball game which I don't want to get in to, but my point is that corporations are capable of advertising things other than "we have the lowest price". Many consumers are attracted to a particular product for reasons other than price.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat Pradtf does not talk about is what happens to all the sheep once the farmer is out of business. Is he volunteering to head to Australia to look after them?
Now wool farming is a business and a livelihood to thousands of people in Australia, if you make it unprofitable people are out of business (this would be fine with Pradtf). All I'm saying is that IF there is no other suitable, cost effective way to prevent this disease THEN the temporary discomfort imposed on the sheep doesn't seem ...[text shortened]... first answer was snooty.
In That'swhatI'msayingsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoPoint is A&F are not being given a choice. Neither are consumers allowed to make their choice.
You're not taking into account that corporations a,b,c can ADVERTISE their choice - which has the potential to gain business from consumers and from companies (such as A&F) that are sensitive to the perceptions of consumers.
These days oi ...[text shortened]... re attracted to a particular product for reasons other than price.
Pradtf decides for us.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by steerpikeUm, steerpike? Thanks very much, but I think I was addressing something a little different here.
Point is A&F are not being [b]given a choice. Neither are consumers allowed to make their choice.
Pradtf decides for us.[/b]
Plus A&F do have a choice. Not a pleasant one, but they still have it. In one sense PETA is just another market force.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by orfeoBut that awareness was not there before .As you have said about oil companies advertising their environmental credentials so has the climate been created for corporations to announce their animal friendly credentials.But you have to consider that wool is just a raw material for the finished products.It is you dont have steel manufacturers announce about their enviro-friendly measures.So the onus is on the big corporations that manufacture woolen products to get even though at a higher price, wool which has been prepared by implementing these changes.
You're not taking into account that corporations a,b,c can ADVERTISE their choice - which has the potential to gain business from consumers and from companies (such as A&F) that are sensitive to the perceptions of consumers.
These days oil and car companies advertise their environmental credentials for that reason. Whether they are accurate in their claim ...[text shortened]... est price". Many consumers are attracted to a particular product for reasons other than price.
26 Oct 04
1 edit
For everybody's information, there are 106 million sheep in the wool industry in Australia, about 90 million (84.6😵 Merinos the ones who the procedure is question is used on. I leave it to you to figure out how much it would cost to give 90 million sheep a pain killing shot (oh wait, that might hurt; I guess it would have to be orally administered). There are other interesting facts about the Australian wool industry at: http://www.wool.com.au/AWI/home.nsf/AllDocs/RWP994BD5A40A064341CA256C77008279BB?OpenDocument&Expand=0
I guess if those 106 million sheep get the vote like Pradtf wants, Howard would be out!!
In That'salotofsheepsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderAustalian wool share is 28 percent of global wool production.The world has 6 billion population .Let us suppose the average of wool items bought by a person is 2,3 per year.So figure how much per woolen product the cost is raised in giving those 90million sheep a pain killing dose.
For everybody's information, there are 106 million sheep in the wool industry in Australia, about 90 million (84.6😵 Merinos the ones who the procedure is question is used on. I leave it to you to figure out how much it would cost to give 90 million sheep a pain killing shot (oh wait, that might hurt; I guess it would have to be orally administere ...[text shortened]... ants, Howard would be out!!
In That'salotofsheepsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by druidraviAustralia's total wool sales according to the site I provided was: $2.8 billion. You are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to avoid temporary discomfort in a sheep! That is preposterous and completely uneconomical for the industry.
Austalian wool share is 28 percent of global wool production.The world has 6 billion population .Let us suppose the average of wool items bought by a person is 2,3 per year.So figure how much per woolen product the cost is raised in giving those 90million sheep a pain killing dose.
In Thenumbersdon'tliesheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell let us suppose the cost per giving a painkiller to a sheep is .5 dollars.
Australia's total wool sales according to the site I provided was: $2.8 billion. You are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to avoid temporary discomfort in a sheep! That is preposterous and completely ...[text shortened]...
In Thenumbersdon'tliesheep,
2BitLawyer
So the total cost is 100*.5=50million dollars. So percentage raise per the sales is .05billion/3billion=about 1.5 percent increase in price.Thats not much .
The expenditure is not per a sheep but a lot of sheep.How much do people spend per year on their pet dogs,cats etc.This would be a minor fraction compared to that cost.Considering that you are also using its natural body product wool for commercial profit you have an obligation to ensure it gets atleast humane treatment.