Originally posted by steerpikeyes we know that the aussie RSPCA doesn't support the boycott - it was mentioned a few posts ago. we also know that the RSPCA is capable of changing their minds - as they did on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 regarding the live export. perhaps they may change their minds about the boycott too.
Who made this rather extreme statement? Australia's RSPCA national president Dr Hugh Wirth who says radical and extreme animal rights groups set back the work of his organisation. Work that includes opposing the live sheep trade.
they also stress that they are an AW organization and not an AR organization - so it is understandable that their goals and approach will be somewhat different from AR.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, I read the snippets provided on the site you posted, and it appears that the authors of Secret Life of Plants begin by presuming that plants are conscious, and then explain their "findings" by attributing to plants various mental states. I have been unable to find any duplication of their work in the natural science journals to which the University of Washington has access, and I've been unable to find in these journals researchers in support of the hypothesis that plants are conscious. Further, even if we swallow in whole the claims found within Secret Life of Plants, we are given no reason to believe that plants are self-conscious or rational. Both self-consciousness and rationality require of an entity the ability to form and manipulate mental representations (internal symbols that represent states of affairs, and which allow for thought). So, even if we take the authors' claims as justified, we would still have no grounds for thinking that animals have rights. But this is all hypothetical, as the authors are, essentially, begging the question in the context of this debate and their work fails to meet the the basic standards of scientific investigation.
Of course, there's no reason to take a reviewer who says such moronic things seriously, but since the "review" itself is excerpted text, you could have at least read some of it, particulary the experiments I cited and then jud ...[text shortened]... would follow if a plant is as self-aware as a sheep.
I will agree that if it is found that plants have the three psychological capacities I've mentioned, then everything changes. I think that human life is more valuable than animal life, because we are in general harmed more by dying than are animals (because we are capable of an incredible array of interests - of which animals are not - which are frustrated by dying). If the same held between animals and plants, then it would still be preferable to to eat plants than animals, and remember that we can eat plant products without killing the plants in many cases.
But if you believe this, then you are committed to the claim that it would be permissible for me to go pick up a puppy from the pound, take it home and skin it, just to make myself a fancy puppy-skin hat.
http://tzrz.safeshopper.com/37/1304.htm?219
Whatever my beliefs, I don't have the right to attack other people who disagree with me.
So if you saw a man beating up his wife, you wouldn't have the right to try to stop him? It is a pretty widespread belief that violence in the name of promoting what's right is acceptable. Many Americans use this as justification for attacking Iraq. How about attacking Hitler in WWII?
In the case of sheep dying on a ship, you really have to wonder what the hell is going on as it is not only an affront to one's senses because of the needless suffering, but what business sense could there be? (Unless they were insured, but wouldn't the insurance company refuse to pay because the sheep were recklessly endangered?)
They probably know the average losses and determined that they can make a profit regardless. Apparently the Muslim world is willing to pay what it needs to pay to get live sheep.
is it because you prefer to see animals suffer and die for your greed and vanity that you eat meat and wear animal products, or is your callousness merely the result of ignorance?
In my case it's pure indifferent selfishness. I feel that the effect on the world will be minor, and at this time I am not willing to give up foods I enjoy and go through the hassle of trying to live in a restrictive way. I am more concerned with working on other issues in my life.
Why just animals? Aren't plants living things as well? Don't they have rights, too? Therefore, isn't someone who eats a carrot or wears a fig leaf is committing a moral transgression as well?
I feel there is no evidence suggesting plants are capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. I only skimmed the article that was mentioned, but it seems to focus on intelligence, and not the experiences of suffering or happiness. These are what matter - not intelligence.
What about windsurfing?
I would like to learn to windsurf.
According to PETA, there are no wool shops that procure wool from farmers that don't mistreat the animals in their care. On their site:
Anyone who buys wool helps foot the bill for a cruel and bloody industry that no amount of fluff can hide.
PETA may be claiming that if you buy wool, you support the whole industry, including the abusive parts of it. It's not easy to selectively have your wool buying dollars go only to "good" wool merchants, even if they exist.
evidence that plants may have empathic reactions to the deaths of other species and may react in fear when confronted by a human who it had "seen" kill another plant!
Interesting. When there's more proof, I'll take it more seriously. This guy claims yogurt reacts in fear when rotten chicken is cooked because it "feels" the death of the bacteria in the chicken. I still feel there is little reason to believe plants suffer.
but we are talking not about plants, but about sheep and the way they are treated.
Agreed.
evidently you don't have your sense of humour tonight and you didn't really toss anything except your salad, perhaps.
Wow. The idea of someone tossing their own salad is...mind boggling.
Originally posted by pradtfI think what we were discussing a few posts ago was your claim I was confused between PETA and the other organisations in the boycott. When I asked what other organisations, you claimed the British RSPCA - then retracted this when I asked for a link. I am still waiting to hear what other animal welfare organisations are supporting PETA.
yes we know that the aussie RSPCA doesn't support the boycott - it was mentioned a few posts ago. we also know that the RSPCA is capable of changing their minds - as they did on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 regarding the live export. perhaps the ...[text shortened]... proach will be somewhat different from AR.
in friendship,
prad
What I am raising now are reputable animal rights organisations - campaigning like you for an end to live sheep exports - explictly criticising your organisation and publically distancing themselves from your campaign. I did not expect to hear such strong criticism of PETA from such a well respected animal welfare campaigner.
they also stress that they are an AW organization and not an AR organization
So this is not really an animal welfare issue then? Another hole you have dug for yourself.
Originally posted by steerpikesteerpike, i really think you are congratulating yourself rather unnecessarily.
I think what we were discussing a few posts ago was your claim I was confused between PETA and the other organisations in the boycott. When I asked what other organisations, you claimed the British RSPCA - then retracted this when I aske ...[text shortened]... imal welfare issue then? Another hole you have dug for yourself.
A. i already told you that animals australia supports the boycott on p22 (and provided a link).
so does AAQ it seems judging by their news items (though i don't have a link that say they do officially). they are also not too happy with this 'well respected animal welfare' organization - see their investigation RSPCA Endorses Cruelty (http://www.animalactivism.org/campaigns/rspca-cruelty/).
this is not too surprising perhaps considering SPCA's are often tied to their funding sources and tend to be AW more than AR quite often. (i don't usually make too big a deal whether it's AW or AR because they both do good work generally though they sometimes do get in others way - what's important to remember though is their goals tend to be a bit different.)
B. you keep referring to my organization and my campaign, but again, i have already told you that i am not affiliated with the organization you take such exception to.
C. your 'triumphant' implication at the end really doesn't follow either. just because RSPCA is an AW and doesn't endorse the boycott doesn't NOT make this an AW effort (i think you figure that if it isn't AW, it must be AR). again, i explained this earlier in that PETA is wearing an AW hat (even though they are an AR organization). what they are asking for through the boycott is the end of mulesing and live exports (the RSPCA wants the latter as well from what i've read), which falls short of AR requirements. so the boycott is AW and is being called by PETA who is AR.
i hope this clears it all up.
in friendship,
prad
J. Crew and New Look have joined the australian wool boycott a while ago as the article below elucidates.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.savethesheep.com/f-jcrew.asp
J.Crew and New Look Confirm: No Cruelly Produced Australian Wool in Stores
After reviewing video footage from PETA showing the cruel treatment of lambs and sheep at the hands of the Australian wool industry, prestigious retailers J.Crew, based in New York, and New Look, based in London, England, have taken pains to track the sources of their wool and have now given an assurance that they do not knowingly purchase Australian wool from producers who practice mulesing and ship older sheep overseas.
J.Crew is an $800 million company with 40 factory stores and 150 retail locations, plus catalog sales. New Look is a $1 billion company with 700 stores in the U.K. and France (under the name Mim). International retailer Abercrombie & Fitch was the first major company to join the boycott two months ago.
While New Look has thanked PETA for alerting it to cruelty issues, J.Crew made its assurance somewhat begrudgingly. PETA agents are used to that kind of reaction when a company is compelled to inconvenience itself and incur extra costs to meet increased consumer demand for environmental- and animal-friendly goods. Previously, PETA has felt the chill from McDonald's and other companies when it has pushed, ultimately successfully, for change. J.Crew's public relations and marketing director, Margot Brunelle, has authorized the release of the following statement:
"J.Crew is a socially and ethically sensitive company. At this time, we do not knowingly purchase any Australian wool from wool producers who practice mulesing or provide animals for live export."
J.Crew officials started examining the company's wool sources in early October at PETA's request, assigning staff to track the wool it buys through a maze of production and processing to the finished garments. PETA salutes J.Crew for taking on the difficult task and acknowledging that consumers want retailers to go the extra mile or more to make sure outright cruelty is avoided.
PETA wants the Australian government to ban sheep exports - during which many thousands of sheep die while being shipped aboard open-deck ships in all weather extremes - and to end "mulesing," an atrociously cruel mutilation condemned by the RSPCA, in which farmers cut flesh from lambs' hindquarters with a pair of garden shears and without painkillers in a crude attempt to reduce "flystrike" (maggot infestation). Although more sophisticated and humane methods exist, the Australian wool industry has rejected alternative humane flystrike-prevention methods already in use by about 20 percent of Australian sheep farmers and wants to stick with cheap and painful mulesing. Australian sheep also die by the thousands by being crammed aboard open-deck ships for a terrifying journey through all weather extremes to slaughter in the Middle East. Sick and injured sheep, treated as cargo, are thrown overboard to the sharks or ground up alive in mincing machines. Those who survive the journey have their throats slit while they are still fully conscious. The wool industry must adopt existing alternatives to these cruel and unethical methods.
uk-based George has joined the boycott. see story below.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.savethesheep.com/f-george.asp
George Joins PETA's Boycott of Cruel Australian Wool
After reviewing correspondence and video footage from PETA showing the cruel treatment of lambs and sheep by the Australian wool industry, George?the U.K.-based clothing brand that has taken the fashion world by storm?has taken pains to track the sources of its wool and has now given assurances that the company will not purchase Australian wool from farmers who mutilate lambs in a horrific procedure called "mulesing," in which terrified lambs are flipped upside-down and gardening shears are used to cut chunks of flesh from the animals' hindquarters?without any painkillers?in a crude attempt to reduce maggot infestation.
International retailer Abercrombie & Fitch was the first major company to join the boycott two months ago. J.Crew and U.K.-based clothing retailer New Look have also confirmed that it does not sell cruelly obtained Australian wool. PETA has let George know that the company's assurances will be welcomed by shoppers who do not wish to support horrific cruelty to animals.
Founded 15 years ago, George at ASDA is now a £1 billion per year global brand and the number two volume clothing retailer in the U.K., according to Fashiontrak. "We have had discussions with our suppliers who ... instructed the buying teams to specify that wool fibre must come from farms which do not practice mulesing," says Peter Yates, George's sourcing manager. "We have contacted the Australian Embassy in London to ask for their support to the phasing out process and also contacted the Australian trade minister ? to ask for his continued support in addressing the matter."
Tennis legend Martina Navratilova sent the following letter to PM John Howard after learning about the treatment of sheep in Australia.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.savethesheep.com/pdf/Martina-PM1-05.pdf
January 25, 2005
The Honorable John Howard
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to address a very cruel and horrific practice currently executed in your country, called "mulesing," in which slices of flesh are cut with a pair of shears from a lamb's hindquarters without any painkillers. This is a deliberate act of violence. It is pain inflicted without just cause. Do you believe such cruelty should be allowed? I ask you again, do you believe such cruelty is an acceptable practice? If not, what are you doing to stop its continuation? Can you imagine what kind of person would be able to inflict such pain upon a defenseless creature? Harvesting livestock is one thing--cruel and unusual infliction of pain in that process is another. It is ethically and morally wrong.
Today's Australia outgrew its violent beginning. It is now on the brink of maturity. In the next 20 years, it will become one of the most industrialized countries of the world. Now is the time to set in place laws that will ensure practices such as mulesing will not continue forward. Learn by the mistakes America has made from the beginning to now. In many ways, America has lost both its moral and ethical compass in its industrial growth, and will undoubtedly find itself paralyzed by the loss of such standards. In all things, we reap what we sow. I urge you to introduce and exhibit those standards of government that will one day identify your country as one of the great pillars of success that incorporated humanitarian values into its industry.
Again, I--along with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal welfare advocates--urge you, Prime Minister Howard, as well as your fellow countrymen, to stop this violence exhibited in the practice of mulesing, and to maintain humane practices in the export of sheep. I urge all Australians to voice their concern over such cruel practices. If not for the animals, then for the health and welfare of families whose members would practice such cruelty. I believe in community-supported agriculture. I believe the community must play watchdog to practices similar to this, and take steps necessary to ensure their continuation is eliminated.
Sincerely,
Martina Navratilova
P.S. I have copied this letter to PETA in Norfolk, VA, which brought this horrendous situation to my attention. My hope is that your representative will contact Matt Rice at +1 757-622-7382 or MattR@peta.org with your humane decision.
Originally posted by pradtfPrad, how does it take you 5 edits to copy and paste?
Tennis legend Martina Navratilova sent the following letter to PM John Howard after learning about the treatment of sheep in Australia.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.savethesheep.com/pdf/Martina-PM1-05.pdf
January 25, 2005
The Honorable John Howard
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I ...[text shortened]... ive will contact Matt Rice at +1 757-622-7382 or MattR@peta.org with your humane decision.