Australian Wool Boycott

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, Pradtf, I guess you're the one supporting all the boycotts now! Boycott wool, boycott RHP, what else you up to?

well let's see.
in the 70s and 80s, we supported 'boycotts' relating to war, poverty, apartheid, clearcutting, education, institutionalization of the handicapped as well as some amnesty international initiatives that i don't recall.

this thread is about the australian wool boycott not my personal adventures, but thanks for asking anyway 😀 😀 😀

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
well let's see.
in the 70s and 80s, we supported 'boycotts' relating to war, poverty, apartheid, clearcutting, institutionalization of the handicapped as well as some amnesty international initiatives that i don't recall.

this thread is about the australian wool boycott not my personal adventures, but thanks for asking anyway 😀 😀 😀

in friendship,
prad

Well, someone once said:

"i still think that your boycott was ridiculous, but that's just not too relevant here."

Remember who?


In Historyship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, someone once said:

"i still think that your boycott was ridiculous, but that's just not too relevant here."

Remember who?


In Historyship,

2BitLawyer

my sentiments whose eloquence you have bludgeoned was:

i don't know about any of your posts being removed other than that ridiculous boycott effort on sardodos. you really seem to have your name connected with boycotts that never happen.
from the 3rd page of RC's critical mass thread in our favorite former forum 😀
(at least that's what i think you are talking about ... though i possibly wrote the other stuff you quoted when i wasn't quite as inspired - though we were all waiting with baited breath in those days as to whether you were going to boycott the forums 😀 )

well i can safely say that i have never boycotted a chess player on RHP, yet.
but then i guess you haven't either ever since you changed your mind after some sagacious 'advice'.

anyway, pursue me in your exodus effort.
get on topic here or ... just boycott this thread 😉

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
oh come on grant! you have this thing about AR and it is most unreasonable.

you know very well that it is completely inaccurate to portray AR activists as people who go around attacking the lives and property of those who hold different views. we've been through all this (more than once), but you've obviously forgotten my post which generated your appar ...[text shortened]... on topic without these bizarre interjections.
we have done it before.

in friendship,
prad

Animal rights activists have commited crimes against lives and property. As someone who supports animal rights, can you give a clear statement as to where you stand on attacks on the lives and property of those who hold different views from your own?

Simple question - can you state your positon?

Originally posted by steerpike
Animal rights activists have commited crimes against lives and property. As someone who supports animal rights, can you give a clear statement as to where you stand on attacks on the lives and property of those who hold different views from your own?

Simple question - can you state your positon?

i already did in my last post to you. i'm one of those more 'peaceful' activists - part of that vast majority i mentioned earlier. PETA is part of that 'peaceful' group too, btw in case you thought otherwise.

anything else?

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by steerpike
Animal rights activists have commited crimes against lives and property. As someone who supports animal rights, can you give a clear statement as to where you stand on attacks on the lives and property of those who hold different views from your own?

Simple question - can you state your positon?

Why should a human's putative right to property outweigh an animal's putative right to by free from suffering? Do you think that an animal can be the property of a human? Presumably, you think that humans cannot justifiably be made property, so why why are the rules different in the case of non-human animals (if you think they are, in fact, different)?

Originally posted by pradtf
i already did in my last post to you. i'm one of those more 'peaceful' activists - part of that vast majority i mentioned earlier. PETA is part of that 'peaceful' group too, btw in case you thought otherwise.
however, i don't have a problem causing economic pressure through boycotts like this one.
anything else?

in friendship,
prad

I ddn't mean to imply you were personally responsible.

Would you condone someone who throws red paint at a fur store?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is good to know that you have such a deep and abiding concern for sheep, since you rarely exhibit much compassion for your fellow man. I think a boycott of Australian wool in an attempt to damage the well-being of Australian farmers is misguided and a little twisted; because a particular way they avoid a deadly disease is somewhat painful to the animal? Absurd.

well i'll just answer the relevant portion of your post here - you can deal with the rest of the gibberish in your own time somewhere else hopefully.

i don't think you have read what actually is going on regarding the sheep and the various alternatives that are available. a boycott like this is not twisted at all. what it will do is cause people to implement those alternatives. that is why this has become an international effort finally.

nor do you understand that the issue is not one of the deadly disease vs the painful operation. neither is necessary. if you really want to know about this, just read through this thread properly, before posting to it.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by bbarr
Why should a human's putative right to property outweigh an animal's putative right to by free from suffering? Do you think that an animal can be the property of a human? Presumably, you think that humans cannot justifiably be made property, so why why are the rules different in the case of non-human animals (if you think they are, in fact, different)?

Surely you're not suggesting that animals have equal rights to human beings are you? Does a mosquito's right to be free of suffering mean you can't swat it? Does the family of rats that infest your basement right to be free of suffering mean you can't call the exterminator to poison them? And yes, human beings can and do own animals as property and I don't understand what moral objection there could be against it. Please enlighten me.

In OKI'llbiteship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by pradtf
well i'll just answer the relevant portion of your post here - you can deal with the rest of the gibberish in your own time somewhere else hopefully.

i don't think you have read what actually is going on regarding the sheep and the various alternatives that are available. a boycott like this is not twisted at all. what it will do is cause people to imple ...[text shortened]... bout this, just read through this thread properly, before posting to it.

in friendship,
prad

I read the thread; it's a trivial issue and no reason to try to financially ruin Australian farmers. Maybe people who hold your views could try to convince your fellow human beings who happen to be Australian farmers that the alternatives you desire should be adopted by them. But why use actual persuasion when you can use threats of financial ruin? Your attitude is consistent; you show more respect for animals than you do for human beings, in Australia and at RHP.

In That'sthewayitisship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by steerpike
Would you condone someone who throws red paint at a fur store?

no i wouldn't.
i think there are more effective ways of dealing with the fur issue.
while throwing paint may 'frighten' some people, i am inclined to think that it tends to 'colour' the movement in a rather unfavorable way.
fostering public awareness of what the animals go through has done far more, imo, than some of these angry displays.

i think it is best also to work 'within the law' (whenever possible - sometimes it is not, but even then violence is not necessary). one of the things we've found at protests for instance, is that the police uphold your right to protest when you do it responsibly.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by pradtf
no i wouldn't.
i think there are more effective ways of dealing with the fur issue.
while throwing paint may 'frighten' some people, i am inclined to think that it tends to 'colour' the movement in a rather unfavorable way.
fostering public awareness of what the animals go through has done far more, imo, than some of these angry displays.

i think i ...[text shortened]... that the police uphold your right to protest when you do it responsibly.

in friendship,
prad

There certainly have been many incidents like this -and the Animal Liberation Front lists as its second guidleline:

"TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals. "

Is there a connection between PETA and the ALF? Are the ALF in support of your boycott?

Originally posted by pradtf
one of the things we've found at protests for instance, is that the police uphold your right to protest when you do it responsibly.

As someone who had the personal experience of being tear gassed and having a mounted Boston police officer swing a club at my head during a peaceful march in favor of integrating schools in 1974(!), I'd say that statemment is a bit of an exaggeration.


In Hemissedmehemissedmeship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by no1marauder
I read the thread; it's a trivial issue and no reason to try to financially ruin Australian farmers. Maybe people who hold your views could try to convince your fellow human beings who happen to be Australian farmers that the alternatives you desire should be adopted by them. But why use actual persuasion when you can use threats of financial ...[text shortened]... beings, in Australia and at RHP.

In That'sthewayitisship,

2BitLawyer

well you've obviously not read things too carefully - or don't want to.
may be if you saw the video you would not decide it is a trivial issue.

these alternatives have been suggested for quite a while - they are not adopted because it is considered cheaper to do the 'operation' without even anaesthetic (nevermind all the other stuff).

threatening financial ruin is an excellent idea. that's what the idea was in the tutu's apartheid boycott or gandhi's non-cooperation. there are plenty of other boycotts going on like nestle, nike, petco etc etc.

surely, you know about this strategy.

anyway, why don't you try to find out something about this - go to the website and study it for a while - rather than ranting on about this with your usual sprinkling of RHP comments.

in friendship,
prad