25 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfIf the Australian government going to ban the practice like you say, then what's the propose of your ridiculous boycott? Wouldn't it be just easier to put political pressure on the Australian lawmakers? Or are the people insisting the practice be ended just a loud, carping, small minority (at RHP we know how they can get)?
ok let's try it again this way:
Mulesing is the procedure whereby Australian farmers mutilate lambs - without any painkillers - by carving chunks of flesh from the animals' backsides in a crude effort to reduce flystrike, even though more sophisticated and humane control methods exist.
now you don't have to worry about definitions of cruel and ...[text shortened]... of barbarity anymore"
they may even get to see this thread on RHP 😀
in friendship,
prad
If your position is that the farmers are deliberately doing the practice to inflict pain on the animal for no reason, you're saying they're being cruel. That implies they're just a bunch of demented sadists. I say you're wrong and that the farmers believe they are being as humane as possible under the constraints, economic and otherwise, they operate under. I again state that your position shows a lack of sympathy towards human beings and a lot of sympathy towards sheep. And I think that's a mixed up set of values.
In I'mthinkinglambchopsnowship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderyou can state whatever you want - like you typically do.
If the Australian government going to ban the practice like you say, then what's the propose of your ridiculous boycott? Wouldn't it be just easier to put political pressure on the Australian lawmakers? Or are the people insis ...[text shortened]... In I'mthinkinglambchopsnowship,
2BitLawyer
it may be better if you would actually make some attempt to understand what is happening before trying to write about it.
this has been going on for a while and what the boycott will do is cause the government to take action because so far they haven't done much.
boycotts, protests and the publicity generated in this fashion often results in effective action.
i deliberately removed the word 'cruel' for your benefit so there isn't any need for you to bring it back.
"being as humane as possible", as you say (and which they are not considering the existence of alternatives), just isn't good enough and you may eventually see that.
many others do see it which is why the boycott is happening.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfI understand perfectly well what is happening: some sheep are suffering some discomfort, so you want to boycott the Australian wool industry. Understanding has I do, I also understand that the whole thing is utterly trivial and silly. If the Australian government wants to cave in to such an idiotic demand, fine with me. If Australian sheep farmers are able to use a different practice economically, fine with me, too. The main thing this thread did for me is make me want to go out and buy some Australian wool right away; could you give me the names of the companies that are ignoring the boycott?
you can state whatever you want - like you typically do.
it may be better if you would actually make some attempt to understand what is happening before trying to write about it.
this has been going on for a while and what the boycott will do is cause the government to take action because so far they haven't done much.
boycotts, protests and the publi ...[text shortened]... see that.
many others do see it which is why the boycott is happening.
in friendship,
prad
In It'sawfulcoldinalbanyaaustralianwoolsweatersoundsgreatship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderwell you may find this hard to believe, but you really don't understand this well - nevermind perfectly well.
I understand perfectly well what is happening: some sheep are suffering some discomfort, so you want to boycott the Australian wool industry. Understanding has I do, I also understand that the whole thing is utterly trivial and ...[text shortened]... albanyaaustralianwoolsweatersoundsgreatship,
2BitLawyer
'some sheep' amounts to quite a large number if you will bother reading up on it.
the 'suffering' isn't trivial as you want to make it out to be - again you need to learn about it.
it is unlikely, the australian government is going to 'cave in' right away, but they will be made to see that they must find a way to eliminate these methods due to worldwide pressure - which is usually how these things go.
i don't buy wool so i can't help you (may be svw can 😉 ), but i am surprised you are awful cold. 😀
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
3 edits
[/i]orginally posted by pradtfSo you're boycotting a product because of the way the sheep are treated even though you wouldn't buy the product if the sheep were given rooms at the Hilton with a minibar and 24 hour room service? Yeah, that's a REAL "coherent" position!
i don't buy wool so i can't help you
[/b]
In Coherencyship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
No#1 Marauder I have been reading your posts on this thread with interest. You seem to have sumed up very well the negative argument most sasincley. I totally agree with you that it is an overreaction to try to inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that has been the norm for more than 100 years.
I personally intend writing to Abercrombie & Fitch to express my opinion on this matter and would encourage others to do likewise.
Take it easy one and all.
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderno i don't buy wool because i have adopted a vegan lifestyle since the 90s. i also don't buy leather, silk, fur.
So you're boycotting a product because of the way the sheep are treated even though you wouldn't buy the product if the sheep were given rooms at the Hilton with a minibar and 24 hour room service? Yeah, that's a REAL "coherent" position!
In Coherencyship,
2BitLawyer
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by easybeatInteresting claim. Suppose that prior to the Civil War in the U.S., Northern abolitionists decided to boycott the cotton producing Southern states because of their reliance on slave labor. By your logic, the abolitionists would be in error in this scenario, as they would be trying to "inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that ha[d] been the norm for more than 100 years." Of course, you will reply that the slaves in this scenario are human, and that makes all the difference because humans have rights and animals do not. Hopefully you can see that this response would be question-begging in the current debate, as it is the status of animals as rights-holders that is precisely at issue.
No#1 Marauder I have been reading your posts on this thread with interest. You seem to have sumed up very well the negative argument most sasincley. I totally agree with you that it is an overreaction to try to inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that has been the norm for more than 100 years.
I personally intend writing to ...[text shortened]... y opinion on this matter and would encourage others to do likewise.
Take it easy one and all.
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfIf that lifestyle works for you, more power to ya but since you've already stated in this thread you'd like to see the entire wool industry shut down, it is disingenous in the extreme to pretend that the technique in question is the REAL issue here. You are entitled to hold your extreme positions, but the Australian wool farmers are entitled to make a living for themselves and their families. If that's inconvenient for you and some sheep, so be it.
no i don't buy wool because i have adopted a vegan lifestyle since the 90s. i also don't buy leather, silk, fur.
in friendship,
prad
In That'swhatI'msayingship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrIs it your claim that wool farming itself is immoral like slavery and should be abolished?
Interesting claim. Suppose that prior to the Civil War in the U.S., Northern abolitionists decided to boycott the cotton producing Southern states because of their reliance on slave labor. By your logic, the abolitionists would be in error in this scenario, as they would be trying to "inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that ha ...[text shortened]... the current debate, as it is the status of animals as rights-holders that is precisely at issue.
In Let'sgettothenubofthemattership,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfIs all wool production harmful to sheep? Aren't their any small-scale, sheep-friendly wool producers out there? If you found one, would you be opposed to using the wool they produce?
no i don't buy wool because i have adopted a vegan lifestyle since the 90s. i also don't buy leather, silk, fur.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderwell people change their idea of what extreme is:
If that lifestyle works for you, more power to ya but since you've already stated in this thread you'd like to see the entire wool industry shut down, it is disingenous in the extreme to pretend that the technique in question is the REAL issue here. You are entitled to hold your extreme positions, but the Australian wool farmers are entitled to ...[text shortened]... t for you and some sheep, so be it.
In That'swhatI'msayingship,
2BitLawyer
150 years ago we had slavery in America....
to speak against it was considered extreme.
100 years ago ... not one child in the US had any rights ...
in fact, it was the eventual founder of the american spca henry bergh who apparently used an existing animal protection law to prosecute the abusers of a child. back then children were without protection
to suggest they should have any was considered extreme.
85 years ago women could not even vote.
in canada, it was unclear as to whether women were even persons. women were defined by british common law as 'persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges'.
to want women to have rights and privileges was considered extreme.
40 years ago segregation was still thriving in America
it meant black people could not even drink out of the same water fountain as a white person
to expect blacks to exist side by side was considered extreme.
20 years ago, institutionalization of the handicapped was considered the inevitable.
it was 'for their own good' or for the 'benefit of society' or a whole host of other excuses.
to insist on integration was considered extreme.
as people learn more, think about things more and reconsider themselves more, they change ... admittedly it may take a while and no doubt more than a single thread, but people do change and even find other ways to live.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfUMM, all those examples concern the treatment of human beings; I doubt sheep are going to get the vote in any time frame that humanity has to worry about.
well people change their idea of what extreme is:
150 years ago we had slavery in America....
to speak against it was considered extreme.
100 years ago ... not one child in the US had any rights ...
in fact, it was the eventual founder of the american spca henry bergh who apparently used an existing animal protection law to prosecute the abusers of a ...[text shortened]... single thread, but people do change and even find other ways to live.
in friendship,
prad
In Sufferagesuccotashship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarri think there are such operations - i vaguely recall you said you get your wool from places which treat sheep humanely. however, what some humans consider humane for sheep may not necessarily be so.
Is all wool production harmful to sheep? Aren't their any small-scale, sheep-friendly wool producers out there? If you found one, would you be opposed to using the wool they produce?
i would still not use the wool for the following reasons (in no particular order):
there are alternatives.
the wool is for the sheep.
i have never liked wool ever since i emerged from gr10 gym class all sweaty and had to get into my wool worsted pants without a shower because otherwise i would have been late for class.
it conflicts with the particular vegan principle that animals are not ours to use - for food, clothing, entertainment, etc.
that being said, if small operations carry out small businesses where they work in kind partnership with the animals in a truly humane fashion, i can see no real reason for objection. however, i think such situations are rare and many things need to be taken into consideration.
in friendship,
prad