- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Discussion > Negative interference for a cause? PETA, Greenpeace,...
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
So I was reading an article this morning about how Pink (the singer) is going to Oz for PETA to take on the wool industry for Mulesing sheep against flystrike. Now, what gets me is how these people don't do their parts to really understand what they are fighting against. Mulesing would have to happen regardless of whether or not the sheep were being used for wool. I've seen an animal with flystrike...ugh. Bad..bad..bad.
They would rather these animals die a tormented death than undergo this procedure.
Not to mention the VP of PETA is a diabetic whose insulin was tested on animals. But I digress...
This reminded me of when genetically engineered corn (via selective breeding) was introduced to Africa a few years ago. This corn strand can thrive in arid, hot zones without rich soil and so offer more food options. Greenpeace stepped in and convinced the gov't that it would be bad to use. One of the documents released even claimed the corn would cause mutations in babies.
I understand wanting to help but at which point does lack of wanting to reason justify actually causing harm to others?
Where is the line that shouldn't be crossed, if you feel there is one?
So I was reading an article this morning about how Pink (the singer) is going to Oz for PETA to take on the wool industry for Mulesing sheep against flystrike. Now, what gets me is how these people don't do their parts to really understand what they are fighting against. Mulesing would have to happen regardless of whether or not the sheep were being used for wool. I've seen an animal with flystrike...ugh. Bad..bad..bad.
They would rather these animals die a tormented death than undergo this procedure.
Not to mention the VP of PETA is a diabetic whose insulin was tested on animals. But I digress...
This reminded me of when genetically engineered corn (via selective breeding) was introduced to Africa a few years ago. This corn strand can thrive in arid, hot zones without rich soil and so offer more food options. Greenpeace stepped in and convinced the gov't that it would be bad to use. One of the documents released even claimed the corn would cause mutations in babies.
I understand wanting to help but at which point does lack of wanting to reason justify actually causing harm to others?
Where is the line that shouldn't be crossed, if you feel there is one?
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I look at organizations such as Greenpeace and PETA as groups of people with their hearts in the right places...
...And their brains in the wrong places (usually stuck up bodily orfices primarily used for elimination).
I've seen both organizations go after such self-defeating and nonsensical campaigns that it has literally made me laugh out loud, especially as someone who tries to stay up-to-date on these things. The hypocracy amuses me to no end.
I look at organizations such as Greenpeace and PETA as groups of people with their hearts in the right places...
...And their brains in the wrong places (usually stuck up bodily orfices primarily used for elimination).
I've seen both organizations go after such self-defeating and nonsensical campaigns that it has literally made me laugh out loud, especially as someone who tries to stay up-to-date on these things. The hypocracy amuses me to no end.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Earlier in this thread you yourself posted information from the soil association stating
Are we seriously to believe that you are of the opinion that the current controversy over GM food relates to selctive breeding - a centuries old technique discussed by Darwin in the Origin of Species - when you're happy to quote sources stating that GM food has only been available for 10 years???
This is psuedo-scientific arrogance at its worst. The idea that nature is some kind of external enemy to human culture, which we must strive to control is often cited as an underlying philosophical reason behind human environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change.
We do not control an environment which is exterior to us. We work within the ecosystems that necessarily sustain us. To claim that we have unilateral control (and this is what control means - a one way flow of information governed by a discourse of mastery - as opposed to a co-creative or reciprocal relationship) over these ecosystems displays a pathological understanding of the world at a fairly basic level. By seeking this unattainable level of control over our environment, the consequences we are seeing are that as these dynamic ecosystems change, even slight shifts can causes massively detrimental impacts for human society. When you deal with chaotic systems - whereby a minute change can drastically alter the trajectory of a system through a bifuraction which sends the system's phase portait into an alternative basin of attaction - the concept of unilateral control becomes redundant.
And there in lies the answer - the environment is not a static system which we can ever hope to ulitmately master and control (one of the meta-narratives of modernist ideologies), ecosystems are dynamic systems - they are always changing and evolving, creating new universes of potentiality, many of which will be detrimental to humans.
Some examples (the list will never appraoach being exhaustive as new examples manifest themselves) : MRSA, MDRtb, the Asian tsunami, hurricanes such as Katrina, earthquakes, increased desertification due to human agricultural practices operating for short term capital profit, the 160 000 annnual deaths as a result of ACC (according to the WHO), and ultimately the limited temporal life and stability of the Sun... etc etc etc
Written by: robnunchuks
i said GM crops and as i understand the definition that includes crops created with selective breading which are used alot.
Written by: wikipedia
A genetically modified food is a product developed from a different genetically modified organism (GMO) such as a crop plant, animal or microorganism. Genetically modified foods produced by genetic engineering have been available since the 1990s.
Written by: wikipedia
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using techniques in genetics generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Recombinant DNA technology is the ability to combine DNA molecules from different sources into one molecule in a test tube. Thus, the abilities or the phenotype of the organism, or the proteins it produces, can be altered through the modification of its genes.
Earlier in this thread you yourself posted information from the soil association stating
Written by: soil association via robnunchuks
GM food has been available in America since 1996, but no studies have been carried out to assess whether this has led to health problems.
Are we seriously to believe that you are of the opinion that the current controversy over GM food relates to selctive breeding - a centuries old technique discussed by Darwin in the Origin of Species - when you're happy to quote sources stating that GM food has only been available for 10 years???
Written by: robnunchuks
why can we not control our enviroment indefinatly?
This is psuedo-scientific arrogance at its worst. The idea that nature is some kind of external enemy to human culture, which we must strive to control is often cited as an underlying philosophical reason behind human environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change.
We do not control an environment which is exterior to us. We work within the ecosystems that necessarily sustain us. To claim that we have unilateral control (and this is what control means - a one way flow of information governed by a discourse of mastery - as opposed to a co-creative or reciprocal relationship) over these ecosystems displays a pathological understanding of the world at a fairly basic level. By seeking this unattainable level of control over our environment, the consequences we are seeing are that as these dynamic ecosystems change, even slight shifts can causes massively detrimental impacts for human society. When you deal with chaotic systems - whereby a minute change can drastically alter the trajectory of a system through a bifuraction which sends the system's phase portait into an alternative basin of attaction - the concept of unilateral control becomes redundant.
And there in lies the answer - the environment is not a static system which we can ever hope to ulitmately master and control (one of the meta-narratives of modernist ideologies), ecosystems are dynamic systems - they are always changing and evolving, creating new universes of potentiality, many of which will be detrimental to humans.
Some examples (the list will never appraoach being exhaustive as new examples manifest themselves) : MRSA, MDRtb, the Asian tsunami, hurricanes such as Katrina, earthquakes, increased desertification due to human agricultural practices operating for short term capital profit, the 160 000 annnual deaths as a result of ACC (according to the WHO), and ultimately the limited temporal life and stability of the Sun... etc etc etc
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm afraid you've fallen into semantical fallacies. In biological terms the modern agro-bacteria style genetic modification is not fundamentally different to traditional crop breeding techniques or modern crop breeding techniques (which I think you are conflating). Selective breeding is essentially genetic modification utilising the reproductive organs of the plants themselves to do the dirty work.
I'm afraid you've form a complete straw-man. Rob really isn't saying any of what you're arguing against. Rob's point is essentially one of continuous use of science to alleviate human suffering, although I don't like to put words into his mouth. You don't address this, simply attack it as "psuedo-scientific arrogance" and embark on a postmodernist rant against "unilateral control", which is not what rob is writing about.
Also, with regards to your use of several scientific or mathematical terms in your post, to paraphrase the words of Inigo Montoya: I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
Written by: dream
Are we seriously to believe that you are of the opinion that the current controversy over GM food relates to selctive breeding - a centuries old technique discussed by Darwin in the Origin of Species - when you're happy to quote sources stating that GM food has only been available for 10 years???
I'm afraid you've fallen into semantical fallacies. In biological terms the modern agro-bacteria style genetic modification is not fundamentally different to traditional crop breeding techniques or modern crop breeding techniques (which I think you are conflating). Selective breeding is essentially genetic modification utilising the reproductive organs of the plants themselves to do the dirty work.
Written by: dreamWritten by: robnunchuks
why can we not control our enviroment indefinatly?
This is psuedo-scientific arrogance at its worst. The idea that nature is some kind of external enemy to human culture, which we must strive to control is often cited as an underlying philosophical reason behind human environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change.
I'm afraid you've form a complete straw-man. Rob really isn't saying any of what you're arguing against. Rob's point is essentially one of continuous use of science to alleviate human suffering, although I don't like to put words into his mouth. You don't address this, simply attack it as "psuedo-scientific arrogance" and embark on a postmodernist rant against "unilateral control", which is not what rob is writing about.
Also, with regards to your use of several scientific or mathematical terms in your post, to paraphrase the words of Inigo Montoya: I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
unfortunately that is not what rob said, and i would hope that is not what he meant, but perhaps he did, and we should wait for him to clarify
unfortunately that is not what rob said, and i would hope that is not what he meant, but perhaps he did, and we should wait for him to clarify
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
So you're also of the opinion that Greenpeace, the Soil Association et al oppose selective breeding that doesn't involve agro-bacteria style genetic modification?
Thought not.
Whether there's a fundamental biological difference or not - there is a different in process, and a semantic difference, as evidence by the quotations in my last post. There's also a difference in the way that they are perceived by both the public and organisations such as Greenpeace and the Soil Association. Hence the current debate both on this thread and in the wider public sphere about GM food.
what rob said was
What you do is decide that rob meant something other than what he said. This is exactly whats known as putting words in someones mouth. There's a fairly large difference in meaning between the two statements... Robs keywords being we, control, environement, indefinately and yours being science, alleviate, human, suffering. Had rob said what you said i wouldn't have responded. However he didn't - hence your need to rewrite him and totally change his point.
As for me going on a 'postmodern rant' and not knowing understanding what the words I'm using mean... may i remind you of another thread
Written by: Jeff
In biological terms the modern agro-bacteria style genetic modification is not fundamentally different to traditional crop breeding techniques or modern crop breeding techniques (which I think you are conflating). Selective breeding is essentially genetic modification utilising the reproductive organs of the plants themselves to do the dirty work.
So you're also of the opinion that Greenpeace, the Soil Association et al oppose selective breeding that doesn't involve agro-bacteria style genetic modification?
Thought not.
Whether there's a fundamental biological difference or not - there is a different in process, and a semantic difference, as evidence by the quotations in my last post. There's also a difference in the way that they are perceived by both the public and organisations such as Greenpeace and the Soil Association. Hence the current debate both on this thread and in the wider public sphere about GM food.
Written by: Jeff
Rob really isn't saying any of what you're arguing against. Rob's point is essentially one of continuous use of science to alleviate human suffering, although I don't like to put words into his mouth.
what rob said was
Written by: robnunchuks
why can we not control our enviroment indefinatly?
What you do is decide that rob meant something other than what he said. This is exactly whats known as putting words in someones mouth. There's a fairly large difference in meaning between the two statements... Robs keywords being we, control, environement, indefinately and yours being science, alleviate, human, suffering. Had rob said what you said i wouldn't have responded. However he didn't - hence your need to rewrite him and totally change his point.
As for me going on a 'postmodern rant' and not knowing understanding what the words I'm using mean... may i remind you of another thread
Written by: Jeff
dream...your not a post-modernist are you?
If a disciplin can't make coherent sense then how can we be expected to respond to it.
So far what I've heard from post-modernism is that science has trouble with fluid dynamics because most scientists are male and of course males understand hard things better than fluid things which women understand better because of the physical differences in their physical sexual responces.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
dream can you put that into context because that sounds very sexists
and as enlightened as jeff is-that has to be out of context
dream can you put that into context because that sounds very sexists
and as enlightened as jeff is-that has to be out of context
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
[Old link]
its too funny to be sexist
[Old link]
its too funny to be sexist
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Women.
Women.
Getting to the other side 
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
it is sorta out of context what was said after was...
it is sorta out of context what was said after was...
Written by: jeff(fake)
That is probably the lunitic(er) fringe though, but it's basicly the same vein of what most-modernism has leveled at science. They are criticising something which they have absolutely no understanding of. Personally I think Sokal understands post-modernism better than the post-modernists do, which is probably why he drives them crazy (and publicly humiliated them in the manner he did).Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
faith i dont think i know what you're getting at... my quotation from Jeff begins 'from what i've heard' - it isn't a position he claims to support (the opposite - its a nonexistent position he invokes to pass off a position as untenable). But it is very funny (or I certainly thought so).
- my point was that he is quite happy to use words which he doesn't understand - what he accuses me of in his last post, ironically while reiterating the word he misrepresented elsewhere to describe my post.
faith i dont think i know what you're getting at... my quotation from Jeff begins 'from what i've heard' - it isn't a position he claims to support (the opposite - its a nonexistent position he invokes to pass off a position as untenable). But it is very funny (or I certainly thought so).
- my point was that he is quite happy to use words which he doesn't understand - what he accuses me of in his last post, ironically while reiterating the word he misrepresented elsewhere to describe my post.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
You misunderstand - I understood exactly what the words you used meant, because I have done a fair bit of study on chaos theory and ecology. The trouble is that based on your misuse of these technical terms I don't think that you understand them. These are strict technical terms, with strict technical meanings.
As for the postmodernist view on fluid dynamics, that is the position held by Luce Irigaray.
Postmodernist N. Katherine Hayles describes the position thusly:
Written by: dream
- my point was that he is quite happy to use words which he doesn't understand - what he accuses me of in his last post, ironically while reiterating the word he misrepresented elsewhere to describe my post.
You misunderstand - I understood exactly what the words you used meant, because I have done a fair bit of study on chaos theory and ecology. The trouble is that based on your misuse of these technical terms I don't think that you understand them. These are strict technical terms, with strict technical meanings.
As for the postmodernist view on fluid dynamics, that is the position held by Luce Irigaray.
Postmodernist N. Katherine Hayles describes the position thusly:
Written by: Katherine Hayles
"The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders."
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
no i think he does understand the words, but often he uses them in the most rigid denotative sense possible...many times we use conotative or familiar language that we use and find in news
i believe that while the female theory is rather perposterous, jeff may be proof of the male half
no i think he does understand the words, but often he uses them in the most rigid denotative sense possible...many times we use conotative or familiar language that we use and find in news
i believe that while the female theory is rather perposterous, jeff may be proof of the male half
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
Hi everyone,
I don't get on here much any more, but the beautiful Gabe told me about this thread and I thought I would check it out
Sadly there is a lot of mis-information spread about PETA. Industries that profit from animal cruelty have been largely responsible for spreading such mis-information.
robnunchucks said that they "give money to people to firebomb medical recearch labs".
This is totally incorrect, yet typical of comments I often hear. PETA has never funded illegal activity. It is a registered charity organisation that is constantly under intense scrutiny. It has passed many audits, and always, always, operates within the law.
robnunchucks aso mentioned that they "hold protests out side animal shelters that euthenise animals they cant rehome"
I find this very hard to believe. Do you have any references for that claim? PETA actively supports shelters that euthanise because they realise that faced with multi-millions of displaced and discarded domestic animals every year, it is simply impossible to re-home or shelter every one. In fact, they encourage 'no kill' shelters to adopt euthanasia programs, because the alternative is for some needy animals to be turned away to face uncertain death, and others to spend their lives locked in a decrepit cage. For many animals, going to sleep peacefully by injection is a more humane alternative to spending a life sentence in a cage with no freedom, no stimulation, and no quality of life. Or worse -- being neglected, shot, or painfully gassed to death. Yes, PETA too euthanises animals (they are not a shelter organisation, although they do manage to find homes for hundreds of animals annually). PETA also distributes free dog-houses to needy dogs and operates a free and low-cost spay/neuter service and educates people how to care for their pets and how best to prevent stray litters and so reduce the need to euthanise so many animals.
You can read about PETA's stance on euthanasia here: https://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39
We have similar problems in Australia. 200,000 animals die every year because people choose to buy animals from pet stores rather than rescuing needy ones from shelters. I would encourage anyone who cares about animals not to support 'pet stores' for this reason.
dream, you may be happy to learn that there is a strong humanitarian drive behind many PETA campaigns as well. Also, many animal rights activists are also human rights activists (myself included).
As for mulesing,
for those who don't know what mulesing is, here's a short video:
https://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=save_the_sheep
Despite many Australian animal welfare organisations jumping up and down about this abhorrent cruelty for many decades, it was only once PETA stepped in a few years back that real headway has been made. Since then, the industry has pledged to phase out mulesing entirely by 2010, with many wool growers adopting more humane control methods early under the introduction of a non-mulesed clothing label, which PETA has helped to promote in overseas markets.
Mulesing is literally like hacking someone's ass off without any pain relief. Sadly this gruesome and unimaginably painful procedure happens to many millions of Australian animals each year. The Australian public had largely no idea this was happening and were rightly shocked to learn about it.
There are fortunately many Aussie sheep farmers who also believe that mulesing is abhorrent and unnecessarily cruel. Many have spoken out against the practice and have stand as a testament to the efficacy of humane alternatives
For those who are curious, here's PETA's full report on mulesing which includes the more humane alternatives to mulesing:
https://www.savethesheep.com/report.asp
Hi everyone,
I don't get on here much any more, but the beautiful Gabe told me about this thread and I thought I would check it out
Sadly there is a lot of mis-information spread about PETA. Industries that profit from animal cruelty have been largely responsible for spreading such mis-information.
robnunchucks said that they "give money to people to firebomb medical recearch labs".
This is totally incorrect, yet typical of comments I often hear. PETA has never funded illegal activity. It is a registered charity organisation that is constantly under intense scrutiny. It has passed many audits, and always, always, operates within the law.
robnunchucks aso mentioned that they "hold protests out side animal shelters that euthenise animals they cant rehome"
I find this very hard to believe. Do you have any references for that claim? PETA actively supports shelters that euthanise because they realise that faced with multi-millions of displaced and discarded domestic animals every year, it is simply impossible to re-home or shelter every one. In fact, they encourage 'no kill' shelters to adopt euthanasia programs, because the alternative is for some needy animals to be turned away to face uncertain death, and others to spend their lives locked in a decrepit cage. For many animals, going to sleep peacefully by injection is a more humane alternative to spending a life sentence in a cage with no freedom, no stimulation, and no quality of life. Or worse -- being neglected, shot, or painfully gassed to death. Yes, PETA too euthanises animals (they are not a shelter organisation, although they do manage to find homes for hundreds of animals annually). PETA also distributes free dog-houses to needy dogs and operates a free and low-cost spay/neuter service and educates people how to care for their pets and how best to prevent stray litters and so reduce the need to euthanise so many animals.
You can read about PETA's stance on euthanasia here: https://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39
We have similar problems in Australia. 200,000 animals die every year because people choose to buy animals from pet stores rather than rescuing needy ones from shelters. I would encourage anyone who cares about animals not to support 'pet stores' for this reason.
dream, you may be happy to learn that there is a strong humanitarian drive behind many PETA campaigns as well. Also, many animal rights activists are also human rights activists (myself included).
As for mulesing,
for those who don't know what mulesing is, here's a short video:
https://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=save_the_sheep
Despite many Australian animal welfare organisations jumping up and down about this abhorrent cruelty for many decades, it was only once PETA stepped in a few years back that real headway has been made. Since then, the industry has pledged to phase out mulesing entirely by 2010, with many wool growers adopting more humane control methods early under the introduction of a non-mulesed clothing label, which PETA has helped to promote in overseas markets.
Mulesing is literally like hacking someone's ass off without any pain relief. Sadly this gruesome and unimaginably painful procedure happens to many millions of Australian animals each year. The Australian public had largely no idea this was happening and were rightly shocked to learn about it.
There are fortunately many Aussie sheep farmers who also believe that mulesing is abhorrent and unnecessarily cruel. Many have spoken out against the practice and have stand as a testament to the efficacy of humane alternatives
For those who are curious, here's PETA's full report on mulesing which includes the more humane alternatives to mulesing:
https://www.savethesheep.com/report.asp
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
I do support both the efforts of PETA in their advocacy and the efforts of the Wool Industry to end this practice. I would be interested in finding out more about what has prevented farmers from adopting more humane methods to prevent flystrike up to this point (eg. cost, the efficacy of the methods, etc etc,)?
I have a lot of faith in the Australian Farming community in general. Those that I know are very concerned about the environment (in fact recent surveys have shown that men in rural communities are the most active group in our society with regards to environmental issues).
It is thanks to their efforts to end land clearing and introduce better farming methods that the Aussie record on Climate control is not as appalling as it should be. Although this is a mixed blessing, as the Australian Government has most definitely used the farmer's good work to trade for leniency with other industries that are still polluting.
With regards to mulesing, it seems pressure was necessary, but I would much like to know why that was the case from a farmer's perspective. I also wonder at the need for boycotts now that a commitment has been made to phase out the practice.
Written by: funkwaxpuppy
Despite many Australian animal welfare organisations jumping up and down about this abhorrent cruelty for many decades, it was only once PETA stepped in a few years back that real headway has been made. Since then, the industry has pledged to phase out mulesing entirely by 2010, with many wool growers adopting more humane control methods early under the introduction of a non-mulesed clothing label, which PETA has helped to promote in overseas markets.
I do support both the efforts of PETA in their advocacy and the efforts of the Wool Industry to end this practice. I would be interested in finding out more about what has prevented farmers from adopting more humane methods to prevent flystrike up to this point (eg. cost, the efficacy of the methods, etc etc,)?
I have a lot of faith in the Australian Farming community in general. Those that I know are very concerned about the environment (in fact recent surveys have shown that men in rural communities are the most active group in our society with regards to environmental issues).
It is thanks to their efforts to end land clearing and introduce better farming methods that the Aussie record on Climate control is not as appalling as it should be. Although this is a mixed blessing, as the Australian Government has most definitely used the farmer's good work to trade for leniency with other industries that are still polluting.
With regards to mulesing, it seems pressure was necessary, but I would much like to know why that was the case from a farmer's perspective. I also wonder at the need for boycotts now that a commitment has been made to phase out the practice.
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
"I also wonder at the need for boycotts now that a commitment has been made to phase out the practice."
This campaign is actually two-fold. Sadly, the abuse of Aussie sheep doesn't end at mulesing. Millions of sheep are then shipped thousands of kilometres through all weather extremes to countries with little or no welfare standards, where these animals have their throats slit and are dismembered while still fully conscious. During the journey many animals die from stress, overcrowding and hunger. Sick and injured sheep are thrown overboard to be devoured alive by sharks, and others are ground up alive aboard mincing machines. To combat denial from the sheep industry, Animals Australia headed an undercover investigation which revealed routine cruelty more horrific than anyone could have imagined.
You can see footage of this investigation here:
https://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=live_transport3
PETA's campaign focuses on these two tragic practices that affect Aussie sheep. Until both mulesing and live export are outlawed, they are calling people world-wide to boycott Australian wool.
Decades of "asking nicely" has failed to make any difference. It seems only an international boycott is enough to motivate the sheep industry to address these cruel practices.
If this sickens you as well, I'd urge you not to touch Australian wool!
"I also wonder at the need for boycotts now that a commitment has been made to phase out the practice."
This campaign is actually two-fold. Sadly, the abuse of Aussie sheep doesn't end at mulesing. Millions of sheep are then shipped thousands of kilometres through all weather extremes to countries with little or no welfare standards, where these animals have their throats slit and are dismembered while still fully conscious. During the journey many animals die from stress, overcrowding and hunger. Sick and injured sheep are thrown overboard to be devoured alive by sharks, and others are ground up alive aboard mincing machines. To combat denial from the sheep industry, Animals Australia headed an undercover investigation which revealed routine cruelty more horrific than anyone could have imagined.
You can see footage of this investigation here:
https://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=live_transport3
PETA's campaign focuses on these two tragic practices that affect Aussie sheep. Until both mulesing and live export are outlawed, they are calling people world-wide to boycott Australian wool.
Decades of "asking nicely" has failed to make any difference. It seems only an international boycott is enough to motivate the sheep industry to address these cruel practices.
If this sickens you as well, I'd urge you not to touch Australian wool!
journeyman
61 posts
61 posts
Posted:
I don't know whether anyone knows this but insulin use to have to be extracted from the pancreas of pigs.
Now it can be created in test tubes. A much nicer way of getting it. Yes it probably did get tested on animals at first but i doubt this practise is continuing. I could be wrong and would love to see something if i am.
-N
Written by: Pele
Not to mention the VP of PETA is a diabetic whose insulin was tested on animals. But I digress...
I don't know whether anyone knows this but insulin use to have to be extracted from the pancreas of pigs.
Now it can be created in test tubes. A much nicer way of getting it. Yes it probably did get tested on animals at first but i doubt this practise is continuing. I could be wrong and would love to see something if i am.
-N
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
ok the clame about giveing money to people to firebomb recearch labs relates mainly to rodney coronado a convicted arsonist who was given $70,000 by PETA
https://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm
more general information about PETAs miss deed
https://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
as for the PETA protesting animals shelters i said it because i saw some footage of a PETA protesting an animal shelter on TV unfortunaly i dont remember enough of the details to be able to specificly cite the incident and as such i'll admit i might have been misslead about the exact nature of whats going on i'll look into it and post up when i've found more
finaly with regards to debate between dream and jeff regarding when i said "why can we not control our enviroment indefinatly?"
jeff was absolutly spot on when he said
Rob's point is essentially one of continuous use of science to alleviate human suffering
this is exacly what i ment
im afraid im not entirely sure what point dream was trying to make.
Now it can be created in test tubes. A much nicer way of getting it. Yes it probably did get tested on animals at first but i doubt this practise is continuing. I could be wrong and would love to see something if i am.
you are of course right but the point is that without animal testing it wouldn't be posable to get to this nice way of geting it.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1168142187)
ok the clame about giveing money to people to firebomb recearch labs relates mainly to rodney coronado a convicted arsonist who was given $70,000 by PETA
https://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm
more general information about PETAs miss deed
https://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
as for the PETA protesting animals shelters i said it because i saw some footage of a PETA protesting an animal shelter on TV unfortunaly i dont remember enough of the details to be able to specificly cite the incident and as such i'll admit i might have been misslead about the exact nature of whats going on i'll look into it and post up when i've found more
finaly with regards to debate between dream and jeff regarding when i said "why can we not control our enviroment indefinatly?"
jeff was absolutly spot on when he said
Rob's point is essentially one of continuous use of science to alleviate human suffering
this is exacly what i ment
im afraid im not entirely sure what point dream was trying to make.
Now it can be created in test tubes. A much nicer way of getting it. Yes it probably did get tested on animals at first but i doubt this practise is continuing. I could be wrong and would love to see something if i am.
you are of course right but the point is that without animal testing it wouldn't be posable to get to this nice way of geting it.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1168142187)
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
You're right, Nado I know for a fact that the PETA VP in question uses non-animal derrived (synthetic) insulin.
You're right, Nado
I know for a fact that the PETA VP in question uses non-animal derrived (synthetic) insulin. BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
robnunchucks, the donation was not given to Rodney to 'firebomb research labs'. It was clearly for legal aide. And it happened over a decade ago.
The issues we are debating are happening right now and highlight the relevance that PETA plays in the global struggle for animal rights.
For a little perspective, ActivistCash.com is run by the CCF, a group that is funded by big business interests in an attempt to undermine activism and objection to their unethical business practices. Among their other targets is the 'Humane Society' and 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'.
robnunchucks, the donation was not given to Rodney to 'firebomb research labs'. It was clearly for legal aide. And it happened over a decade ago.
The issues we are debating are happening right now and highlight the relevance that PETA plays in the global struggle for animal rights.
For a little perspective, ActivistCash.com is run by the CCF, a group that is funded by big business interests in an attempt to undermine activism and objection to their unethical business practices. Among their other targets is the 'Humane Society' and 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'.
BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
As far as animal testing is concerned... by far, the majority of sadistic and unnecessary "medical tests" are conducted for redundant consumer testing.
The "draize" test, for example, is still favoured for testing cosmetics and cleaning products. If you aren't aware, this involves restraining fully conscious rabbits in metal neck braces and dripping or smearing harmful chemicals into their eyes. The rabbits are unable to move. They are left in this state for days, even weeks at a time during which they develop painful infections and many go blind. Many rabbits will rub their skin raw, some will even break their necks in vain attempts at trying to struggle free.
Currently, 19,000 animals die PER MINUTE in so called 'medical' experiments.
These are the 'experiments' we need to end first and foremost, as well as funding R&D into non-animal testing methods. There are already alternatives to most medical experiments, as you can see for yourself here: https://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87
So seriously, do we need to torture millions of these sensitive animals just to have a new flavour of toothpaste or colour of eye shadow? There is a growing number of companies who have pledged never to test on animals, as they realise how cruel and unnecessary it is these days. I'd be happy to share a list of some major brands if anyone's interested
As far as animal testing is concerned... by far, the majority of sadistic and unnecessary "medical tests" are conducted for redundant consumer testing.
The "draize" test, for example, is still favoured for testing cosmetics and cleaning products. If you aren't aware, this involves restraining fully conscious rabbits in metal neck braces and dripping or smearing harmful chemicals into their eyes. The rabbits are unable to move. They are left in this state for days, even weeks at a time during which they develop painful infections and many go blind. Many rabbits will rub their skin raw, some will even break their necks in vain attempts at trying to struggle free.
Currently, 19,000 animals die PER MINUTE in so called 'medical' experiments.
These are the 'experiments' we need to end first and foremost, as well as funding R&D into non-animal testing methods. There are already alternatives to most medical experiments, as you can see for yourself here: https://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87
So seriously, do we need to torture millions of these sensitive animals just to have a new flavour of toothpaste or colour of eye shadow? There is a growing number of companies who have pledged never to test on animals, as they realise how cruel and unnecessary it is these days. I'd be happy to share a list of some major brands if anyone's interested
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
Share lists of brands? Do it. Consumer pressure and choice can eventually make differences.
And do you know anything about changes to Body Shop practices /products since selling out to L'Oreal? I thought L'Oreal used to be one of the nasties in regards this sort of horrible testing. Have they changed any?
Share lists of brands? Do it. Consumer pressure and choice can eventually make differences.
And do you know anything about changes to Body Shop practices /products since selling out to L'Oreal? I thought L'Oreal used to be one of the nasties in regards this sort of horrible testing. Have they changed any?
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
BRONZE Member
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Member
40 posts
Location: Crane City (Brisbane), Australia
Posted:
The bodyshop is a tricky one. I understand that bodyshop products will not be tested on animals, however, since they are owned by L'Oreal, the dollars you spend at BS will be in part supporting animal tests for other L'Oreal products. There's no getting around that
For cosmetics, here are some of the major brands that DO NOT TEST:
Almay, Avon, Body Shop*, Bonne Bell, Chanel, Clarins of Paris, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Hello Kitty, Nivea, Revlon
Sadly, most of the others DO test on animals.
In Australia, we have a range of cleaning products that are cruelty-free. You can find them on the major supermarket shelves (Coles, Woolies, etc). Look out for "Natures Organics" -- they make just about everything from hand wash, dishwashing liquid, laundry liquid and toilet cleaner. Also look out for "Bathox", "Aware", "Planet Ark", "Australian Organics", "Red Seal", "Thursday Plantation" and "Earth's Choice" products. The bonus is that these products are generally made with more natural ingredients and are better for the environment as well!
Oh, and Woolworths also has their own brand-label toothpaste that is not tested on animals That's my pick.
For a larger list of international companies that do and do not test on animals, see:
https://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp
The bodyshop is a tricky one. I understand that bodyshop products will not be tested on animals, however, since they are owned by L'Oreal, the dollars you spend at BS will be in part supporting animal tests for other L'Oreal products. There's no getting around that
For cosmetics, here are some of the major brands that DO NOT TEST:
Almay, Avon, Body Shop*, Bonne Bell, Chanel, Clarins of Paris, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Hello Kitty, Nivea, Revlon
Sadly, most of the others DO test on animals.
In Australia, we have a range of cleaning products that are cruelty-free. You can find them on the major supermarket shelves (Coles, Woolies, etc). Look out for "Natures Organics" -- they make just about everything from hand wash, dishwashing liquid, laundry liquid and toilet cleaner. Also look out for "Bathox", "Aware", "Planet Ark", "Australian Organics", "Red Seal", "Thursday Plantation" and "Earth's Choice" products. The bonus is that these products are generally made with more natural ingredients and are better for the environment as well!
Oh, and Woolworths also has their own brand-label toothpaste that is not tested on animals
That's my pick.For a larger list of international companies that do and do not test on animals, see:
https://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
well, as a follow up......
___________________________
Red-faced Pink's u-turn on wool ban
January 17, 2007 - 11:01AM
(www.smh.com.au)
US pop singer Pink has backed down from her call to boycott Australian wool over animal cruelty claims, admitting she failed to fully research the issue.
The singer, who has sold around 200,000 tickets for dozens of shows in her upcoming April tour of Australia, appeared in an animal rights group video last year branding the practice of sheep mulesing "sadistic".
But today, Pink admitted she was misinformed about the issue and had failed to do enough research.
"I probably could have done a lot more research on my own," she told the Nine Network.
"That's the lesson I'm taking from this.
"My message was, in my mind, boycott animal cruelty - not an entire industry, not Australia, obviously, because it's my favourite country.
"Then going back, I was speaking without thinking and I actually did say ban Australia, which is bullshit. It's not something that I can agree with."
Pink made the video as part of the US-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) three-year campaign to end mulesing.
The animal husbandry practice involves cutting skin folds from sheeps' backsides to protect them against fly strike.
The wool industry has agreed to phase out mulesing by 2010 while research continues into alternatives - a fact Pink said PETA never revealed to her.
"Again, that's something I should have researched on my own. I take full responsibility for not being 100 per cent prepared and researched," she said.
"I have nothing against farmers. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, I don't want to hurt anyone, I just want the animals to hurt less."
She said she was prepared to meet farmers and industry representatives during her April tour.
"I don't want to watch a sheep being cut with no anaesthesia, that's not going to change my mind, but I'm definitely open minded to the debate," she said.
PETA brushed off Pink's backflip and said she continued to condemn mulesing.
"The fact remains that if the industry employed the responsible practices used by many farmers in Australia, which they could and should do tomorrow, this campaign would be over," vice president of campaigns Dan Mathews said.
PETA's campaign has hurt the Australian wool industry, with some American and British clothing retailers agreeing to the boycott.
But many big retailers, including Italian clothing giant Benetton, have refused to back the campaign.
AAP
__________________
well, as a follow up......
___________________________
Red-faced Pink's u-turn on wool ban
January 17, 2007 - 11:01AM
(www.smh.com.au)
US pop singer Pink has backed down from her call to boycott Australian wool over animal cruelty claims, admitting she failed to fully research the issue.
The singer, who has sold around 200,000 tickets for dozens of shows in her upcoming April tour of Australia, appeared in an animal rights group video last year branding the practice of sheep mulesing "sadistic".
But today, Pink admitted she was misinformed about the issue and had failed to do enough research.
"I probably could have done a lot more research on my own," she told the Nine Network.
"That's the lesson I'm taking from this.
"My message was, in my mind, boycott animal cruelty - not an entire industry, not Australia, obviously, because it's my favourite country.
"Then going back, I was speaking without thinking and I actually did say ban Australia, which is bullshit. It's not something that I can agree with."
Pink made the video as part of the US-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) three-year campaign to end mulesing.
The animal husbandry practice involves cutting skin folds from sheeps' backsides to protect them against fly strike.
The wool industry has agreed to phase out mulesing by 2010 while research continues into alternatives - a fact Pink said PETA never revealed to her.
"Again, that's something I should have researched on my own. I take full responsibility for not being 100 per cent prepared and researched," she said.
"I have nothing against farmers. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, I don't want to hurt anyone, I just want the animals to hurt less."
She said she was prepared to meet farmers and industry representatives during her April tour.
"I don't want to watch a sheep being cut with no anaesthesia, that's not going to change my mind, but I'm definitely open minded to the debate," she said.
PETA brushed off Pink's backflip and said she continued to condemn mulesing.
"The fact remains that if the industry employed the responsible practices used by many farmers in Australia, which they could and should do tomorrow, this campaign would be over," vice president of campaigns Dan Mathews said.
PETA's campaign has hurt the Australian wool industry, with some American and British clothing retailers agreeing to the boycott.
But many big retailers, including Italian clothing giant Benetton, have refused to back the campaign.
AAP
__________________
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
When did we start using bold in the discussion section?
I missed that memo.
When did we start using bold in the discussion section?
I missed that memo.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Well if you refuse to keep up to date with your emails then you have no one else to blame but yourself
Since when has a little bit of html coding to make something easier to read been out of style, anyhow?
Written by: NYC
When did we start using bold in the discussion section?
I missed that memo.
Well if you refuse to keep up to date with your emails then you have no one else to blame but yourself
Since when has a little bit of html coding to make something easier to read been out of style, anyhow?
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com