Animal Welfare or Animal Rights Part II

Well to and fro go the Internet volleys. As said before, much like shouting at the footy. Feels good, means little and changes nothing mostly But imagine my surprise when a prominent noisy scrub bird keeps bleating on about AW on a well known pro Live Export page but then comes undone.

Yes came about when a number of positive AW triumphs were listed and no "well done" or "That's great" just the old silence, indifference and dismissiveness.

It was then I wondered I wonder what Noisy Scrub Bird (NSB) being the devout anti Live Export fan would say if further pressed. So I gently pressed for comment and eventually others also made the link.

There's Animal Welfare.

Then there's Animal Liberation, Animal Rights and there's the newly concocted descriptor "Animal Protection" which NSB ascribed to Animals Australia, indeed so too do Animals Australia.
NSB then did us the favour and linked all the three together in one succinct sentence and made the comment that they are not "PRIMARILY AW FOCUSED".

Ahhh what the???

Possibly the best and funniest faux pas this year.

Then I thought I'd go over to NSB's own Facebook page, where all the quotes are in plain public view.

Here's the first doozey-

1]  “I don’t excuse any use of animals, I don’t agree with giving people the impression that there is an ethical way to eat animals, eggs or dairy – there isn’t.
What I am specifically talking about is what we do in the interim period between now and generations down the track when we live in a vegan utopia…”

So there's no way to humanely eat meat, egg or dairy? So not only is NSB totally against ALL animal farming, NSB is also against all animal products and looking for the social movement to which NSB belongs to deliver a Vegan Utopia. Ahhh ok.
Not actually Anti Live Export, actually anti everything Animal Farming.

 2]  “I don’t believe in extending the life of one species intent on destroying the planet, at the expense of other innocent species, so yes – I would rather prefer your death to your research given that your, and all medical research will help extend the life span of humans in developed countries – the consumers”

Ahh yes, NSB would rather see you a human die than an animal die. Isn't that "Species-ist" ? I think its time to buy shares in a tin foil company because NSB & other scrub birds are probably wanting to buy tonnes of the stuff to make hats. Don't miss the point, rather see humans die.

3]  “…and if you had actually read my post you might have got to the part that said “  That doesn’t mean we don’t carry on our vegan outreach and advocating for an end to the use of all animals” To do so WOULD be welfarist”

Vegan outreach? Double what the?? Yes the Vegan Philosophy is very aggressive in nature in pushing for vegan utopia and converting all and sundry. Animal Welfare is fine as a vehicle for the real aim, but to aim solely for Animal Welfare and not push for veganism everywhere and end Animal Farming is welfarist as if that a derogatory term and an utterly immoral position.

 4] “I don’t support welfarism and I don’t don’t consider myself radical, nor do I consider the dominant paradigm to be welfarism. By far the dominant paradigm is abolition. My take on what constitutes a radical vegan (mentioned in the intial post) is the point of this entire thread.”

Abolition huh? Well there you have it, we certainly do have to test those Animal Welfare activists to see who is the genuine Animal Welfare supporter and who is the Animal Rights/Animal Welfare/Animal Protection group/activist intent on abolition of ALL animal farming and meat industries and doubly intent on vegan world domination...not Animal Welfare cos well Animal Welfare is not the primary focus. Welfarism is not good enough because there is no way of humane use of meat, eggs and dairy.

Now the reason you need to test is because there's actually a fair few folk who are genuine AW advocates and AW Improvers. They shouldn't be belted about the head  with logic, they probably only need it put in front of them and they'll see, understand and get it.

Its the Veganarchists you need to test for and teach the good Animal Welfare Advocates the tools to test also because at least they'll help improve AW.

 

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?

Well the wash up is this, there's very possibly a change in the wind and its not a back lash or the result of a pro-meat industry social movement. I think its quite likely a return of common sense and folk notice some threads of deception annoyingly sticking out and causing people to stop & serious think and question. Of recent note is the possibly milestone court case for damages caused to producers from the incredibly daft Live Export Ban in Australia. Stephen Smith was in the cabinet at the time, he was the Foreign Minister. He's now out of parliament but he's in the news for distancing himself from the decision and how he couldn't do or say much. The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was definitely one of the most toxic and dysfunctional tenures at the helm of the Australian government.

Implications are...

1. If you're careful you'll easily detect Animal Rights, Animal Liberation and Animal Protection groups and people who are cloaked up as pretend Animal Welfare groups/advocates. That's good
2. If things are corrected its possible that genuine, honest and reasonable AW improvers could be falsely labelled as extremists. Its going to be difficult at times, but they have to be separated from the extremists because AW improvers are part of the solution and those who favour animal farming abolition are a problem greater than improved AW.

 No I'm serious, you have to test them, see if they're genuine about Animal Welfare or whether they're Animal Rights/Liberation/Protection because they can pretend to be about AW but they're "not primarily about AW" they're about vegan utopia and banning all animal farming.

Are you up for adding legitimacy to that stale bake of nutcake? 
 

Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

One significant difficulty we will all face whilst engaging with people to show openness and help encourage understanding is we will encounter people concerned with animal welfare and the people concerned with animal rights.

Animal welfare folk might be industry participants right across to urban observers. I'm not only fine with them, I'm keen to encourage them to get involved to express and learn more. THEY are part of the solution.

Animal Rights Activists...that's a whole different kettle of fish. They are in favour of assigning personage to animals and therefore all animal farming is also opposed. Responses among them varies when it comes to companion animals...apparently we don't call them "pets" as that's "slave-like".
Generally there are some who like to avoid all discussion around pets or companion animals. If it gets a little confusing, be grateful you're not an Animal Rights Activist as it get positively messy and weird with the overwhelming paradox they're actually living with.

The Animal Rights Activist has adopted & evolved to cleverly hide under the AW cloak.

AR is a social movement that is based in philosophy...not professional standards, legal standards or food regulations. This philosophy will most likely fall flat, fail and flitter away, but for a long time prior to that happening, AR will do an enormous amount of damage to producers, our country, our trade partners, our legal possessions/rights and our collective future. I don't see their final demise being anytime soon, it will come, not a moment too soon but its just as likely to last many years or many more generations. Its greatest tool for longevity is cloaking. Remaining the "grey man" of logic, shape shifting and avoiding full disclosure and critical analysis which would most likely be its imploding downfall.

We do ourselves a huge disservice when we engage with AW proponents without working out if they're genuine AW improvers or followers of flawed philosophy of various Animal Rights cults. Anyone capable of lying, pretence, stealth, deceit and supporting criminal activity is most likely an ARA and not overly AW oriented or concerned.

We can all be tricked and rounded up. I have.

Seen more than a few slip through the net and gain a position of legitimacy they do not deserve and generally because as soon as things become clearer, they ramp up AW angle, using the emotive words that condemn animal production. Apparently eating a steak, sausage or chop is slavery, torture, murder and we should drop all contact with animals unless it's rescue or medical attention.

If someone's a dreadlocked unemployed hippy full of dope and welfare cheques I'm not phased if they want to engage with the view to improve AW. Strangely they're more likely to be a friend of my livelihood in a legitimate function of food production than a well dressed, articulate, high paid executive of Animals Australia, PETA etc.

Here in embolden and enlarged red we have a simple equation.

Pro AW = Good
Pro AR =  Not Good (for anyone except those gouging donations)

So if we were to ask "Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?" you have 4 possible answers.
1) Animal Welfare
2) Animal Rights
3) Both
4) Neither

If you can find someone claiming neither...well I don't know, I'd have to think long and hard on what a person so bloody vacant is actually about. 1 & 2 pretty obvious what they are.

Those that answer "Both" might just be trying to be clever or maybe elusive. Doesn't really matter because if they answer both you can safely say you have an ardent follower of the very bogus Animal Rights Philosophy.

I'm sure this will get added to. Slight suggestion, the last post was Animal Extremist Language Explained might be worth reading or skimming through. Its way, way longer but not just cos I'm very long winded and take the scenic route to a point, it also has a little more depth.

Hmm long winded or has more depth?

"Both"

So how did this epiphany arrive? I noticed that in Australian Live Export the ESCAS compliance was found to be 98%. That's a huge improvement in AW. A ship with a consignment of livestock left Australia and arrived in its overseas port with ZERO transit deaths and no ESCAS breaches, leakages or reports. Two monumental Animal Welfare triumphs, deliver by the country which is the world leader in the trade. 108 other countries are exporting live, Australia is light years in front and the improvements are there.

Animal Rights Activists were noticeably silent, indifferent or dismissive.
Surely these gains, well triumphs are cause for celebration.
For someone genuinely concerned with Animal Welfare yes.

For someone genuinely concerned with the Animal Rights cult, no.

Last time I said on a internet forum that I support Animal Welfare "within the framework that acknowledges eating meat and producing animal based products is actually ok and not the slightest bit immoral or unethical", well lets just say you could pick the ARAs from the AW improvers. It was stark, like day and night. Then like thief in the night, they darted for the shadows and refitted their cloak.

Test things you're told and test for those things that may be hidden.

Don't be fooled by those keen to deceive you and rob you.

Animal Extremist Language Explained

Its emotive, passionate and highly charged. If its true that a good orator has the power to rouse fools to slaughter then the irony is some good orators have the power to rouse fool to all kinds of actions to oppose food production.

Recently (November 2014) we saw the report of a private contractor at a feedlot suffering severe financial hardship when his truck was burnt to the ground by criminal extremists. Lesser offence was the graffiti on a wall. However this is not a one off. Other offences at other times in quiet little old W.A. include the cutting of a stock semi trailer's brake lines. Super gluing up padlocks, slashing of tyres and damage to tractor totalling $30,000. That's the very short list. The longer list includes turning off of water to stock, damage to feed and feed systems but we should never overlook the forgotten criminal acts. It is a crime to trespass, to install recording devices and that too is a short list.

Its sad when social media again had a polarised view of it all. One side condemned the criminal actions right across the spectrum from criminal trespass to criminal damage. The anti Live Export set were split between silence, indifference and the dismissive folks claiming it was a set up to frame activists. Those activist groups that did condemn it used very careful language. Some carefully condemned it with guarded comments stating it was "not what we're about". Ahhh but no across the board issuing of statements directing activists that "if it ain't legal it ain't on...don't do it". Stopped short, well short. Activist reaction was one of careful positioning to be seen not to encourage or support the action yet no condemnation without ANY qualification.

So lets look and consider Extremist Language and how its twisted nature can inspire some activist to become extremists and cross big fat thick unmistakable lines in the sands of plain simple common decency. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the often used Extremist Fallacies of Extremist Orators.

Extremist Fallacies

1] "Live export is murder"

Well no its not. Murder is the defined very clearly as the criminal and illegal taking of another person's life. Doesn't include mosquitoes, cocker spaniels or wild buffalo. Murder is confined to human beings and even then taking of human life is very prescriptive in legislation. There's also man slaughter etc. Live export is the legal and lawful activity of transporting livestock. It doesn't equate to murder. In fact one recent shipment of Live Export made the entire trip mortality free, that is none, zip, zero animals died in transit.



2] "Farmers have blood on their hands, they are greedy, selfish monsters preying on innocent animals for no other reason than money"

Yeah this one is easily challenged too. Farmers are pursuing a legal and lawful income. At present there are no broad acre food producers who operate as such as altruistic unpaid volunteers. As nice as it is to think everyone is a volunteer and unpaid for everything they do, its a fallacy and a twisted emotional angle that should be challenged every time its peddled. The extremist does not want people to consider that what they're saying infers all people working for a living are doing so for purely greedy, selfish gain. Its not just a fallacy, its an absurd fallacy. As to whether or not someone gains pleasure or joy from the activity (yes some people love their jobs) the inference is farmers, all farmers, do not care about the job, the animals under their stewardship only the filthy lucre. Its a big call, and one would have to canvas every producer in the country to back the claim. Its wrong on so many deeper and varied levels, but I think once the "Utterly Absurd Gong" sounds you don't need a mountain of other reasonings. The well known PeTA group has paid to have companion animals, not looked after and rehomed but killed. Animals Australia has a multi million dollar annual budget, yet not one dollar is spent on Animal Rescue or Treatment here or overseas. Blood, hands, hypocrisy?



3] "Live Export is inherently cruel torture..."

The Australian Live Export Trade is the world leader in World's Best Practice, the only country with a supply chain assurance scheme and has achieved a staggering 98% compliance level. That's a compliance level that soars well above the Australian Tax System, Australian traffic laws and even the pet industry in Australia. When you hit a meteoric high of 98% compliance, its closer to inherently devoid of cruelty than inherently cruel. Second point, cruelty is the deliberate, wilful and malicious act of causing damage and suffering or at least avoiding efforts to reduce or eliminate suffering. ESCAS 98% compliance causes us to apply a tick to the absurdity test to the extremist claim. Torture is of course the deliberate act of pain, suffering and damage to either gain something from the victim or for the pure purpose of being cruel for whatever psychotic pleasure. That's not to say a psychotic thug cannot work in the industry, that's quite possible. However for it to be "inherently cruel torture" all the industry or a majority would have to be a fan of cruel torture. Yet to be proven. There have certainly been untrained people conducting very cruel acts upon animals, some due to lack of skill, training and ability and/or cultural reasons. With Australia being the only industry player investing in training and supply of better equipment its little wonder, although not perfect, they have reached 98% compliance since ESCAS came in. Worth mentioning, Animal Liberation groups have not dropped a cent into overseas markets to improve Animal Welfare, not in training, skill upgrades, handling awareness or equipment supply and training. Not their job apparently, theirs must be to gather footage of breaches, report breaches but not improve conditions to reduce breaches. When you notice their role is a reporting role and their language is not improve Animal Welfare but "Shut the trade" their role is to clear reporting breaches to close the trade. That's TRADE ABOLITION not improve animal welfare.



4] "Live Export is Immoral"

Yeah...no its not. Not at all. Very absurd fallacy. Some folk in favour of the Live Export Trade can find the replies to this claim a little uncomfortable for different reasons. The challenging reply to this, well we've hit that nail here before but we'll go the brief recap. Its uncomfortable for some because calling it immoral is a truth claim which has no truth unless it has truth running from its foundation to the tip of the claim. There are pro Live Export folk who don't want it challenged because it goes too close to being "religious". However its actually not possible to remove religious view or philosophy from that or any other truth claim citing morals or immorality. If you look at it, look at the claim and the basis the person making the claim makes it from and that's it, deal done.

Its the claim of the extremist, so get them to show their worldview/religion/philosophy & you can leave your religious view/s quietly hidden where ever you store them. There's no threat. Its their claim, test theirs, not yours.
So here's how it works. You cannot have a moral judgement without Moral Laws without a Moral Lawgiver. Warning once you get this far, it's already getting uncomfortable for them because its already begun to unravel. If you're vigilant you'll soon after observe it becoming an extremely uncomfortable Absurd Fallacy when it does peel open and is laid bare. Expect to see dust trails and Houdini acts from your beloved extremist or not nice language

Look at the biggest Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity...nothing in Old or New Testament, which is the Word of their Moral Law Giver to say Live Export or eating meat is immoral. Ahhh nothing at all. Flip over to Islam, again nothing in the Quran or underlying Hadiths about Live Export or the eating meat being in contravention of their Moral Laws either.

Morals by whom? By the extremist? If that's the case we're looking at Moral Relativism which unravels real quick, its not morals, its my view is right, your view is right and if they're completely and diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled, they're both right. Now you see the Absurd Fallacy, the good old "moral bluff". Once the Moral Judgement comes from a person, they are replacing God and claiming to be Moral Judge. Absurdity Box well ticked.

And for the atheist its even easier. If you believe in God, you're a theist. Believe there's no God you're atheist and everything is a product of nature, chance and the strongest & fittest slowly rising to the top. For them we humans have adapted to survive better than other species and a human feedlotting sheep is nothing more than a highly evolved example of one species eating another to stay alive. For the atheist, there is no moral law giver, its dog eat dog if one chooses but hopefully where ever they are on a given moral/immoral spectrum they'll be sticking within the law of the land.


5] The chilled/frozen trade can completely replace the Live Export trade, create Australian jobs, provide greater profits for producers and eliminate cruelty.

Sweeping motherhood statement or generalised thought bubble without basis? For some its very much both. I think if domestic slaughter and processing is such a huge profit earner, get some skin in the game. If Animal Welfare is such a big deal, contact your Superannuation Fund and see what their ethical investment position is. Or contact one of Ethical Investment based Super Funds and lobby them to build, own and operate a abattoir and processing facility either on their own or in partnership with an industry player to service the supposedly burgeoning chilled/frozen trade. If the returns are good and Animal Welfare is assured its a sure fire winner on every level. Get some skin in the game, put your money where your mouth is. Save the world, don't talk about. Make the changes yourself and those who oppose your ideals will quickly come on board with you, support you and loudly & proudly thank you for it. Lead the way, lead the charge. Your local Ethical Investment Super Fund will research it. No doubt they'll find that there's many abattoirs that rely heavily on 475 visas, some have season down turns and no quick & easy getting hundreds of meat workers to relocate to the Pilbara, Kimberly or remote Northern Territory. Lets face, you can't stop live trade completely and the following week start pouring concrete pads for slaughterhouses the next week. Like the short Labor introduced LE Ban some years ago, there will be a devastating toll on Animal Welfare. Absurd Fallacy alert, those pushing for change to chilled, claiming it generates the income and extra jobs will not ever put skin in the game. They want others to change the things they very clearly don't understand.


6] Farmers and other producers need to be stopped

Stopped? From doing what. Producers do not export. Exporters do. Put down the Absurd Fallacy and get it right. Producers respond to the market...here's a hint to help extremists understand the business model just that little bit better. Farmers, station owners and operators are "PRIMARY PRODUCERS" they produce the primary product, some of it goes to feedlotters, some goes to saleyards etc. Pretty rare these days to go directly from paddock to gangplank.

It should be pointed out in slow speech via a simple parallel. Mining is also PRIMARY PRODUCTION. It'd be great to not export minerals of any kind and have them delivered to a manufacturing industry (Secondary or Tertiary Production) and make all consumer goods here, providing heaps of domestic employment and generate real wealth onshore. Like the meat industry, it cannot happen because we're a victim of national economic success...our labour costs are such we cannot compete with overseas competition. We can produce the PRIMARY PRODUCT easily and cheaply but we cannot compete on the SECONDARY or TERTIARY PROCESSING LEVEL. Hence the customers got wise and they import the raw product and value add overseas at a much smaller cost. I suspect you'd have to pay slaughtermen and other meat workers around $6 to $8 a day for it work and replace the whole trade. Isn't going to happen and I wouldn't be so much of a brute to suggest it.

ESCAS Compliance is 98% & there's no ESCAS programme for other raw materials going overseas. Are our minerals making weapons ?  We don't know. Does our exported wool and cotton make military uniforms? We don't know. Nice try - put down the Absurd Fallacy.

There's 6 Absurd Fallacies peddled by Extremists. Got some more? Send them in.
We'll crack the shell open and have a good hard look at them.

I bet we can hit a dozen real quick.

 

 

Wow that didn't take long to get something sent in & funnily enough sent in because of a social media exchange I was having elsewhere. Here goes round 2.

 

 



7] Live Export must be stopped because you cannot do that to sentient beings.

So you cannot eat a sheep/cow/pig/goat/insert whatever species because they are a sentient being. If they have inferred rights (they don't) and you can't export them then it goes to reason you can kill them and eat them. More loss of inferred rights apparently (which don't exist).

Sentient Being is a term from philosophy, not science. No scientific field has put together a sentient being list. For the really curious, go look here http://biology.tutorvista.com/organism/kingdom-animalia.html and you'll see from Kingdom down to species there is no sentient being box to tick.

Its from Philosophy and the ARAs that understand that probably won't want you to know that.
Sentient being has dangers for the ARA. Check here to see why http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sentient

Yes even the lowly rat is a sentient being apparently. Not on the list of sentient beings who's inferred rights are being defended by the way. Cockroach...it has awareness, its sentient. Termites, flies, mosquitos, maggots, mice, leeches, ticks...all possess the characteristics of awareness. Their inferred rights are not defended, no one is wanting to be the advocates for those sentient beings. An ARA group might do a poster or social media campaign with the picture of a steer, claim his name is Barry and mention his sad eyes and his long lost parents and how he'll soon be killed...send in your donation.

They don't find a filthy rat covered in mud and faeces, take a photo of him gnawing on another dead rat, give him a nice noble human name like Michael and ask you to respect his inferred rights (which he doesn't have) and play on your emotions to donate...or maybe rehome him at your place where he can live out his days in peace and harmony.

Funny that.

Rats, ticks, fleas, spiders, maggots, flies...all have awareness but they don't count.

Termites, pest exterminator comes round knocks the top of a nest, pours in a chemical, it goes to the upper chamber housing the queen, kills her and all her workers and other castes. She lays around 2000 eggs a day, they're all dead. They have awareness.

Wasn't long before the "sentient being" had to have the definition refined by ARAs to better suit the cause. The inferred rights don't exist. The term "sentient being" was invented by a human, the inferred rights were too.

You need to be very careful lest you have a serious accident and fall into a serious coma, or be placed into one by medical staff. You are no longer aware. You have no awareness. Or you maybe on life support with no consciousness or awareness. You are effective not sentient. You have no inferred rights. You are a tomato as far as rights go. You can be killed. Ah but wait, apparently you have the "prospect" and the "possibility" of sentience so its not cut and dried.

Really? So dear ARA you're against abortion and actually even contraception, they have awareness to an extent and very much have prospect and possibility of being sentient beings.

You see the unravelling. Hopelessly Absurd Fallacy.

8] Animal rights are paramount.

Ahh no they're not. Animal rights is a product of philosophy, not science. Sentient being palava is a product of philosophy not science. When someone talks to you about Animal Welfare, be quick to question them gently to ascertain whether they're coming genuinely from an Animal Welfare perspective or an Animal Rights perspective.

Animal Welfare is easy. Reduce the suffering and stress of an animal. If the animal is going into Live Export, Domestic Slaughter it doesn't matter. Animal Welfare is paramount, not Animal Rights.

Animal Welfare existed long before the term become a common phrase in our language. Amongst primary producers you were either a good stockman or a poor stockman. Your stockmanship was a huge badge of honour. Someone noted as a really good stockman was a person all about good animal welfare right up until slaughter and processing. We had constantly improving Animal Welfare stretching back generations. The advent of the Bugle style stock yards well preceded the term Animal Welfare. Low stress stock handling techniques were starting long before the term AW.

Animal Rights on the other hand is a product of philosophy, not really anything to do directly with Animal Welfare and its not uncommon for AR groups or advocates to cloak up and use AW as a tool to achieve Animal Rights. For better description of Animal Rights go here... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_movement

Of special not is the paragraph below...
"The animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal liberation movement, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement which seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.

It is one of the few examples of a social movement that was created, and is to a large extent sustained academically, by philosophers"

Animal Rights Activists (ARAs) have commonly used Animal Welfare issues to further the Animal Rights philosophy. To ARAs Animal Welfare is a tool to use to gain an advantage for Animal Rights not to improve the lot for an animal. We've seen ARAs team up with meat processing unions to oppose Live Export. It won't be banned or extinguished, but if it were Meat Worker Unions and ARAs would promptly part company and become mortal enemies. For both, uniting serves a purpose for now.

Don't be fooled. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights are two distinctly different things.
Animal Rights wants all use of animals for meat and other products banned. They use AW as the tool to achieve it.

Here's a simple test.
A ship loaded with a consignment of live sheep leaves an Australian Port, arrives at its overseas destination with ZERO, repeat, ZERO transit deaths. Mortality rate ZERO, repeat ZERO. Great AW outcome, but wait there's more....much. much more. That consignment had ZERO, repeat ZERO ESCAS breaches/leakage or reports. A utterly monumental Animal Welfare Triumph...but ZERO, repeat ZERO heralding of the great AW triumph. Why?

Well may you ask. We're still looking but to date we have found none of the so called advocacy groups mention it and herald the AW triumph. That is to date, ZERO, repeat ZERO mention or celebration of it. Why?

Because they're not Animal Welfare groups. They're Animal Liberation groups that run either overtly or covertly with the philosophy that Animals are people with personage not to be used for food or anything else.

Exporters and producers celebrate the huge AW triumph. Ironically they're more focused on improving Animal Welfare than ARAs.

Those in favour of Animal Welfare are either actively involved in improvements or drop coin into efforts to improve the AW.

ARAs do not get involved with directly helping the improvement of Animal Welfare nor drop on cent into improving AW outcomes. Their money goes into media campaigns to further the philosophy's aim, stopping all animal farming and production.

Yes, the skilled and trained worker loading trucks or ships has greater AW credentials than the ARA groups. ARA's have lost out so much credibility and legitimacy its little wonder we have extremists burning trucks and other appalling criminal activity. Lucky for the extremist, when you're from an Animal Rights Philosophy you can also adopt bogus moral reasons to break laws. Thankfully the courts are not swayed by that bull dust.

The latest ESCAS position. Help stop twisting of truth and lies.

Yes some of the usual suspects and some bright new players in the BS games that surround ESCAS breaches and the current common mistruths and deception floating.

The latest is the horrible aghast were supposed to nearly lose consciousness over is the shocking number of ESCAS breaches that have hit a horrible height of 36 complaints.

When I have challenged that number things got weird. I pointed out there were indeed to date (10/10/2014) exactly 36 complaints lodged since February 2012.

HOWEVER...

We can actually look at the figures properly and get a more accurate view. Before we do, lets just add that even one single confirmed breach is one too many. I think its safe to assume everyone thinks that way. The only positive is, each breach proven is another step closer to greater improvement. So while I would like to see zero breaches, I'd hate to see a single breach with no improvement.

Now the "36 Complaints" broken down, dusted off and properly looked at in context.

Its 36 reports, not 36 breaches. Of those 36 reports there are 8 still pending assessment/investigation.
So seeing we cannot prejudge we'll leave them out of the equation because just because there's a report doesn't mean there was a breach. The history of ESCAS proves that point.

So now we're down to 28 reports in 2 years and 8 months.

Lets go deeper so there's even less deception than the "36 complaints" cry.
Of the 28, there were 11 that were not breaches at all.

So we've gone from 36 complaints down to 17 Breaches...NOT THE SUGGESTED 36
Gee the numbers are less than half the suggested 36.

But like any good Tele-Sales Marketing gimmick..."Wait there's more", well there's more to make the number less.

Yes we're looking at 17 confirmed breaches, but what exactly does that amount to?
Well 17 breaches is indeed 17 too many but how close does that number reflect what happened?

Well glad I asked...cos this is a blog and I have to ask for you.

3 complaints were regarding ONE consignment. Yep its still 3 breaches and even 3 on its own is three too many, however it wasn't 3 serious breaches on 3 separate consignments.

So now we're looking at 15 consignments. What's the lay of the land here then, because 15 is too many also.

Well whether the department classifies it minor, major or critical they're all unwanted, but having said that one involves a confirmed number of 8 sheep definitely breaching ESCAS.

Down to 14 consignments with complaints lodged, investigated and breaches recorded.
One was a breach confirmed on 2718 sheep out of 100,000

Down to 13 consignments with complaints lodged, investigated and breaches recorded.
One was a breach confirmed on 2 sheep with "possibly others" but not confirmed.

Down to 12consignments with complaints lodged, investigated and breaches recorded.
One was a breach of a total 4 cattle confirmed "leaked" or went outside ESCAS path

Down to 11 consignments with complaints lodged, investigated and breaches recorded.
One was a breach of a confirmed 114 sheep "leaked" or went outside ESCAS path

Down to 10 consignments with complaints lodged, investigated and breaches recorded.
One was a breach of a confirmed 9 cattle that "leaked" or went outside the ESCAS path

Now looking bad still, but no where near the 36 complaints nor the suggested millions of sentient beings tortured and destroyed.

We should add at this point the number of Industry "Self Reports"
So far there have been 8 Industry Self Reports. Now keep this in mind, so far on of those was a report where a consignment ended up at 3 abattoirs that were not on the exporter's list of "Approved Supply Chain", Oh but wait there's more. Technically a breach, however the 3 facilities were all adhering to full ESCAS standards even though they weren't on the exporters list. Technically a breach, but not actual physical animal welfare breach at all.

So 4 breaches actually surrounded the fate of 129 head of livestock total.

Then is gets even more interesting. One breach has the added comments that there was no evidence at all of any ESCAS breach right up until the Government of the destination country took control of the consignment and all livestock was lost from the exporters control.

One breach is too many. One animal suffering is too many but never ever let anyone fool you with inferred or inflated claims which are as removed from reality as some of the people peddling them

Look closely and don't be fooled.

Ok now for the humourous part...Now if you're only interested in actual accurate facts stop reading. If you want to see some funny fakery defences of the use of 36 when its actually wrong, well read on.

There were 2 folk I came across who were peddling the "36 complaints" that I engaged with. My hope was to not just challenge their thinking, but get them to challenge their thinking. Here's how it went.

Foil #1 informed me its 36 complaints, is repugnant and despicable number so it stays. I repeated but you've basically included not guilty verdicts amongst the breaches, its quite irregularly, false and misleading. The reply I got was "What don't you understand, its 36 in black and white"

Foil #2 informed me they'd decided 36 stays due to the severity and shocking track record of inspectors not to mention the corruption with the overseeing department who are essentially working for industry. I said its still not 36 breaches, you're including what are essentially "not guilty" verdicts and the ones where there was insufficient evidence supplied by the complainants. Apparently the corruption is so bad "36" stays.

 

I said you can't include complaints that resulted in not guilty and (paraphrasing) I said ' what if I lodge 36 complaints against you for professional medical misconduct when clearly all 36 cannot get a guilty verdict, can I then run around for years say you had 36 complaints for professional misconduct against you?"

 

Now this point I thought was quite easy to make and easier to understand, because I thought it was obvious both of us knew that Foil#2 wasn't a doctor or even anyway involved with medical practise.

Foil#2's reply was (again paraphrasing) 'makes no sense that argument, I'm not a doctor'

I quickly said I know that, always did know that...the point was 36 complaints are not 36 convictions or 36 breaches, no matter how quickly you say it.  

 

Now, lets get to the alleged corruption.
Foil #2 when pressed referred to this...

 

http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=8598142173E51754E5388524CEA55209?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=472&clsPage=1&docID=SMH110919HD7MO56RQ4I

 

Now I should say from the outset I don't know any investigators involved with ESCAS, but going by that article, no one can say ESCAS is compromised and none is suggested.

DON'T BE FOOLED - TEST ALL CLAIMS

THERE'S SOME REAL ROT IN THE WOODPILE

 

LATE EDIT - To check all the complaints and results click here http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-regulatory-compliance

 

To check on how it is ESCAS works click here http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations

Sentient Beings Part I

Firstly how anyone decides to fuel their body is up to them, its their choice and I encourage them in their free will to decide for themselves. All good.

 

Some will get offended by it sure does look like sectors of the Ban Live Export brigade are full on Vegan Cult Members. Its not so much about the trade as its about meat. Respect their view, defend their right to their view, but gotta say its more odd than a $3 note and makes a whole mess of no sense.

Coupla facts here.

India - biggest Vegetarian/Vegan nation in the world. Vegetarian/Vegans there said to be between 20 and 40% of the population. Biggest cause of death in India is heart disease. Average life expectancy is 66 years of age.

America - Big meat and junk food eater. Vegetarian/Vegans thought to be between 5 and 7% of the population. Biggest cause of death in the USA is heart disease. Average life expectancy 79 years of age.
Assess and decide whatever you like for yourself. One thing for sure, large percentage of the Vegan cult are animal rights/liberationists.

The main arguments against meat as food are...its not necessary, its unhealthy, its immoral or its wrong to remove the rights of other sentient beings.

1. Not Necessary - Ahh coffee shops aren't necessary, nor are art galleries, music festivals but we have them. Remove one supposed non essential, remove them all. We don't need buskers, artists, electric windows on cars, so shutting down un-necessary things is a total face plant. "Not Necessary" is not a valid reason at all. I think it needs dismissing completely
2. Its Unhealthy - Ahh wait might want to check the India vs USA facts above. There is no reason to be on a gluten free diet unless you're say a person with Celiac. There is no medical reason to change to veganism. Its just not necessary...and keeping in mind its not necessary the vegan does not have to cut meat out because to do so is "not necessary". Yep that's right veganism on a health level isn't necessary so they need to adhere to their own rules of engagement & stop veganism yeah ? REAL FACTS ARE, a healthy balanced diet with regular exercise is healthy, more so if you're not over eating. Some of the white noise from vegans including the UK Bus advert, infers that if you eat meat you'll be fat and overweight. However its possible to be avoid being fat, over weight and healthy on a good balanced diet with good regular exercise. Veganism is not the only answer. First vegan I met had bleeding gums, put me off. I think the "It's Unhealthy" needs dismissing completely too.
3. It's Immoral - Stop the vegan claimant dead in their tracks over this BS. Moral/Immoral implies straight away that a Moral Law has been broken. You cannot have a Moral Law without a Moral Lawgiver...end of story. Find out which God/diety it is they suggest we should all be operating under. Christian Scripture, that is Old Testament/New Testament, the Jewish Torah all allow the eating of meat no worries, so to does the Quran. So unless they know your religion better than you do and can prove your Immorality, well its a bluff and lie and a big old fat wheelbarrow full of lawn fertiliser. DO NOT BE FOOLED "Immoral" is not on the menu with or without meat. Seriously we can go deeper into this from a lot of other perspectives and the same result. Eating meat is neither Moral or Immoral. It is AMORAL. Here's where & how they'll try to take you to their "Moral Judgement" that condemns you, without actually using any religion or Moral Lawgiver to cite from. They'll tell you that Morals are innate within the human mind and shaped by society. Or they have evolved over time to become what we know is a moral right and a moral wrong, its a society protector thanks to Darwinian evolution. - - - ARGHHH STOP!!!!
   
   That's rubbish too. Firstly on the society decides what's moral angle, to my knowledge Australian society is made up of a lot of different people. Only around 5% are vegetarian/vegan which tells tell me around 95% of society has already decided something entirely different than vegan cultists. Now if they then shape shift over to using Darwinian Evolution, its again fail. There has never EVER been a scientific study ANY TIME, ANYWHERE on morals being empirically proven to have been a result of evolution. If they dump religion and scripture and high tail it to "science" make sure they cite the empirical double blind experiment or study that proves their point.
   
   You know it gets very humourous when you get amongst those vegetarians who find the vegan cult activists very unwelcome & nutty. In any case, good new is I get to reject their BS. So should you. Yep, again, their "moral" angle needs dismissing completely too.
4.  It's Wrong to remove the rights of sentient beings - If you found the above helpful, you'll find this eye opening and possibly pretty humourous. They state that a sentient being is an animal that lives and breathes, has feelings, consciousness, awareness and most likely emotions. Feelings? Consciousness? Awareness ? Yep still no issue and although those three are probably a given (even to a dumb ol' ploughboy like me) I'd possibly not discount the yet to be proven emotions. Repeat yet to be proven, but even if emotions are proven, next question from me would "So?"
   Somehow, maybe by using some inexplicable teleporting of logic that by passes all reasoning, the "inferred rights" just popped into being out of nothing.
   
   WARNING - Impending house of cards collapse.
   
   Inferred by who? We need to know when & how these popped into existence.
   
   Inferred when exactly? I can follow the past philosophers back to ancient Greece, more recent Eastern religions and some Western Philosophers over the last 200 years, but what about before them? Pretty odd.
   
   Humans are sentient beings as are sheep. Somehow, not yet explained the inferred rights to life apply to the sheep we wish to kill and eat and therefore we need to stop so we don't break a moral law inferred on other sentient beings...like sheep.
   
   So what happens to the lion and the antelope? Well apparently that's "just nature doing what nature does, we've evolved to know better". Strangely only 5% of Australia is of higher evolution apparently. If that is correct and we take it on its word, then the Inferred Rights stopping us from killing a fellow sentient being (of a different species) only apply to those who have evolved which is vegetarians and vegans but the other 95% of Australia haven't evolved so they don't apply. Simple, easy.
   
   AND/OR...How come if the premise is correct and we take it on its word does it work when its human eating sheep and not when lion eats sheep? If we're all sentient beings with equal rights then either the lion is committing murder and should be prevented from eating ANY meat.
   
   How come the rights apply to any sentient being we humans wish to eat and not to any non human species wishing to eat any other non human species?  They also don't seem to apply to a non human sentient being eating a human. The inferred rights that came from no one in particular at a completely unknown time for a completely unknowable reason apply only to prevent humans eating a different species. Its based on species this law. It make none the food of man but free to eat man and any other species. That's got to be a form of SPECIES-ISM ironically.

The general Wikipedia type nut shell of the argument is that a non human animal that displays awareness, feelings etc therefore has sentience and therefore can experience fear, distress, pain and other normally accepted experiences. Here I have no doubt and although I can't prove or disprove that premise at all, it seems very logical and reasonable although I'd suspect some animals probably have those experiences in differing amounts and levels. A Western Australian tiger snake is probably more bold in the presence of a human than say a kangaroo. If either animal suddenly without warning saw a human 5 metres away, the snake would exhibit less fear and flight response than the kangaroo. I think we can observe and even cause (in an experiment) fear, distress, pain and other experiences in an animal, however proving how and why that therefore infers rights is not possible. Whats even stranger is even though the inferred rights cannot be proven, shown when they were first delivered and delivered by whom there is not 95% of the population aware of these rights or feel compelled to obey them. Little wonder, they don't exist in reality, they're ironically a bogus affront to both evolution and theism.

 

Scratch deeper, let the light in. You'll see some positions will sizzle, pop and burn into vapour with trusty sunlight.

Take home message - Sentient beings may exist, but no rights exist under theism (belief in God) or Darwinian type belief. No one has delivered them. The so called rights of the sentient being only prevent humans from eating animal meat, not any other animals at all. It can't be evolution because only 5% of the population adheres to it.

Let me repeat, scratch deeper, let the light in. You'll see some positions will sizzle, pop and burn into vapour with trusty sunlight.

 

China - The Mining to Dining Boom

I think its great that prospects out of China are improving, especially for Australian grown meat products. Whether its Live Ex or packaged and extra player in the market is a great thing. For one the more players buying the greater the chance of everyone being kept honest, or rather things will be a little fairer I think/hope/trust.

In the past I have seen saleyard prices fall even when there's 2 players buying. It was on one occasion a bold example of unspoken collusion with 2 buyers taking turns pen for pen getting young sheep at a very low price. "Price has fallen out of the market" was touted, however in reality, it hadn't. Buyers had ascended in their price making position. Supermarkets & butcher shops were using a different line. "Meat market has taken a big hit and product is harder to get hence the price rise" yet in the saleyard, numbers were up, way up, really way up on historical lows partly because the market had fallen and there were farmers getting out of sheep & to a lesser extent cattle to concentrate on cropping. Market glut + few players in the actual market place buying (+ take into consideration the consumers haven't slashed their uptake of product, purchasers at the retail end was still ticking along well) = Great margins for processors and/or supermarkets.

At the end of the day, farming meat is no different a business model than most other businesses.
There's a number of equations to look at, but one is telling and often overlooked.
Its made up of just a few properties.

Profit Margin & Turnover.

If you were to focus solely on one of these aspects to the detriment of the other you will eventually go out of business. I recall many years ago seeing a truck loaded with lambs that were heading to a farmer's property to be feedlotted for several months to fill contracts. Admittedly the contracts may have had a premium over average lamb prices at the time, but looking at the top dollar paid in the saleyards and the staggering estimated price the saleyard chatter said the feedlotters were getting they needed only lose 3 animals on the trip to actually begin to slip to "just break even". Yes they were paying very top dollar in the yards, it was great for producers, but there were transport costs and a number of other costs that would quickly eat into their bottomline. In conversation once with the farming feedlotter he said things were tight but it was like cropping "we make a lot of money annually due to the huge turnover, we can afford to suffer a smaller margin"

And indeed he's quite right, with huge turnovers you can suffer smaller margins but at the end of the day it falls apart. To use the 'like cropping' angle, you should crop to a profit not a yield. 5 tonne/hectare crops are useless if they cost 4.85 tonnes to produce...even if you have 100,000 hectares.

And of course the reverse is every bit diabolical, having huge returns on your investment are useless if you're growing a 5 tonne crop on a 1/2 tonne input cost and you can only grow half a hectare.

Balance is the key and whilst its ok to venture waywardly at times into margin or turnover a blanace is required at some point. With the rising cost of inputs and the relatively less than equal rise in returns each year, most turn to expanding the properties.

Now China is still surging ahead compared to many countries but it is fair to say things may not be on the boil like they were and we've in Australia have been living in a economic bubble due to the Chinese demand. Now we're starting to see ground falling away and mining is approaching a down turn but the Dining Boom.

Yes I know, as a society gets more "middle class" they will eat far more meat. Proven factoid beyond dispute and China has not only a growing middle class its a bulging one, creaking and groaning with is growth. I get that.

However I think it will not result in lamb going to $10/kilo in the next 2 years and soar upwards ever more. I think yes another decent size player in the market will drive prices up a little, but it won't be a 30% spike let alone a doubling. I think the spring will be taken out of the surge by players who see expansion is required. At present there's an awful lot of W.A. wheatbelt country that hasn't seen a sheep's hoof in decades, some since the late 70s. I don't see them all running back to sheep & cattle but if there is a cycle here on the ground in W.A. it maybe the return to sheep being a valuable part of the (cropping) rotation.

China, come on down, we're selling meat and we're open for business, but producers ought to not lead themselves into later despair by thinking prices will soar. Any gain is a great thing, any extra market is a great thing. Any extra chance of great turnovers with same or ever so slightly greater margins is best we can hope for and more than enough to budget for. Anything extra our way should then be viewed as unplanned premium.

Remember though, China is a huge opportunity, but it has limitations and it'll more likely be Live Export. I know the ARA brigade will pant, scream and pop a forehead vein but facts are facts. We're dealing with people who use the same universal business model. Turnover and margin. With a workforce that costs a small fraction of what slaughter & processing would cost here, its a huge cost saving shipping living and using their own people on a much smaller wage to do the work.

That is not the choice of Australian producers. We respond to the market that wants animals.
We're not butchers, slaughtermen, processors or exporters of any kind. You'll be doing well to find any farmer who exports his/her own meat/animals. Lobby China, they are the buyers and the buyer gets what the buyer wants. Farmers produce for the market, the market that supplies what the Market (aka China) has formally asked for.

As a producer you should be looking for opportunities for sure and certain, but maintaining a healthy balanced perspective is pretty much essential. Again there's that funny word...balance

When something Absurd becomes normal, is it no longer Absurd?

Yep, its going out on a religious theme. Why, well because I listen to the 2 year old interview Richard Fidler had with Richard Holloway on ABC Radio.

Richard Holloway became a priest and went onto become the Bishop of Edinburgh.

You can access the audio file of the interview at http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/26/3598196.htm

Sorry, but Richard Holloway came out sounding fairly absurd, he whimsically trotted out stories, interesting ones too, of his life.

He claims to be an agnostic Christian. Did I say or mention the word "Absurd" yet???
The ABC transcript stated "Richard Holloway describes himself as an "agnostic Christian": he's not certain Christ was divine, but he still tries to live by the idea of Jesus the radical preacher from Nazareth"

Well that's possible for an agnostic to follow, but not a Christian.
A Christian is a person who isn't perfect but is saved because they did one big thing, accepted Christ's gift of dying for us, being the blood sacrifice required to be forgiven. You actually cannot accept Him as Messiah without accepting Him as part of the Trinity, that is He is divine.

Absurd is someone denying His divinity & getting that far in any church claiming to be Christian who is actually, technically, by actual in context definition "CHRISTIAN"

No surprise his comments about slavery in connection to Scripture...wrong.
His comments and views about women's place in the church in connection to Scripture...poor and wrong.

His understanding of Scripture is extremely wrong and flawed. It musta been all about the frocks and the cake stalls to get through in that church.
His comments and views on homosexuality, again poor understanding of Scripture.

Revelation mentions the 7 churches and if there's a modern day parallel, the Church of England & the Roman Catholic Church are amongst the 7...and they both aren't in the top 5.

The Post II

Well I got quite the reply from the lady from the other Aussie Farms site. She again is Bold Italics and my replies are not. Out of courtesy her name has not been used, but we'll give her a fake name...Jay.

Peter the fact that you appeal to a "higher authority" means there is no point in discussion. 
Oh I wonder why? So even though I never stated what Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver/God/Religion I "appeal" to (actually its try to follow & try not to appeal at all) because I believe in a "higher authority" there is no point in the discussion.
Ahh lemme think on this I'm a God follower of unknown type therefore conversation is over.
I'm suspecting she's only keen to talk to atheists wishing to lock onto an animal cult or...no, we better not speculate.  

 It's a logical fallacy along with the few straw men you threw in, but that figures. 
Yes, logical fallacies/straw man argument. This is where one brings in an unrelated argument which is indisputable so as to bolster the argument. Jay was only ever expected to expand on her (and others) Moral Truth Claim. If its Moral, shows us by what standard, what Moral Authority you make the claim. She went onto to mention murder, rape, slavery & thieving. Now these are strawman arguments, because they have no relation to animals. Currently all legal statutes on this crimes have humans as the victims, no animals. OK except maybe bestiality which Peter Singer who she less so follows these days is questioning.
Would I throw in a straw man argument, you bet I try to avoid doing so but sometimes I drop my guard and drop one in. It helps no one generally. Guess if we'd stuck to the original line of questioning "If you make a Moral Truth Claim, please cite the Moral Authority, Moral Standard etc you're using as the standard to determine your judgement please"
If Jay had stuck to that, indeed if I'd held firm and tried to hold Jay to that we'd not see so many rabbit holes and distractions. I'll cop a portion of the blame ;-)

 All you have to say is "it's ok with God, it's ok with me" without ever having to demonstrate anything. 
Wrong, never said that at all, dunno why it even has quotation marks really.
Reminder Jay, I wasn't making a Moral Truth Claim about animal slaughter, meat processing and meat consumption as being bad, wrong, inherently cruel or evil. Y'know I never mention what religion etc I follow but if I was asked why is it Amoral as I contend and by which stand do I base that claim I can and would. Again, Jay is beginning to be an atheist who opposes any God (as she didn't ask which God I had in mind) and very possibly is Moral Relativist. If that's right there's a moral implosion where she's at.

Convenient. It was also used by those who had slaves to justify human slavery. 
Ahh maybe, but if you check the Torah, the Bible, the Koran (just to cover the big three religions) you'll find with proper hermeneutics/interpretation of those "Scriptures" there is nothing to support the African American slave trade. In fact the slavery abolitionists were Christians (not sure about Jewish or Islamic persons) and they used proper reading of the Scriptures to help persuade governments to oppose it, that and throw in a Civil War. I'm still looking but I can only find Moral Relativist Atheists amongst the pro slavery crowd, not the abolitionists. Oops sorry, I got sucked in, I see what you did...bugger you dropped a Strawman argument in there. :-) 

What happened back then if God was so successfully used to justify human slavery? 
People have been twisting the Scriptures of the Jewish faith, Christianity and Islam for centuries, in the case of the former two, for millennia. This why people should be quick to say and ask "by what standard do you make that claim?" - I'm not sure that it was accepted part of Jewish/Christian/Islam brutally kidnap people and force them into an utterly cruel life of slavery. definitely 2 of the 3 don't support that, not sure even Islam does, (need to do more checking). Oops I got way laid on the Strawman distraction again. It would be a better strawman if the claims Jay attached actually held a modicum of truth historically and the facts were viewed in context.

Was God wrong or were the people who used his name wrong?
Which God do you mean Jay because you've kinda poo-canned any possible God. If you're talking of the "Big 3" well its pretty easy (but you deftly avoided this possibility which is actually the most right "The people, who used his name/word wrongly, were very wrong.

You said: "I don't believe in harm for pleasure that's for sure" - So why do you harm and kill animals? 
Firstly I have never deliberately, maliciously or wilfully (3 very important legal angles) harmed any animal.
Secondly, killed? Yes. Why? Well eating meat is Amoral, it is not "moral or immoral". By the way, that's a moral truth claim, which can be backed up by referencing a Moral Authority. I didn't make it up, I didn't cherry pick aspects of various religions to create my own hand picked bowl of ok-ness.

 I, and many other vegans, are living proof we have no need to use animals. 
Ahh that's fine, good for you. I have always held the view you get to choose how to fuel your body. I would never force anyone to eat meat...nor should anyone see fit to say I shouldn't eat meat because its immoral, inherently cruel, bad and/or evil without citing a moral standard by which I can assess the claim.
The only justification is "I like the taste", "I like wool" etc. Nothing to do with necessity but pleasure.
Sooo necessity is the only Moral Good? At last we see that like many overt vegans who brandish false morals about, you may say that you've left Peter Singer behind a bit, but we genuinely see you haven't. Life is still very morally correct if its utilitarian...kinda.
Necessity means you live a 50 year old fibre home with a tin roof, 2 bedrooms one toilet, harvesting your own water etc. You don't need to be in the metro area, you don't need anything remotely pleasurable it must be, whatever it is necessity based. Lets not be duplicitous now."The only justification is..." sorry, its never been likes but we see here with the surface scratched ever so slightly that "likes" is central to you Jay. You don't like meat for food...therefore it is bad, wrong, immoral and evil. You don't like animal fibres being used...therefore animal fibres are bad, wrong, immoral and evil. Do you like a good free trade soy latte? If you do like such a beverage...its therefore good, right, moral and without fault. Yet again we return to Moral Relativism. Stripped of all the profoundly vague and vaguely profound blah-blah its really "There is no deity, if there is, its me" - Yeah good luck with that...sorry yours is an opinion based on what you like and what you hate. I mean that's ok if you want to go that path but it'd be way more honest to just say that than to falsely cloak up in moral outrage garments from various clashing religions you don't otherwise follow. That approach could actually be used to justify slavery in theory couldn't it. Oops again I went too far exposing the false nature of the strawman you shouldn't have let onto the field. (insert smiley perhaps?)

I believe in Ahimsa (do no harm) and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...).
Ahhh...hahahaha "Ahimsa" - no if that's what you believe in you must be...
a) Hindu (which has a number of differing sects)
b) Buddhist (which has a number of differing sects)
c) Jainism follower (which has a number of differing sects)
d) An atheist who's cherry picked a number of aspects of various religions which conform to your self appointed requirements in life (bits you "like") and disposed ignored bits you don't "like"

So far if were to lodge a bet, it'd be a dead cert on d)
You know the Jain diet can in some sects also exclude root vegetables so if you're c) you need to get them out too. Jains like the Buddhist & Hindus have a central reincarnation belief at its core. If you're planning to claim someone famous from the past as one of your previously lives, you need to get in fast before all the good ones are gone. Reincarnation has the maths don't work problem, there's more people alive today than any other period in time and many many times more than say 200BC. So new folk have been coming from somewhere. OOps.

Hindu of course is very much to blame for the caste system in India which is a grotesque form of socio-economic form of slavery. Hindus often grapple terribly with the non violence approach then burn daughters alive for choosing partners from lower castes.

You really got to be a Richard Gere type Buddhist. Go through the motions and stick with the bits you "like" and try to ignore and hide the bits you don't "like"
Oops, the extremely false imploding strawman got me again ;-)

Now whilst on the topic of Hindu/Buddhism/Jainism and how Ahisma is a part of those three...so too is Asceticism characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures, often pursuing spiritual goals. Ahisma and Ascerticism get separated and although its found in a number of other religions, "A & A" are usually co-joined twins...until you get to folk who like to create their own worldview.
Duplicitous is a word that fits well, very well. Its a part of Moral Relativism and another good pointer why it not only implodes, it goes sinkhole. Morally Incoherent is what some philosophers suggest. I call it that and far worse.

By "being" I mean a sentient being so that means both human and non-human animals.
Again it should come as no surprise that "sentient" being is something some philosophy
leaders" have cherry picked from eastern religions...namely Hindu, Buddhism & Jainism. They deftly left out the other parts and rather than formulate ideas, they co-opted appealing aspects that suited their purpose.
Saying you adhere to "Ahimsa" is kinda like saying "Oh I believe and follow the Proverbs from the Bible...but nothing else in the Bible, I'm not Jewish"
Or, "Oh I believe in and follow Revelation, but that's it from the New Testament for me, I'm not a Christian"
Now how funny is it Jay pointed to "and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...)." - is that cherry picking all completely laid open and bare for all to see. "do unto others..." comes from the Bible, same book of faith declaring itself the ONLY WORD OF GOD, of the ONLY GOD and that there is NO OTHER God. So if you point to the Bible, how do you escape being dodgey if you only choose the bit that suits you and your position which you then say is MORAL and then attack Judeo/Christian scripture as being false and without validation.

Odd yeah...unless you're a Moral Relativist who can say what they like is good and what they don't is wrong, then you're ok...but even then as long as you don't apply any scrutiny because then its gunna fall flat straight away. You need to hide, come out and throw logic hand grenades and then go hide again in a deep hole. Yes eventually you'll realise you've pulled the pin and thrown it at logic and run back into the protected cave with the grenade. It is gunna go off, but only you will see it, you intended victim outside will know you've self detonated but not seen it and as we all know "Pictures or it didn't happen"
Oh on the topic of eradicating non native species, or rather exterminating introduced species that are declared pests, apparently that hit a nerve too & I was asked about the dispatching of all non native species (I added that are declared pests but never mind) I was then asked "Are you aboriginal?"I guess the barrel has a bottom but yet that's no barrier to those searching for more $3.00 notes


Peter you might be interested in this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Linzey
Why? You contend that Christianity is worthless, is without sense or reason, supports slavery, contributed to it. Now you find one point to support your view its ok to use.
Duplicitous...AGAIN :-)
You know Linzey is highly regarded for his work on the theology of creation?
OK, you threw me another logical fallacy, straw man...no wait, you're cherry picking again.

Just because someone is of the clothe, doesn't make them a good pastor. If they're not a good pastor (and you'll find the Bible is actually pretty specific about that, very prescriptive) then we don't have to listen to them on any matters pertaining to theology and his work with Regan skirts conflict with Scripture. But you knew that right Jay?

Oh that's right, he's a professor, a theologian...not a pastor. He can say anything he "likes"
Handy that.

Now on the topic of my Aboriginality/Non-Aboriginality...indigenous Australians are a proud people of an ancient culture and if I am or ain't sure as hell ain't relevant to anything.

Always someone dragging race, Nazis, the Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot into unrelated topics to bolster a failing argument.

Don't be fooled folks, stop, take a deep breath and look at what matters.

Don't be fooled by people running into caves with live grenades that are about to go off. 

Whilst Jay made the point of looking at Andrew Linzey's work, please balance it out and read this http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/animals_vantassel.pdf
Its important, more so if you're Jewish, Messianic Jewish or Christian
Your Scriptures will show you that you have "dominion responsibilities"

Unlike the uber fab cherry picking set ;-)