Welcome Jilli Baby, you too like the other commenter have only been a part of Google since...well since Jan 2014 with only one Profile View on the counter (ahhh that was me) Hope you have a blog, hope I can find it to see you chosen views on chosen subjects. People with views are good, people who express them are real good too.
Seriously, I think it is possible to make all your valid points easily without the digs, jabs and barbs. However that's your choice and although I don't agree with the choice, I can respect your right to go off like a raw prawn in the mid day sun no worries at all :-)
However does't mean I ain't gunna discet the comments, look at them closely in context and see what floats to the top. From here on in Jilli Baby's comments are green and I'll go red. Just two distinct colours, no hidden meaning expressed or implied in the two colours.
Seriously, think for a bit more than a minute, if you can manage it.
I did so & for much long than a minute, I can manage it. I think I can reply without slings and arrows, well ordinarily I can, I hope I can now. I think I can manage that, at least if I don't I will have tried. Therein is one distinction already I think :-)
This blog is a semi literate (at best) litany of self pity.
If its semi literate, then you would be very hard pressed to read it and understand it. This difficulty you have in comprehending the points made, it is possible some of that maybe a reading and comprehension difficulty of your own. Or indeed you may have no such difficulty at all and you're early setting of framework is one of denigration and belittlement...bit like folk who use swear words to fill the gaps they have where logic and good sense has long since escaped from. Self pity? Interesting, quite a truth claim there in itself, I haven't thought of my self as suffering self pity, in fact I think I am truly blessed by God to live in a quiet and safe part of one of the safest countries in the world. I've never been without work or income. Some of us don't have everything we want, but far more than we need so self pity isn't something I thought I had, rather I have an overwhelming gratitude to God for the innumerable blessings I enjoy. Of course I live a fairly simple life, no BMWs, no beach front villa but luckily no longing for that either. No, sorry I'd say I'm more blessed than anything & I live a very simple existence without many of the trappings of 1st world nation folk who are consumer driven and keen to outdo the Jones' :-)
Perhaps the blithering little cry baby behind it actually needs to go and experience something first hand before he can grasp a simple concept,
Blithering cry baby? Oh ok, my mistake. No wait, I'm content with life in general, feel blessed and celebrate despite my circumstance. No complaints here. Experience first hand you say, before I can grasp a simple concept you say? :-)
Yeah no worries, sounds like a great idea. If you mean go see Live Export, well I do know a little bit about it. I have produced livestock for both the domestic and export markets, some of it Live and processed actually. I have been up close on ship loadings long before much of the current popular issues surfaced but that was quite a while ago.
I like your idea, it is a valid point, go and see it, experience it first so one can grasp the simple concept. Yep that's ticked off the list already and long ago. I take no offence at how the comment was slanted...I'm blessed to know I cannot always control what others say, but largely I can control how I react. Vile Bile Free I hope :-)
but most other people of some intelligence can carry out their own research and get a very good grasp of what's really going on.
Well I guess that's true, however I hope no one would dare suggest nor say that people of some intelligence need no experience or understanding of an issue to know it fully, to know all the variables in play, relevant and otherwise...they just need "research". I get the feeling anything I say on the industry I've been involved with, base don my experience, knowledge and "research" is not a viable trustworthy source of "research" because it is biased and has some small skerrick of chance of not aligning with someone else's views which are based entirely on some one else's views???
I think this is the advertising industry's dream, people who follow the sheeple, people who make up their mind and then use their intelligence to try & back it up. Maybe that's not even the case.
Did Churchill have to visit Auswitz to validate his notion of insane brutality of the fascists behind it, or should he perhaps have sought their point of view first?
Lets look very closely at this comment, it has a number of flaws, at least to me. First thing is, Godwin's Law. To quote Wikipedia "Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches". In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."
So in the case of the reply comment, first comment on the topic from that person on the blog and it was immediate Godwinator.
Second thing about the Nazi analogy is its flawed look at history. Nope Churchill didn't need to visit Poland, he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and was ALREADY at war with Germany over the invasion of Poland. And just to take it to the next level of clear sunlight on the absurdity, Churchill entered office on the 10th of May 1940 which was a year before the first brutal mass murders of innocent Jewish people at that Polish camp. "ACTUALLY"
Sorry, Godwin's Law is generally the first red flag that a person's argument is failing, doesn't mean they're right or wrong about what they're championing, just means they don't know enough about their chosen cause and the rebel without a clue has to grab material from unrelated heinous, indefensible atrocities from a different time to help bolster their flailing position. I'm happy to be a supporter of the Friends of Israel. I've listen to a number of Rabbis publicly speak on a range of topics, and anyway, who would be so base and vile as to support the Nazi regime? No one sensible so smart deal...somehow crudely staple it to whatever failing debate one has a given easy. But not everyone is given easily to flawed approach of Godwin's Law type approach.
FWIW I also have German friends, I mean real wonderful folk who as friends I rate among the most wonderful friends. I hate Godwin's law popping up because it must cause wonderful decent folk of the modern Germany to cringe over something they were not a part of.
Anyway, apparently based on the Godwin's folly, some folk don't need to go look...but I do. Even though I already have, which doesn't count, because I'm on the wrong "side".
Monty Python is looking decidedly non comedic all of a sudden.
Should Matin Luther King have attended KKK meetings in order to verify his knowledge of the depth of racism in the US was reasonable?
Well to answer a silly question, no. Had he done, depending where it was he would have stood a pretty good chance of being killed. He was born in 1929, grew up in Georgia. Think its fair to say no he wouldn't have needed to visit a KK meeting. As an African American growing up in the south, racism would have been a everyday part of his life. He would need no convincing of it, it was there, he was there seeing, experiencing it every day of his life, a life that did not even make it to 40 years of age. His knowledge of racism, the brutality, the hate, the violence was based on personal experience and knowledge... NOT "RESEARCH" So again extremely poor analogy and rather insulting to the struggle of African Americans and the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. But yeah, who would argue in favour of the horrible institutionalised race hatred that he and others went through? No one person in their right mind...quick staple that to help bolster as well.
Should Eddie Mabo have sought an audience with Queen Elizabeth II in order for him to feel his understanding of the word invasion was fair?
The Queen is the Head of State, its a constitutional monarchy so this is why his huge legal victory was in fact a legal victory through the High Court of Australia. Why would he have taken his case to the Monarch to try & overturn the legal doctrine of Terra Nullius? He took it to the High Court because it was a legal issue, not something Elizabeth could be involved with even if she'd wanted to.
Not even sure how this long bow is drawn. Eddie Mabo was pointed as being Australian of the Year by a prominent newspaper in the early 90s, think it was after his death. However to my knowledge he was never awarded the official Australian of the Year honour. There's a pity. Again who can have any sort of valid argument against Mabo, after all according to Common Law, before white man the land belonged to no one, yet the Mabo case showed land inheritance. Well no one, its a perfect type of Godwin's Law to pull across to unrelated fields to make a point that is unconnected.
Just an opinion, despite the facts, anyone can dispute or refuse to accept anything. Free will :-)
Just because Geoffrey Robertson was not present at Camp Delta was it unreasonable for him to be considered eminently capable of comprehending the level of human rights abuses which took place there ?
Well I can't really comment a great deal on this except to say I have read the opinion piece by Geoffrey Robertson on what was the summary execution of Bin Laden. I guess I could go into great depth but injustice is injustice...and like the other three examples, not really comparable with Live export unless one is trying to overlook the unconectiveness and try to build an opposable scaffold to tie live export to. Sorry I think its intellectually corrupt.
The answer to all of the above is NO, of course, and in essence, there's not a lot of difference to the LE trade.
In essence, if there's anything it would only be essence as in a faint whiff, not a core set of parallels. I know, I know some folk are gunna disagree and hold different views. Some of you will no matter what. But all of this WAS NOT THE CORE AIM OF THE ACTUAL POST (yep we'll get there soon) :-)
Wilkie went to the NT to shut you all up,
Well that's not what he said. I cited the ABC as the transcript source and I did hear his words too.
If he just went there to shut us up, it was failure but really that couldn't possibly be the case. He would not go there genuinely thinking he would then, by virtue of FINALLY heading north after 2 failed private members bills and a lot of media bandwidth, that he'd shut anyone up.
The core premise of the blogger post was quite clear, he went there not to roll over or change his mind, he went there to see what improvements could be made to the system that's already there. That's a bit of a step away from his continual line prior to his trip. Seems to be some sort of step back.
Will he back down completely and finally back Live Export? I seriously doubt that, in fact if I were a betting man I'd dob $50 on him staying his ground for the most part and most likely ramping his trade abolition calls the 8 months prior to his re-election campaign.
He is not a stupid man, he's pretty bloody intelligent. He's from an information background. He is politically savvy and career wise he's in a great position. He's never going to bring the trade down and as such any ongoing failure he has won't be attributed to him, rather he'll be the boy with the sling shot up against Goliath. Except in his case win lose or draw his electorate will love his popular stand. Goliath will be the villain even if Wilkie never lays a glove on him.
Politically, that is in regards the next election he is in a good position for re-election and some of that is on his LE stance...win lose or draw in that issue.
Wilkie said it was important to head north to see what improvements can be made...not to shut farmers up (they're pastoralists & station owners up there BTW). I think his trip has more to do with keeping the issue alive in his electorate to enhance his re-election chances. Now if its important as he says...why is it important now? The issues, the problems LE has had are arguably happening but the point of the blog post was, what was waning, what was slipping was Mr Wilkie's connectivity to the issue in his electorate. I see no trip to the SPC Admona factory, no trip to offshore detention centres, no jaunts to foreign peace keeping missions or combative involvement areas we probably shouldn't be a part of. Nope...just to the bread maker, deal maker for the next Denison bi-election. Live export. Sorry it might be wrong, but anyone would be a fool, an outright blind fool to think some advisor hasn't been in his ear to keep stoking this fire because its his game changer for re-election. Personally I think he's a very very clever man, politically savvy and no bodies fool at all. I think he would not have needed an advisor to steer him down that path. To think otherwise is to paint Wilkie as an idiot and I for one think he is exactly the opposite. Sorry if he went there to shut anyone up, he would be an idiot...no, its re the re-election :-)
but do you really think all the first hand bullying and whining would somehow affect his already excellent grasp of what cruelty to animals is?
First hand bullying and whining? Who said Wilkie copped that? The member for Denison never said nor suggested such a thing. No he didn't...pleased to stand corrected though. Think its false and misleading to say such a thing. I think most of us have a good grasp of what cruelty to animals is. I am not in favour of cruelty to animals, thankfully neither is Wilkie. Nor is any producer I have ever met. Longing to see the producer that says no such thing as cruelty or if its an animal any low act is fair. Not actually heard of such people.
I actually said heads up in the original he's not Bulldusting when he says he's not rolling over, not backing down. I knew that the second I knew of his trip. I mean I wonder who actually thought Wilkie's trip would result in a back flip of Russian Olympian Champion magnitude? No one I know of.
He says he went there to see what improvements could be made. Pity he didn't do that in the first place instead of putting forward 2 private members bills that were regarded as a bit of a joke. Yeah I know some are going to say they were great intention bills...maybe, still fell as flat a pancake and gathered very poor support. I cannot see how even Andrew Wilkie thought they would get past, he is a clever man, they were intentional efforts with outcomes outside the passage of parliament. Didn't do his political support any disservice, but otherwise "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Now, just because he hasn't changed his mind, you call him a hypocrite, amongst other things.
No, he didn't change his mind, never expected him to, don't know of anyone who did. He was true to form. However, some folk have a deep love for Andrew Wilkie, and its quite possible that love is type of love that is a strange emotion allowing them to see things as they clearly are not. He's not a law breaker or a fool, he is a savvy, smart political warrior. I dunno how he'd go career wise were he to leave parliament today. Not a lot of work for an Army Officer and Intelligence Analyst in the private sector. Funny enough, he thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (but thought they were contained). Don't know if he went to Iraq prior to the invasion...or whether he relied solely on "RESEARCH" - And to my knowledge, while he thought there were WMDs but they were contained, seems they were so well contained no one's bloody found them yet. Anyway that's another story & don't want to go all Godwin like now do we? If I were the member for Denison, I'll milk that (LE) cow for everything its worth. At 52 years of age, he's got a good wicket and he needs to stick to it.
You can try to stand over everyone, and maybe some will buckle,
No stand over here...its a blog, just blowing smoke into the ether. You have just set up a Blogger account you can do likewise. You can ignore or say what you like. Its the internet, there are no sticks here that leave bruises, scars and broken bones. It means nothing. My name is real. Press on it doesn't really matter if someone agrees or disagrees with me or anyone else. I do side with those who want the trade and want cruelty stamped out. There is the true division...I don't think any trade is cruelty free, don't think free trade is free. Don't think Fair Trade products are all perfect either. Its a constant trek of improvement.
but those who really understand what this is really all about won't be put off by a bunch of selfish, loudmouth farmers who are so absorbed with their own obsessive greed, they have the gall to tell other people that something isn't cruel, when it it most patently is.
Ka-Pow, Ouch ;-) selfish, loudmouth farmers, obsessive greed? When you can cite those reflections from Wilkie I'd say the transformation is complete hahaha Did he say that? I mean he went there, up north. I mean finally ventured beyond the northern fringes of outer Canberra and went and saw these "farmers". Who says all of the footage shown on a Bloody Business wasn't cruel? It might be correct to those perpetrators culturally, in their country, but to me it was still cruel, vile and wrong in every sense. If things were exactly as you portray then the entire industry from top to bottom, Darwin to overseas kill rooms would be saying stupid things like "No, its not cruel, its all ok, nothing to correct or improve. Nothing needs changing, the Tofu set are off their rockers, killing like that is actually soothing to the animals" When instead the industry from the far back paddock upwards saw the problems on the TV, some for the first time they were shocked...I know I was shocked and appalled. Some had assumed the trade was world's best practice from paddock to plate. It was not, it was a heart breaking realisation. There was no denial by me, nor anyone I know. There was however a concerted effort by subterfuge and deception to destroy the trade, rather than help improve it. Still that's life & coincidentally where the votes are for some middle affluent metro electorates with no jobs at stake. Wilkie is a very astute political player. I bet he has been all his life. He is not an idiot, but he might be gently caressing a good many rebels without a clue. :-)
You can froth and stomp about with your chest puffed up as much as you like,
What, you can see these physical attributes? WOW!
Hahaha, no of course you can't, you're not here, you've done your research so that's factual
Bwhahahaaaa!!! (or did Andrew tell you that? Of course he didn't)
but the fact of the cruelty to animals in the live export trade stands as a clear and damning truth.
No Shirt Sherlock, what do you think the industry has been doing, now if I scroll up, it would seem the industry does nothing except...no wait, hang on lets go the quote from above and repeat it again...
"they have the gall to tell other people that something isn't cruel, when it it most patently is. "
Somehow that doesn't actually tally up squarely with the truth actually.
Somehow that doesn't yet tally up squarely with Andrew Wilkie's trip report yet either.
What he said in yet another convenient out is that the government is going to have to solve the problem of business going broke if the trade were halted. If the government has to solve that problem, it must be a serious problem. One he hasn't fleshed out yet...he just got in early and delegated blame, if there's a miracle up north guess who'll be gifted hero status? He's good - win lose or draw...in fact politically he's win, win, win no matter what happens. Did I use the word savvy yet? Or enough? ;-)
It cannot be denied,
It isn't
it cannot be excused
Dunno who has, I haven't...
and it is very well understood.
Well maybe, but some things do seem to get glossed over or ignored. And some footage resurfaces, some 3 years old, no longer current or relevant...but that's another story, worthy of "RESEARCH" :-)
Again, the blog piece was to shine the sunlight on a different angle, nowhere did I say cruelty in the trade was a lie. It was about Andrew WIlkie's trip north and looking very closely, in context to what he said.
I'm not going to tell anyone to re-read anything. Sometimes think some folk need to get a creative hobby, maybe go on a trip and get away from it all...if its upsetting. If not, at least stick around the issue and get the facts and don't be bull dusted by either side.
Cheers
Friday 31 January 2014
Wednesday 29 January 2014
Animal Welfare - Good or Bad? (And some definitions)
Yes that title could get a few heckles up but let's stick to context because from my perspective at least there seems to be a less than clear understanding of some of the terms involved in animal welfare. It has given rise to misunderstandings on both sides of (for example) the Live Export debate and some cynics would go so far as to claim it allows some people the benefit of adopting a shape shifting form, making them more prone to firing shots whilst maintaining a fairly elusive stand point if one wants to scratch the surface deeper.
Feel free to hit up the comments section with your "definitions" if they differ.
Cruelty to Animals - It includes overt and intentional acts of violence towards animals, but it also includes animal neglect or the failure to provide for the welfare of an animal under one’s control. - See more at: http://www.rspca.org.au/animal-cruelty/what-animal-cruelty#sthash.7XJDyUik.dpuf
Animal Welfare - Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behaviour, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these indicators provide the best information.
(So Animal Welfare could in the case of an animal wilfully tortured or left neglected without food or water as being poor animal welfare whilst a well looked after animal, healthy in every respect being a product of good animal welfare. Where the think gets confusing is when Animal Welfare and Animals for Food get entangled, more later)
Animal Welfare Advocate/s - Those willing to speak up against the mistreatment of animals, those willing to speak up in opposition against cruelty to animals.
Fairly simple, although there seems to a slight confusion as to who this includes. My father is a farmer, livestock producer. We run cattle and have (in a different district) run export lambs and wethers. He is not in favour of cruelty to animals, not in favour of mistreatment nor neglect to animals. He, like some other W.A. farmers, is actually a Life Member of the RSPCA.
To many livestock producers, its quite reasonable for a person to produce and sell livestock for profit and gain AND still oppose cruelty to animals. To many livestock transporters, its quite reasonable to be in a contract business and oppose cruelty to animals.
To many shearers, stock agents, farm workers, vets it's quite reasonable to be part of the livestock industry AND still oppose cruelty to animals.
So seems reasonable and fair that its more than possible for ANY person of any trade, profession, position or background to be against mistreatment and cruelty to animals...and therefore anyone is or can be an Animal Welfare Advocate. No one has the singular mortgage on the higher moral ground when it comes to animal cruelty and I am yet to find any person in any livestock industry who thinks its ok to be cruel or mistreat or neglect an animal in the pursuit of profit. I have heard of residential rental that was raided because it was being used as a venue of illegal cock fighting and a warehouse unit that was raided as a result of it being reported as an illegal dog fighting venue. I don't know what race, creed or forms of professional livelihoods were amongst the alleged perpetrators, but fact is they were committing cruelty to animals. If to be an Animal Welfare Advocate you have to be away from the industry, then no one owning a pet or companion animal can be an Animal Welfare Advocate whilst they have a pet. Yep, that's the noise of an implosion of logic that some folk would rather you weren't aware of.
Animal Rights Activist (ARA)- Animal rights is the idea that some or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as an interest in not suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. The first three definitions I doubt would cause a lot of core disagreement however ARA's have a bit of a dilemma on their hands and we can potentially see some shape shifting here. (Bit more on that later)
Animal Rights - Protection of animals from cruelty through requirements of humane treatment. Laws protecting animal rights proscribe certain forms of brutal and merciless treatment of animals in medical and scientific research and in the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption. (Now this was an online definition I found, but notice "the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption - this one has worms in the can too...but that a bit later)
Veganarchism or vegan anarchism - is the political philosophy of veganism (more specifically animal rights and earth liberation) and anarchism,[2][3] creating a combined praxis that is designed to be a means for social revolution.[4][5] This encompasses viewing the state as unnecessary and harmful to animals, both human and non-human, whilst practising a vegan lifestyle. It is either perceived as a combined theory, or that both philosophies are essentially the same.[6] It is further described as an anti-speciesist perspective on green anarchism, or an anarchist perspective on animal liberation.
(Ok, this came from Wikipedia, make of that what you will, but this is probably towards the more radical end of things and whilst there are probably fewer people who wear this badge in public or in secret, this form of worldview does have a very widespread impact and influence of upright, well meaning people who quite rightly are against cruelty to animals.
Animal Liberation -
1)the freeing of animals from exploitation and cruel treatment by humans.
Feel free to hit up the comments section with your "definitions" if they differ.
Cruelty to Animals - It includes overt and intentional acts of violence towards animals, but it also includes animal neglect or the failure to provide for the welfare of an animal under one’s control. - See more at: http://www.rspca.org.au/animal-cruelty/what-animal-cruelty#sthash.7XJDyUik.dpuf
Animal Welfare - Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behaviour, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these indicators provide the best information.
(So Animal Welfare could in the case of an animal wilfully tortured or left neglected without food or water as being poor animal welfare whilst a well looked after animal, healthy in every respect being a product of good animal welfare. Where the think gets confusing is when Animal Welfare and Animals for Food get entangled, more later)
Animal Welfare Advocate/s - Those willing to speak up against the mistreatment of animals, those willing to speak up in opposition against cruelty to animals.
Fairly simple, although there seems to a slight confusion as to who this includes. My father is a farmer, livestock producer. We run cattle and have (in a different district) run export lambs and wethers. He is not in favour of cruelty to animals, not in favour of mistreatment nor neglect to animals. He, like some other W.A. farmers, is actually a Life Member of the RSPCA.
To many livestock producers, its quite reasonable for a person to produce and sell livestock for profit and gain AND still oppose cruelty to animals. To many livestock transporters, its quite reasonable to be in a contract business and oppose cruelty to animals.
To many shearers, stock agents, farm workers, vets it's quite reasonable to be part of the livestock industry AND still oppose cruelty to animals.
So seems reasonable and fair that its more than possible for ANY person of any trade, profession, position or background to be against mistreatment and cruelty to animals...and therefore anyone is or can be an Animal Welfare Advocate. No one has the singular mortgage on the higher moral ground when it comes to animal cruelty and I am yet to find any person in any livestock industry who thinks its ok to be cruel or mistreat or neglect an animal in the pursuit of profit. I have heard of residential rental that was raided because it was being used as a venue of illegal cock fighting and a warehouse unit that was raided as a result of it being reported as an illegal dog fighting venue. I don't know what race, creed or forms of professional livelihoods were amongst the alleged perpetrators, but fact is they were committing cruelty to animals. If to be an Animal Welfare Advocate you have to be away from the industry, then no one owning a pet or companion animal can be an Animal Welfare Advocate whilst they have a pet. Yep, that's the noise of an implosion of logic that some folk would rather you weren't aware of.
Animal Rights Activist (ARA)- Animal rights is the idea that some or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as an interest in not suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. The first three definitions I doubt would cause a lot of core disagreement however ARA's have a bit of a dilemma on their hands and we can potentially see some shape shifting here. (Bit more on that later)
Animal Rights - Protection of animals from cruelty through requirements of humane treatment. Laws protecting animal rights proscribe certain forms of brutal and merciless treatment of animals in medical and scientific research and in the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption. (Now this was an online definition I found, but notice "the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption - this one has worms in the can too...but that a bit later)
Veganarchism or vegan anarchism - is the political philosophy of veganism (more specifically animal rights and earth liberation) and anarchism,[2][3] creating a combined praxis that is designed to be a means for social revolution.[4][5] This encompasses viewing the state as unnecessary and harmful to animals, both human and non-human, whilst practising a vegan lifestyle. It is either perceived as a combined theory, or that both philosophies are essentially the same.[6] It is further described as an anti-speciesist perspective on green anarchism, or an anarchist perspective on animal liberation.
(Ok, this came from Wikipedia, make of that what you will, but this is probably towards the more radical end of things and whilst there are probably fewer people who wear this badge in public or in secret, this form of worldview does have a very widespread impact and influence of upright, well meaning people who quite rightly are against cruelty to animals.
Animal Liberation -
1)the freeing of animals from exploitation and cruel treatment by humans.
"animal liberation is the goal for which the philosophy of animal rights is the philosophy"
2) the title of the 1975 book by Peter Singer
2) the title of the 1975 book by Peter Singer
(yep this one has a few issues too. More later...in fact there's so many subtle side issues here its quite a deal to research it all and type it all. I'll hit publish and come back with a more condensed version of the "more later" bits)
Tuesday 28 January 2014
Re the Live Export - Andrew Wilkie Heads North post...
Well its a big day (not really) not being "blogging" long but finally reached some sort of maybe important/unimportant milestone...we gathered our first "comment". Thanks to Jessie R for sharing his/her view :-)
Now while I'm certainly not going to construct a blog post on every comment received, (no precedent here) I felt the need to this time because something was lost in translation. Just a little thing called context. Now here's a few reflections on Jessie and they are opinions so grain of salt, step away from the computer, what is quite ok. Jessie R. has an opinion (Good, very good!), Jessie R. has expressed his/her opinion (Good, very good). Jessie R has been able to express his/her opinion because he/she is a member of Google (all good, no worries). Jessie R. has been a member since January 2014 which means he/she is new here, real new (as I type) and either stumbled upon the blog or saw a link on a Farcebook page that supports or opposes Live Export (all good, no worries). As best I can find he/she has had one profile view on the counter (me) and yet to find his/her blog (all good, no worries). With that in mind I'll colour his/her comments and address them as best I can whilst trying to keep in context. Not saying I won't fail, but I'll try my best :-)
While busy wallowing in his own self interest, the author of this opinion piece failed to mention the most important aspect of live export - Animal welfare!
Busy wallowing? Ok, I don't take offence to that, nor the term opinion piece, keeping context it is a BLOG. It is an opinion, might be right and still be rejected by some or vice versa. Being very new to blogger, Jessie R may have either missed this or dropped this in order to set up a desired framework to fire shots from. Either way I'm not offended but try to see how much in context is used. In regards to failed mention Animal Welfare, well Jessie R possibly left the context in the lost and found box and boarded a train to somewhere in a different direction. Referring back to the topic, it is about looking closely at Andrew Wilkie and his trip. This is just a small part of the Live Export debate. I deliberately looked at it and its reasons, its goals and possible other agendas involved. No I did not look directly at animal handling or treatment...funnily enough, neither did Andrew Wilkie whilst he was interviewed in the north. He mentions its very important to take this trip to help improve things in the system we have.
My point was, he suffered his critics wrath for a long time now over his reluctance to venture north and actually see the trade. Finally he does, after more than a few years I might add. Is it really important to him, if so why now and not before? People talk of decency, ethics, morals what is right and wrong etc, yet only now it deserves a trip (???) See that is the context, and the post topic reflects that more closely than it does actual animal handling procedures.
I guess he's been too busy...what with more important matters? Hang on, whats more important than morals, ethics, decency? Again let me use the word "ODD" and this is the whole theme of the original post. Animal Welfare, don't worry I'll post up about that, but keeping in context of the Wilkie post, its about him, his comments, his agenda and what's really going on.
Making a profit and living the desired lifestyle does NOT give anyone the right to break the fundamental laws of decency and ethics.
Again world's away from the context of the thread, which was about Wilkie, his long, long overdue trip north, his reasons and his motivation, obvious and possibly not so obvious. However since Jessie R. has now used the Comment option to post his/her own opinion piece (all good) lets look closely that that comment as closely as possible, lets break it down somewhat.
Making a profit and a living the desired lifestyle in this case is a legal and lawful pursuit. No legal statute has been violated whatsoever so the old saying "All honest work is noble work" is in this case quite correct (opinion).
But apparently some have broken the fundamental laws of decency and ethics?
Who? Primary producers? If so report them. Exporters? If so report them. Overseas slaughterhouse? If so, get a passport, a visa head over to said country, legally collect the evidence required and report it to the relevant authorities...oops that's legal statues, Jessie R said "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" So what are these fundamental "laws", what is the authority he/she is referring to?
Sadly no mention. For comments about ethics being professional standards there's another post on that, but has he/she deftly avoided the term moral/immoral because his/her view will quickly implode and crumble. Who gets to say what is ethical and decent? Later in his/her reply the Australian domestic processing industry is referred to as "more humane". So the problem lies overseas? Grab a passport, visa...yes mentioned this before. The thing is, the producer is doing the same thing in Live Export and the Domestically Processed market. They are primary producers, making a legal and lawful living. No before we mention "ODD" again, lets get completely off track, to unrelated topics that have some odd parallels. If cigarettes were invented to day they would banned, they don't have health "risks" they do damage health and cause illness, sickness and premature death. So are they that sell them humane, decent, moral? It is a legal and lawful pursuit. Every shop that sells them, is it owned or run by people with immoral blood on their hands? Alcohol, lastest science (just in the media this week) has on doctor saying alcohol should not be taken by people under 25 because a human's brain is still developing right up to 25. There's serious irreparable damage being done. But selling to an 18-25 year old is indeed legal and lawful. 40,000 women are sold as real life slaves into the Japanese Sex Trade every year...decent? humane? fundamental laws? If we were to stack all these issues into a "moral leader board" how would they rate, what order would they be in?
If people were honest and did this we would have a much clearer picture of their perceived "fundamental laws of decency and ethics". Is sex with an animal ok? I would say no, because for me I am a Christian and although I personally think it is an abomination, that is wrong on every single level imaginable, Peter Singer, the well known professor of ethics, founder of Animals Australia says openly he does not know why it is a taboo. If the dog is willing the (in his words) woman is receiving pleasure and no one is trained or forced or coerced...what is the taboo?
Yep, place bestiality on the moral leader board too please.
If "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" have been breached, where are these laws, who is the moral authority who authored them ??? If its the innate inner feeling of whats right and wrong that one is either born with or isn't that's venturing into relativism which means everything is right and wrong, depending on your view and its just whatever the majority of people come up with is the way to go...so far the majority of Australians haven't agreed with Andrew Wilkie, many remained holders of the position known as "staggering indifference" and a good many are in favour and against. Relativism, or rather a position where no moral author is cited except the individual who gets to determine things, means it rests with the numbers and there's no true ethic or moral code...just the numbers. Christians however have it real easy, they can cite an Author, a Moral Law giver...it snot up to us.
These animals suffer, for no other reason that those incapable of compassion want to make more money.
Says who? Yep there is definite cruelty, we've seen images and footage of heinous treatment of animals for sure. I don't have a problem with supporting the trade and opposing cruelty. I support the use of cars but oppose car accidents. I oppose smoking but support the smokers right to do so. Will cruelty be eliminated completely, will animal welfare be 100% good? Hard to say because you can never get a unified Animal Welfare - 100% good picture painted for you. What does it look like? Is it BBQ tofu with green leafy salads with meat eaters prosecuted for eating cooked flesh? Is it at Jessie R almost seems to suggest that its 100% chilled/frozen exports and no live exports even to countries and stakeholders that meet or even exceed the set standards of society?
Incapable of compassion? That's quite a truth claim, of course it isn't based on truth because one could easily say "Incapable of compassion? Prove it please"
It is deceptive and emotive, it is deliberate in its intent to put up a moral outrage against those producers Jessie R has never met. Kinda like Andrew Wilkie has been for several years in this very important issue...so important that only now he goes and visits the north. If all producers are incapable of compassion I call bulldust unless he/she can verify the claim. I call rubbish motivated by good intentions clouded by highly emotive anger. ODD (Just an opinion, as you'd expect in an opinion piece like a "blog" ;-)
Our more humane processing industry here is very successful with record sales of boxed exports to all live destination countries.
There are reasons by overseas based importers prefer live export animals. Ask them.
They know their market, they know their margins and the logistical limitations that we who live in a progressive affluent 1st world nation arrogantly ignore or aren't aware of yet we project our worldview upon them despite their domestic limitations :-) ODD
I admire Andrew and his commitment to better animal welfare, that's what decent people do.
I have no doubt though that his trip will be heavily staged by industry and will stink of the usual industry smoke and mirrors but I have confidence Andrew will see past that.
He will see past the deception?
What deception and what's the point when he's already stated he will not roll over based on one trip.
He has effectively stated his stance will not change no matter what he sees, he's going to see what changes can be made to the system that's already in place. The industry is happy for him to (FINALLY) head north and get on a boat.
He has stated there is NOTHING the industry can do in one trip to change his stance. That's fair, if he takes a few more trips...unless it is the case he will not change his stance no matter how many trips he takes and how far each operator meets or exceeds standards. Hardly a very independent approach, rather its very much wallowing in self interest despite what he sees or encounters.
He is on the record as saying he's not changing his mind, he thinks its important to see what changes can be made to improve the system we have.
Forget the deception, if Andrew Wilkie can be deceived, who is it who can say it hasn't already happened.
FOCUS FOR A SECOND PLEASE - its taken years with two failed private members bills on this moral, ethical and decency based issue to finally head further north than Canberra, even then he says he's not going to change his mind based on one trip but he's ACTUALLY going there to see what improvements can be made. Good on him. If after all these years he's realised he needs to see, learn and understand the trade so it can be improved rather than sit in the latte enclave of Hobart several thousand kilometres away and pontificate on that which he has never experienced or seen then good on him, that's less ODD than a lot of his previous approaches to Live Export.
The attacks on animals welfare advocates by vested industry buffoons and bully boys is ongoing and vicious, but it only serves to motivates people more to get moving and support an end to this animal welfare disaster of live export.
Buffoons, bully boys? Would this be the industry stakeholders who've trying for years to get the member for Denison to actually go see the trade? What actually is an Animal Welfare Advocate? Who are they, what do they believe and can someone set out what it is they actually want apart from ban the live export no matter what? I think like the Paralympics there should be some sort of Animal Activist rating system so we can see the extent of their beliefs and the source of their beliefs and standards. I'm not so sure all the Animal Welfare Advocates are that, but instead are Animal Liberationists wearing a stolen Moral Cloak. Whatever motivates a person is mute point, they can still be wrong. Very hard to know how right or wrong a "Animal Welfare Advocate" is when they can be moral shape shifters and part of any number of segments within the advocacy industry.
Several things are quite certain...
1) Live Export is a legal and lawful trade which not only supplies product, its an economic wealth creator for direct stakeholders and many indirect stakeholders. Its a important part of international trade & the life blood of the pastoral north.
2) Eating meat from farmed animals is legal and is not a moral issue.
3) Andrew Wilkie has had 2 failed private members bills to halt a legal trade. A legal trade which has had a number of Animal Cruelty incidents and an indeterminate number of problem free exports as well. The bills received very little support, however I think the endeavour was completely successful in that its going to stand him in very good stead come the next election. If the acceptable level of transport fatalities is zero, then its all hands off ALL transport of animals EVERYWHERE. That's guide dogs to pets to you name it. ALL TRANSPORT MUST STOP. (ODD, did we mention ODD???)
4) Andrew Wilkie definitely thinks its an important issue, however its only after failed private member bill attempts and years of critics panning him for trying to legislate on an industry he's failed to see up close that he NOW determines its important enough for a look see. A cynic could easily pointed to Animal Liberationists in his electorate, laugh and say "you been rounded up by a clever politician" - And I think he is a very clever politician but we need nation builders and great legislators, not popularists vying for another term and willing to swing their rear out to get more votes.
5) Andrew Wilkie headed north, finally. He admitted straight up he would not be backing down, nor rolling over. So really, no matter what he sees or other people do, or show he will continue to oppose live export, no matter how much improvement is possible. He is going ONLY to see what improvements can be made to the system we have at present. Get used to it punters, no change of mind is possible. Nothing unpredictable there. He's going to help the trade improve is all he's going for.
6) If there is a breach of the rules, report it. All rules governing the industry have reviews. SO called moral breaches, ethical breaches, fundamental laws of decency breaches are all invalid without the full disclosure and citing of the origins and authors of said morals/ethics/laws. You can't make this stuff up and you can't make a claim without citing the authority. Yes this rests very uncomfortably for the atheist activist. Ironically an atheist producer has a philosophically tenable position...its all just evolved nature. For the Christian producer, they can point to a Moral Authority, support live trade and oppose cruelty but still eat meat.
Again, the Wilkie post was not about Welfare, it was about Wilkie, his long long overdue trip and the words he's used to deftly dance around the subject and what they really mean.
Animal Welfare? Yep gotta have a post on that specifically too, and its coming.
Because that opens up a whole myriad of fun issues, central and side.
It opens up a whole lot of canned worms for all involved.
Cannot wait. In the meantime we all need to remember if someone is running a blog, its publishing a view...not wallowing in self interest in my opinion. I can say that here cos its my opinion piece ;-)
If someone has a different view, an opposing view it does not make them a buffoon, a bully or immediately a moral bankrupt. That in itself is a very intolerant view, foisted on others. If its a moral issue, cite your moral authority...or don't get too upset if, when you refuse, you're dismissed, ignored or shown to have a self imploding argument.
If you're a vegan, good on you. Your choice, not mine. No morals to be had or foisted I'd say.
ODD to say otherwise but remember, the Wilkie post was about Wilkie and the "oddities" that seem to always be very close by when his mouth opens. We'll go into more later, but the Animal Welfare thread has me hooked already and if you wish to post a comment, do so. Not unlikely for me to post a thread on it...or not. Don't let it scare you, call me a buffoon and turn the computer off, there's no need to stress ;-)
Now while I'm certainly not going to construct a blog post on every comment received, (no precedent here) I felt the need to this time because something was lost in translation. Just a little thing called context. Now here's a few reflections on Jessie and they are opinions so grain of salt, step away from the computer, what is quite ok. Jessie R. has an opinion (Good, very good!), Jessie R. has expressed his/her opinion (Good, very good). Jessie R has been able to express his/her opinion because he/she is a member of Google (all good, no worries). Jessie R. has been a member since January 2014 which means he/she is new here, real new (as I type) and either stumbled upon the blog or saw a link on a Farcebook page that supports or opposes Live Export (all good, no worries). As best I can find he/she has had one profile view on the counter (me) and yet to find his/her blog (all good, no worries). With that in mind I'll colour his/her comments and address them as best I can whilst trying to keep in context. Not saying I won't fail, but I'll try my best :-)
While busy wallowing in his own self interest, the author of this opinion piece failed to mention the most important aspect of live export - Animal welfare!
Busy wallowing? Ok, I don't take offence to that, nor the term opinion piece, keeping context it is a BLOG. It is an opinion, might be right and still be rejected by some or vice versa. Being very new to blogger, Jessie R may have either missed this or dropped this in order to set up a desired framework to fire shots from. Either way I'm not offended but try to see how much in context is used. In regards to failed mention Animal Welfare, well Jessie R possibly left the context in the lost and found box and boarded a train to somewhere in a different direction. Referring back to the topic, it is about looking closely at Andrew Wilkie and his trip. This is just a small part of the Live Export debate. I deliberately looked at it and its reasons, its goals and possible other agendas involved. No I did not look directly at animal handling or treatment...funnily enough, neither did Andrew Wilkie whilst he was interviewed in the north. He mentions its very important to take this trip to help improve things in the system we have.
My point was, he suffered his critics wrath for a long time now over his reluctance to venture north and actually see the trade. Finally he does, after more than a few years I might add. Is it really important to him, if so why now and not before? People talk of decency, ethics, morals what is right and wrong etc, yet only now it deserves a trip (???) See that is the context, and the post topic reflects that more closely than it does actual animal handling procedures.
I guess he's been too busy...what with more important matters? Hang on, whats more important than morals, ethics, decency? Again let me use the word "ODD" and this is the whole theme of the original post. Animal Welfare, don't worry I'll post up about that, but keeping in context of the Wilkie post, its about him, his comments, his agenda and what's really going on.
Making a profit and living the desired lifestyle does NOT give anyone the right to break the fundamental laws of decency and ethics.
Again world's away from the context of the thread, which was about Wilkie, his long, long overdue trip north, his reasons and his motivation, obvious and possibly not so obvious. However since Jessie R. has now used the Comment option to post his/her own opinion piece (all good) lets look closely that that comment as closely as possible, lets break it down somewhat.
Making a profit and a living the desired lifestyle in this case is a legal and lawful pursuit. No legal statute has been violated whatsoever so the old saying "All honest work is noble work" is in this case quite correct (opinion).
But apparently some have broken the fundamental laws of decency and ethics?
Who? Primary producers? If so report them. Exporters? If so report them. Overseas slaughterhouse? If so, get a passport, a visa head over to said country, legally collect the evidence required and report it to the relevant authorities...oops that's legal statues, Jessie R said "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" So what are these fundamental "laws", what is the authority he/she is referring to?
Sadly no mention. For comments about ethics being professional standards there's another post on that, but has he/she deftly avoided the term moral/immoral because his/her view will quickly implode and crumble. Who gets to say what is ethical and decent? Later in his/her reply the Australian domestic processing industry is referred to as "more humane". So the problem lies overseas? Grab a passport, visa...yes mentioned this before. The thing is, the producer is doing the same thing in Live Export and the Domestically Processed market. They are primary producers, making a legal and lawful living. No before we mention "ODD" again, lets get completely off track, to unrelated topics that have some odd parallels. If cigarettes were invented to day they would banned, they don't have health "risks" they do damage health and cause illness, sickness and premature death. So are they that sell them humane, decent, moral? It is a legal and lawful pursuit. Every shop that sells them, is it owned or run by people with immoral blood on their hands? Alcohol, lastest science (just in the media this week) has on doctor saying alcohol should not be taken by people under 25 because a human's brain is still developing right up to 25. There's serious irreparable damage being done. But selling to an 18-25 year old is indeed legal and lawful. 40,000 women are sold as real life slaves into the Japanese Sex Trade every year...decent? humane? fundamental laws? If we were to stack all these issues into a "moral leader board" how would they rate, what order would they be in?
If people were honest and did this we would have a much clearer picture of their perceived "fundamental laws of decency and ethics". Is sex with an animal ok? I would say no, because for me I am a Christian and although I personally think it is an abomination, that is wrong on every single level imaginable, Peter Singer, the well known professor of ethics, founder of Animals Australia says openly he does not know why it is a taboo. If the dog is willing the (in his words) woman is receiving pleasure and no one is trained or forced or coerced...what is the taboo?
Yep, place bestiality on the moral leader board too please.
If "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" have been breached, where are these laws, who is the moral authority who authored them ??? If its the innate inner feeling of whats right and wrong that one is either born with or isn't that's venturing into relativism which means everything is right and wrong, depending on your view and its just whatever the majority of people come up with is the way to go...so far the majority of Australians haven't agreed with Andrew Wilkie, many remained holders of the position known as "staggering indifference" and a good many are in favour and against. Relativism, or rather a position where no moral author is cited except the individual who gets to determine things, means it rests with the numbers and there's no true ethic or moral code...just the numbers. Christians however have it real easy, they can cite an Author, a Moral Law giver...it snot up to us.
These animals suffer, for no other reason that those incapable of compassion want to make more money.
Says who? Yep there is definite cruelty, we've seen images and footage of heinous treatment of animals for sure. I don't have a problem with supporting the trade and opposing cruelty. I support the use of cars but oppose car accidents. I oppose smoking but support the smokers right to do so. Will cruelty be eliminated completely, will animal welfare be 100% good? Hard to say because you can never get a unified Animal Welfare - 100% good picture painted for you. What does it look like? Is it BBQ tofu with green leafy salads with meat eaters prosecuted for eating cooked flesh? Is it at Jessie R almost seems to suggest that its 100% chilled/frozen exports and no live exports even to countries and stakeholders that meet or even exceed the set standards of society?
Incapable of compassion? That's quite a truth claim, of course it isn't based on truth because one could easily say "Incapable of compassion? Prove it please"
It is deceptive and emotive, it is deliberate in its intent to put up a moral outrage against those producers Jessie R has never met. Kinda like Andrew Wilkie has been for several years in this very important issue...so important that only now he goes and visits the north. If all producers are incapable of compassion I call bulldust unless he/she can verify the claim. I call rubbish motivated by good intentions clouded by highly emotive anger. ODD (Just an opinion, as you'd expect in an opinion piece like a "blog" ;-)
Our more humane processing industry here is very successful with record sales of boxed exports to all live destination countries.
There are reasons by overseas based importers prefer live export animals. Ask them.
They know their market, they know their margins and the logistical limitations that we who live in a progressive affluent 1st world nation arrogantly ignore or aren't aware of yet we project our worldview upon them despite their domestic limitations :-) ODD
I admire Andrew and his commitment to better animal welfare, that's what decent people do.
I have no doubt though that his trip will be heavily staged by industry and will stink of the usual industry smoke and mirrors but I have confidence Andrew will see past that.
He will see past the deception?
What deception and what's the point when he's already stated he will not roll over based on one trip.
He has effectively stated his stance will not change no matter what he sees, he's going to see what changes can be made to the system that's already in place. The industry is happy for him to (FINALLY) head north and get on a boat.
He has stated there is NOTHING the industry can do in one trip to change his stance. That's fair, if he takes a few more trips...unless it is the case he will not change his stance no matter how many trips he takes and how far each operator meets or exceeds standards. Hardly a very independent approach, rather its very much wallowing in self interest despite what he sees or encounters.
He is on the record as saying he's not changing his mind, he thinks its important to see what changes can be made to improve the system we have.
Forget the deception, if Andrew Wilkie can be deceived, who is it who can say it hasn't already happened.
FOCUS FOR A SECOND PLEASE - its taken years with two failed private members bills on this moral, ethical and decency based issue to finally head further north than Canberra, even then he says he's not going to change his mind based on one trip but he's ACTUALLY going there to see what improvements can be made. Good on him. If after all these years he's realised he needs to see, learn and understand the trade so it can be improved rather than sit in the latte enclave of Hobart several thousand kilometres away and pontificate on that which he has never experienced or seen then good on him, that's less ODD than a lot of his previous approaches to Live Export.
The attacks on animals welfare advocates by vested industry buffoons and bully boys is ongoing and vicious, but it only serves to motivates people more to get moving and support an end to this animal welfare disaster of live export.
Buffoons, bully boys? Would this be the industry stakeholders who've trying for years to get the member for Denison to actually go see the trade? What actually is an Animal Welfare Advocate? Who are they, what do they believe and can someone set out what it is they actually want apart from ban the live export no matter what? I think like the Paralympics there should be some sort of Animal Activist rating system so we can see the extent of their beliefs and the source of their beliefs and standards. I'm not so sure all the Animal Welfare Advocates are that, but instead are Animal Liberationists wearing a stolen Moral Cloak. Whatever motivates a person is mute point, they can still be wrong. Very hard to know how right or wrong a "Animal Welfare Advocate" is when they can be moral shape shifters and part of any number of segments within the advocacy industry.
Several things are quite certain...
1) Live Export is a legal and lawful trade which not only supplies product, its an economic wealth creator for direct stakeholders and many indirect stakeholders. Its a important part of international trade & the life blood of the pastoral north.
2) Eating meat from farmed animals is legal and is not a moral issue.
3) Andrew Wilkie has had 2 failed private members bills to halt a legal trade. A legal trade which has had a number of Animal Cruelty incidents and an indeterminate number of problem free exports as well. The bills received very little support, however I think the endeavour was completely successful in that its going to stand him in very good stead come the next election. If the acceptable level of transport fatalities is zero, then its all hands off ALL transport of animals EVERYWHERE. That's guide dogs to pets to you name it. ALL TRANSPORT MUST STOP. (ODD, did we mention ODD???)
4) Andrew Wilkie definitely thinks its an important issue, however its only after failed private member bill attempts and years of critics panning him for trying to legislate on an industry he's failed to see up close that he NOW determines its important enough for a look see. A cynic could easily pointed to Animal Liberationists in his electorate, laugh and say "you been rounded up by a clever politician" - And I think he is a very clever politician but we need nation builders and great legislators, not popularists vying for another term and willing to swing their rear out to get more votes.
5) Andrew Wilkie headed north, finally. He admitted straight up he would not be backing down, nor rolling over. So really, no matter what he sees or other people do, or show he will continue to oppose live export, no matter how much improvement is possible. He is going ONLY to see what improvements can be made to the system we have at present. Get used to it punters, no change of mind is possible. Nothing unpredictable there. He's going to help the trade improve is all he's going for.
6) If there is a breach of the rules, report it. All rules governing the industry have reviews. SO called moral breaches, ethical breaches, fundamental laws of decency breaches are all invalid without the full disclosure and citing of the origins and authors of said morals/ethics/laws. You can't make this stuff up and you can't make a claim without citing the authority. Yes this rests very uncomfortably for the atheist activist. Ironically an atheist producer has a philosophically tenable position...its all just evolved nature. For the Christian producer, they can point to a Moral Authority, support live trade and oppose cruelty but still eat meat.
Again, the Wilkie post was not about Welfare, it was about Wilkie, his long long overdue trip and the words he's used to deftly dance around the subject and what they really mean.
Animal Welfare? Yep gotta have a post on that specifically too, and its coming.
Because that opens up a whole myriad of fun issues, central and side.
It opens up a whole lot of canned worms for all involved.
Cannot wait. In the meantime we all need to remember if someone is running a blog, its publishing a view...not wallowing in self interest in my opinion. I can say that here cos its my opinion piece ;-)
If someone has a different view, an opposing view it does not make them a buffoon, a bully or immediately a moral bankrupt. That in itself is a very intolerant view, foisted on others. If its a moral issue, cite your moral authority...or don't get too upset if, when you refuse, you're dismissed, ignored or shown to have a self imploding argument.
If you're a vegan, good on you. Your choice, not mine. No morals to be had or foisted I'd say.
ODD to say otherwise but remember, the Wilkie post was about Wilkie and the "oddities" that seem to always be very close by when his mouth opens. We'll go into more later, but the Animal Welfare thread has me hooked already and if you wish to post a comment, do so. Not unlikely for me to post a thread on it...or not. Don't let it scare you, call me a buffoon and turn the computer off, there's no need to stress ;-)
Thursday 23 January 2014
Animals Australia founder, Professor Peter Singer
Yep, you must have known sooner or later his name would come up. Surely you did?
Well it has. Here it is.
If you know nothing about Peter Singer go here to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Yes, grains of salt Wikipedia can be laced with falsehoods and lies too, but not sure of any on this page. Use it to start you off to get a good background or perhaps a springboard to properly researching. In short he has been inducted into the United States Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2000 & was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2012. The latter of which makes him an important voice, or rather a very prominent voice. Whether he's right or wrong on any given issue is another matter and like any human he is far from perfect and errs as anyone does.
He's also known as one of the co-founders of Animals Australia, or I think it was originally "the Australian Federation of Animal Societies (AFAS)". Some people take exception to Peter Singer being referred to as "Animals Australia's poster boy" and probably with some good reason. His prominence, not least of which was helped by his Australian Honours award, has helped add media prominence to the Animal group. Ah but he has no role in the organisation these days, he's just one of the founders comes the cry. Yes very possibly so, however there's not many books you can buy via the Animals Australia website, one is Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation. Reading his book may open your eyes but more importantly I've never seen nor heard what Animals Australia actually believes full & perfect "Animal Liberation" is, what it looks like, how it works. Nor what is the actual complete goal and aim they're actually striving for. Lots of motherhood statements, lots of vegan recipes on their website too. Odd like Andrew Wilkie.
But what does Peter Singer stand for and more importantly why is that relevant to Animals Australia.
Well if you're an Animals Australia member you ought to know a lot about Peter Singer and some of his views and even if you reject the idea he's an Animals Australia poster boy you should without getting flustered or annoyed be able to tell an inquisitive soul which of his views you align yourself with, for the sake of an honest debate. An intellectually honest debate that is.
He is an atheist. He's not ashamed of it and he'll be first to tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of in being an atheist. Don't be offended if someone asks you (being an Animals Australia tacit supporter or card carrying member) if you're an atheist or which deity it is you do believe in and follow. No shame to be had. What you ask, what possible relevance could that be? Well his world view has shaped his views on a great many things. Its helpful to know where you line up with him and if you don't, then how don't you and how does that present itself with the fuller agenda of an intellectually honest debate. No shame to be had, don't be flustered.
He's regarded as the person who popularised the term "Speciesism" said to have been coined by Richard D.Ryder. Its (nutshell here) the idea that no species really has the moral right to be greater than another species, that all have common good owed to us and that Speciesism is the same as any "ism", similar wrong as age-ism, sexism and racism. Quite a stretch and funnily enough thought to be easily navigated for the atheist who's an adherent of Darwin type evolution...yet Richard Dawkins, possibly the greatest modern day Darwinism type angle poster boy has argued against it in several of his books, most notably The Blind Watchmaker. Odd...did I use the word odd very often?
But most folk so inclined will hold hands with Speciesism don't like the term Anthropomorphism.
Google or use Wikipedia both terms to get a better lay of that land. Here's the humourous bit, some pro Speciesism folk actually have a curious approach that raises the heckles of the staunchest Animal Liberationists...that is of course the idea that dominance over another species is quite justified as a form of Species loyalty. The day I heard 2 unabashed supporters of Speciesism going tow to tow over the idea of species loyalty. I guess its coincidental and not ironic at all that one was a staunch vegan and the other ate meat. Who knows...again, that 3 lettered word "ODD", well more accurately funny but odd.
So if you want to get a good lay of the land, you might like to look up Peter Singer, read his book, look up Richard D.Ryder, maybe look up Speciesism and Anthropomorphism. Look up Species Loyalty.
However without a doubt, here's something you should look at. Some of Peter Singer's comments on bestiality. Go here for the audio/footage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-cwNg1amRk
I haven't touched on his exploration of poverty and the taking of human life. You might refer to http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/08/15/3568157.htm (My use of the word "Odd" is arguably a highly unwarranted ill-deserved charitable description)
Next time you speak with a staunch Animal Australia supporter or card carrying member consider fleshing out a few side issues. You can easily say, Yes we know Animal Cruelty is wrong, but do Animals Australia stand similarly to Peter Singer on bestiality? Is it right to question whether animal sex is wrong as Singer did? I thought it was obvious it was wrong. Ask also perhaps, what deity they believe in & follow so you can see where their moral authority comes from on animal issues. If they're atheist do they side with Singer and think we're all one happy family or are they Dawkins aligned thinking that Species Loyalty is ok and putting our own species first is actually quite ok?
Of course they're the uncomfortable ones that will challenge some of the core centres they prefer to be left untendered and packed away. Perhaps start with asking what actually is Animal Australia's greatest hope and dream, "a perfect world will have animals..." fill in the dots.
I see lots of motherhood statements, lots of shocking footage and images to help maintain the rage they think exists, or possibly hope to generate it in the first place...but no real gutsy outline of where animals would be in a perfect Australia. Are they all to run free, no human dominance or as it is with no cruelty, no ownership, usage by humans at all? Is it as it is but delete all use of animals in sport, performance entertainment and as a food source, just urban companions?
I see them holding out the sign with Animal Welfare out front, but there's a big fat something in the other hand they have hidden behind their back...what is it???
Here's a transcript copy from the Q&A programme...
TONY JONES: Peter Singer, let's go back to the nub of the question that was asked originally - is it more unethical to eat and kill whales than it is to eat factory farmed and slaughtered animals?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: I think they are both unethical. I applaud the government for taking the issue on whaling to the International Court of Justice, but I don't believe that when Peter (GARRETT) said that the government is concerned about the humane treatment of farm animals, the facts just speak against that. We still have extremely intensive farming, we have hens in battery cages, millions of them, pigs in individual stalls where they can't walk or even turn around, and they are like that for most of their lives. Europe is phasing out these things, it's been on a phase out for the last decade. The voters of California voted in 2008 to get rid of those over the next five years. What's Australia doing? We've still got them and the government basically hasn't moved.
Sadly that comment of Peter Singer's was not followed up by "So Peter, what is ethical when it comes to animals farmed for food? You say its currently unethical, is ethical possible and if so what does it look like and lastly by what standard is it ethical or unethical?" Hopefully not by the standard that says hey what's wrong with a human having sex with an animal?
The full footage of the programme is available at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2920673.htm and if you scroll down a tiny bit further on that page you can click the TRANSCRIPT tab to read the entire interview if you have download limitations.
In any case if you don't want to watch/read it all here's a slice...
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there's no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.
SENATOR HELEN COONAN: This is a trained dog, obviously?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: It's her dog who enjoys doing it and the dog gives pleasure to the companion. I don't see why we have a taboo.
Let's just repeat and highlight that "I DON'T SEE WHY WE HAVE A TABOO"
Always stop, re-read slowly to see what they're saying in the context in which they're saying it. Peter Singer has said he doesn't see why sex with animals is a taboo.
And some people might still ask "Whaddya mean ODD???"
Well it has. Here it is.
If you know nothing about Peter Singer go here to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Yes, grains of salt Wikipedia can be laced with falsehoods and lies too, but not sure of any on this page. Use it to start you off to get a good background or perhaps a springboard to properly researching. In short he has been inducted into the United States Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2000 & was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2012. The latter of which makes him an important voice, or rather a very prominent voice. Whether he's right or wrong on any given issue is another matter and like any human he is far from perfect and errs as anyone does.
He's also known as one of the co-founders of Animals Australia, or I think it was originally "the Australian Federation of Animal Societies (AFAS)". Some people take exception to Peter Singer being referred to as "Animals Australia's poster boy" and probably with some good reason. His prominence, not least of which was helped by his Australian Honours award, has helped add media prominence to the Animal group. Ah but he has no role in the organisation these days, he's just one of the founders comes the cry. Yes very possibly so, however there's not many books you can buy via the Animals Australia website, one is Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation. Reading his book may open your eyes but more importantly I've never seen nor heard what Animals Australia actually believes full & perfect "Animal Liberation" is, what it looks like, how it works. Nor what is the actual complete goal and aim they're actually striving for. Lots of motherhood statements, lots of vegan recipes on their website too. Odd like Andrew Wilkie.
But what does Peter Singer stand for and more importantly why is that relevant to Animals Australia.
Well if you're an Animals Australia member you ought to know a lot about Peter Singer and some of his views and even if you reject the idea he's an Animals Australia poster boy you should without getting flustered or annoyed be able to tell an inquisitive soul which of his views you align yourself with, for the sake of an honest debate. An intellectually honest debate that is.
He is an atheist. He's not ashamed of it and he'll be first to tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of in being an atheist. Don't be offended if someone asks you (being an Animals Australia tacit supporter or card carrying member) if you're an atheist or which deity it is you do believe in and follow. No shame to be had. What you ask, what possible relevance could that be? Well his world view has shaped his views on a great many things. Its helpful to know where you line up with him and if you don't, then how don't you and how does that present itself with the fuller agenda of an intellectually honest debate. No shame to be had, don't be flustered.
He's regarded as the person who popularised the term "Speciesism" said to have been coined by Richard D.Ryder. Its (nutshell here) the idea that no species really has the moral right to be greater than another species, that all have common good owed to us and that Speciesism is the same as any "ism", similar wrong as age-ism, sexism and racism. Quite a stretch and funnily enough thought to be easily navigated for the atheist who's an adherent of Darwin type evolution...yet Richard Dawkins, possibly the greatest modern day Darwinism type angle poster boy has argued against it in several of his books, most notably The Blind Watchmaker. Odd...did I use the word odd very often?
But most folk so inclined will hold hands with Speciesism don't like the term Anthropomorphism.
Google or use Wikipedia both terms to get a better lay of that land. Here's the humourous bit, some pro Speciesism folk actually have a curious approach that raises the heckles of the staunchest Animal Liberationists...that is of course the idea that dominance over another species is quite justified as a form of Species loyalty. The day I heard 2 unabashed supporters of Speciesism going tow to tow over the idea of species loyalty. I guess its coincidental and not ironic at all that one was a staunch vegan and the other ate meat. Who knows...again, that 3 lettered word "ODD", well more accurately funny but odd.
So if you want to get a good lay of the land, you might like to look up Peter Singer, read his book, look up Richard D.Ryder, maybe look up Speciesism and Anthropomorphism. Look up Species Loyalty.
However without a doubt, here's something you should look at. Some of Peter Singer's comments on bestiality. Go here for the audio/footage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-cwNg1amRk
I haven't touched on his exploration of poverty and the taking of human life. You might refer to http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/08/15/3568157.htm (My use of the word "Odd" is arguably a highly unwarranted ill-deserved charitable description)
Next time you speak with a staunch Animal Australia supporter or card carrying member consider fleshing out a few side issues. You can easily say, Yes we know Animal Cruelty is wrong, but do Animals Australia stand similarly to Peter Singer on bestiality? Is it right to question whether animal sex is wrong as Singer did? I thought it was obvious it was wrong. Ask also perhaps, what deity they believe in & follow so you can see where their moral authority comes from on animal issues. If they're atheist do they side with Singer and think we're all one happy family or are they Dawkins aligned thinking that Species Loyalty is ok and putting our own species first is actually quite ok?
Of course they're the uncomfortable ones that will challenge some of the core centres they prefer to be left untendered and packed away. Perhaps start with asking what actually is Animal Australia's greatest hope and dream, "a perfect world will have animals..." fill in the dots.
I see lots of motherhood statements, lots of shocking footage and images to help maintain the rage they think exists, or possibly hope to generate it in the first place...but no real gutsy outline of where animals would be in a perfect Australia. Are they all to run free, no human dominance or as it is with no cruelty, no ownership, usage by humans at all? Is it as it is but delete all use of animals in sport, performance entertainment and as a food source, just urban companions?
I see them holding out the sign with Animal Welfare out front, but there's a big fat something in the other hand they have hidden behind their back...what is it???
Here's a transcript copy from the Q&A programme...
TONY JONES: Peter Singer, let's go back to the nub of the question that was asked originally - is it more unethical to eat and kill whales than it is to eat factory farmed and slaughtered animals?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: I think they are both unethical. I applaud the government for taking the issue on whaling to the International Court of Justice, but I don't believe that when Peter (GARRETT) said that the government is concerned about the humane treatment of farm animals, the facts just speak against that. We still have extremely intensive farming, we have hens in battery cages, millions of them, pigs in individual stalls where they can't walk or even turn around, and they are like that for most of their lives. Europe is phasing out these things, it's been on a phase out for the last decade. The voters of California voted in 2008 to get rid of those over the next five years. What's Australia doing? We've still got them and the government basically hasn't moved.
Sadly that comment of Peter Singer's was not followed up by "So Peter, what is ethical when it comes to animals farmed for food? You say its currently unethical, is ethical possible and if so what does it look like and lastly by what standard is it ethical or unethical?" Hopefully not by the standard that says hey what's wrong with a human having sex with an animal?
The full footage of the programme is available at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2920673.htm and if you scroll down a tiny bit further on that page you can click the TRANSCRIPT tab to read the entire interview if you have download limitations.
In any case if you don't want to watch/read it all here's a slice...
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there's no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.
SENATOR HELEN COONAN: This is a trained dog, obviously?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: It's her dog who enjoys doing it and the dog gives pleasure to the companion. I don't see why we have a taboo.
Let's just repeat and highlight that "I DON'T SEE WHY WE HAVE A TABOO"
Always stop, re-read slowly to see what they're saying in the context in which they're saying it. Peter Singer has said he doesn't see why sex with animals is a taboo.
And some people might still ask "Whaddya mean ODD???"
Tuesday 21 January 2014
Live Export - Andrew Wilkie heads north
A long heralded fault of Andrew Wilkie was long held lack of desire to actually head north to meet people in the industry, rather stay between Canberra and Hobart firing shots into the Live Export industry.
Now he's headed north.
What does this mean? Depends on your view. I'm not sure what Anti Live Export people think and so far they're pretty quiet on the idea, or rather the very strongly potentially obsessed anti trade brigade. Very silent.
What did Wilkie think or say?
(Well taken from the ABC Country Hour he's made a coupla of comments worth deeper look see.
"I've agreed to go on a vessel into Indonesia, not because I'm about to roll over and end my opposition to the live trade, but because I think it's important to look for ways to improve animal welfare practices with the system we've got,"
So his boat trip is not a back down or a roll over...its one simple thing to "look for ways to improve animal welfare practices with the system we've got" - I cannot wait til he reports back on possible improvements to practices with the system we've got. If its important, its only got important very recently. It was important for the last few years, only NOW is he going up there to do what he now claims is important. Odd...but then odd comments aren't new to the Member for Denison.
In the interview Mr Wilkie made a couple of odd comments. No surprise is his mention of his views on Live Export being "outspoken"...outspoken he is, but only now he heads north to do some important things? Odd.
He also oddly said "I believe and I think a great many Australians believe that its an inherently cruel" I don't doubt he does feel that way (whether its true or not) but how many is a great many? What that comment says is nothing more than what he thinks, a "kinda truth claim" which says & proves nothing.
He went onto say " that its not in Australia's economic self interest"
What is an isn't? It makes a profit for players involved, they pay taxes and duties where legally bound, employ people, employ businesses and underpin the economic stability in a number of communities with demonstrable flow on effects. If these things are not in the economic self interest, they must have no effect or bearing whatsoever or they are a drain on the national economy, best we can see, neither is the case. Its a legal and lawful industry and as such it is a wealth creator, a large employer and uses the goods and services of a number of suppliers and contractors. All GST heavy or Income Tax heavy. I call rubbish on that comment of Mr Wilkie.
"...and also it doesn't have majority public support around the country."
Well is that correct? No really there's another truth claim and lets just test it to see if its valid or if its fertiliser.
1) Who tested the majority of the public around the country to get a result either way? (Answer no one but he'd like you to think there was a survey or some other data that's says the majority are against it)
2) He unsuccessfully submitted a bill to stop Live Animal Export and it failed. The level of people in the streets, the public disobedience, the demonstrations...well they didn't actually amount to over 50% of the people, not even 10% of the people...how do we know, well...we don't there are no numbers or data to draw on but if what he says were even remotely true, then the majority of the successful electorate representatives ALL went against their constituents. This would be Russia crossed with North Korea and force fed steroids...It just isn't a proven truth. He says odd things.
3) What actually is this support he speaks of? The import trade that brings in plastic combs can't be pointed to as having 'majority public support' - Actually it would be more accurately said to have an unknown level of support or maybe arguably a level of staggering indifference amongst the public. (which might lend understanding why we see footage of cruelty, some of it years old and no longer relevant, popping up to help maintain the rage)
4) If he's in the right, if the Majority of Australians are against Live Export but the majority of the Members of Parliament did not support his bill/s, then the majority of the MPs & Senators are either ignorant, corrupt or utterly inept. Now he hasn't made that claim, quite wisely. Some suggest it was a matter of bolstering his political position, ala political re-electiveness that caused the bill to be put, not the likelihood of it ever being support let alone passed. He wisely didn't declare them to be corrupt or inept. He was going through the motions and largely was left untackled by fellow members.
He also mentioned he has unsuccessfully tried to introduce a private members bill to introduce stunning to all animals prior to slaughter overseas where those animals are of Australian origin.
He went onto say that these bills represent his interest in finding solutions or rather improvements because some reform is better than none.
Again odder than $3 bill. No mention is made of the bill failing to get reasonable support, the bills failed and that's it. How one can legislate the standard operating procedures of a foreign slaughter house is a question that goes begging. Clearly we have no sovereign authority to force overseas workers to do anything that resembles Australian best Practices. Indeed we cannot halt the export of any raw material that will end up in overseas factories where workers paid less than Australian workers would here. Nor can we dictate the workplace agreements, the practices, terms & conditions of employment. Trade Unions here are trade unions HERE. They don't go on strike to get better conditions for workers in India, China or Korea.
The bill failed because not many MPs thought it was any good as a piece of legislation. It was a dud presentation, with dud potential of outcomes and had sovereign border issues. With that in mind we either have a completely inept parliament, a completely corrupt parliament on the take OR (and most likely) we have a parliamentarian who puts forward a dud bill that had no hope in hell...but would sound most delicious to the parts of his electorate that are very Anti Live Animal Export or perhaps more accurate, the Anti Animal for Food set.
On the cost of processing in the north of the country he finally trips over into cost of production. The single biggest, most salient point that's been made non stop. Finally he's got it, but on the point of, as he put it sensibly that the cost of fully processing a beast here is $350/head. He then said its half that in the US, half again in Brazil and he then said its "probably" half again in China. He didn't mention the cost in the Middle East or Indonesia, but said "Our cost of production is very high, I don't know what the government can do to bring it down but it needs to do something or more businesses will go to the wall" - Ahh telling comment, it wasn't what the Australian people can do, it was what the government can do. Or in other words 'I dunno what the Liberal party can do but they have to do something". A nation builder or a half decent legislator would have said, we need some bi-partisan meetings to get the nation right on the production costs" but nope, he's just laid onus on any solution at the cabinet and would good reason, he's not thinking of anything else but delegation of impending blame.
What can we do Mr Wilkie? Make it a income tax free and GST free industry across the board? The industry gets full 100% tax deduction for every cost minor or great? We force workers to work for casual rates of $17/hour with a minor performance bonus? Maybe cheap labour from overseas? Or lets just cut all wages ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTRY, EVERY JOB by 87.5% so we're in line with the PROBABLE costs and wages in China???
No, best to leave the devil in the lack of detail, call the Government out and avoid any solutions to any problems. At least he was half honest and said he wasn't going to change his mind based on one trip. I'm thinking that is 100% correct and their won't be another trip.
Its sad that Andrew Wilkie is really looking like a snake oil salesman, suring up electoral chances by gathering a ground swell in pockets of highly motivated, highly emotionally charged people who fall for what the snakeoil salesman peddles, and if he doesn't change the world, if he fails there's enough reasons to let him off the hook and others to be patsy.
If you're gunna put a private members bill it ought to be legislation for Australian soil. Duped they were, duped they'll stay and this trip is so Andrew Wilkie supporters can say "See he has been up there and it still stinks".
I think he's worked a few voters over with a bunch of dreadful slight of hand tricks. They swallowed it hook, line, sinker and jetty. Look closely though at what he says and what each sentence really means.
* Source - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/andrew-wilkie-topend/5211902
Now he's headed north.
What does this mean? Depends on your view. I'm not sure what Anti Live Export people think and so far they're pretty quiet on the idea, or rather the very strongly potentially obsessed anti trade brigade. Very silent.
What did Wilkie think or say?
(Well taken from the ABC Country Hour he's made a coupla of comments worth deeper look see.
"I've agreed to go on a vessel into Indonesia, not because I'm about to roll over and end my opposition to the live trade, but because I think it's important to look for ways to improve animal welfare practices with the system we've got,"
So his boat trip is not a back down or a roll over...its one simple thing to "look for ways to improve animal welfare practices with the system we've got" - I cannot wait til he reports back on possible improvements to practices with the system we've got. If its important, its only got important very recently. It was important for the last few years, only NOW is he going up there to do what he now claims is important. Odd...but then odd comments aren't new to the Member for Denison.
In the interview Mr Wilkie made a couple of odd comments. No surprise is his mention of his views on Live Export being "outspoken"...outspoken he is, but only now he heads north to do some important things? Odd.
He also oddly said "I believe and I think a great many Australians believe that its an inherently cruel" I don't doubt he does feel that way (whether its true or not) but how many is a great many? What that comment says is nothing more than what he thinks, a "kinda truth claim" which says & proves nothing.
He went onto say " that its not in Australia's economic self interest"
What is an isn't? It makes a profit for players involved, they pay taxes and duties where legally bound, employ people, employ businesses and underpin the economic stability in a number of communities with demonstrable flow on effects. If these things are not in the economic self interest, they must have no effect or bearing whatsoever or they are a drain on the national economy, best we can see, neither is the case. Its a legal and lawful industry and as such it is a wealth creator, a large employer and uses the goods and services of a number of suppliers and contractors. All GST heavy or Income Tax heavy. I call rubbish on that comment of Mr Wilkie.
"...and also it doesn't have majority public support around the country."
Well is that correct? No really there's another truth claim and lets just test it to see if its valid or if its fertiliser.
1) Who tested the majority of the public around the country to get a result either way? (Answer no one but he'd like you to think there was a survey or some other data that's says the majority are against it)
2) He unsuccessfully submitted a bill to stop Live Animal Export and it failed. The level of people in the streets, the public disobedience, the demonstrations...well they didn't actually amount to over 50% of the people, not even 10% of the people...how do we know, well...we don't there are no numbers or data to draw on but if what he says were even remotely true, then the majority of the successful electorate representatives ALL went against their constituents. This would be Russia crossed with North Korea and force fed steroids...It just isn't a proven truth. He says odd things.
3) What actually is this support he speaks of? The import trade that brings in plastic combs can't be pointed to as having 'majority public support' - Actually it would be more accurately said to have an unknown level of support or maybe arguably a level of staggering indifference amongst the public. (which might lend understanding why we see footage of cruelty, some of it years old and no longer relevant, popping up to help maintain the rage)
4) If he's in the right, if the Majority of Australians are against Live Export but the majority of the Members of Parliament did not support his bill/s, then the majority of the MPs & Senators are either ignorant, corrupt or utterly inept. Now he hasn't made that claim, quite wisely. Some suggest it was a matter of bolstering his political position, ala political re-electiveness that caused the bill to be put, not the likelihood of it ever being support let alone passed. He wisely didn't declare them to be corrupt or inept. He was going through the motions and largely was left untackled by fellow members.
He also mentioned he has unsuccessfully tried to introduce a private members bill to introduce stunning to all animals prior to slaughter overseas where those animals are of Australian origin.
He went onto say that these bills represent his interest in finding solutions or rather improvements because some reform is better than none.
Again odder than $3 bill. No mention is made of the bill failing to get reasonable support, the bills failed and that's it. How one can legislate the standard operating procedures of a foreign slaughter house is a question that goes begging. Clearly we have no sovereign authority to force overseas workers to do anything that resembles Australian best Practices. Indeed we cannot halt the export of any raw material that will end up in overseas factories where workers paid less than Australian workers would here. Nor can we dictate the workplace agreements, the practices, terms & conditions of employment. Trade Unions here are trade unions HERE. They don't go on strike to get better conditions for workers in India, China or Korea.
The bill failed because not many MPs thought it was any good as a piece of legislation. It was a dud presentation, with dud potential of outcomes and had sovereign border issues. With that in mind we either have a completely inept parliament, a completely corrupt parliament on the take OR (and most likely) we have a parliamentarian who puts forward a dud bill that had no hope in hell...but would sound most delicious to the parts of his electorate that are very Anti Live Animal Export or perhaps more accurate, the Anti Animal for Food set.
On the cost of processing in the north of the country he finally trips over into cost of production. The single biggest, most salient point that's been made non stop. Finally he's got it, but on the point of, as he put it sensibly that the cost of fully processing a beast here is $350/head. He then said its half that in the US, half again in Brazil and he then said its "probably" half again in China. He didn't mention the cost in the Middle East or Indonesia, but said "Our cost of production is very high, I don't know what the government can do to bring it down but it needs to do something or more businesses will go to the wall" - Ahh telling comment, it wasn't what the Australian people can do, it was what the government can do. Or in other words 'I dunno what the Liberal party can do but they have to do something". A nation builder or a half decent legislator would have said, we need some bi-partisan meetings to get the nation right on the production costs" but nope, he's just laid onus on any solution at the cabinet and would good reason, he's not thinking of anything else but delegation of impending blame.
What can we do Mr Wilkie? Make it a income tax free and GST free industry across the board? The industry gets full 100% tax deduction for every cost minor or great? We force workers to work for casual rates of $17/hour with a minor performance bonus? Maybe cheap labour from overseas? Or lets just cut all wages ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTRY, EVERY JOB by 87.5% so we're in line with the PROBABLE costs and wages in China???
No, best to leave the devil in the lack of detail, call the Government out and avoid any solutions to any problems. At least he was half honest and said he wasn't going to change his mind based on one trip. I'm thinking that is 100% correct and their won't be another trip.
Its sad that Andrew Wilkie is really looking like a snake oil salesman, suring up electoral chances by gathering a ground swell in pockets of highly motivated, highly emotionally charged people who fall for what the snakeoil salesman peddles, and if he doesn't change the world, if he fails there's enough reasons to let him off the hook and others to be patsy.
If you're gunna put a private members bill it ought to be legislation for Australian soil. Duped they were, duped they'll stay and this trip is so Andrew Wilkie supporters can say "See he has been up there and it still stinks".
I think he's worked a few voters over with a bunch of dreadful slight of hand tricks. They swallowed it hook, line, sinker and jetty. Look closely though at what he says and what each sentence really means.
* Source - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/andrew-wilkie-topend/5211902
Thursday 16 January 2014
Religion & Politics - Social Taboo or...
So you're off to the BBQ, a gathering of friends and family, maybe a wedding reception now mostly folk can talk about most subjects, but why are Religion & Politics regarded as social leprosy? I think things aren't nearly as bad as they were (in some circles perhaps) as they were several decades ago but those 2 subjects were promoted as taboos by self proclaimed social advancement advisors.
Actually I think in the last few years we've seen more conversations about politics than say religion but what is actually wrong about discussed either or both? Well I think its peoples easy take up of the "lets-water-it-all-down & be-safe" attitude which seems to be joined at the hip with political correctness where we have to be all inclusive, accept everyone's point of view and kind of keep ours to ourselves. Seems peace is a peace of piss weak smiling and saying little or nothing unless its a safe subject. Yep water it down, allow everything in and stand firmly but respectful for nothing...go with the flow.
What rubbish. What actually is wrong with having an opinion, expressing it if you think it needs sharing? What's wrong with thinking and assessing a topic, make a discerning and hopefully informed decision on something and steadfast standing up for it without being aggressive? Is that so hard?
If the topic comes up of gay marriage, how do we get anywhere if both sides of that debate were silent for fear of being politically incorrect? If both sides were bland beige smiley people who say nothing for fear of upsetting someone, how will any society advance? Is it not possible for both sides to have a say, without calling the other side intolerant and without being intolerant themselves? Some people oppose the idea, good on them, some support the idea so good on them too. Good on both of them for actually assessing things and actually having an opinion. Seems the last couple of decades we in the west were plagues by all these x.y.z generations well amongst them was the "whatever" set who didn't seem to be passionate about anything. They didn't have many opinions at all much further than weekend social activities, music videos and...well for some that's was as far as it stretched.
Like it or not, religion and politics have shaped our various national identities since day one. If you box up your political and religious worldviews, hide them and try to remain worldview neutered when discussing issues of the day, well you're already beaten and the nation is cheated from proper discourse.
Always thought it was funny when folk say they pulled out of "that club" or group because it was "too political"...when generally its a smokescreen and code for "I didn't get my way, I had to go with the group majority". We have structures in place, we follow governance principles. I think this has caused some negative views of the topic of politics. Religion...what's the big deal, is there so much to be afraid of we need to dilute it all to base fluid of not much so as not to offend someone? Some presents for example a Christian worldview on any given topic and sometimes you get a reply from an opposing worldview person "No Way, I find that offensive" - what they're really telling you is, I find the idea of someone sharing a differing view offensive, forget the fact it may be better (or worse) its not my view and we need to shut them down. Offensive behaviour, well I think we can all list things that are offensive, but having and sharing a differing view shouldn't be one of them. If you have a different view to me, that for my mind is not an offence.
Strange that some people can kill and die for a principle, because they find that easier than to live by that principle. FWIW I have views on capital punishment, abortion, gay marriage and a range of other socially volatile topics and I'm guilty of not take part in such discussions quite often too, however I have friends of differing views and the friendship is neither lessened nor heightened by comparing their stance with mine.
I think religion and politics are taboo and we warn people they're off limits when we know in that setting there's folk who'll argue rather than debate. When blood pressure rises and pulse race a little instead of threshing out issues and learning. That and some people are frightened what they might learn. Frightened they're stuffing up and like the comfortable and warm cloak of apathy and ignorance. Some are frightened their view might be challenged, they might come unstuck challenging someone else's view or far, far worse, they may end up challenging their own thinking
Now soon enough I'll get a comment and someone will ask, "wow you finally made a post not mentioning Live Animal Export, how come?" Well perhaps I'll make that the quirk, the words "live export" have to be in every post, even if its not relevant. I see some folk who qualify for the fanatic status "Fanatics can't change their mind, nor the subject" so I'll have to be wary. Should add there have been times when a contentious issue has arisen and I decided to then subscribe to the old saying "Quickest way to tell a fool he's wrong is just tell him he's right"
Maybe time to split this into finer points and go deeper :-)
Actually I think in the last few years we've seen more conversations about politics than say religion but what is actually wrong about discussed either or both? Well I think its peoples easy take up of the "lets-water-it-all-down & be-safe" attitude which seems to be joined at the hip with political correctness where we have to be all inclusive, accept everyone's point of view and kind of keep ours to ourselves. Seems peace is a peace of piss weak smiling and saying little or nothing unless its a safe subject. Yep water it down, allow everything in and stand firmly but respectful for nothing...go with the flow.
What rubbish. What actually is wrong with having an opinion, expressing it if you think it needs sharing? What's wrong with thinking and assessing a topic, make a discerning and hopefully informed decision on something and steadfast standing up for it without being aggressive? Is that so hard?
If the topic comes up of gay marriage, how do we get anywhere if both sides of that debate were silent for fear of being politically incorrect? If both sides were bland beige smiley people who say nothing for fear of upsetting someone, how will any society advance? Is it not possible for both sides to have a say, without calling the other side intolerant and without being intolerant themselves? Some people oppose the idea, good on them, some support the idea so good on them too. Good on both of them for actually assessing things and actually having an opinion. Seems the last couple of decades we in the west were plagues by all these x.y.z generations well amongst them was the "whatever" set who didn't seem to be passionate about anything. They didn't have many opinions at all much further than weekend social activities, music videos and...well for some that's was as far as it stretched.
Like it or not, religion and politics have shaped our various national identities since day one. If you box up your political and religious worldviews, hide them and try to remain worldview neutered when discussing issues of the day, well you're already beaten and the nation is cheated from proper discourse.
Always thought it was funny when folk say they pulled out of "that club" or group because it was "too political"...when generally its a smokescreen and code for "I didn't get my way, I had to go with the group majority". We have structures in place, we follow governance principles. I think this has caused some negative views of the topic of politics. Religion...what's the big deal, is there so much to be afraid of we need to dilute it all to base fluid of not much so as not to offend someone? Some presents for example a Christian worldview on any given topic and sometimes you get a reply from an opposing worldview person "No Way, I find that offensive" - what they're really telling you is, I find the idea of someone sharing a differing view offensive, forget the fact it may be better (or worse) its not my view and we need to shut them down. Offensive behaviour, well I think we can all list things that are offensive, but having and sharing a differing view shouldn't be one of them. If you have a different view to me, that for my mind is not an offence.
Strange that some people can kill and die for a principle, because they find that easier than to live by that principle. FWIW I have views on capital punishment, abortion, gay marriage and a range of other socially volatile topics and I'm guilty of not take part in such discussions quite often too, however I have friends of differing views and the friendship is neither lessened nor heightened by comparing their stance with mine.
I think religion and politics are taboo and we warn people they're off limits when we know in that setting there's folk who'll argue rather than debate. When blood pressure rises and pulse race a little instead of threshing out issues and learning. That and some people are frightened what they might learn. Frightened they're stuffing up and like the comfortable and warm cloak of apathy and ignorance. Some are frightened their view might be challenged, they might come unstuck challenging someone else's view or far, far worse, they may end up challenging their own thinking
Now soon enough I'll get a comment and someone will ask, "wow you finally made a post not mentioning Live Animal Export, how come?" Well perhaps I'll make that the quirk, the words "live export" have to be in every post, even if its not relevant. I see some folk who qualify for the fanatic status "Fanatics can't change their mind, nor the subject" so I'll have to be wary. Should add there have been times when a contentious issue has arisen and I decided to then subscribe to the old saying "Quickest way to tell a fool he's wrong is just tell him he's right"
Maybe time to split this into finer points and go deeper :-)
Wednesday 15 January 2014
Live Export and Lying...kinda funny
Well, previous post I made, well the first one that is, created a little response. Quite a few views and strangely even some correspondence which surprised me. Thanks for that. As a result there's two posts in the first day...and maybe now a long stretch with none, who knows. 60 views in less than 6 hours...I is a bit stunned :-)
Ahh the issue of when is lying ok, when is deceit and intellectual treachery ok?
First up some screen shots were discussed. They were from a discussion on FB on what I think is either a pro or anti Live Export page on face book. The exchange between two parties, one pro & one anti Live Export was actually very entertaining...well humorous. Well we won't use names because that's not nice, instead you can view this as a hypothetical if you wish. We'll call pro live export person "R" and anti Live Export "S". Two adjoining members of the alphabet is all ;-)
So S makes the comment about the loading of livestock onto a livestock vessel. There's a number of other comments from other people interspersing the flow, several conversations are happening but its not hard to keep track of the issue our first and only correspondent wanted to highlight.
"R" asks "S" about the access to the wharf area. Now here's an interesting comment it was stated by "S" that this was made easy because it "it helps to know police and other key personnel"
Its pretty much from this point onwards that "R" must have smelt a rat and asks "S" how access was even possible because its a no access area to the public. Now I shouldn't laugh but this is why telling the truth is so much easier and as we all know, bulldusters need to first stop digging when they find themselves in a hole, but generally they don't. This was a train wreck of bulldust session as "S" made a quick off the cuff comment that its probably in a different area to where "R" lives so rules will probably vary in different parts of the country.
I guess at this point "R" smells rat & must have seen the rat in all its rat glory. He then asked quite a number of times, very politely if "S" has a MSI card. It did take quite some time, but eventually "R" got the answer "S" replied no.
I guess in the mind of "R", in front of his/her keyboard the almighty loud thud of a trap slamming shut on a rat head was bringing tears of joy to him/her. Reading it brings tears of laughter to me. Whether you are pro or anti Live Export or for that matter pro or anti any issue, best thing to do is not bull dust. Lying means you have to keep lying and that's actually quite hard because it damage control deception non stop, where as telling the truth is simple easy and in the long run far more fruitful.
Now "R" commented that all ports, all wharves where international trade happens, ship loading etc is restricted access area, that there is no exception and entry is prohibited by non MSIC people in non work related instances. Had a quick dig to check. Its quite correct. If you do not have a state and federal police check pass and do not have a job related need to be on the port you are breaking federal law. There's quite a hefty penalty or two. All thanks to 9-11. Can you access the wharf without an MSIC. Well kinda. You have to be there for the purposes of work, not tourism, not sight seeing, nothing except the work you are gainfully employed to carry out. You must stay within several metres of an accredited MSIC Card holder who vouches for you. It does happen, but its quite uncommon and any other access is illegal. Police, customs, emergency services generally do not have MSIC cards but have port access cards, but again they can only enter in work related circumstances, not checking on the loading of livestock or showing an animal activist livestock loading.
"R" called "S" out along the lines of 'well did you illegally trespass onto federally controlled restricted access area or did you bull dust to try and win a quick cheap point on facebook?' (paraphrased by me for brevity) No reply and since then "S" has taken to calling the comments as fatuous and defamatory. It is absolutely hilarious.
Its been presented to "S" by several other people since apparently, even once as a hypothetical (not by "R") and even the hypothetical with no names mention did not go down well. No straight answer.
To be fair, how can there be a straight answer. If I had bulldusted my pants off, how could I possibly pretend my legs weren't showing???
It raises a core issue Mr Screen Shot Sender was keen on exploring. When one is passionate about a cause or issue, is it ok to lie to try and get your way...even if its in a lowly mean-nothing internet stoush?
Some folk will have differing views possibly, but perhaps I'm old fashioned in thinking that today, as much as any time, in any era, in any age...CHARACTER MATTERS, INTEGRITY MATTERS.
At the end of the day, don't take a claim as face value if it could have longer term impacts. Ask for the data, ask for backing and check the source of the claim (which is really a "truth claim") if what they're saying is legit or whether its bogus bag of bulldust being used to bolster a flagging and failing point of view.
Before you get to that point ask yourself, if a person cannot be trusted on a small issue in debate that doesn't result in any real change, can they be trusted in anything. I had dinner at an event some years ago with a very prominent senior government minister...who was a little tempered with the wine that evening. Turns out he left the event to spend the evening with his mistress. His wife was I would guess home several hundred kilometres away, but he was able to get his mistress there. I now wonder, if his wife cannot trust him, why should I? When it all eventually came out, the marriage imploded and it was pressed & labelled as a personal issue. Perhaps the transgression was, however the integrity and character we're gone, definitely dissolved long before the marriage officially was. Is it wrong to ask for character and integrity in high office and low office?
Lying is it ok?
Well if we use some of the criteria from before lets see.
(LAW) - Well no and if it goes to court then definitely no. Can people be prosecuted for lying, well if its a part of the commission of crime, well indirectly yes. As in fraud, false evidence etc but if I say I went to the last Rolling Stones concert but I didn't then no...it is not a criminal offence.
(ETHICAL) - Well yes kind of is wrong, if its to do with ones work, trade or profession for example. A lawyer, a doctor, company director, executives, the list goes on...those with Codes of Practice or Codes of Ethics can easily lie but they'd be doing something ethically wrong. So no. If a lawyer or board member of an ASX Top 100 company told me he/she went to the last Rolling Stones concert when in fact they were having an affair they can still be doing ethically wrong because many of them have codes of practice, codes of ethics which surround them not just in court or in the board room. These are positions we would expect integrity and character to be first.
(MORALLY) - Again we split this into a couple of camps. Devout people of the "insert your chosen" faith would have to look to their Moral Authority. Quite easy for Christians, lying is against the Creators instructions, so yep its simple, easy & straight forward...lying is MORALLY wrong. Can for example Christians then lie? You bet. Their dogma is quite clear, they're not perfect, they are fallen, they are not worthy and there's nothing they can do on their own bat to be worthy...they're "not perfect, they're forgiven". So yes pretty sure there's been plenty of Christians who have killed, stolen lied, whatever...but those things are MORALLY wrong even if they were sanctioned by the ruler of the day (i.e. legal)
Other thought not lost via the screen shots, was "S" being a caught liar and thinking morals are a personal thing still believed the cause or trade she found most disgusting and disagreeable was "immoral & unethical" yet telling porkies, not very well researched ones, glaringly obvious ones when you sit back and look is ok. I don't know what the worldview according to "S" is, but its imploded and crumbled upon itself at any rate. If morals are a personal thing, then believing in a creator and moral authority are rather slim. If "S" is follower of natural relativism/atheism then "S" kinda actually has a leg to stand on strangely. Anything is fair to get you in front of the other person or thing. Lying has no consequence because we're all animals, evolved through chance and its dog eat dog. Laws and ethics are man made and pretty handy but morals really are fake and all three can be ignored if there's good chance you can get away with it. Fortunately most atheists aren't like this at all. Fortunately most of them are as altruistic and community centred as people of faith.
Of course the leg that "S" has to stand on only works for fellow atheists of the most hedonistic type who agree with her view on the issue. Well those and those who fail to scratch the surface, load fresh batteries in the BS Detector and generally do the absurd thing and test truth claims.
No lying is not ok to win a point or to further an issue. Even more so a moral social issue.
I'm reminded of the young lass who posted her own video on Youtube about the Fremantle rally. She cited some very serious claims of corruption in regards to police response & trucks driving over their protest. The lass got quite wound up. You watch and view for yourselves, make a discerning judgement by viewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5KvyaKpDo&noredirect=1
The video is 10 minutes long and I think worth watching, but if you want just have a laugh at something sad, view Jacinta at the 6min mark. I hope she isn't a law student. I have to say the police were pretty good, despite people running onto the road in front of traffic and ignoring police instructions. Dunno who the coppers were, but we're in safe hands if they're all cool heads like those police on the day. Her claim was they blocked of the bridge, not sure if she meant the truck drivers or the police or both but whichever is her intent, its false & misleading...check the video and see who cause the trucks to stop.
In the words of the greatest philosophical genius the world has ever seen (Alexi Sayle) "its a funny ol' world innit?"
Ahh the issue of when is lying ok, when is deceit and intellectual treachery ok?
First up some screen shots were discussed. They were from a discussion on FB on what I think is either a pro or anti Live Export page on face book. The exchange between two parties, one pro & one anti Live Export was actually very entertaining...well humorous. Well we won't use names because that's not nice, instead you can view this as a hypothetical if you wish. We'll call pro live export person "R" and anti Live Export "S". Two adjoining members of the alphabet is all ;-)
So S makes the comment about the loading of livestock onto a livestock vessel. There's a number of other comments from other people interspersing the flow, several conversations are happening but its not hard to keep track of the issue our first and only correspondent wanted to highlight.
"R" asks "S" about the access to the wharf area. Now here's an interesting comment it was stated by "S" that this was made easy because it "it helps to know police and other key personnel"
Its pretty much from this point onwards that "R" must have smelt a rat and asks "S" how access was even possible because its a no access area to the public. Now I shouldn't laugh but this is why telling the truth is so much easier and as we all know, bulldusters need to first stop digging when they find themselves in a hole, but generally they don't. This was a train wreck of bulldust session as "S" made a quick off the cuff comment that its probably in a different area to where "R" lives so rules will probably vary in different parts of the country.
I guess at this point "R" smells rat & must have seen the rat in all its rat glory. He then asked quite a number of times, very politely if "S" has a MSI card. It did take quite some time, but eventually "R" got the answer "S" replied no.
I guess in the mind of "R", in front of his/her keyboard the almighty loud thud of a trap slamming shut on a rat head was bringing tears of joy to him/her. Reading it brings tears of laughter to me. Whether you are pro or anti Live Export or for that matter pro or anti any issue, best thing to do is not bull dust. Lying means you have to keep lying and that's actually quite hard because it damage control deception non stop, where as telling the truth is simple easy and in the long run far more fruitful.
Now "R" commented that all ports, all wharves where international trade happens, ship loading etc is restricted access area, that there is no exception and entry is prohibited by non MSIC people in non work related instances. Had a quick dig to check. Its quite correct. If you do not have a state and federal police check pass and do not have a job related need to be on the port you are breaking federal law. There's quite a hefty penalty or two. All thanks to 9-11. Can you access the wharf without an MSIC. Well kinda. You have to be there for the purposes of work, not tourism, not sight seeing, nothing except the work you are gainfully employed to carry out. You must stay within several metres of an accredited MSIC Card holder who vouches for you. It does happen, but its quite uncommon and any other access is illegal. Police, customs, emergency services generally do not have MSIC cards but have port access cards, but again they can only enter in work related circumstances, not checking on the loading of livestock or showing an animal activist livestock loading.
"R" called "S" out along the lines of 'well did you illegally trespass onto federally controlled restricted access area or did you bull dust to try and win a quick cheap point on facebook?' (paraphrased by me for brevity) No reply and since then "S" has taken to calling the comments as fatuous and defamatory. It is absolutely hilarious.
Its been presented to "S" by several other people since apparently, even once as a hypothetical (not by "R") and even the hypothetical with no names mention did not go down well. No straight answer.
To be fair, how can there be a straight answer. If I had bulldusted my pants off, how could I possibly pretend my legs weren't showing???
It raises a core issue Mr Screen Shot Sender was keen on exploring. When one is passionate about a cause or issue, is it ok to lie to try and get your way...even if its in a lowly mean-nothing internet stoush?
Some folk will have differing views possibly, but perhaps I'm old fashioned in thinking that today, as much as any time, in any era, in any age...CHARACTER MATTERS, INTEGRITY MATTERS.
At the end of the day, don't take a claim as face value if it could have longer term impacts. Ask for the data, ask for backing and check the source of the claim (which is really a "truth claim") if what they're saying is legit or whether its bogus bag of bulldust being used to bolster a flagging and failing point of view.
Before you get to that point ask yourself, if a person cannot be trusted on a small issue in debate that doesn't result in any real change, can they be trusted in anything. I had dinner at an event some years ago with a very prominent senior government minister...who was a little tempered with the wine that evening. Turns out he left the event to spend the evening with his mistress. His wife was I would guess home several hundred kilometres away, but he was able to get his mistress there. I now wonder, if his wife cannot trust him, why should I? When it all eventually came out, the marriage imploded and it was pressed & labelled as a personal issue. Perhaps the transgression was, however the integrity and character we're gone, definitely dissolved long before the marriage officially was. Is it wrong to ask for character and integrity in high office and low office?
Lying is it ok?
Well if we use some of the criteria from before lets see.
(LAW) - Well no and if it goes to court then definitely no. Can people be prosecuted for lying, well if its a part of the commission of crime, well indirectly yes. As in fraud, false evidence etc but if I say I went to the last Rolling Stones concert but I didn't then no...it is not a criminal offence.
(ETHICAL) - Well yes kind of is wrong, if its to do with ones work, trade or profession for example. A lawyer, a doctor, company director, executives, the list goes on...those with Codes of Practice or Codes of Ethics can easily lie but they'd be doing something ethically wrong. So no. If a lawyer or board member of an ASX Top 100 company told me he/she went to the last Rolling Stones concert when in fact they were having an affair they can still be doing ethically wrong because many of them have codes of practice, codes of ethics which surround them not just in court or in the board room. These are positions we would expect integrity and character to be first.
(MORALLY) - Again we split this into a couple of camps. Devout people of the "insert your chosen" faith would have to look to their Moral Authority. Quite easy for Christians, lying is against the Creators instructions, so yep its simple, easy & straight forward...lying is MORALLY wrong. Can for example Christians then lie? You bet. Their dogma is quite clear, they're not perfect, they are fallen, they are not worthy and there's nothing they can do on their own bat to be worthy...they're "not perfect, they're forgiven". So yes pretty sure there's been plenty of Christians who have killed, stolen lied, whatever...but those things are MORALLY wrong even if they were sanctioned by the ruler of the day (i.e. legal)
Other thought not lost via the screen shots, was "S" being a caught liar and thinking morals are a personal thing still believed the cause or trade she found most disgusting and disagreeable was "immoral & unethical" yet telling porkies, not very well researched ones, glaringly obvious ones when you sit back and look is ok. I don't know what the worldview according to "S" is, but its imploded and crumbled upon itself at any rate. If morals are a personal thing, then believing in a creator and moral authority are rather slim. If "S" is follower of natural relativism/atheism then "S" kinda actually has a leg to stand on strangely. Anything is fair to get you in front of the other person or thing. Lying has no consequence because we're all animals, evolved through chance and its dog eat dog. Laws and ethics are man made and pretty handy but morals really are fake and all three can be ignored if there's good chance you can get away with it. Fortunately most atheists aren't like this at all. Fortunately most of them are as altruistic and community centred as people of faith.
Of course the leg that "S" has to stand on only works for fellow atheists of the most hedonistic type who agree with her view on the issue. Well those and those who fail to scratch the surface, load fresh batteries in the BS Detector and generally do the absurd thing and test truth claims.
No lying is not ok to win a point or to further an issue. Even more so a moral social issue.
I'm reminded of the young lass who posted her own video on Youtube about the Fremantle rally. She cited some very serious claims of corruption in regards to police response & trucks driving over their protest. The lass got quite wound up. You watch and view for yourselves, make a discerning judgement by viewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5KvyaKpDo&noredirect=1
The video is 10 minutes long and I think worth watching, but if you want just have a laugh at something sad, view Jacinta at the 6min mark. I hope she isn't a law student. I have to say the police were pretty good, despite people running onto the road in front of traffic and ignoring police instructions. Dunno who the coppers were, but we're in safe hands if they're all cool heads like those police on the day. Her claim was they blocked of the bridge, not sure if she meant the truck drivers or the police or both but whichever is her intent, its false & misleading...check the video and see who cause the trucks to stop.
In the words of the greatest philosophical genius the world has ever seen (Alexi Sayle) "its a funny ol' world innit?"
Tuesday 14 January 2014
Live Export and the Moral/Ethical Angle
Is cruelty to animals right, is it good? Well no clearly its neither of these things but is it a moral or ethical horror as some Anti Live Export folk claim? Firstly Live Export in this case refers to the international trade that exports live animals overseas (in this case from Australia).
Often overlooked or ignored is its actually a lawful and legal pursuit, with its own set of guidelines and regulations so ethically it is overall OK if it sticks to the guidelines & regulations set down by the authorities. If there is a breach, it is an "ethical" breach because the rules have not been followed. If it were to be compared to the illegal drug trade, you can forget comparisons, its illegal so there are no more train stops after illegal except moral, ethical doesn't come into it, because there are no ethics to apply. It has no guidelines, no regulations, no formal rules that are to be adhered to which will allow fairness to all stakeholders...no ethical standards. If heroin and cocaine were legalised tomorrow and sets of rules, guidelines etc were legislated there are your ethics in place.
Now if you're lucky enough to get a anti Live Export person to concede the points thus far, is it possible therefore for a trade to be legal, ethical but to some people immoral? That's the next fall back position once legality & ethics are finally removed from the equation. Well, is it moral or immoral to export animals which are destined to be processed into food?
Well, lets look at morals. Ethics are the professional standards that surround an activity. Doctors lawyers and many other professionals have ethics we expect them to adhere to. They are closely linked to morals in that they're to do with "right" and "wrong" but they are different things. But what are morals, why are they linked yet different to ethics and where do both of them come from. Well its a little like salt & pepper really. Two completely different things that are often found together, associated together in add taste and savoury to a meal, but due to the different smell, taste & texture people generally do not confuse the two. We see the difference, even though in some ways they are closely linked, closely associated with one another.
Ethics being the professional standards by which an activity is carried out, some may be legally binding with penalties and consequences attached but they're formulated by a human authority, a government or some other governing body. they are man made
Morals however I would argue are different. They come from a moral authority. For those who follow Christianity its rather easy to distinguish morals (alone or from ethics), the morals come from a Moral Authority. We know that moral authority as God through the God breathed Word of the Bible.
For those who reject the notion of an Almighty Creator, its a little different and seems to have some variance. As in some atheists, who believe morals are an innate inner feeling of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Other add to that saying everyone's moral awareness varies but general society as a group settles in some sort of group think way and morals are some how, sort of, sorted out.
So in conversations with non believers in a deity/creator I've come to understand a range of views which point to morals being either some mystical inner compass that we all have (for reasons unknown and to some unknowable) and the "better" compasses will eventually influence all the other compasses to arrive at society norms...or morals.
Or to others, morals are nothing more than an evolutionary tick, a quirky brain behaviour that is wired into all of us as some sort of Darwinian like survival of the fittest/strongest mechanism.
Both these have some problems.
Why are we the only animal with this evolutionary tick?
Not sure any lion gets depressed, resentful, regretful or suffers from pangs of guilt because it just down an antelope and is currently eating its flesh as it apologise on each chewing motion of the jaw. Indeed if part of Darwin's survival of the fittest is correct, the moral tick non believers talk about is opposing the "survival of the fittest" notion and disproves it...because morals are not dog eat dog at all. Seems to self implode even before pulling the pin on its own grenade. The closest answer I have heard so far states that over a period of time, somehow (time and mysticism again replace Science but its still called Science) we as a species evolved and became organised and sought the need to be organised as a group to overcome threats like lions and each other. Interesting, however it still shows a naturally evolving contradiction to survival of the fittest. Still heralded and held high by some, still implosion through lack of logic for others. This concerted effort to get organised is what we previously called ethics, not morals...oops funny that.
That leaves the non believer with another option. If there is no God, then everything that happened since the first cell generated way back when right up to today is just chemical and electrical cellular snaps of random action or in the later species chemical & electrical snaps in the brain, brain farts...its all nature, its all random and if enough random things happen enough, then things just naturally get organised into morals and when we come together to formalise rules we then have ethics. Problem with that, if we're just animals doing the animal thing we could quite easily look at all actions upon ethical grounds as being useful when they work and a hindrance to personal advancement over competitors at other times. So it all being nature doing what nature does as the rule, we can stick to ethics (man/society formulated) when it suits us best (as nature intended) and ignore them when it suits us best because advancement, dog eat dog/survival of the fittest IS NATURE and IS NATURAL. There is therefore, for some non believers in a deity, a serious ethics vs nature thing going on & whichever personally advances the individual IS the natural choice of nature (us) and there is neither anything moral or immoral. It is totally AMMORAL and we need as a species to individually decide what is definitely best for our own selves, our advancement and species survival.
And therein lies the rub.
Morals come from a moral authority, not mystical nature with a bogus science stamp logoed over it.
Ethics come from humans, when we as a group formalise rules and guidelines on responsible behaviour and actions that are acceptable or not.
Laws are those rules we make as sovereign nations to rule our sovereign nation. Live Export is a legal trade and a lawful pursuit, right out to the edge of our territorial waters. Our laws do not extend beyond our sovereign nation borders. (LAWS)
Live Export as a trade, based in Australian has a very prescriptive set of standards, which are formalised as laws, rules, guidelines, codes of practices that hang over all the segments that make up Live Export, from the animal producers, to truck drivers, to feedlot operators, to ship loaders as well every legal part of contract law, product traceability and a raft of other things to set how things are supposed to be done and in most cases have consequences attached for transgressions. (ETHICS)
(MORALS) - again if you do not believe in God, a deity, a creator and you are some sort of believer in Naturalism, Natural Relativism or another mystical natural science of accidents, the morals don't actually fit in to your world view at all without bringing the hole house of cards down. For you Live Export is just a highly evolved version of nature doing what nature does to other lower members of nature to keep oneself, ones own species competing and performing and surviving better. Live Export therefore has from a philosophical angle no moral and no immoral angle. It is immoral, but we can turn to our ethics and adhere to them if something breaches the cruelty test.
At the end of that, there's a double barrelled batch of irony here, one for both the supportive and the opposing camps of Live Export.
Pro Live Export Folk - Its ironic here, because if you're atheist and a total non believer, you have sound ground to stand upon to say there is no god, there is only nature, this is highly evolved nature doing natural things like a lion to an antelope. No moral dilemma for you, none to be had full stop, but you'd have to stick with adhering to laws and ethics as the law decrees. If you're a follow of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit of the Bible, well eating meat and keeping animals for the purpose of eating them is a Biblically supported activity. As long as you're not cruel, you're a good steward and you're adhering to the law of the land (as your Bible tells you) you have no moral dilemma either if you stick to the laws (of the land), the ethics and stick to adhering to the Bible. Two diametrically opposed (religious) worldviews who, if they stick to the letter of the law both end up with NO MORAL DILEMMA, they're not IMMORAL.
Anti Live Export Folk - Hard here, there's no world view (religion) that rules out the eating of meat or the exporting of meat or the stewardship of animals for the purpose of food. Hindus, it is argued are vegetarians. The Anti Live Export folk that mention this so far have not been Hindu, they have been in some cases vegetarians or vegans but in any case they fail to realise that the Hindi religion does not enforce veganism on its followers, in fact there are sects which are very much meat eaters as any worldview. So no Moral Authority can be pointed to as saying, it is IMMORAL to eat, export or keep meat for food. NO MORAL DILEMMA, because there's nothing to say it is IMMORAL. Now for those totally godless folk, who just hate Live Export...that's quite ok to have, to hold and to share that view. It is philosophically untenable however for such a person to say Live Export is immoral when its just nature, highly evolved nature, doing what nature does. NO MORAL DILEMMA. Their outrage or disgust at animals being kept, exported, killed and eaten is fine, but in their zeal to project their displeasure, they shouldn't grab the MORAL card, because in their hand it doesn't work at all.
Are there bad operators failing badly. Have been in the past, there could be in the future. Those 2 pervious sentences can be applied to every trade from Mid-Wifery to Constitutional Law to Selling of Tobacco products, to teachers...or Live Export. But we would not be looking at Moral Failure unless the breach was a Biblical or religious one. If it was not a religious breach, its not immoral its more likely unethical practice. If its against the law, ethics aren't involved, its illegal.
Next time someone tells you Live export is unethical or immoral, please don't fall for it. Don't think you'll automatically change their minds either, just don't be fooled. Is cruelty wrong? Yes indeed it is...but I'm going to point to a Moral Authority to tell me its wrong, but in some cases, wrong as it might be, it can still be AMMORAL. Zealots will pick up and twist any emotion receptor they can...they have no ethical standards as it happens, nor moral authority. Lying to win an internet ping pong point is ok by some ;-)
Often overlooked or ignored is its actually a lawful and legal pursuit, with its own set of guidelines and regulations so ethically it is overall OK if it sticks to the guidelines & regulations set down by the authorities. If there is a breach, it is an "ethical" breach because the rules have not been followed. If it were to be compared to the illegal drug trade, you can forget comparisons, its illegal so there are no more train stops after illegal except moral, ethical doesn't come into it, because there are no ethics to apply. It has no guidelines, no regulations, no formal rules that are to be adhered to which will allow fairness to all stakeholders...no ethical standards. If heroin and cocaine were legalised tomorrow and sets of rules, guidelines etc were legislated there are your ethics in place.
Now if you're lucky enough to get a anti Live Export person to concede the points thus far, is it possible therefore for a trade to be legal, ethical but to some people immoral? That's the next fall back position once legality & ethics are finally removed from the equation. Well, is it moral or immoral to export animals which are destined to be processed into food?
Well, lets look at morals. Ethics are the professional standards that surround an activity. Doctors lawyers and many other professionals have ethics we expect them to adhere to. They are closely linked to morals in that they're to do with "right" and "wrong" but they are different things. But what are morals, why are they linked yet different to ethics and where do both of them come from. Well its a little like salt & pepper really. Two completely different things that are often found together, associated together in add taste and savoury to a meal, but due to the different smell, taste & texture people generally do not confuse the two. We see the difference, even though in some ways they are closely linked, closely associated with one another.
Ethics being the professional standards by which an activity is carried out, some may be legally binding with penalties and consequences attached but they're formulated by a human authority, a government or some other governing body. they are man made
Morals however I would argue are different. They come from a moral authority. For those who follow Christianity its rather easy to distinguish morals (alone or from ethics), the morals come from a Moral Authority. We know that moral authority as God through the God breathed Word of the Bible.
For those who reject the notion of an Almighty Creator, its a little different and seems to have some variance. As in some atheists, who believe morals are an innate inner feeling of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Other add to that saying everyone's moral awareness varies but general society as a group settles in some sort of group think way and morals are some how, sort of, sorted out.
So in conversations with non believers in a deity/creator I've come to understand a range of views which point to morals being either some mystical inner compass that we all have (for reasons unknown and to some unknowable) and the "better" compasses will eventually influence all the other compasses to arrive at society norms...or morals.
Or to others, morals are nothing more than an evolutionary tick, a quirky brain behaviour that is wired into all of us as some sort of Darwinian like survival of the fittest/strongest mechanism.
Both these have some problems.
Why are we the only animal with this evolutionary tick?
Not sure any lion gets depressed, resentful, regretful or suffers from pangs of guilt because it just down an antelope and is currently eating its flesh as it apologise on each chewing motion of the jaw. Indeed if part of Darwin's survival of the fittest is correct, the moral tick non believers talk about is opposing the "survival of the fittest" notion and disproves it...because morals are not dog eat dog at all. Seems to self implode even before pulling the pin on its own grenade. The closest answer I have heard so far states that over a period of time, somehow (time and mysticism again replace Science but its still called Science) we as a species evolved and became organised and sought the need to be organised as a group to overcome threats like lions and each other. Interesting, however it still shows a naturally evolving contradiction to survival of the fittest. Still heralded and held high by some, still implosion through lack of logic for others. This concerted effort to get organised is what we previously called ethics, not morals...oops funny that.
That leaves the non believer with another option. If there is no God, then everything that happened since the first cell generated way back when right up to today is just chemical and electrical cellular snaps of random action or in the later species chemical & electrical snaps in the brain, brain farts...its all nature, its all random and if enough random things happen enough, then things just naturally get organised into morals and when we come together to formalise rules we then have ethics. Problem with that, if we're just animals doing the animal thing we could quite easily look at all actions upon ethical grounds as being useful when they work and a hindrance to personal advancement over competitors at other times. So it all being nature doing what nature does as the rule, we can stick to ethics (man/society formulated) when it suits us best (as nature intended) and ignore them when it suits us best because advancement, dog eat dog/survival of the fittest IS NATURE and IS NATURAL. There is therefore, for some non believers in a deity, a serious ethics vs nature thing going on & whichever personally advances the individual IS the natural choice of nature (us) and there is neither anything moral or immoral. It is totally AMMORAL and we need as a species to individually decide what is definitely best for our own selves, our advancement and species survival.
And therein lies the rub.
Morals come from a moral authority, not mystical nature with a bogus science stamp logoed over it.
Ethics come from humans, when we as a group formalise rules and guidelines on responsible behaviour and actions that are acceptable or not.
Laws are those rules we make as sovereign nations to rule our sovereign nation. Live Export is a legal trade and a lawful pursuit, right out to the edge of our territorial waters. Our laws do not extend beyond our sovereign nation borders. (LAWS)
Live Export as a trade, based in Australian has a very prescriptive set of standards, which are formalised as laws, rules, guidelines, codes of practices that hang over all the segments that make up Live Export, from the animal producers, to truck drivers, to feedlot operators, to ship loaders as well every legal part of contract law, product traceability and a raft of other things to set how things are supposed to be done and in most cases have consequences attached for transgressions. (ETHICS)
(MORALS) - again if you do not believe in God, a deity, a creator and you are some sort of believer in Naturalism, Natural Relativism or another mystical natural science of accidents, the morals don't actually fit in to your world view at all without bringing the hole house of cards down. For you Live Export is just a highly evolved version of nature doing what nature does to other lower members of nature to keep oneself, ones own species competing and performing and surviving better. Live Export therefore has from a philosophical angle no moral and no immoral angle. It is immoral, but we can turn to our ethics and adhere to them if something breaches the cruelty test.
At the end of that, there's a double barrelled batch of irony here, one for both the supportive and the opposing camps of Live Export.
Pro Live Export Folk - Its ironic here, because if you're atheist and a total non believer, you have sound ground to stand upon to say there is no god, there is only nature, this is highly evolved nature doing natural things like a lion to an antelope. No moral dilemma for you, none to be had full stop, but you'd have to stick with adhering to laws and ethics as the law decrees. If you're a follow of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit of the Bible, well eating meat and keeping animals for the purpose of eating them is a Biblically supported activity. As long as you're not cruel, you're a good steward and you're adhering to the law of the land (as your Bible tells you) you have no moral dilemma either if you stick to the laws (of the land), the ethics and stick to adhering to the Bible. Two diametrically opposed (religious) worldviews who, if they stick to the letter of the law both end up with NO MORAL DILEMMA, they're not IMMORAL.
Anti Live Export Folk - Hard here, there's no world view (religion) that rules out the eating of meat or the exporting of meat or the stewardship of animals for the purpose of food. Hindus, it is argued are vegetarians. The Anti Live Export folk that mention this so far have not been Hindu, they have been in some cases vegetarians or vegans but in any case they fail to realise that the Hindi religion does not enforce veganism on its followers, in fact there are sects which are very much meat eaters as any worldview. So no Moral Authority can be pointed to as saying, it is IMMORAL to eat, export or keep meat for food. NO MORAL DILEMMA, because there's nothing to say it is IMMORAL. Now for those totally godless folk, who just hate Live Export...that's quite ok to have, to hold and to share that view. It is philosophically untenable however for such a person to say Live Export is immoral when its just nature, highly evolved nature, doing what nature does. NO MORAL DILEMMA. Their outrage or disgust at animals being kept, exported, killed and eaten is fine, but in their zeal to project their displeasure, they shouldn't grab the MORAL card, because in their hand it doesn't work at all.
Are there bad operators failing badly. Have been in the past, there could be in the future. Those 2 pervious sentences can be applied to every trade from Mid-Wifery to Constitutional Law to Selling of Tobacco products, to teachers...or Live Export. But we would not be looking at Moral Failure unless the breach was a Biblical or religious one. If it was not a religious breach, its not immoral its more likely unethical practice. If its against the law, ethics aren't involved, its illegal.
Next time someone tells you Live export is unethical or immoral, please don't fall for it. Don't think you'll automatically change their minds either, just don't be fooled. Is cruelty wrong? Yes indeed it is...but I'm going to point to a Moral Authority to tell me its wrong, but in some cases, wrong as it might be, it can still be AMMORAL. Zealots will pick up and twist any emotion receptor they can...they have no ethical standards as it happens, nor moral authority. Lying to win an internet ping pong point is ok by some ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)