Animal Welfare or Animal Rights Part II

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

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

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

There's Animal Welfare.

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

Ahhh what the???

Possibly the best and funniest faux pas this year.

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

Here's the first doozey-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?

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

Implications are...

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

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

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