Its emotive, passionate and highly charged. If its true that a good orator has the power to rouse fools to slaughter then the irony is some good orators have the power to rouse fool to all kinds of actions to oppose food production.
Recently (November 2014) we saw the report of a private contractor at a feedlot suffering severe financial hardship when his truck was burnt to the ground by criminal extremists. Lesser offence was the graffiti on a wall. However this is not a one off. Other offences at other times in quiet little old W.A. include the cutting of a stock semi trailer's brake lines. Super gluing up padlocks, slashing of tyres and damage to tractor totalling $30,000. That's the very short list. The longer list includes turning off of water to stock, damage to feed and feed systems but we should never overlook the forgotten criminal acts. It is a crime to trespass, to install recording devices and that too is a short list.
Its sad when social media again had a polarised view of it all. One side condemned the criminal actions right across the spectrum from criminal trespass to criminal damage. The anti Live Export set were split between silence, indifference and the dismissive folks claiming it was a set up to frame activists. Those activist groups that did condemn it used very careful language. Some carefully condemned it with guarded comments stating it was
"not what we're about". Ahhh but no across the board issuing of statements directing activists that "if it ain't legal it ain't on...don't do it". Stopped short, well short. Activist reaction was one of careful positioning to be seen not to encourage or support the action yet no condemnation without ANY qualification.
So lets look and consider Extremist Language and how its twisted nature can inspire some activist to become extremists and cross big fat thick unmistakable lines in the sands of plain simple common decency. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the often used Extremist Fallacies of Extremist Orators.
Extremist Fallacies
1] "Live export is murder"
Well no its not. Murder is the defined very clearly as the criminal and illegal taking of another person's life. Doesn't include mosquitoes, cocker spaniels or wild buffalo. Murder is confined to human beings and even then taking of human life is very prescriptive in legislation. There's also man slaughter etc. Live export is the legal and lawful activity of transporting livestock. It doesn't equate to murder. In fact one recent shipment of Live Export made the entire trip mortality free, that is none, zip, zero animals died in transit.
2] "Farmers have blood on their hands, they are greedy, selfish monsters preying on innocent animals for no other reason than money"
Yeah this one is easily challenged too. Farmers are pursuing a legal and lawful income. At present there are no broad acre food producers who operate as such as altruistic unpaid volunteers. As nice as it is to think everyone is a volunteer and unpaid for everything they do, its a fallacy and a twisted emotional angle that should be challenged every time its peddled. The extremist does not want people to consider that what they're saying infers all people working for a living are doing so for purely greedy, selfish gain. Its not just a fallacy, its an absurd fallacy. As to whether or not someone gains pleasure or joy from the activity (yes some people love their jobs) the inference is farmers, all farmers, do not care about the job, the animals under their stewardship only the filthy lucre. Its a big call, and one would have to canvas every producer in the country to back the claim. Its wrong on so many deeper and varied levels, but I think once the "Utterly Absurd Gong" sounds you don't need a mountain of other reasonings. The well known PeTA group has paid to have companion animals, not looked after and rehomed but killed. Animals Australia has a multi million dollar annual budget, yet not one dollar is spent on Animal Rescue or Treatment here or overseas. Blood, hands, hypocrisy?
3] "Live Export is inherently cruel torture..."
The Australian Live Export Trade is the world leader in World's Best Practice, the only country with a supply chain assurance scheme and has achieved a staggering 98% compliance level. That's a compliance level that soars well above the Australian Tax System, Australian traffic laws and even the pet industry in Australia. When you hit a meteoric high of 98% compliance, its closer to inherently devoid of cruelty than inherently cruel. Second point, cruelty is the deliberate, wilful and malicious act of causing damage and suffering or at least avoiding efforts to reduce or eliminate suffering. ESCAS 98% compliance causes us to apply a tick to the absurdity test to the extremist claim. Torture is of course the deliberate act of pain, suffering and damage to either gain something from the victim or for the pure purpose of being cruel for whatever psychotic pleasure. That's not to say a psychotic thug cannot work in the industry, that's quite possible. However for it to be "inherently cruel torture" all the industry or a majority would have to be a fan of cruel torture. Yet to be proven. There have certainly been untrained people conducting very cruel acts upon animals, some due to lack of skill, training and ability and/or cultural reasons. With Australia being the only industry player investing in training and supply of better equipment its little wonder, although not perfect, they have reached 98% compliance since ESCAS came in. Worth mentioning, Animal Liberation groups have not dropped a cent into overseas markets to improve Animal Welfare, not in training, skill upgrades, handling awareness or equipment supply and training. Not their job apparently, theirs must be to gather footage of breaches, report breaches but not improve conditions to reduce breaches. When you notice their role is a reporting role and their language is not improve Animal Welfare but "Shut the trade" their role is to clear reporting breaches to close the trade. That's TRADE ABOLITION not improve animal welfare.
4] "Live Export is Immoral"
Yeah...no its not. Not at all. Very absurd fallacy. Some folk in favour of the Live Export Trade can find the replies to this claim a little uncomfortable for different reasons. The challenging reply to this, well we've hit that nail here before but we'll go the brief recap. Its uncomfortable for some because calling it immoral is a truth claim which has no truth unless it has truth running from its foundation to the tip of the claim. There are pro Live Export folk who don't want it challenged because it goes too close to being "religious". However its actually not possible to remove religious view or philosophy from that or any other truth claim citing morals or immorality. If you look at it, look at the claim and the basis the person making the claim makes it from and that's it, deal done.
Its the claim of the extremist, so get them to show their worldview/religion/philosophy & you can leave your religious view/s quietly hidden where ever you store them. There's no threat. Its their claim, test theirs, not yours.
So here's how it works. You cannot have a moral judgement without Moral Laws without a Moral Lawgiver. Warning once you get this far, it's already getting uncomfortable for them because its already begun to unravel. If you're vigilant you'll soon after observe it becoming an extremely uncomfortable Absurd Fallacy when it does peel open and is laid bare. Expect to see dust trails and Houdini acts from your beloved extremist or not nice language
Look at the biggest Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity...nothing in Old or New Testament, which is the Word of their Moral Law Giver to say Live Export or eating meat is immoral. Ahhh nothing at all. Flip over to Islam, again nothing in the Quran or underlying Hadiths about Live Export or the eating meat being in contravention of their Moral Laws either.
Morals by whom? By the extremist? If that's the case we're looking at Moral Relativism which unravels real quick, its not morals, its my view is right, your view is right and if they're completely and diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled, they're both right. Now you see the Absurd Fallacy, the good old "moral bluff". Once the Moral Judgement comes from a person, they are replacing God and claiming to be Moral Judge. Absurdity Box well ticked.
And for the atheist its even easier. If you believe in God, you're a theist. Believe there's no God you're atheist and everything is a product of nature, chance and the strongest & fittest slowly rising to the top. For them we humans have adapted to survive better than other species and a human feedlotting sheep is nothing more than a highly evolved example of one species eating another to stay alive. For the atheist, there is no moral law giver, its dog eat dog if one chooses but hopefully where ever they are on a given moral/immoral spectrum they'll be sticking within the law of the land.
5] The chilled/frozen trade can completely replace the Live Export trade, create Australian jobs, provide greater profits for producers and eliminate cruelty.
Sweeping motherhood statement or generalised thought bubble without basis? For some its very much both. I think if domestic slaughter and processing is such a huge profit earner, get some skin in the game. If Animal Welfare is such a big deal, contact your Superannuation Fund and see what their ethical investment position is. Or contact one of Ethical Investment based Super Funds and lobby them to build, own and operate a abattoir and processing facility either on their own or in partnership with an industry player to service the supposedly burgeoning chilled/frozen trade. If the returns are good and Animal Welfare is assured its a sure fire winner on every level. Get some skin in the game, put your money where your mouth is. Save the world, don't talk about. Make the changes yourself and those who oppose your ideals will quickly come on board with you, support you and loudly & proudly thank you for it. Lead the way, lead the charge. Your local Ethical Investment Super Fund will research it. No doubt they'll find that there's many abattoirs that rely heavily on 475 visas, some have season down turns and no quick & easy getting hundreds of meat workers to relocate to the Pilbara, Kimberly or remote Northern Territory. Lets face, you can't stop live trade completely and the following week start pouring concrete pads for slaughterhouses the next week. Like the short Labor introduced LE Ban some years ago, there will be a devastating toll on Animal Welfare. Absurd Fallacy alert, those pushing for change to chilled, claiming it generates the income and extra jobs will not ever put skin in the game. They want others to change the things they very clearly don't understand.
6] Farmers and other producers need to be stopped
Stopped? From doing what. Producers do not export. Exporters do. Put down the Absurd Fallacy and get it right. Producers respond to the market...here's a hint to help extremists understand the business model just that little bit better. Farmers, station owners and operators are "PRIMARY PRODUCERS" they produce the primary product, some of it goes to feedlotters, some goes to saleyards etc. Pretty rare these days to go directly from paddock to gangplank.
It should be pointed out in slow speech via a simple parallel. Mining is also PRIMARY PRODUCTION. It'd be great to not export minerals of any kind and have them delivered to a manufacturing industry (Secondary or Tertiary Production) and make all consumer goods here, providing heaps of domestic employment and generate real wealth onshore. Like the meat industry, it cannot happen because we're a victim of national economic success...our labour costs are such we cannot compete with overseas competition. We can produce the PRIMARY PRODUCT easily and cheaply but we cannot compete on the SECONDARY or TERTIARY PROCESSING LEVEL. Hence the customers got wise and they import the raw product and value add overseas at a much smaller cost. I suspect you'd have to pay slaughtermen and other meat workers around $6 to $8 a day for it work and replace the whole trade. Isn't going to happen and I wouldn't be so much of a brute to suggest it.
ESCAS Compliance is 98% & there's no ESCAS programme for other raw materials going overseas. Are our minerals making weapons ? We don't know. Does our exported wool and cotton make military uniforms? We don't know. Nice try - put down the Absurd Fallacy.
There's 6 Absurd Fallacies peddled by Extremists. Got some more? Send them in.
We'll crack the shell open and have a good hard look at them.
I bet we can hit a dozen real quick.
Wow that didn't take long to get something sent in & funnily enough sent in because of a social media exchange I was having elsewhere. Here goes round 2.
7] Live Export must be stopped because you cannot do that to sentient beings.
So you cannot eat a sheep/cow/pig/goat/insert whatever species because they are a sentient being. If they have inferred rights (they don't) and you can't export them then it goes to reason you can kill them and eat them. More loss of inferred rights apparently (which don't exist).
Sentient Being is a term from philosophy, not science. No scientific field has put together a sentient being list. For the really curious, go look here
http://biology.tutorvista.com/organism/kingdom-animalia.html and you'll see from Kingdom down to species there is no sentient being box to tick.
Its from Philosophy and the ARAs that understand that probably won't want you to know that.
Sentient being has dangers for the ARA. Check here to see why
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sentient
Yes even the lowly rat is a sentient being apparently. Not on the list of sentient beings who's inferred rights are being defended by the way. Cockroach...it has awareness, its sentient. Termites, flies, mosquitos, maggots, mice, leeches, ticks...all possess the characteristics of awareness. Their inferred rights are not defended, no one is wanting to be the advocates for those sentient beings. An ARA group might do a poster or social media campaign with the picture of a steer, claim his name is Barry and mention his sad eyes and his long lost parents and how he'll soon be killed...send in your donation.
They don't find a filthy rat covered in mud and faeces, take a photo of him gnawing on another dead rat, give him a nice noble human name like Michael and ask you to respect his inferred rights (which he doesn't have) and play on your emotions to donate...or maybe rehome him at your place where he can live out his days in peace and harmony.
Funny that.
Rats, ticks, fleas, spiders, maggots, flies...all have awareness but they don't count.
Termites, pest exterminator comes round knocks the top of a nest, pours in a chemical, it goes to the upper chamber housing the queen, kills her and all her workers and other castes. She lays around 2000 eggs a day, they're all dead. They have awareness.
Wasn't long before the "sentient being" had to have the definition refined by ARAs to better suit the cause. The inferred rights don't exist. The term "sentient being" was invented by a human, the inferred rights were too.
You need to be very careful lest you have a serious accident and fall into a serious coma, or be placed into one by medical staff. You are no longer aware. You have no awareness. Or you maybe on life support with no consciousness or awareness. You are effective not sentient. You have no inferred rights. You are a tomato as far as rights go. You can be killed. Ah but wait, apparently you have the "prospect" and the "possibility" of sentience so its not cut and dried.
Really? So dear ARA you're against abortion and actually even contraception, they have awareness to an extent and very much have prospect and possibility of being sentient beings.
You see the unravelling. Hopelessly Absurd Fallacy.
8] Animal rights are paramount.
Ahh no they're not. Animal rights is a product of philosophy, not science. Sentient being palava is a product of philosophy not science. When someone talks to you about Animal Welfare, be quick to question them gently to ascertain whether they're coming genuinely from an Animal Welfare perspective or an Animal Rights perspective.
Animal Welfare is easy. Reduce the suffering and stress of an animal. If the animal is going into Live Export, Domestic Slaughter it doesn't matter. Animal Welfare is paramount, not Animal Rights.
Animal Welfare existed long before the term become a common phrase in our language. Amongst primary producers you were either a good stockman or a poor stockman. Your stockmanship was a huge badge of honour. Someone noted as a really good stockman was a person all about good animal welfare right up until slaughter and processing. We had constantly improving Animal Welfare stretching back generations. The advent of the Bugle style stock yards well preceded the term Animal Welfare. Low stress stock handling techniques were starting long before the term AW.
Animal Rights on the other hand is a product of philosophy, not really anything to do directly with Animal Welfare and its not uncommon for AR groups or advocates to cloak up and use AW as a tool to achieve Animal Rights. For better description of Animal Rights go here...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_movement
Of special not is the paragraph below...
"The animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal liberation movement, animal personhood, or animal advocacy movement, is a social movement which seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.
It is one of the few examples of a social movement that was created, and is to a large extent sustained academically, by philosophers"
Animal Rights Activists (ARAs) have commonly used Animal Welfare issues to further the Animal Rights philosophy. To ARAs Animal Welfare is a tool to use to gain an advantage for Animal Rights not to improve the lot for an animal. We've seen ARAs team up with meat processing unions to oppose Live Export. It won't be banned or extinguished, but if it were Meat Worker Unions and ARAs would promptly part company and become mortal enemies. For both, uniting serves a purpose for now.
Don't be fooled. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights are two distinctly different things.
Animal Rights wants all use of animals for meat and other products banned. They use AW as the tool to achieve it.
Here's a simple test.
A ship loaded with a consignment of live sheep leaves an Australian Port, arrives at its overseas destination with ZERO, repeat, ZERO transit deaths. Mortality rate ZERO, repeat ZERO. Great AW outcome, but wait there's more....much. much more. That consignment had ZERO, repeat ZERO ESCAS breaches/leakage or reports. A utterly monumental Animal Welfare Triumph...but ZERO, repeat ZERO heralding of the great AW triumph. Why?
Well may you ask. We're still looking but to date we have found none of the so called advocacy groups mention it and herald the AW triumph. That is to date, ZERO, repeat ZERO mention or celebration of it. Why?
Because they're not Animal Welfare groups. They're Animal Liberation groups that run either overtly or covertly with the philosophy that Animals are people with personage not to be used for food or anything else.
Exporters and producers celebrate the huge AW triumph. Ironically they're more focused on improving Animal Welfare than ARAs.
Those in favour of Animal Welfare are either actively involved in improvements or drop coin into efforts to improve the AW.
ARAs do not get involved with directly helping the improvement of Animal Welfare nor drop on cent into improving AW outcomes. Their money goes into media campaigns to further the philosophy's aim, stopping all animal farming and production.
Yes, the skilled and trained worker loading trucks or ships has greater AW credentials than the ARA groups. ARA's have lost out so much credibility and legitimacy its little wonder we have extremists burning trucks and other appalling criminal activity. Lucky for the extremist, when you're from an Animal Rights Philosophy you can also adopt bogus moral reasons to break laws. Thankfully the courts are not swayed by that bull dust.
