Lets define some stuff first...
Hunter - Well you get that, self evident.
Huntress - Well same thing except female. FWIW I see the pursuit of hunting as gender neutral, just as I see the term farmer gender neutral. I don't believe in "farmer's wife" if she's part of the farming operation, she's a farmer too. I don't believe in "hunter's wife" unless the wife does not hunt & I think a woman who hunts is hunting, not huntressing. If you use the term huntress though its ok with me, just splitting the hairs a bit.
Fishing - Well you're trying to catch fish which is of course a form of hunting...odd though that some fishermen or "fishers" don't call or see themselves as hunters. No dramas either way.
Illegal Hunters - Pretty obvious again, people hunting where they shouldn't which in most cases is breaking the law which is why I don't like the term "illegal hunters" cos I'd prefer to see them well separated from proper hunters who are law abiding people. As a hunter, don't lump me in with them, makes it just that little tiny bit easier for those wishing to ban hunting. There's a better name for those who hunt illegally, its the only name I use for them. To me they are...
Poachers - People who break the law and hunt illegally. You may have done it before, don't care about then, concerned about now & forever...make sure you're a law abiding legal hunter. Separate your lawful pursuit from those that break the law at every opportunity. Look to condemn and oppose "poaching" when ever the chance arises. Mention poachers aren't hunters, they're criminals. Why? Same reason the Drag Racing fraternity say "Street Racing isn't Drag Racing, its just dumb"
Drag racing happens at properly built tracks and is run formally and legally in the safest possible environment. Street racing is illegal can more easily kill them and/or innocent people. Same deal, distance yourself from poaching, make your hunt legal and lawful and you then give opponents one less thread to pull.
I'd define some of the hunting opponents but who knows where the language would go ;-)
Now, the view.
What is wrong with hunting? Well if you 're a tribesman somewhere nothing really. In fact very few people get wound up about it. Now if indigenous people around the world are allowed to "morally" be fine with continuing their cultural tradition I'm in a very happy place in the world.
Hunting in my family goes back longer than we can account for. My race is actually irrelevant, fact is if one person is ok to hunt culturally so am I. Long as I obey the law of the land there is no moral problem, nothing to seek mental counselling over, I'm good to go. If you're a hunter, become a good shot. If that means hitting paper targets or some other drill, do it. The better shot you are, the better the chances of encasing hunting as a normal part of every day life. Be seen to be practising, be precise and careful with your firearm or bow...fuss over it.
What will some people who oppose hunting say & how do we respond?
Simple...respond calmly. If you're hunting an animal you don't launch out of a trench with fixed bayonet screaming at the top of your lungs. Nope, you study your prey, you stay concealed, control your breathing after going through all the things you do and gently pull the trigger as calmly as you can to try and get the best, cleanest shot you can. You want the dispatching of an animal to be quick, clean and hopefully with it never knowing what hit it. Cleary you can't sedate it in its sleep, this all happens in the wild but you do put effort into the cleanest shot possible. Some folk are better than others with this, get used to it. Soooo why would you do any different to one of your worst critics???
A critic that would clearly prefer to stir you up so you lose your lolly, raise your voice, throw away your temper and hurl abuse. Once you're in that place, YOU are the quarry and YOU are in the THIER sights. You are on toast because it makes their job of demonising you far too easy. You keep your cool, know your subject, defend it properly and at some point if need be inform them "I'm doing nothing wrong at all by being a hunter and nothing I can say will change your mind, its now we must part, there is no point continuing the discussion because both of us are steadfast and I don't need to vent my spleen or blow off steam. Have a nice day" Whilst you may not EVER convince hunting is fine, you might convince the person/s standing next to them watching you're not an unreasonable monster, a thug or a verbal bully. You may well begin to appear to others to not quite tally with the blood thirsty murderer tag your accuser had previously levelled. How you conduct yourself is how people will judge you. People are not fools, eventually some will see their extremist friend as being a very unreasonable person. If they ever have a fall out, its not something they're going to think about, but you could possibly rate higher than the extremist. Many of the extremists are Rebels Without A Clue, going through their young angry stage. It will pass. If you hurl abuse you are fully and most likely permanently situated on the monster thug list. Remember its very emotive for them, if you remain cool, calm and collected like you might in the field you are miles in front. Robert Borsak once asked an extremist "Can't you intellectualise it?"
What did he mean? Its real simple. The extremist has a view, a view they're passionate, extremely passionate about. They're emotionally involved and highly strung over it. They have arrived at a position and push the daylights out of the position, but unable to simply say WHY it is what they think? No its a little more than that even. Many will not want to sit down and converse at length so you can explore not what they believe but why, what's it all based on.
Why is that? Ahh simple, I'm no brain surgeon. I'm a dumb ol' ploughboy/cowboy at best on a good day but I do know one thing if you say something is very very wrongon all sorts of emotional levels, you ought to be able to got through every nut & bolt of your position to explore & explain...and if you want to stay on Rant Level 10 & avoid (as Robert put it) trying to intellectualise it then you have a serious problem.
a) You don't understand it past emotional thought bubble and placard slogans
b) You're actually afraid of what will be laid bare, possibly the extremist is actually intolerant and very wrong.
But they mention morals - Yes be aware you will come across a lot of terms, phrases and words which are not relevant to what you're doing. Opponents will pull unrelated issues over to help oppose your hunting position because they need to bolster what is a failing argument. "Seriously thing" ? you bet, be aware and respond accordingly as you would in the bush.
Morals or hunting is immoral is one of the biggies, so to is murder, sentient beings, rights of the animals...so we need to go through them one at a time, nice and slow.
Murder - I usually ask under what statute is it murder because that's a criminal charge that a person is held account for when taking the life of another human. No one who took the life of an animal whilst legally hunting has ever been convicted on a murder charge. If I was called a murderer I would take great issue with that, I would then have been called guilty, convicted and sentence to a serious criminal charge. Its factually wrong, its accusing me of serious crime and its just plain dumb nonsense. You'll know straight away the person opposing hunting is using emotive language designed to shock, upset and then rally other totally indifferent people to agree with what they hate. Seriously I try not to use the word hate about things or people I don't agree with, but I do hate peas and asparagus. I support the farmers that grow it right up to the consumers that enjoy it. My hate is with me for me...not as a tool to shut down a form of horticulture or farming of vegetables that actually don't affect me at all.
Sentient beings - If you're not read any other blog spoutings from me, well you probably missed this explainer before so we'll try to tackle it...briefly if we can. Animal Rights people will claim its a sentient being and deserves to live without pain or suffering. They extend this further to oppose all forms of animal farming, pet ownership (unless its their own pet), manufacture of any products made or derived from animals and then the biggy...they oppose meat as food. Animal Welfare (AW) seeks to improve the welfare of the animal within the idea that animals are not humans and some are food. Animal Rights (AR) seeks to free all animals, turn everyone vegan and live at one with nature. Yep there's some bad acid dropping going on there. Extended to its full extend, we sit on a rock and do nothing to help nor hinder the animal, eat grass and make clothes out of hessian.
Thing is, "sentient", "sentience" and "Sentient beings" are not terms from science, they are terms from philosophy. Like a lot of philosophical ideas, some (for some people) get taken to the next level and a cult or worldview evolves. The premise is that a sentient being is an animal that feels pain and pleasure therefore it has inferred rights to be free of pain and the ability to feel pleasure and live its life unhindered by us. Who gave the rights? Ahh they're inferred. Who inferred them first? Ahh we don't know but we can track this all back long before Peter Singer and others. In fact we can find philosophical traces nearly 200 years ago and its not been refined a great deal since then. My view, its still being invented.
So we have animals that because they feel, have rights that no one gave them but somehow without any basis these rights do exist even though they're not quantified or formalised properly yet. Oooook.
If you believe that I gotta bridge in Sydney you just have to buy.
Hunting is ok, its neither moral or immoral. Its not murder just like the lion killing the antelope isn't murdering or being moral/immoral. In the case of duck season and number of programmes like "Farmer Assist" where hunters are helping farmers by hunting on properties to get feral numbers down. Will it eradicate ferals?
Probably not, but every dead fox, wild dog or wild car is a win. As most of the hunters do this at their own cost, there is no other cost efficient solution that even comes close.
Sunday, 24 May 2015
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky...what the???
Yeah Rick Gervais weighed into the whole young lady shooting the giraffe thing. Weighed in heavily, as heavily and thorough as you can on Twitter's 140 character tirade limit.
Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.
I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.
I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.
So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.
Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.
So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?
Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.
What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."
Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.
On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.
Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.
Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.
But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."
We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.
Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg
Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.
I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.
I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.
So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.
Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.
So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?
Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.
What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."
Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.
On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.
Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.
Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.
But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."
We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.
Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg
Wednesday, 22 April 2015
Animal Cult Extremists.
Over on Facebook there's a dedicated community page titled "I Love Animals But Hate Animal Rights Activists" (you can find it at https://www.facebook.com/ILAHARA?fref=nf )
Its a page worthy of your attention because it will cause you to stop and think seriously about what is being said by radical animal rights extremists. Basically they come across all manner of absurd claims, comments & attacks from Animal Rights Activists usually fired against sensible, free thinking people.
This latest one the page highlighted below is a classic in the genre of profoundly vague thought bubble doctrine of the weirder sects of the animal cult. Sometimes I wonder are their comments out-loud-words as they think out ways to arrive at an idea or a way of legitimising what's really some very perverted cult talk. Have a look see and don't be afraid to read it 3 or 4 times slowly before reading further down the page. Chances are the more you read, the more you'll discover or worry. You're not going to re-read it and find yourself relaxed at their position.
"It’s easy to no longer use animals - once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect…and remember what our spirit has always known: that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive. Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back."
Let's break it down into sections...
"It’s easy to no longer use animals -" No problem there, go about your life as you deem appropriate. Although there is the pesky qualifier here, exactly what does no animal use look like? You live in a cave with no medical help and have a garden where no member of the animal kingdom is used?
No vaccinations I hope.
"...once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect"Ahh there's a cord from our cardio-vascular system to what exactly? Oh you mean a connection of compassion, endearment etc? Interesting concept, one that's one of the many philosophical strains that have developed by academia and not-so academia to further get us away from theism and in a lot of cases get people well away from Christianity.
If you're theist, that is you believe in God the creator then God (insert which ever one you actually follow) is probably not a vegetarian or vegan god. Rather he or she created animals, plants, chemicals, vapour, water, gas, plasma, rocks and minerals...well everything.
There is no theist system where veganism is the only way, although there's a couple that do go close and skirt the non use of animals thing. However, you'll find your garden variety animal extremist may well borrow aspects of that religion, they will however NOT be full & faithful followers of that religion, like branches of Hinduism, because they have pesky and painful other aspects like vows of poverty. Instead if they do believe in any god it will be a bought product from the IKEA-Theology where you Build-Your-Own Deity for a rock bottom price of $44.95 plus shipping and handling.
They cannot properly belong to a theist religion because things they profess to promote start imploding like a rat plague spreading over a minefield. Better to use extremely vague conceptual words and phrases like "connect, disconnect, heart" - Fooled yet?
"and remember what our spirit has always known:"
Ahh you have a spirit that is separate from your mind? Yep that's a way aways from most theist religions for sure. Your spirit knows, but you haven't. Of course what happens when two people with their own spirits have views that are diametrically opposed? Not just them the person, their "spirits" know and believe in totally opposing things? What happens?
Well the one that's right is...wait hang on!!! "Remember"??? So we know what our "spirit" has always known. This "spirit" that has always known stuff remains very very vague and deliberately distant and conceptual, it also tends to cop a passing mention before the thought bubble can be examined and so easily found wanting.
"...that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive."
Ahhh said who? This life instructional claim did come from somewhere, from someone. Who? Was it a transcendent law giver, a creator, a God, a deity, the origin of the one true Theism? If so who?
If it came from a human, who was it, when and what exactly qualifies them to give such instruction?
Is he/she a prophet of a particular brand of theism and they were just delivering the words of the almighty? If so, which god is this because at present using the Bible, its not currently possible to receive a direct revelation from God so its not that deity so which on is it? Now that's just the "who's the origin" question which splits the source into deity or human being. If its a human being and there is no deity at all, why on earth would or indeed should we take any notice at all. If we're all just animals and results of evolution, natural selection and plain old quirky, mad nature operating with nothing more than pure luck and chance why at all are these premises somehow binding? It's like peeling an onion, you can stop and say "Says who?" or you can go layer after layer after layer and find the deeper you go, the more problem the premise has when its opened up and we go deeper. It just gets more and more nonsensical the further you go. It never ever gets more simple...as youd expect.
"Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back"
Possibly this is the case because if you take a cursory glance, fight the urge to stop, think and question more deeply you will remained completely fooled. I find it odd, as odd as odd gets, that a person makes a determination yet they do not fully or properly understand, nor have questioned that which they ardently believe and fight for.
It is verbose poetry, that is a noble premise which implodes upon itself when more closely questioned. Guess what, it fools many people fully & completely. Watch a shampoo advert or a face cream or other beaut product advert. It doesn't moisturise hair, does not add body, does not make you younger. In physics and any other field, its just not possible. However it still sells and no one fully challenges the advertising companies that spin vague webs that trap people.
Parallel much?
Here's another...
“In order to shift to a compassionate vegan ethic, we need to establish caring as a mode of living. We need to make people feel safer caring. Compassion is very female, feminine. It’s not safe for us to be compassionate. We are called ‘baby,’ told to ‘grow up,’ we are feminized. How can we reclaim the ethic, which is female-identified, while putting down women?”
Your turn, look closely, break it down into bite size bits, chew vigorously and ruminate on it. Yes, its bitter pockets of hot vacuous air. Signifying nothing. You bet its fooled people.
Its a page worthy of your attention because it will cause you to stop and think seriously about what is being said by radical animal rights extremists. Basically they come across all manner of absurd claims, comments & attacks from Animal Rights Activists usually fired against sensible, free thinking people.
This latest one the page highlighted below is a classic in the genre of profoundly vague thought bubble doctrine of the weirder sects of the animal cult. Sometimes I wonder are their comments out-loud-words as they think out ways to arrive at an idea or a way of legitimising what's really some very perverted cult talk. Have a look see and don't be afraid to read it 3 or 4 times slowly before reading further down the page. Chances are the more you read, the more you'll discover or worry. You're not going to re-read it and find yourself relaxed at their position.
"It’s easy to no longer use animals - once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect…and remember what our spirit has always known: that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive. Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back."
Let's break it down into sections...
"It’s easy to no longer use animals -" No problem there, go about your life as you deem appropriate. Although there is the pesky qualifier here, exactly what does no animal use look like? You live in a cave with no medical help and have a garden where no member of the animal kingdom is used?
No vaccinations I hope.
"...once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect"Ahh there's a cord from our cardio-vascular system to what exactly? Oh you mean a connection of compassion, endearment etc? Interesting concept, one that's one of the many philosophical strains that have developed by academia and not-so academia to further get us away from theism and in a lot of cases get people well away from Christianity.
If you're theist, that is you believe in God the creator then God (insert which ever one you actually follow) is probably not a vegetarian or vegan god. Rather he or she created animals, plants, chemicals, vapour, water, gas, plasma, rocks and minerals...well everything.
There is no theist system where veganism is the only way, although there's a couple that do go close and skirt the non use of animals thing. However, you'll find your garden variety animal extremist may well borrow aspects of that religion, they will however NOT be full & faithful followers of that religion, like branches of Hinduism, because they have pesky and painful other aspects like vows of poverty. Instead if they do believe in any god it will be a bought product from the IKEA-Theology where you Build-Your-Own Deity for a rock bottom price of $44.95 plus shipping and handling.
They cannot properly belong to a theist religion because things they profess to promote start imploding like a rat plague spreading over a minefield. Better to use extremely vague conceptual words and phrases like "connect, disconnect, heart" - Fooled yet?
"and remember what our spirit has always known:"
Ahh you have a spirit that is separate from your mind? Yep that's a way aways from most theist religions for sure. Your spirit knows, but you haven't. Of course what happens when two people with their own spirits have views that are diametrically opposed? Not just them the person, their "spirits" know and believe in totally opposing things? What happens?
Well the one that's right is...wait hang on!!! "Remember"??? So we know what our "spirit" has always known. This "spirit" that has always known stuff remains very very vague and deliberately distant and conceptual, it also tends to cop a passing mention before the thought bubble can be examined and so easily found wanting.
"...that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive."
Ahhh said who? This life instructional claim did come from somewhere, from someone. Who? Was it a transcendent law giver, a creator, a God, a deity, the origin of the one true Theism? If so who?
If it came from a human, who was it, when and what exactly qualifies them to give such instruction?
Is he/she a prophet of a particular brand of theism and they were just delivering the words of the almighty? If so, which god is this because at present using the Bible, its not currently possible to receive a direct revelation from God so its not that deity so which on is it? Now that's just the "who's the origin" question which splits the source into deity or human being. If its a human being and there is no deity at all, why on earth would or indeed should we take any notice at all. If we're all just animals and results of evolution, natural selection and plain old quirky, mad nature operating with nothing more than pure luck and chance why at all are these premises somehow binding? It's like peeling an onion, you can stop and say "Says who?" or you can go layer after layer after layer and find the deeper you go, the more problem the premise has when its opened up and we go deeper. It just gets more and more nonsensical the further you go. It never ever gets more simple...as youd expect.
"Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back"
Possibly this is the case because if you take a cursory glance, fight the urge to stop, think and question more deeply you will remained completely fooled. I find it odd, as odd as odd gets, that a person makes a determination yet they do not fully or properly understand, nor have questioned that which they ardently believe and fight for.
It is verbose poetry, that is a noble premise which implodes upon itself when more closely questioned. Guess what, it fools many people fully & completely. Watch a shampoo advert or a face cream or other beaut product advert. It doesn't moisturise hair, does not add body, does not make you younger. In physics and any other field, its just not possible. However it still sells and no one fully challenges the advertising companies that spin vague webs that trap people.
Parallel much?
Here's another...
“In order to shift to a compassionate vegan ethic, we need to establish caring as a mode of living. We need to make people feel safer caring. Compassion is very female, feminine. It’s not safe for us to be compassionate. We are called ‘baby,’ told to ‘grow up,’ we are feminized. How can we reclaim the ethic, which is female-identified, while putting down women?”
Your turn, look closely, break it down into bite size bits, chew vigorously and ruminate on it. Yes, its bitter pockets of hot vacuous air. Signifying nothing. You bet its fooled people.
Monday, 23 March 2015
Duck Season - Pros and Cons...and idiots
Duck Season in Victoria opened this week and as I should of expect the Veganazis came out in force.
Animal Liberation Victoria stepped up to the plate, commented on the FartBook page and roused the fools to slaughter. It started with their clever campaign pictured below, well cunning not clever because anyone clever would do their homework.
Reoccurring themes were hunters were blood thirsty, it was blood lust, that hunters had small genitals, it's immoral entertainment, un-necessary, hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight. Then questions were asked, simpleton talk like "what if that was happening to you?"
But really what are some genuine facts.
Lets go through them in order but firstly, what is duck season?
Well despite what some might like to infer or suggest, its not put on to help entertain recreational hunters. Duck Season is a partial cull of a fast moving migratory waterfowl who's numbers have got so great, they're unsustainable. A Duck Season is part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to avoid boom/bust population swings as many of us have seen since the 1960s with emus in regional Australia. Numbers go through the roof to plague proportions then numbers plummet due to starvation. A partial cull at the right time can avoid the un-necessary cruel end.
So the accusations, how do they stack?
1) "Hunters are blood thirsty"
- Well yet to see a blood thirsty hunter. If someone hungers for blood and killing I'd kinda expect them to do so somewhere on some species without waiting for annual Duck Season. Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.
2) "...it was blood lust""
- Same as above...Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.
3) "...that hunters had small genitals"
- Why is that even brought up? Seems that guns ownership points to unmanly men taking up phallic symbols to compensate for issues with the wedding tackle. Which if it isn't ridiculous already, there's a bunch of recreational hunters who are women wondering how that odd psyche assessment applies to them. Thankfully they think its as weird as weird gets as do most reasonable people. Pretty sure its just an attempt at insulting the person to compensate for lack of facts or valid position.
4) "...it is immoral entertainment"
- Last bit first, Duck Season is a part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to partially cull a very fast, migratory water fowl back to ecologically sustainable numbers. It is not put on to solely allow hunters to kill for fun. Its sustainable management to avoid ecological imbalance. Hunters are just the mechanism to achieve that aim because they're not only effective, they're highly cost effective, they actually pay money to do the job for the government department that helps nature conservation. Unless Veganarchists can talk ducks into not breeding we're in for problems. Baiting doesn't work, trapping will not work. Shooting does.
-Second bit... "immoral". Well again to class something immoral, you're making a moral judgment. You cannot make a moral judgement without citing a moral code or a moral law giver. I have a Christian Worldview and the Bible has no comments at all about hunting and eating meat being an immoral act. If a person can cite the moral grounds I'd be grateful. Now if a person is queezey and cannot stomach it, that's fine. I get that. But you should not translate a stomach upset or nausea with a moral compass.
5) "..un-necessary"
- Well impossible to make that judgement without looking at the source documents that allow a DUCK SEASON to be opened. The Integrated Land Management Plan. Some states haven't had duck season for a while now...because the science and the numbers do not warrant it at present. What do the Victorian authorities say about duck numbers? Well don't ask the activists, they don't know, they haven't asked and they don't care.
6) "hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight"
- Psychopaths? What, a serious mental health determination with no professionals giving personal mental assessment? Invalid emotional rant...again
Dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight? Ahhh well if one is an avid recreational hunter, then yes they might well be very keen to go get involved in DUCK SEASON. They have forked out good money, its tightly managed and regulated and there's big fines for illegal hunting. You bet those with licences will be keen to get their money's worth within the bag limit.
Now that's probably as deep as you need go, but every now and then someone goes all out dumb a**
One incredible individual for going all out in the dumber than dumber stakes.
This poor lass said, and yep we not only quote, we cut n paste so its exactly her words...
"My understanding is that meat only started being consumed out of pure survival during the ice age as plants obviously didn't grow. We're not in the ice age now and our health stats should be enough cause for concern..."
Now had I thought long and hard about this...if I had seriously thought about it, I would have asked the following...
a) Did all animals go from vegan to omnivore/carnivore?
b) What about lions, cheetahs, dogs, eagles and all other current day predators were they all vegans then with ice age and lack of plant growth they changed?
c) How long does your understanding tell you the said Ice Age go for, because as flawed as Evolution Theory goes its not evolution, its natural selection because timeframe is so short...or if not, what?
But I never got that far. Despite the hundreds of questions that "understanding" causes I never got past one difficult point. If the Ice Age caused a serious survival situation due to "fact" that "plants obviously didn't grow" what did all the omnivores eat? I mean the definite herbivores of today...some birds, cattle, horses, sheep, squirrels, hamsters, guinea pigs, antelopes, deer, goats, giraffes, etc etc. They must have gone meat eating and then switched back and stayed herbivore right up til now yeah? Or...
Yep my question was if "plants obviously didn't grow" what did the animals eat?
Silence was the stern reply. It was at this point I could see valid reasoning in some hunter supporters quoting one of the characters from the film Tropic Thunder "Never go full retard"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
Too late she did.
Never ever mistake "My understanding is that..." for a proven fact or generally accepted normality.
Yep, the Veganarchists will swamp the duck shoot protest thing.
They're not about ecology, sustainable environment, conservation work. Nothing.
They want Animal Liberation, where all animals are untouched by us, where all species come together and hum Koom-by-Yah whilst we all peacefully graze on grass and tree leaves, a beautiful place where the unicorns run free. A strange place where the vegan does not walk everywhere, does not eat only what they grow themselves, or where their clothes shoes, watch, mobile phone, computer don't come from overseas sweat shops and their electricity, lights, power, water, heating all come from fairies.
"Everybody know you never go full retard". Too late for some.
Animal Liberation Victoria stepped up to the plate, commented on the FartBook page and roused the fools to slaughter. It started with their clever campaign pictured below, well cunning not clever because anyone clever would do their homework.
Reoccurring themes were hunters were blood thirsty, it was blood lust, that hunters had small genitals, it's immoral entertainment, un-necessary, hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight. Then questions were asked, simpleton talk like "what if that was happening to you?"
But really what are some genuine facts.
Lets go through them in order but firstly, what is duck season?
Well despite what some might like to infer or suggest, its not put on to help entertain recreational hunters. Duck Season is a partial cull of a fast moving migratory waterfowl who's numbers have got so great, they're unsustainable. A Duck Season is part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to avoid boom/bust population swings as many of us have seen since the 1960s with emus in regional Australia. Numbers go through the roof to plague proportions then numbers plummet due to starvation. A partial cull at the right time can avoid the un-necessary cruel end.
So the accusations, how do they stack?
1) "Hunters are blood thirsty"
- Well yet to see a blood thirsty hunter. If someone hungers for blood and killing I'd kinda expect them to do so somewhere on some species without waiting for annual Duck Season. Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.
2) "...it was blood lust""
- Same as above...Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.
3) "...that hunters had small genitals"
- Why is that even brought up? Seems that guns ownership points to unmanly men taking up phallic symbols to compensate for issues with the wedding tackle. Which if it isn't ridiculous already, there's a bunch of recreational hunters who are women wondering how that odd psyche assessment applies to them. Thankfully they think its as weird as weird gets as do most reasonable people. Pretty sure its just an attempt at insulting the person to compensate for lack of facts or valid position.
4) "...it is immoral entertainment"
- Last bit first, Duck Season is a part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to partially cull a very fast, migratory water fowl back to ecologically sustainable numbers. It is not put on to solely allow hunters to kill for fun. Its sustainable management to avoid ecological imbalance. Hunters are just the mechanism to achieve that aim because they're not only effective, they're highly cost effective, they actually pay money to do the job for the government department that helps nature conservation. Unless Veganarchists can talk ducks into not breeding we're in for problems. Baiting doesn't work, trapping will not work. Shooting does.
-Second bit... "immoral". Well again to class something immoral, you're making a moral judgment. You cannot make a moral judgement without citing a moral code or a moral law giver. I have a Christian Worldview and the Bible has no comments at all about hunting and eating meat being an immoral act. If a person can cite the moral grounds I'd be grateful. Now if a person is queezey and cannot stomach it, that's fine. I get that. But you should not translate a stomach upset or nausea with a moral compass.
5) "..un-necessary"
- Well impossible to make that judgement without looking at the source documents that allow a DUCK SEASON to be opened. The Integrated Land Management Plan. Some states haven't had duck season for a while now...because the science and the numbers do not warrant it at present. What do the Victorian authorities say about duck numbers? Well don't ask the activists, they don't know, they haven't asked and they don't care.
6) "hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight"
- Psychopaths? What, a serious mental health determination with no professionals giving personal mental assessment? Invalid emotional rant...again
Dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight? Ahhh well if one is an avid recreational hunter, then yes they might well be very keen to go get involved in DUCK SEASON. They have forked out good money, its tightly managed and regulated and there's big fines for illegal hunting. You bet those with licences will be keen to get their money's worth within the bag limit.
Now that's probably as deep as you need go, but every now and then someone goes all out dumb a**
One incredible individual for going all out in the dumber than dumber stakes.
This poor lass said, and yep we not only quote, we cut n paste so its exactly her words...
"My understanding is that meat only started being consumed out of pure survival during the ice age as plants obviously didn't grow. We're not in the ice age now and our health stats should be enough cause for concern..."
Now had I thought long and hard about this...if I had seriously thought about it, I would have asked the following...
a) Did all animals go from vegan to omnivore/carnivore?
b) What about lions, cheetahs, dogs, eagles and all other current day predators were they all vegans then with ice age and lack of plant growth they changed?
c) How long does your understanding tell you the said Ice Age go for, because as flawed as Evolution Theory goes its not evolution, its natural selection because timeframe is so short...or if not, what?
But I never got that far. Despite the hundreds of questions that "understanding" causes I never got past one difficult point. If the Ice Age caused a serious survival situation due to "fact" that "plants obviously didn't grow" what did all the omnivores eat? I mean the definite herbivores of today...some birds, cattle, horses, sheep, squirrels, hamsters, guinea pigs, antelopes, deer, goats, giraffes, etc etc. They must have gone meat eating and then switched back and stayed herbivore right up til now yeah? Or...
Yep my question was if "plants obviously didn't grow" what did the animals eat?
Silence was the stern reply. It was at this point I could see valid reasoning in some hunter supporters quoting one of the characters from the film Tropic Thunder "Never go full retard"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
Too late she did.
Never ever mistake "My understanding is that..." for a proven fact or generally accepted normality.
Yep, the Veganarchists will swamp the duck shoot protest thing.
They're not about ecology, sustainable environment, conservation work. Nothing.
They want Animal Liberation, where all animals are untouched by us, where all species come together and hum Koom-by-Yah whilst we all peacefully graze on grass and tree leaves, a beautiful place where the unicorns run free. A strange place where the vegan does not walk everywhere, does not eat only what they grow themselves, or where their clothes shoes, watch, mobile phone, computer don't come from overseas sweat shops and their electricity, lights, power, water, heating all come from fairies.
"Everybody know you never go full retard". Too late for some.
Sunday, 1 February 2015
James Aspey - and issues not tackled when you're silent.
So James Aspey travelled around Australia on a year long vow of silence to promote animal rights.
He goes on the TV magazine show "Sunrise" for his first spoken interview. Not just his first interview but its where he's promised that they'd be the TV Show where he'd break his silence FIRST. Turns out to be a big let down. Why? His credibility is now shown to be shot.
Turns out in that preceding year he broke his silence quite a few times. 5 or 6 times by his own admission. So, when he messes up and speaks does he start again each time? No, then you move ahead to a vow of silence with no "intentional" speaking. Convenient. Turns out he intentionally broke his silence anyway by whispering the name of his then newly acquired girlfriend into her ear. Start again? Nope. Press on he did, because there are schedules to meet, media engagements, no need to unfairly weigh down a stunt with something pesky and invasive like integrity.
So now James is talking again, we know what he's saying but what is of interest is he isn't saying and sadly not being asked? Simple...
Its based on the old sentience thing again. Its a term from philosophy not science. Its a twisted approach that's as twisted as the use of the term Species-ism. Again, this too comes from philosophy.
Their approach is, if you kill a fellow human being its murder, so therefore if you kill an animal it too is murder. The contention is if killing a human is murder then killing any animal is murder because if you separate the rules based on species then you're a specie-ist, a filthy rotten low down morally debauched Species-ist. However funny thing happened on the way to the debate via the jungle. The lion kills the antelope, ahh but that's not murder, that's nature...the rules of abhorrent moral transgression ONLY apply when its human to animal. When its non human animal killing non human animal the moral law is strangely not applicable. When its non human animal killing human, it also doesn't apply. Now when you see the selected application of (their) moral laws, which is based on the basis of one's species, you can easily bring up the very weird and contradictory nature of the application of the term "Species-ism" & "Species-ist". Hmmm, who's the Species-ist now???You know you're probably going to find a someone instantly adopting a vow silence on the matter.
I had an exchange with a capital "V" Vegan recently, but it wasn't James. What's a capital "V" Vegan? Lower case vegans are normal every day people going about their ordinary every day lives who just happen to fuel their body with non animal food products for a range of reasons, but they're not pushing it on others, they're just doing it. Capital "V" Vegans are of the Vegan Cult or Veganarchists. They're animal rights extremists. They can view lower case vegans as cop outs and hopeless moderates.
The thing is the poor dear gives me quite an extensive serve on why eating meat is a disgusting abomination, why it should be opposed and outlawed. Not to mention why such immoral people should hang their heads in shame. Her main point of reference was "Sentience". Again a term from philosophy but her take on it is because an animal has (sentience) awareness, can feel pleasure and pain it therefore has "inferred rights".
Interesting. "Inferred" not definite, just suggested or inferred. Here we have a moral law without the moral law giver. I could have pressed her down the "who's the moral law giver" path and we would have heard the loud crack of a logic implosion. We could be cruel and inspect her life and assess her moral score card because if she's the moral law giver, she must be morally correct in every way or she has a dilemma. I didn't, I gently pressed on "Sentience".
I said what if the animal was somehow, with science that maybe doesn't currently exist kept in stasis from conception, some sort of suspended animation, so it grows without sentience, emotion, awareness, emotions...would that be preferable? I could see the shock in her face rising but I went on to say that in such a fanciful example, the creature might therefore go from conception to birth to plate with no awareness whatsoever, no feelings, no emotions, would that be ok?
Well lets just say she rejected the notion & emotionally replied for quite a few minutes and it was hard for her not to pop a blood vessel at a guess. She was not happy at that futuristic suggestion at all. Yes she used words like disgusting, abhorrent and immoral.
When she concluded & calmed somewhat I calmly asked, "Can I ask you one more question please?" She said yes. I asked "It seems unrelated but when you look at the underlying morality you apply to animal rights owed due to sentience do you support or oppose abortion & is your chosen position free of species-ism"
She had quite the stunned look on her face, I guess she smelt a trap and so she should. In the brief moments she was collecting herself I added "I understand the desire for a woman to have full rights over her body and I'm fine with that but do her rights over ride those of the already begun life that's effectively in stasis developing, without sentience? I say this because many people are now agreeing life begins at conception, not birth"
She was flat out processing this and it caused some dilemma. I wasn't suggesting an unborn child without sentience should therefore be ok as food along with a tomato, rice or pasta. Nor was I thinking anyone in a coma is ok for a BBQ either just because they have no awareness, emotion or feeling. I was using her notion of sentience to show her notion of Species-ism was false, wrong and misleading.
If she was pro abortion then it was ok to end a life of a human if the older human's decides for whatever reason but morally wrong to eat a beef sausage or pork ribs. A little odd & strangely "Species-ist" if the moral rules apply to a sheep, cow or pig but not to a (unborn but very alive) human even if the human is currently un-sentient.
If she was anti abortion then she has the dilemma of why oppose abortion if sentience is not present yet wouldn't support the futuristic idea of a fully non sentient cow, sheep or pig?
Somehow, which ever way she goes she's got a sizable dilemma, a confronting truth she cannot dismiss once she sees it.
She originally says meat eaters are immoral Species-ist because we apply rules to protect humans from murder but not animals. Yet she too is "Species-ist" by applying different rules solely on the basis of Species. Seems if were all honest, we're all Species-ist & if I were to favour any species, why would I not favour my own. Not 100% sure how the sentient being known as an antelope feels about the moral laws not applying to the lion behind them tripping them up. Someone needs to speak up for the voiceless antelope being murder by the lion, whilst Fervent Animal Rights Activists are being very species-ist stacking pressure on meat eating humans only and not other natural predators.
For the record she was not humiliated in front of her friends or anyone else for that matter. I calmly said, "When you're playing with what you think are ethics or morals you have to realise that with humans there will always be uncomfortable loose ends. You better challenge your thinking long, long before you confront others with a principle you wish to enforce or you can find things like truth very confronting".
For the record, abortions happen for a wide range of reasons. Some of them are to save the mother's life from certain death, some its to save her socially and a myriad of other reasons, some valid some not.
My aim was not to have a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate, but to challenge the fact that sentience seems to only favour the animal and not equally favour the human. That as a result of that fact her premise was actually flawed and she was actually a species-ist. Once she saw, rather reluctantly she was Species-ist & sentience isn't solid grounds either we could probably move onto the "inferred rights", who invented them, when were they devised, who handed them down to capital "V" vegans. I think she saw the contradiction and dilemma of her argument. It was double crossing her the more she spoke. I think she soon worked out it was more than just flawed, it was totally wrong. Having another conversation is something I'd very much like but looks like that's never going to happen. Having shown "Species-ism" for what it is I wonder should I have just gone after the dilemma and contradiction of "sentience" instead. I think no second chances of another conversation were ever going to be likely.
I think as a result of the discussion, whenever terms like sentience, sentient beings, specie-ist or species-ism come up she'll probably go on a vow of silence herself. Sadly morning TV magazine shows are never going to put grist through the mill properly. It would be nice though for some media group to show James Aspey some interest and ask him the harder questions...even if he goes silent for another year, but we know he's never gone a whole year in the first place...EVER.
He goes on the TV magazine show "Sunrise" for his first spoken interview. Not just his first interview but its where he's promised that they'd be the TV Show where he'd break his silence FIRST. Turns out to be a big let down. Why? His credibility is now shown to be shot.
Turns out in that preceding year he broke his silence quite a few times. 5 or 6 times by his own admission. So, when he messes up and speaks does he start again each time? No, then you move ahead to a vow of silence with no "intentional" speaking. Convenient. Turns out he intentionally broke his silence anyway by whispering the name of his then newly acquired girlfriend into her ear. Start again? Nope. Press on he did, because there are schedules to meet, media engagements, no need to unfairly weigh down a stunt with something pesky and invasive like integrity.
So now James is talking again, we know what he's saying but what is of interest is he isn't saying and sadly not being asked? Simple...
Its based on the old sentience thing again. Its a term from philosophy not science. Its a twisted approach that's as twisted as the use of the term Species-ism. Again, this too comes from philosophy.
Their approach is, if you kill a fellow human being its murder, so therefore if you kill an animal it too is murder. The contention is if killing a human is murder then killing any animal is murder because if you separate the rules based on species then you're a specie-ist, a filthy rotten low down morally debauched Species-ist. However funny thing happened on the way to the debate via the jungle. The lion kills the antelope, ahh but that's not murder, that's nature...the rules of abhorrent moral transgression ONLY apply when its human to animal. When its non human animal killing non human animal the moral law is strangely not applicable. When its non human animal killing human, it also doesn't apply. Now when you see the selected application of (their) moral laws, which is based on the basis of one's species, you can easily bring up the very weird and contradictory nature of the application of the term "Species-ism" & "Species-ist". Hmmm, who's the Species-ist now???You know you're probably going to find a someone instantly adopting a vow silence on the matter.
I had an exchange with a capital "V" Vegan recently, but it wasn't James. What's a capital "V" Vegan? Lower case vegans are normal every day people going about their ordinary every day lives who just happen to fuel their body with non animal food products for a range of reasons, but they're not pushing it on others, they're just doing it. Capital "V" Vegans are of the Vegan Cult or Veganarchists. They're animal rights extremists. They can view lower case vegans as cop outs and hopeless moderates.
The thing is the poor dear gives me quite an extensive serve on why eating meat is a disgusting abomination, why it should be opposed and outlawed. Not to mention why such immoral people should hang their heads in shame. Her main point of reference was "Sentience". Again a term from philosophy but her take on it is because an animal has (sentience) awareness, can feel pleasure and pain it therefore has "inferred rights".
Interesting. "Inferred" not definite, just suggested or inferred. Here we have a moral law without the moral law giver. I could have pressed her down the "who's the moral law giver" path and we would have heard the loud crack of a logic implosion. We could be cruel and inspect her life and assess her moral score card because if she's the moral law giver, she must be morally correct in every way or she has a dilemma. I didn't, I gently pressed on "Sentience".
I said what if the animal was somehow, with science that maybe doesn't currently exist kept in stasis from conception, some sort of suspended animation, so it grows without sentience, emotion, awareness, emotions...would that be preferable? I could see the shock in her face rising but I went on to say that in such a fanciful example, the creature might therefore go from conception to birth to plate with no awareness whatsoever, no feelings, no emotions, would that be ok?
Well lets just say she rejected the notion & emotionally replied for quite a few minutes and it was hard for her not to pop a blood vessel at a guess. She was not happy at that futuristic suggestion at all. Yes she used words like disgusting, abhorrent and immoral.
When she concluded & calmed somewhat I calmly asked, "Can I ask you one more question please?" She said yes. I asked "It seems unrelated but when you look at the underlying morality you apply to animal rights owed due to sentience do you support or oppose abortion & is your chosen position free of species-ism"
She had quite the stunned look on her face, I guess she smelt a trap and so she should. In the brief moments she was collecting herself I added "I understand the desire for a woman to have full rights over her body and I'm fine with that but do her rights over ride those of the already begun life that's effectively in stasis developing, without sentience? I say this because many people are now agreeing life begins at conception, not birth"
She was flat out processing this and it caused some dilemma. I wasn't suggesting an unborn child without sentience should therefore be ok as food along with a tomato, rice or pasta. Nor was I thinking anyone in a coma is ok for a BBQ either just because they have no awareness, emotion or feeling. I was using her notion of sentience to show her notion of Species-ism was false, wrong and misleading.
If she was pro abortion then it was ok to end a life of a human if the older human's decides for whatever reason but morally wrong to eat a beef sausage or pork ribs. A little odd & strangely "Species-ist" if the moral rules apply to a sheep, cow or pig but not to a (unborn but very alive) human even if the human is currently un-sentient.
If she was anti abortion then she has the dilemma of why oppose abortion if sentience is not present yet wouldn't support the futuristic idea of a fully non sentient cow, sheep or pig?
Somehow, which ever way she goes she's got a sizable dilemma, a confronting truth she cannot dismiss once she sees it.
She originally says meat eaters are immoral Species-ist because we apply rules to protect humans from murder but not animals. Yet she too is "Species-ist" by applying different rules solely on the basis of Species. Seems if were all honest, we're all Species-ist & if I were to favour any species, why would I not favour my own. Not 100% sure how the sentient being known as an antelope feels about the moral laws not applying to the lion behind them tripping them up. Someone needs to speak up for the voiceless antelope being murder by the lion, whilst Fervent Animal Rights Activists are being very species-ist stacking pressure on meat eating humans only and not other natural predators.
For the record she was not humiliated in front of her friends or anyone else for that matter. I calmly said, "When you're playing with what you think are ethics or morals you have to realise that with humans there will always be uncomfortable loose ends. You better challenge your thinking long, long before you confront others with a principle you wish to enforce or you can find things like truth very confronting".
For the record, abortions happen for a wide range of reasons. Some of them are to save the mother's life from certain death, some its to save her socially and a myriad of other reasons, some valid some not.
My aim was not to have a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate, but to challenge the fact that sentience seems to only favour the animal and not equally favour the human. That as a result of that fact her premise was actually flawed and she was actually a species-ist. Once she saw, rather reluctantly she was Species-ist & sentience isn't solid grounds either we could probably move onto the "inferred rights", who invented them, when were they devised, who handed them down to capital "V" vegans. I think she saw the contradiction and dilemma of her argument. It was double crossing her the more she spoke. I think she soon worked out it was more than just flawed, it was totally wrong. Having another conversation is something I'd very much like but looks like that's never going to happen. Having shown "Species-ism" for what it is I wonder should I have just gone after the dilemma and contradiction of "sentience" instead. I think no second chances of another conversation were ever going to be likely.
I think as a result of the discussion, whenever terms like sentience, sentient beings, specie-ist or species-ism come up she'll probably go on a vow of silence herself. Sadly morning TV magazine shows are never going to put grist through the mill properly. It would be nice though for some media group to show James Aspey some interest and ask him the harder questions...even if he goes silent for another year, but we know he's never gone a whole year in the first place...EVER.
Thursday, 29 January 2015
The 365 Day Vow of Silence That Wasn't 365 Days At All
If you've not heard of James Aspey, he's an Australian Animal Rights Activist who took a vow of silence for 365 days to "raise awareness for animals and peace over violence". Nice motherhood statement but for me it more closely resembles a simplistic thought balloon whish almost looks deliberately vague. In the video cited he actually says its to raise awareness of Animal Rights. Not animal welfare...Animal Rights. He even openly claims its about Animal Liberation. Hmmm, he's already off to a bad start, but here's the worry, it'll fool an awful lot of people.
So how did he go on his 365 days? Well I saw his spot on Sunrise and noticed a lot of questions they should have asked weren't. It was treat as a positive puff piece and whilst he probably was really happy with the exposure, with no decent journalistic rigour applied it kind of stands up as high as the cutesy animal in the lame human interest slot at the end of the news just after the weather.
It turns out, he didn't go the full 365 days. No need to take my word for it either. He's put up his own youtube spot on it, it was a radio interview where he came clean. Not sure if he intentionally set out to make an on air confession or whether he's a poor sod who got caught out on air and revealed himself as a bit of a goose.
You decide for yourself, listen to it while its still on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3UP4lOAHDw
Now couple of things to note, there's not so much vision as there is audio in this youtube piece however of note, the first image you see is a caricature of a guy with his arm around a pig with the slogan Vegan Extremist. This straight away sets him up for everything he is and some of it is not good. His is a world view where choice has to be limited to what he has decided is just, fair and moral and its not mainstream. His foundation for the moral decision is founded in...well he doesn't go that far and it should have been just a small part of the interview to not just understand what he believes, but what the basis for it is and what is the origin of judgement call he makes in what are "truth claims" without any foundation at all.
OK some folk are going to read this and there'll be the usual "Haters gunna hate" spiel...I'll be a hater, and/or intolerant, unfair, immoral and maybe accused of self righteous pontificating. That'll be pretty funny...if I agree totally with James I'll be tolerant, fair, moral level headed yada yada yada.
But if I have a different view, oops a hater. Of course telling people they're unjust, immoral, murderers, unethical etc for eating a chop, sausage, steak or drinking milk, THAT is not intolerance or "hating". Ooooooh nooooo, course not.
Ok his interview was interesting, very distracting is the devolved Australian version of a Woodstock accent which some folk call neo-hippy. "A tiger snake umm like kinda crawled over me or whatever..." But that and the other bro, man, dude language I'll try and put aside.
Apparently he woke up and saw friends and said "What's up bro..." and that happened 5 or 6 times.
Plus the time he whispered the name of his newly acquired girlfriend's name in her ear.
So sadly on Sunrise he wasn't so forthcoming. He wasn't the "Voiceless 365 except for 6 or 7 times guy", nope on Sunrise he hadn't spoken for 365 days and Sunrise was the place of his first words for a year...except that's a lie.
The guy who says he kept a vow of silence for 365 days, actually didn't. Was he fair dinkum? I think he was serious about the cause, think he was serious about the attention, very serious about the media interest, the cultivation of the persona he was developing but if he was fair dinkum, then if you blow it, you have to start again or you didn't actually stay silent for 365 days. How long was his longest stretch without speaking, we don't know. Might have been 10 months could have been 50 days we really don't know. Fact is we can only go by his word and his word only and going by what he told Sunrise he wasn't truthful comparing it to what he (more truthfully) told Steve & Basil & 6PR 882 News Talk.
Now if we're talking about a moral and ethical issue as I think he may suggest, he's kinda on thin ice at best when it comes to morals and ethics. My honest assessment at first glance...EPIC FAIL.
In response to humanely slaughtered comments he states "In my head I'm going, humanely slaughtered? Dude there's no such thing" and he goes on you cannot compassionately kill something inferring that all slaughter is by default cruel, malicious and vile. Who said its a job to aspire to, to enjoy immensely? It is for many of us a job, a thing we do and it neither incites joy or hate nor any emotion as any job does. Its not a hobby, sport, joyful pursuit, its just a thing we do, part of life. Now if you want to be vegan, go for it. Whatever floats your boat, fuel your body how ever you see fit for whatever valid or mad reasons you wish to choose. If I ever qualified as intolerant I guess I'd be forcing people to give up veganism and pushing for it to be outlawed and make milk/egg/meat eating compulsory. That would be intolerant. They want us to stop animal products in the food chain. If they're telling meat eaters they must stop, and their basis cannot be challenged closely because that's hate and intolerance. What the???
Now apparently the real foundations for the vegan position isn't quite made so well. He has made facebook comments about we don't "need" to eat animal based food products.
Let's address it as a "needs" issue. We don't need power windows in cars, but they exist so should we ban them?
We don't need tattoos, do we ensure people don't have them? I mean there may be health issues or objectionable material themed into tattoos that we don't "need" at all. Do we stop them altogether, ban them? No of course not. If we took his don't need to angle all art would cease and maybe Sunrise and all the other shallow mind numbing media vehicles would be gone too. I'm reminded he's stated "
Sometimes you just need to go to Bali and not come back until you have 2 sleeves!" - pointing two his very tattooed arms. So we don't "need" to eat animal based food products, but sometimes we do "need" to get go to a 3rd world Asian country and get both arms fully inked. Ahhh how's that "need" angle even float in a real world? Want tattoos? Go for it, its your skin, your money and in some cases your health and definitely YOUR choice. Want to eat meat? Go for it, or not. No force feeding here at all and animals have always been a food source. EPIC FAIL.
I enjoyed his FaceBook comment/question - "Eating meat is manly??? You're joking, right?"
If I said that, yes I would be joking, so too would Sam Kegovich or Richie Benaud. Eating meat is not a question of manliness or manhood...otherwise women would not eat animal food products. Nice try, not a very good try but effort is noticed to be outweighing cogent thought. Lets slow it right down...its not about manly, its just, well its just food. Honest.
I note the real big one. Sorry I get the feeling he may not fully understand Speciesism as I think many people do not. His comment is/was...
"Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue, in my opinion. One of the most important things I ever posted!"
Lets look at the core. The vegan contention is if a human kills and eats an animal, milks a cow, collects eggs etc for food it is unfair, transgression of Animal Rights and these violations are a direct result of the horrible actions summed up to be Speciesism.
We should point out sentient beings and also speciesism are philosophy terms, not scientific terms. So the entire debate is based on differing philosophical view points. To the vegan, acts of Speciesism are despicable acts of hate and oppression where one species (human) elevates itself over another species (non human), exploits it, enslaves it, murders it and uses it for its own purposes generally for food and other products.
Here's where it fails.
To the Vegan Activist, the Vegan Extremist, the Animal Rights Extremist, the Animal Liberation Extremist the transgressor, the one's committing "Speciesism" are all humans and only humans.
The lion takes down the antelope, kills its prey, sometimes devouring and swallowing parts of its kill before its actually dead, at times still conscious and aware. The Shark eats the fish, alive because its not humanely slaughtered and processed, its just ripped apart violently and devoured in a frenzy more often than not. No table manners in the wild. The cat catches the mouse, plays with it, eventually eats it...or not. The wattle bird raids the nest of other birds, eating the eggs or killing the live young and eating them. The snake eating insects, lizards and at times even its own young. The wild dogs, pigs, cats or other ferals killing native fauna or farmed animals like sheep or cattle, all natural animal instincts. All survival. All animals doing what animals do naturally but none of them are committing heinous acts of "Speciesism". $3 note odd.
None of those creatures are guilty of murder, violence, killing unjustly or denying another animal its animal rights. No. Only the human is actually a "species-ist". That's akin to saying only one particular race can be racist. Singling out humans and saying they enslave animals, commit violence and murder whilst all other species are ok to kill and eat one another...well if Speciesism is a valid term the Veganarchist Extremist has taken the cake. They are the supreme "speciesist" they apply Speciesism to humans and no other species. How's that work???
Here's where little old meat eater me agrees wholeheartedly with James Aspey.
I too agree with "Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue"
It is the entire issue and the hidden part is these inferred rights that all animals have, presumably all animals except humans have to have an inventor. Who created these rights? Who first postulated that these rights do or should exist because before the birth of this mysteriously un-named law giver there must have been no "rights" inferred or otherwise. Lets explore that Veganarachist. Normal vegans rest easy. You're cool with me, its the cult followers that need torchlight.
You cannot have a moral law without a moral law giver. I do believe in God. I believe I'm a Gentile follower of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the God of the Jews. It seems that according to some, the close examination of perceived contradictions from non believers is not only right, its required to show the pre-decided ridicule the Bible heaps upon itself, yet the same amount of rigour (which is generally not very learned rigour anyway) is never applied to other worldviews with the same fervour. Many Jews & Christians point to this being a subtle pointer as to which is the true God as the others aren't opposed so vigorously.
With Sentient, Speciesism and Speciesists being philosophical terms, a faith or religion is afoot.
Either hidden, or not known by its followers.
But applying any such rigour to the Vegan Cult is the work of haters and we all know intolerant haters are gunna hate.
My faith (which none of you reading have to follow or adhere to) shows eating meat and animal based food is quite ok. Its given as a gift of God. Telling me I'm unjust, immoral and unethical is old news. The Bible says we're all fallen and as a result we fall short of being worthy of Heaven. Old news, I know I'm as bad as any person who's ever walked the earth, we all are. Following my faith is apparently going to be ok, long as I go Vegan which is on the side of justice. Ahhh what the???
Who's the intolerant hater now?
There's vegans who don't eat meat/milk/eggs/etc for whatever reason and its a fuel choice based on their own views. Then there's the Veganarchist Cult followers pushing an agenda which is not consistent with Christian, Jewish, Muslim doctrine. Hey I just picked the big 3. There's others.
So we see the Vegan's "moral laws" but who is their moral law giver?
If there isn't one, then someone's just making stuff up and trying to pass personal preference off as ethically perfect judgement and therefore (here's the important bit) condemning to damnation anyone not of the vegan cult. Tolerance?
If they're true atheist, then its all nature and all is fair cos we're all animals. A true full blood atheist has other dilemmas and contradictions but on face value, you cannot accuse them of being "species-ists"
James clearly feels very strongly about the Animal Liberation, Animal Rights and Species-ism.
Passion however does not make a position fact or actually correct even slightly.
Sadly Sunrise does not have the budget, time or resources to properly flesh out issues underlying the whole Vegan Cult. They also do not have the audience that has an inclination for deeper analysis.
If that were to ever happen James would be like a lame antelope to the lion. He would have been devoured savagely.
Instead he gets a good 15 minutes of fame, more regularly than maybe all of us put together.
Fine by me and I think eventually it'll be better if we see more James Aspey type stunts and gain air time.
Maybe more people will stop, take a deep breath and seriously think for a moment.
I would never ever make a Vegan eat meat, and I sure as hell I'm not going to sit back and eat the organic horse sh*t many vegans are serving up.
So how did he go on his 365 days? Well I saw his spot on Sunrise and noticed a lot of questions they should have asked weren't. It was treat as a positive puff piece and whilst he probably was really happy with the exposure, with no decent journalistic rigour applied it kind of stands up as high as the cutesy animal in the lame human interest slot at the end of the news just after the weather.
It turns out, he didn't go the full 365 days. No need to take my word for it either. He's put up his own youtube spot on it, it was a radio interview where he came clean. Not sure if he intentionally set out to make an on air confession or whether he's a poor sod who got caught out on air and revealed himself as a bit of a goose.
You decide for yourself, listen to it while its still on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3UP4lOAHDw
Now couple of things to note, there's not so much vision as there is audio in this youtube piece however of note, the first image you see is a caricature of a guy with his arm around a pig with the slogan Vegan Extremist. This straight away sets him up for everything he is and some of it is not good. His is a world view where choice has to be limited to what he has decided is just, fair and moral and its not mainstream. His foundation for the moral decision is founded in...well he doesn't go that far and it should have been just a small part of the interview to not just understand what he believes, but what the basis for it is and what is the origin of judgement call he makes in what are "truth claims" without any foundation at all.
OK some folk are going to read this and there'll be the usual "Haters gunna hate" spiel...I'll be a hater, and/or intolerant, unfair, immoral and maybe accused of self righteous pontificating. That'll be pretty funny...if I agree totally with James I'll be tolerant, fair, moral level headed yada yada yada.
But if I have a different view, oops a hater. Of course telling people they're unjust, immoral, murderers, unethical etc for eating a chop, sausage, steak or drinking milk, THAT is not intolerance or "hating". Ooooooh nooooo, course not.
Ok his interview was interesting, very distracting is the devolved Australian version of a Woodstock accent which some folk call neo-hippy. "A tiger snake umm like kinda crawled over me or whatever..." But that and the other bro, man, dude language I'll try and put aside.
Apparently he woke up and saw friends and said "What's up bro..." and that happened 5 or 6 times.
Plus the time he whispered the name of his newly acquired girlfriend's name in her ear.
So sadly on Sunrise he wasn't so forthcoming. He wasn't the "Voiceless 365 except for 6 or 7 times guy", nope on Sunrise he hadn't spoken for 365 days and Sunrise was the place of his first words for a year...except that's a lie.
The guy who says he kept a vow of silence for 365 days, actually didn't. Was he fair dinkum? I think he was serious about the cause, think he was serious about the attention, very serious about the media interest, the cultivation of the persona he was developing but if he was fair dinkum, then if you blow it, you have to start again or you didn't actually stay silent for 365 days. How long was his longest stretch without speaking, we don't know. Might have been 10 months could have been 50 days we really don't know. Fact is we can only go by his word and his word only and going by what he told Sunrise he wasn't truthful comparing it to what he (more truthfully) told Steve & Basil & 6PR 882 News Talk.
Now if we're talking about a moral and ethical issue as I think he may suggest, he's kinda on thin ice at best when it comes to morals and ethics. My honest assessment at first glance...EPIC FAIL.
In response to humanely slaughtered comments he states "In my head I'm going, humanely slaughtered? Dude there's no such thing" and he goes on you cannot compassionately kill something inferring that all slaughter is by default cruel, malicious and vile. Who said its a job to aspire to, to enjoy immensely? It is for many of us a job, a thing we do and it neither incites joy or hate nor any emotion as any job does. Its not a hobby, sport, joyful pursuit, its just a thing we do, part of life. Now if you want to be vegan, go for it. Whatever floats your boat, fuel your body how ever you see fit for whatever valid or mad reasons you wish to choose. If I ever qualified as intolerant I guess I'd be forcing people to give up veganism and pushing for it to be outlawed and make milk/egg/meat eating compulsory. That would be intolerant. They want us to stop animal products in the food chain. If they're telling meat eaters they must stop, and their basis cannot be challenged closely because that's hate and intolerance. What the???
Now apparently the real foundations for the vegan position isn't quite made so well. He has made facebook comments about we don't "need" to eat animal based food products.
Let's address it as a "needs" issue. We don't need power windows in cars, but they exist so should we ban them?
We don't need tattoos, do we ensure people don't have them? I mean there may be health issues or objectionable material themed into tattoos that we don't "need" at all. Do we stop them altogether, ban them? No of course not. If we took his don't need to angle all art would cease and maybe Sunrise and all the other shallow mind numbing media vehicles would be gone too. I'm reminded he's stated "
Sometimes you just need to go to Bali and not come back until you have 2 sleeves!" - pointing two his very tattooed arms. So we don't "need" to eat animal based food products, but sometimes we do "need" to get go to a 3rd world Asian country and get both arms fully inked. Ahhh how's that "need" angle even float in a real world? Want tattoos? Go for it, its your skin, your money and in some cases your health and definitely YOUR choice. Want to eat meat? Go for it, or not. No force feeding here at all and animals have always been a food source. EPIC FAIL.
I enjoyed his FaceBook comment/question - "Eating meat is manly??? You're joking, right?"
If I said that, yes I would be joking, so too would Sam Kegovich or Richie Benaud. Eating meat is not a question of manliness or manhood...otherwise women would not eat animal food products. Nice try, not a very good try but effort is noticed to be outweighing cogent thought. Lets slow it right down...its not about manly, its just, well its just food. Honest.
I note the real big one. Sorry I get the feeling he may not fully understand Speciesism as I think many people do not. His comment is/was...
"Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue, in my opinion. One of the most important things I ever posted!"
Lets look at the core. The vegan contention is if a human kills and eats an animal, milks a cow, collects eggs etc for food it is unfair, transgression of Animal Rights and these violations are a direct result of the horrible actions summed up to be Speciesism.
We should point out sentient beings and also speciesism are philosophy terms, not scientific terms. So the entire debate is based on differing philosophical view points. To the vegan, acts of Speciesism are despicable acts of hate and oppression where one species (human) elevates itself over another species (non human), exploits it, enslaves it, murders it and uses it for its own purposes generally for food and other products.
Here's where it fails.
To the Vegan Activist, the Vegan Extremist, the Animal Rights Extremist, the Animal Liberation Extremist the transgressor, the one's committing "Speciesism" are all humans and only humans.
The lion takes down the antelope, kills its prey, sometimes devouring and swallowing parts of its kill before its actually dead, at times still conscious and aware. The Shark eats the fish, alive because its not humanely slaughtered and processed, its just ripped apart violently and devoured in a frenzy more often than not. No table manners in the wild. The cat catches the mouse, plays with it, eventually eats it...or not. The wattle bird raids the nest of other birds, eating the eggs or killing the live young and eating them. The snake eating insects, lizards and at times even its own young. The wild dogs, pigs, cats or other ferals killing native fauna or farmed animals like sheep or cattle, all natural animal instincts. All survival. All animals doing what animals do naturally but none of them are committing heinous acts of "Speciesism". $3 note odd.
None of those creatures are guilty of murder, violence, killing unjustly or denying another animal its animal rights. No. Only the human is actually a "species-ist". That's akin to saying only one particular race can be racist. Singling out humans and saying they enslave animals, commit violence and murder whilst all other species are ok to kill and eat one another...well if Speciesism is a valid term the Veganarchist Extremist has taken the cake. They are the supreme "speciesist" they apply Speciesism to humans and no other species. How's that work???
Here's where little old meat eater me agrees wholeheartedly with James Aspey.
I too agree with "Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue"
It is the entire issue and the hidden part is these inferred rights that all animals have, presumably all animals except humans have to have an inventor. Who created these rights? Who first postulated that these rights do or should exist because before the birth of this mysteriously un-named law giver there must have been no "rights" inferred or otherwise. Lets explore that Veganarachist. Normal vegans rest easy. You're cool with me, its the cult followers that need torchlight.
You cannot have a moral law without a moral law giver. I do believe in God. I believe I'm a Gentile follower of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the God of the Jews. It seems that according to some, the close examination of perceived contradictions from non believers is not only right, its required to show the pre-decided ridicule the Bible heaps upon itself, yet the same amount of rigour (which is generally not very learned rigour anyway) is never applied to other worldviews with the same fervour. Many Jews & Christians point to this being a subtle pointer as to which is the true God as the others aren't opposed so vigorously.
With Sentient, Speciesism and Speciesists being philosophical terms, a faith or religion is afoot.
Either hidden, or not known by its followers.
But applying any such rigour to the Vegan Cult is the work of haters and we all know intolerant haters are gunna hate.
My faith (which none of you reading have to follow or adhere to) shows eating meat and animal based food is quite ok. Its given as a gift of God. Telling me I'm unjust, immoral and unethical is old news. The Bible says we're all fallen and as a result we fall short of being worthy of Heaven. Old news, I know I'm as bad as any person who's ever walked the earth, we all are. Following my faith is apparently going to be ok, long as I go Vegan which is on the side of justice. Ahhh what the???
Who's the intolerant hater now?
There's vegans who don't eat meat/milk/eggs/etc for whatever reason and its a fuel choice based on their own views. Then there's the Veganarchist Cult followers pushing an agenda which is not consistent with Christian, Jewish, Muslim doctrine. Hey I just picked the big 3. There's others.
So we see the Vegan's "moral laws" but who is their moral law giver?
If there isn't one, then someone's just making stuff up and trying to pass personal preference off as ethically perfect judgement and therefore (here's the important bit) condemning to damnation anyone not of the vegan cult. Tolerance?
If they're true atheist, then its all nature and all is fair cos we're all animals. A true full blood atheist has other dilemmas and contradictions but on face value, you cannot accuse them of being "species-ists"
James clearly feels very strongly about the Animal Liberation, Animal Rights and Species-ism.
Passion however does not make a position fact or actually correct even slightly.
Sadly Sunrise does not have the budget, time or resources to properly flesh out issues underlying the whole Vegan Cult. They also do not have the audience that has an inclination for deeper analysis.
If that were to ever happen James would be like a lame antelope to the lion. He would have been devoured savagely.
Instead he gets a good 15 minutes of fame, more regularly than maybe all of us put together.
Fine by me and I think eventually it'll be better if we see more James Aspey type stunts and gain air time.
Maybe more people will stop, take a deep breath and seriously think for a moment.
I would never ever make a Vegan eat meat, and I sure as hell I'm not going to sit back and eat the organic horse sh*t many vegans are serving up.
Test it all, don't be fooled by the fools.
Thursday, 4 December 2014
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-
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”
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. 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…”
Not actually Anti Live Export, actually anti everything Animal Farming.
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.
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...
Implications are...
- 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
- 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.
Are you up for adding legitimacy to that stale bake of nutcake?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)