Prev: Rupert's endorsement of animal agriculture
Next: Angie Stephenson, Project & Accounts Manager Animal Liberation NSW
From: DrDo on 14 Sep 2008 11:20
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:41:22 +0100, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>"Rupert" <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:548b93cc-2359-40c4-aa51-3fdcaefea2d5(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I have mentioned a few times that I favour the goal of the abolition
>> of the property status of animals,
>
>But falling way short of that goal, saying that you would be prepared
>to countenance (support, approve) some forms of animal agriculture.

May he continue to support lives of positive value for domestic
animals, instead of the misnomer.

>> as a strategy to protect animals from abuse.
>
>Please confirm that IYO non-humans are not intrinsically 'property'.
>
>> I am not totally sold on Francione's idea of only
>> campaigning for abolitionist bans. Neither is Mark Pearson, the
>> director of Animal Liberation NSW; I could give plenty of examples of
>> that. That is why Derek would call him a "welfarist" although perhaps
>> a better label would be "incrementalist". Some of the activists at
>> Animal Liberation NSW moved to Animal Liberation Victoria for this
>> reason.
>
>Yes, I witnessed the (general) conflict up-close over a period of time last
>year on a forum elsewhere. ..All people who care about animals, and all
>people who believe non-humans are due fundamental rights -- violently
>disagreeing about the right strategy to help alleviate suffering, with one
>camp claiming that welfare actions give the impression that the AR
>movement is hm.. prepared to countenance animal agriculture, and the
>welfare activists arguing that we couldn't and shouldn't stop campaigning
>for the end to egregious and systemic cruel practices. Shockingly, some
>AR spokepeople were 'moderated' off the group by one of the group
>"owners" -

What a waste. They should have been toyed with and mocked,
and challenged to explain some of their own absurdities. No one
proves the idiocy of the misnomer like its own advocates.

>who is a staunch welfare campaigner,

Even more reason to let the misnomer advocates hang around and
display their absurdity.

>but who does agree that PETA's goal is AR/abolition, as is hers.

Then she's not a welfarist, much less a staunch campaigner
for the concept.

>What a mess.

The misnomer produces a mess, and really nothing better. What's
the URL for the group?

>IMO the problem could be solved by AR-welfarists

There's no such thing, and by dishonestly pretending providing
decent lives and elimination are the same thing you certainly insult
the concept of AW. You also insult yourself suggesting that you
can't figure out the difference between AW and the misnomer.
You should really try to get this one straight though. I'll lay it out
for you as clearly as I can:

AW - means decent lives of positive value for billions of future
domestic animals.
the misnomer - would mean no life at all for future domestic animals.

Even someone as confused as yourself should be able to comprehend
AND APPRECIATE the huge difference in those two completely different
objectives.

>keeping the aim highlighted in all campaigns.

Misnomer advocates should ALWAYS make it completely clear that
their goal is elimination, and people are dishonest scum when they pretend
to be AW advocates but their goal is truly the complete opposite.

>Cruelty issues are symptoms and we have to strike at
>the root cause, which lies in the way Humanity perceives non-humans,
>.. including as some necessary food item, or property to be farmed...

Those who encourage lives of positive value for domestic animals
are supporting AW. Those who encourage the elimination of those
same animals are supporting the misnomer.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Rupert's endorsement of animal agriculture
Next: Angie Stephenson, Project & Accounts Manager Animal Liberation NSW