Animals Count in Euro Elections

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think it's a pathetic idea.

How would you answer the charge that there has been a strong tendency in modern human society to see the planet and our fellow creatures as expendable entirely towards our own ends?

You'd have to do some intellectual contortions just to get going.

The only question then is if such a tendency has a deal in common with imperialism. It does. It shares the arrogant superiority, the disgusting exploitation, the psychopathy and the ignorance.

 

[Nemo]

Congratulations Taffboy, you're making me re-consider voting for your lot in the elections. Well done.

 

[butchersapron]

How would you answer the charge that there has been a strong tendency in modern human society to see the planet and our fellow creatures as expendable entirely towards our own ends?

You'd have to do some intellectual contortions just to get going.

The only question then is if such a tendency has a deal in common with imperialism. It does. It shares the arrogant superiority, the disgusting exploitation, the psychopathy and the ignorance.

I wouldn't. Imperialism? Get a grip.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

How would you answer the charge that there has been a strong tendency in modern human society to see the planet and our fellow creatures as expendable entirely towards our own ends?

You'd have to do some intellectual contortions just to get going.

The only question then is if such a tendency has a deal in common with imperialism. It does. It shares the arrogant superiority, the disgusting exploitation, the psychopathy and the ignorance.

The planet and other creatures are expendable for our own ends. The only interesting question is how many future generations of humanity we're concerned about, besides our own. Greens, to be fair, look a little further than most.

No contortions necessary.

Imperialism is a word which describes how people treat people. It's as ridiculous to talk about animals in terms of imperialism as it is to talk about slavery or obligations.

 

[purplex]

I quite like this idea, and wish you success because Id really like the issue of animal rights to be taken back from the more extremist activists who have hogged the headlines in the UK and diverted attention from the issues involved, their campaigns of personal intimidation and attacks on individuals, their propaganda and lies about conditions in animal research labs in the uk, in my opinion has set back the cause and turned ordinary people from the subject, animal rights not so long ago had a fairly high profile in the UK until the nutters took over.
Animal rights is of course a europe-wide issue and with the recent accession states adding to the mix where animal rights may not be as advanced its a good opportunity to influence them. I honestly think that may get lost in the green party's agenda.
Good luck.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Maurice Picarda

"The planet and other creatures are expendable for our own ends."

More opinion than demonstrable fact. The only factual basis is that we are not especially prevented from acting like that, a similar principle to how one people can subjigate another through force of arms.


"Imperialism is a word which describes how people treat people"

It is a word meaning empire building, and the empire of humanity on earth has done much to disregard nearly every other type of lifeform. There is also a strong case that animals are people too, they certainly have personalities.

"It's as ridiculous to talk about animals in terms of imperialism as it is to talk about slavery or obligations"

But it's not ridiculous to describe many animals as enslaved, that is exactly what they are.

 

[butchersapron]

It is a word meaning empire building, and the empire of humanity on earth has done much to disregard nearly every other type of lifeform. There is also a strong case that animals are people too, they certainly have personalities.

I think you need to develop this imperialism idea somewhat.

Beyond an empty rhetoricism at least.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

There is also a strong case that animals are people too, they certainly have personalities.

...

But it's not ridiculous to describe many animals as enslaved, that is exactly what they are.

I don't really think that you don't see the difference between restraining beasts and denying humans liberty. But I don't think you do your cause much good.

Anyway, are you going to issue creatures with rights on the basis of how easy it is to imagine that they have personalities? Isn't that a bit cutist?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

"I don't really think that you don't see the difference between restraining beasts and denying humans liberty"

we dont just "restrain" beasts. We very often deny them liberty. That's where the comparrison comes in.

"but I don't think you do your cause much good"

I'm not trying to do my cause good, I'm trying to go through the arguments.
It is typical enough for people to be considered alienating cranks in one generation and their ideas be fully accepted in the next.

"Anyway, are you going to issue creatures with rights on the basis of how easy it is to imagine that they have personalities? Isn't that a bit cutist?"

I havent even got that far in my thinking, I dont think full on rights will get very far in the medium term. The most important thing is to stop deliberate, needless and eco-destructive causing of suffering.

I guess I am talking less about their rights, an area I have no philosophical backround in, and more about how we should not treat them.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Hi
Just to let you know I will get back to you on some of your points. Very busy and very tired. It's 1.15am and I just had a chance to look in here but too tired to respond. Out campaigning in the day tomorrow but will try to reply in the evening.
Thanks for the constructive comments which I will be replying to.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The logic of the Animals Count position is whatever will work best for our health, the welfare of non-humans and the protection of the environment. It's not our "fault" that vast numbers of studies demonstrate over and over again (cf, The China Study is a "meta-study" bringing together the research results of over 800 peer-reviewed studies in addition to original research) that a vegetarian diet is better for human health and less damaging to the environment (also see the United Nations Food & Agricultural Organisation's "Livestock's Long Shadow", available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM); the policies of Animals Count are evidence-based policies, based upon the evidence of science. And however uncomfortable this may be, however inconvenient this may be, it does not stop it being true. We have to respond, and respond urgently, to what the data are telling us.

I knew you were a vegetarian, even a vegan, party! Anyway, I looked up the UN FAO document you refer to and, as I suspected, it does not advocate a vegetarian diet. It argues only for a reduction in present trends in livestock food production.

The original economic logic of livestock production in human history (and prehistory) was that it did not compete with plant food production. For example, sheep and goats can exist on land which is no good for food growing. They eat the vegetation there which we can't and we eat them. The same with chickens and pigs around farms. They eat things we humans can't.So letting them do this and then eating them is an efficient way of making the best use of the available resources.

But what has happened in recent years, under profit-motivated capitalism, is that livestock raising has, with factory farming, etc, began to impact on plant growing, taking over land to produce animal feed that could otherwise be used to grow food for us humans. This is how the report puts it in its summary conclusion:

"Livestock compete for crops but provide a buffer against grain shortages. In simple numeric terms, livestock actually detract more from total food supply than they provide. Livestock now consume more human edible protein than they produce. In fact, livestock consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feedstuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition, whereas only 58 million tonnes of protein are contained in food products that livestock supply. In terms of dietary energy, the relative loss is much higher. This is a result of the recent trend towards more concentrate-based diets for pigs and poultry, with nutritional requirements more similar to humans than ruminants.
This simple comparison obscures the fact that proteins contained in animal products have higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals. Moreover, it does not capture the fact that livestock and their feed also make a contribution to food security objectives by providing a buffer in national and international food supplies that can be drawn upon in case of food shortages. However, as the livestock sector moves away from using feed and other resources that have no or little alternative value, towards using crops and other high value inputs, it enters into competition with food and other uses of commodities and land. While it is probably true that livestock do not detract food from those who currently go hungry, it raises overall demand and prices for crops and agricultural inputs."

So, the report doesn't argue in favour of completely eliminating animal rearing and eating, only that it should be reduced. Which is a different proposition altogether.

The Report also (page 268) has a photo of an Indian boy drinking milk, with the caption:

"Milk offers a good way of providing a protein-rich die for the mass of Indian people, a great number of whom are vegetarians".

Incidentally, I don't think Hindus are strictly vegetarian. I've heard that they can eat meat that has been offered to one of their gods who miraculously transform it into a vegetarian dish (a bit like, but less gruesome, the catholics' transubstantiation but in reverse). Can anybody confirm this?

In any event, as a party advocating compulsory vegetarianism, even veganism, you'll never get anywhere. And you shouldn't.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Hi there

Yes, I'm aware of the information in the UN report having read it in detail, including the tables and appendices! I have never suggested that the UN report advovated a vegetarian diet; I simply pointed out that the report clearly indicates, as documented in laborious and rigorous detail, that livestock farming is the single most significant cause of climate change. That fact still remains a fact. We should, therefore, do *something* about it, and various groups will have different approaches naturally. The Animals Count position is that radical reform of livestock agriculture is required, given how intensive it is in terms of land and water use, how inefficient it is in terms of providing nutrition, and how damaging it is in terms of deforestation and pollution of the land and marine ecosystems.

Animals Count would further contend that, as the now very substantial evidence clearly indicates (and again I must point people to The China Study, which as a meta-study bringing together the results of over 800 peer-reviewed studies, is the most comprehensive report to-date on the link between diet and disease) that a diet which has a predominant meat and dairy component is unhealthy for human beings. Many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people, in the industrialised world, who could otherwise be economically and socially productive, are falling sick and indeed dying, prematurely, due to their chosen diet, with a consequent adverse impact on healthcare systems and the economy. Animals Count, therefore, would contend that we should do *something* about it, and various groups will have different positions naturally.

Animals Count would also indicate that we understand now, as crystal clear as anything could ever be, that the non-human animals that are currently "used" in our food production (and other areas) are sentient beings with a profound capacity to experience pleasure and happiness, pain and suffering (both physical and psychological). We should, therefore, do *something* about it, and various groups will have different approaches naturally. The Animals Count position would be to give due respect to their interests and work towards reducing the level of violence and suffering to which they are currently daily exposed throughout their deliberately foreshortened lives.

I do not believe that there is anything extreme in any of the above. Animals Count seeks only to reduce the level of suffering that there is the world and to promote policies that, hopefully, would improve the lives of animals, the lives and health of humans and help to safeguard the environment on which we all depend for our survival.

Animals Count does not suggest that our animal-centric position is *more* important than the issue of crime, education, welfare or economic recession, or any of the other human-centric issues that have been raised in previous (sometimes quite abusive posts), simply that thes "animal-related" issues are important too, and deserving of some attention as well.

Two hundred years ago there were many pressing social issues, both national to the UK and international in scope, which deserved serious attention, and now I am glad that some people (to the derision of many at the time) also took the issue of slavery seriously.

A hundred and fifty ago there were many pressing social issues, both national to the UK and international in scope, which deserved serious attention, and now I am glad that some people (to the derision of many at the time) also took the issue of child exploitation seriously.

A hundred years ago there were many pressing social issues, both national to the UK and international in scope, which deserved serious attention, and now I am glad that some people (to the derision of many at the time) also took the issue of female suffrage seriously.

Forty years ago there were many pressing social issues, both national to the UK and international in scope, which deserved serious attention, and now I am glad that some people (to the derision of many) also took the issue of homosexual rights seriously.

Animals Count simply wish to follow, in due humility, in the footsteps of those who have gone before us to promote social justice and fairness for all, and expand the circle of those who are included in the protection and support of society.

There have been some very positive posts on this thread which have recognised that this is our intention, even whilst also saying that they would not fully or even at all, advocate our policy positions, and I have great respect for what has been said.

There have also, unfortunately, been some abusive and derisive comments with the use of expletives and foul language, which sadly reduce the quality of debate. Animals Count is not "taking over the world" so why is our policy position regarded as such a threat?! Perhaps some of the posters do have some deep down guilt after all over what their diet is doing to themselves and the planet...

 

[dylans]

Animals Count does not suggest that our animal-centric position is *more* important than the issue of crime, education, welfare or economic recession, or any of the other human-centric issues that have been raised in previous (sometimes quite abusive posts), simply that thes "animal-related" issues are important too, and deserving of some attention as well.

.

But clearly you do suggest that your animal centric position is more important. You are trying to build a political party on that basis. Your animal rights position is not simply one of many positions held by your party, it is the central plank.

This is what concerns me. That animal rights are being pushed ( by the nature of your party)as MORE important than issues which clearly ARE more important. It is not good enough for you to simply say " we care about other issues too" You have chosen animal rights to be the central position of your party and it is this that people regard as daft. Not the fact that you are concerned about animals (that's neither here nor there) but the fact that you consider this issue to be the one most worthy of your efforts.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

But clearly you do suggest that your animal centric position is more important. You are trying to build a political party on that basis. Your animal rights position is not simply one of many positions held by your party, it is the central plank.

This is what concerns me. That animal rights are being pushed ( by the nature of your party)as MORE important than issues which clearly ARE more important. It is not good enough for you to simply say " we care about other issues too" You have chosen animal rights to be the central position of your party and it is this that people regard as daft. Not the fact that you are concerned about animals (that's neither here nor there) but the fact that you consider this issue to be the one most worthy of your efforts.

Yes that is correct, Animals Count has an animal-centric policy manifesto (with such policies leading into other human-centric and environmental policies) and that is what Animals Count adopts as its core objectives. And Animals Count is one of many parties, one of many groups, Animals Count is NOT telling everyone else that they MUST think exactly the same way and adopt EXACTLY the same policy issues as the most important.

As I said in my previous post, Animals Count is NOT taking over the world so can people please stop acting like they are! Animals Count sits alongside (and indeed at present much lower down in order of "importance" and "influence") other parties.

Animals Count believes that its policy objectives can complement the policy objectives of other parties, and can hopefully - through positive dialogue and conversation with those other parties - reach consensus and agreement on effective measures to combat climate change, ensure sustainable agricultural practices, and improve the health and well-being of the human population and make most effective use of (limited!) economic and environmental resources.

That's all. Good grief. What's everyone so worried about? Animals Count is not trying to establish a Dictatorship of The Proletariat (And Everyone Else) On Planet Earth and You Will Do As They Say...

As with the Party for the Animals in The Netherlands, Animals Count simply wish to advocate on behalf of issues that it is felt by some have not received their due attention and to be present to lobby on behalf of those whose interests are most easily dismissed.

There are MANY issues that deserve our urgent attention. And there are many "interest groups" out there, and I have no problem with those groups advocating on behalf of what they think are the most important issues. Animals Count is highlighting its concerns and everyone is free to place emphasis on the issues that most concern them too. But do please allow Animals Count to advocate on the issues that are important to that organisation...

... it's called democracy people. And just to let you know, one of the MEP candidates for Animals Count, Richard Deboo, has long supported/campaigned for/raised funds for - amongst others - The New Internationalist Co-operative, Médècins Sons Frontieres, Reporters Without Borders, World Vision, Action Aid, Amnesty International and many others... it's *not* only about animals, it's about the needs of everyone...

 

[Nemo]

So when we get beyond your grandiloquent rhetoric and presumptuous self-comparisons, what positions could we expect any elected representatives from your party to take on the "human-centric" issues on which they would be spending most of their time if they were doing their jobs properly?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

There have also, unfortunately, been some abusive and derisive comments with the use of expletives and foul language, which sadly reduce the quality of debate. Animals Count is not "taking over the world" so why is our policy position regarded as such a threat?! Perhaps some of the posters do have some deep down guilt after all over what their diet is doing to themselves and the planet...

In my view, your post was indistinguishable from spam in that you rocked up to ask for votes and cash. However, just because it wasn't deleted, you can still expect the robust level of debate that any loonspud would attract, whether they are a truther or a piggy's rights lobbyist.

If you can't stand the heat, then you'd be well advised to pack up your lentils and bugger off out of the kitchen.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yet animals are not adequately protected by most political parties. Instead, they focus on other social issues, and animal issues are rarely taken seriously.

Would those other social issues revolve around, you know, human problems?

As for animal issue rarely taken seriously, this country has some of the most far reaching animal protection leglisation in the world and it's a subject that gets lots of serious attention from most parties - when it's relevant and timely to do so.

As for the rest of the anthropromorphising bullshit on that site...please, sort the problems with humans out and you won't need to sort problems with animals out...

 

[dylans]

Yes that is correct, Animals Count has an animal-centric policy manifesto (with such policies leading into other human-centric and environmental policies) and that is what Animals Count adopts as its core objectives. And Animals Count is one of many parties, one of many groups, Animals Count is NOT telling everyone else that they MUST think exactly the same way and adopt EXACTLY the same policy issues as the most important.

There are MANY issues that deserve our urgent attention. And there are many "interest groups" out there, and I have no problem with those groups advocating on behalf of what they think are the most important issues. Animals Count is highlighting its concerns and everyone is free to place emphasis on the issues that most concern them too. But do please allow Animals Count to advocate on the issues that are important to that organisation...

But it is precisely YOUR promotion of animal rights above all issues that is in dispute. The fact that YOU consider the ethical treatment of animals to be MORE worthy of YOUR time and effort than issues that should be more important i.e human issues. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand advocate a political party based on animal rights as its central concern and then suggest that there are other platforms for human issues when questioned about your priorities. It is precisely YOUR priorities that I am questioning. Yours. Why, given all the important issues facing human beings that YOU should want to give all your efforts and time to the issue of animal rights.

 

[kyser_soze]

Because dealing with the 'problems' animals face is much, much easier than dealing with the problems faced and caused by humans - it's a retreat (as is all single issue politicking) from complexity into moral certitude.

 

[dylans]

Because dealing with the 'problems' animals face is much, much easier than dealing with the problems faced and caused by humans - it's a retreat (as is all single issue politicking) from complexity into moral certitude.

Unfortunately, I think that hits the nail on the head.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

So when we get beyond your grandiloquent rhetoric and presumptuous self-comparisons, what positions could we expect any elected representatives from your party to take on the "human-centric" issues on which they would be spending most of their time if they were doing their jobs properly?

Without wanting or even needing to put forward an enormously detailed exposition of every possible issue, I would have thought that it would have been fairly obvious from the list of organisations that have been supported by Richard Deboo; if you've read The New Internationalist and read the reports of Amnesty International and Action Aid, it should be apparent where such a candidate would stand in relation to economics, crime/"punishment", education, welfare, international business relations and resource usage.

Economics: certainly it should come as no surprise that an Animals Count representative such as Mr Deboo would feel that the so-called "Chicago School of Economics neo-liberal economic theory" is a bankrupt notion and has caused immense damage to many national economies over recent decades, with its most recent effect felt in the so-called "credit crunch", and that we need an urgent rethink of national and international business relations, how and where national governments - and international institutions such as the EU, IMF and World Bank - provide support for industry and communities. The relationship between public and private sectors and the responsibilities of each demands critical examination. The social reponsibility of wealthy individuals and companies to make due payment of relevant taxes needs to be addressed and "loopholes" closed and "tax havens" abolished.

Crime: the link between crime and poverty, under-achievement and disengagement from social support structures is clearly established and policies to very substantially reduce poverty (by a fairer distribution of the vast wealth generated by sovereign nations and major national and international companies (by ensuring that all due tax is paid as required)) are surely the way forward.

Other: effective social democracy, re-engagement of the population with the political and decision-making process, social justice for all members of a society, the provision of universal education and healthcare, and the provision of welfare support for disadvanted members of a society, would all form part of the general political philosophy of an Animals Count candidate.

Goodness me, no-one asked Martin Bell for an exact and detailed description of every policy position he had when he stood as an MP in the UK, it was enough thay he was wearing a white suit!

Should an Animals Count representative achieve success in an election there is no doubt that she/he would take a very active interest in all policy areas and seek to engage in debate on as many issues as possible, reaching a decision on those issues through a combination of their political philosophy and a reading of the evidence. Much like anyone else, really.

 

[dylans]

Without wanting or even needing to put forward an enormously detailed exposition of every possible issue, I would have thought that it would have been fairly obvious from the list of organisations that have been supported by Richard Deboo; if you've read The New Internationalist and read the reports of Amnesty International and Action Aid, it should be apparent where such a candidate would stand in relation to economics, crime/"punishment", education, welfare, international business relations and resource usage.

Economics: certainly it should come as no surprise that an Animals Count representative such as Mr Deboo would feel that the so-called "Chicago School of Economics neo-liberal economic theory" is a bankrupt notion and has caused immense damage to many national economies over recent decades, with its most recent effect felt in the so-called "credit crunch", and that we need an urgent rethink of national and international business relations, how and where national governments - and international institutions such as the EU, IMF and World Bank - provide support for industry and communities. The relationship between public and private sectors and the responsibilities of each demands critical examination. The social reponsibility of wealthy individuals and companies to make due payment of relevant taxes needs to be addressed and "loopholes" closed and "tax havens" abolished.

Crime: the link between crime and poverty, under-achievement and disengagement from social support structures is clearly established and policies to very substantially reduce poverty (by a fairer distribution of the vast wealth generated by sovereign nations and major national and international companies (by ensuring that all due tax is paid as required)) are surely the way forward.

Other: effective social democracy, re-engagement of the population with the political and decision-making process, social justice for all members of a society, the provision of universal education and healthcare, and the provision of welfare support for disadvanted members of a society, would all form part of the general political philosophy of an Animals Count candidate.

Goodness me, no-one asked Martin Bell for an exact and detailed description of every policy position he had when he stood as an MP in the UK, it was enough thay he was wearing a white suit!

Should an Animals Count representative achieve success in an election there is no doubt that she/he would take a very active interest in all policy areas and seek to engage in debate on as many issues as possible, reaching a decision on those issues through a combination of their political philosophy and a reading of the evidence. Much like anyone else, really.

And how is any of that any different to the Greens (who I am seriously considering voting for as an alternative to spoiling my ballot)

 

[Ruby Shoes]

But it is precisely YOUR promotion of animal rights above all issues that is in dispute. The fact that YOU consider the ethical treatment of animals to be MORE worthy of YOUR time and effort than issues that should be more important i.e human issues. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand advocate a political party based on animal rights as its central concern and then suggest that there are other platforms for human issues when questioned about your priorities. It is precisely YOUR priorities that I am questioning. Yours. Why, given all the important issues facing human beings that YOU should want to give all your efforts and time to the issue of animal rights.

From Richard Deboo, MEP candidate, Animals Count: I devote a huge amount of my time ALSO to human rights issues (I am meeting with a major figure from Liberty later this week), and SOME of my time is also taken up with Animals Count.

I raise these animal-related issues AS WELL (can you read, that's AS WELL, not ONLY) because they ALSO (can you read, that's ALSO, not ONLY) require attention, and Animals Count is ONE OF (can you read, that's ONE OF not ONLY) the organisations through which I promote MANY (can you read, that's MANY not ONE) important issues,which TOGETHER can, hopefully, make a positive difference.

I do NOT give ALL of my time and efforts to the issue of animal rights. Animals Count is focused on animal-related issues and a LOT of my other time (I'm good at time management...) is devoted to human rights and human-centered political issues. Without Animals Count (and other campaigning groups such as Animal Aid, Viva, The Dr Hadwen Trust) this important issue (which is one of MANY IMPORTANT issues) would not get the attention that it deserves.

We really ought not dismiss the need to place some focus at least on the single biggest cause of climate change and ecosystem degradation. And if social justice is to mean anything at all then we ought to place some focus at least on those non-humans in our world who are currently so exploited (as are so many profoundly disadvanted humans in many communities across the world and whose needs ALSO demand our urgent attention).

Animals Count represents an attempt to raise the profile of AN (note, not the ONLY) issue which requires more attention than it currently receives; it was, after all, mysteriously missing from Mr Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", perhaps it was too inconvenient...!

Still, while we're at it, perhaps we should also have a go at the British Retail Consortium because they're so bloody-minded and focused on the British retail industry, and let's not get started on Save The Children, eh, with their obsession with what happens to children, what about adults? Don't they deserve attention? And as for Cancer Research UK, well, they NEVER mention diabetes or Alzheimer's - all that fund-raising and effort just going to ONE issue!! Outrageous...

By taking a multi-disciplinary, multi-issue approach we can hopefully see the interconnectedness of events and problems which otherwise may appear disparate and unconnected. Animals Count represents an attempt to add one more piece to the jigsaw puzzle which it is hoped can add clarity to some of the social and environmental problems we are all facing...

 

[butchersapron]

Being shouted at by an MEP is hardly likely to persuade people to vote for you.

 

[kyser_soze]

Still, while we're at it, perhaps we should also have a go at the British Retail Consortium because they're so bloody-minded and focused on the British retail industry, and let's not get started on Save The Children, eh, with their obsession with what happens to children, what about adults? Don't they deserve attention? And as for Cancer Research UK, well, they NEVER mention diabetes or Alzheimer's - all that fund-raising and effort just going to ONE issue!! Outrageous...

*looks for the policy manifestos and electoral programmes of the BRS, STC etc etc*

Nope, can't see any BRC candidates running for the European parliament. Can anyone else find anyone running for actual office from any of these lobby groups?

 

[ddraig]

In my view, your post was indistinguishable from spam in that you rocked up to ask for votes and cash. However, just because it wasn't deleted, you can still expect the robust level of debate that any loonspud would attract, whether they are a truther or a piggy's rights lobbyist.

If you can't stand the heat, then you'd be well advised to pack up your lentils and bugger off out of the kitchen.

extremly childish post!

 

[Maurice Picarda]

extremly childish post!

The OP? Naive, certainly.

 

[ddraig]

But it is precisely YOUR promotion of animal rights above all issues that is in dispute. The fact that YOU consider the ethical treatment of animals to be MORE worthy of YOUR time and effort than issues that should be more important i.e human issues. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand advocate a political party based on animal rights as its central concern and then suggest that there are other platforms for human issues when questioned about your priorities. It is precisely YOUR priorities that I am questioning. Yours. Why, given all the important issues facing human beings that YOU should want to give all your efforts and time to the issue of animal rights.

yes but you could use that argument on solicitors and lawyers who work for corporations rather than people.
or doctors who work with prisoners when they could be working with children etcetcetc
crap argument

 

[ddraig]

The OP? Naive, certainly.

in your opinion but is there a need for the sneering abuse? make you feel big and righteous or just a little giggle. either way, grow up

 

[bluestreak]

I'm all for animals, being somewhere around the point just before AR starts getting nuts, but i don't think that there is any reason whatsoever to vote for this party unless a) you really don't like people, or b) there is no-one else on the list to represent you so you might as well pick a party that will represent your pets.

Actually, that's probably me on both counts. Uh...