 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 9:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Peta has been a problematic source for a while now- their utter sexism and misogyny has made it really hard to pay them any serious attention for me. Those are three separate links, by the way.
Links, unsurprisingly for Peta, have naked women in them.
And they're not doing animals any favors, either. Their 'adoption' program kills over 85% of the animals they take in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Shay
Thank you for that post - very interesting.
I have supported PETA for a decade now, however I am concerned about some of the links you have posted.
M
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pulpculture wrote: |
Hi Shay
Thank you for that post - very interesting.
I have supported PETA for a decade now, however I am concerned about some of the links you have posted.
M |
Yeah, a vegan friend of mine showed me that Peta is more interested in making money than saving animals- when they have the chance to directly save them, they don't.
And they treat women, ironically, like meat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a difficult one.
The image of the pregnant woman in a farrowing crate I don't personally have a problem with. The main things to me with this one is the woman is choosing to do this herself and presumably isn't / hasn't been coerced into doing it. I don't think she needs to have her top half exposed however she might be doing that to shock. I'd prefer it if she had a pink top on.
Some of the other pictures I have to agree they are sexualising women and I feel they could achieve the same effect by other styles of adverts without using women.
For me PETA does an awful lot of good in the way it highlights some of the animal issues out there. I now find myself uncomfortable with some of their methods I guess.
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, Anthony, it would be easier to "move on" if you could correctly characterize what I have been saying, and then disagree if you feel so led. I keep having the feeling we are having two different conversations here. I wish you would deal with what I say, and not with what you imagine. I will try to correct some of the confabulations against which you rail. Perhaps that will lay the basis for a more productive conversation.
| Quote: |
| No one has questioned how I prosecute my witness only hunters, except James |
I have suggested that you fundamentally stray from accepted Quaker process when you claim that your personal individual witness against hunting is The Quaker Position. Whether or not I am a hunter does not invalidate that observation.
| Quote: |
| …you and others cannot justify the unjustifiable .... your justification for killing animals for sport is built on denial, and the use of negative defence mechanisms. |
I don't believe I have tried to justify hunting. I have described my experience of hunting, which is different from yours. Please do not take my experience as an argument or as an attack on your testimony.
| Quote: |
| I will continue to oppose hunting … when it is being justified under the guise of God, religion or spirituality |
I have not done that, and I do not believe anyone else here has either. There have been efforts to show that Quaker thought and practice is not united on the question.
| Quote: |
| …the only way you feel able to challenge the right of animals not to be hunted for pleasure and sport is to denigrate me or by other negative means. |
I don't believe I have addressed "the right of animals not to be hunted," but the important part is the matter of insult: where, how, when have I denigrated you? I am open to recognizing my shortcomings and correcting unFriendly characterizations, but need to know how I have offended.
| Quote: |
| I find myself having to be repetitive because of the divirtional ploy used to challenge my claims. |
I understand your impatience with tedium and diversionary ploys. That is my response when I am continually accused of saying things and holding positions that I haven't. I have generally ignored those imaginings, but think I should address them now to clear the air a bit.
No one challenges your testimony: that you see That of God in all animals and are committed to live in that Light and bring that understanding to others. Some have challenged your claim that there is unity among Quakers on your witness against hunting, and John and I have doubted the relevance of some of the references you claim support that witness. But no one has challenged your testimony of the Light you have been given.
| Quote: |
| You have not presented one justifiable reason why you or others should be allowed to ignore the Quaker ethos of peace and non-violence and a tenderness toward all creators and the environment. |
I see no need to justify myself for not living in the Light that guides your path.
| Quote: |
| …[ignoring] the Quaker ethos of peace and non-violence and a tenderness toward all creators and the environment…. is not only a slur on our testimonies for peace and non-violence but is also a blatant demonstration of speciaism…. |
We obviously understand those testimonies in different ways, but if I have inadvertently slurred the Quaker testimonies, I will certainly apologize and will correct any misstatements I have made.
| Quote: |
| All of your arguments are simply negative affirmations of how poorly I may have presented my argument - one that you have not been able to destroy with any credibility. |
I have not intended to "destroy" your "argument." I prefer not to argue about anyone's understanding of the Light they have been given. The basis for your testimony is spiritual, and I do not debate spirituality. (I will, however, discuss texts, history and tradition -usually with pleasure and in peace.)
| Quote: |
| I have asked you to check out all of my posts on this issue and find anything I have said that validates your argument by my omission then please let me know. This you have failed to do! |
I repeat what I said in my previous post:
The only "argument" I have been making is two-fold: 1) there is no unified Quaker position against hunting; and 2) none of us is individually qualified to declare "the Quaker position" in the absence of a Meeting's minuted worshipful discernment.
I believe #2 is incontestable, but am of course willing to discuss it. I think I have addressed #1, and have pointed out some instances where references out of context actually don't support the "argument" being made. (Supporting statements with out-of-context quotes is called "proof-texting.") If you would like to pursue #1 further, that could be an interesting discussion: I believe your position is consistent with Quaker thought, practice and tradition; I also believe hunting (rightly pursued) is consistent with Quaker thought, practice and tradition. I further believe that appropriate use of the resources in Quaker thought, practice and tradition would strengthen your witness.
I would be particularly interested in Meetings -Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly, whenever- that have anti-hunting minutes. That would provide the basis for saying these Friends in that place at that time, discerned hunting to be .... whatever it is they discerned it to be. We could then see how their insight speaks to us. “Quaker Concern For Animals” might be a good resource for those records.
| Quote: |
| I am more than happy to defend the right of animals not to be abused and slaughtered.... I will continue to oppose hunting for pleasure.... |
Let me repeat: I am not arguing with your testimony, and I am not trying to justify hunting (I have no need to). I wish you well in carrying this concern. My personal opinion is that your concern would be better served by more witness and testimony, with less argumentation and proof-texting.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaeldavidjay
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 452
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am neither a hunter, nor a gun owner.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaeldavidjay
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 452
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the video is satire, but the issue is real, and people have actually protested (though not marching in front of the doors, AFAIK) about their methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks Anthony
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Need more be said about 'culling' for pleasure  :
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 2, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hunting is not a sport
'It’s time Americans beat back this utterly depraved, anachronistic fraternity getting their barbaric kicks under the cover of “sport”' To read the full text: http://www.cjournal.info/?p=7132 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CelticNorth
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 755
Location: East of Eden
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 5, 2011 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While there is great compassion and love for all animals expressed here, it goes unnoticed that failure to intercede in the management of wildlife may only be doing harm to some populations of wild animals. Where man and wild animals are forced to coexist due to increased populations by both, it is foolish to think that removing all wildlife management proprams is in the interest of all animals. The wild Mustangs which roam Neveda are a good example of a horse population which require management programs to ensure the continuance of a healthy and ongoing population. I can only empathize with game management officials in the Eastern United States who have to deal with deer populations which can spin out of control and destroy, by themselves, the very habitat needed to sustain themselves. In some situations, human intervention is good for the perpetuation of certain wild game species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 5, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McGuffey wrote: |
| While there is great compassion and love for all animals expressed here, it goes unnoticed that failure to intercede in the management of wildlife may only be doing harm to some populations of wild animals. Where man and wild animals are forced to coexist due to increased populations by both, it is foolish to think that removing all wildlife management proprams is in the interest of all animals. The wild Mustangs which roam Neveda are a good example of a horse population which require management programs to ensure the continuance of a healthy and ongoing population. I can only empathize with game management officials in the Eastern United States who have to deal with deer populations which can spin out of control and destroy, by themselves, the very habitat needed to sustain themselves. In some situations, human intervention is good for the perpetuation of certain wild game species. |
Friend Mac, thank you for your post, you make a valid point, but if you back-read the posts you will find that the discussion is not necessarily about culling but about hunting for pleasure under the so-called name of sport. Nevertheless, hunters often use the guise of culling to indulge their violent passion as a little research will reveal. The purpose of my last post was to show the deviousness of hunters to ensure they have something to kill within the law. Shoot the wolves then the elk will increase and thus ensure culling is necessary. We had the same practice with foxes in the UK whereby the hunter would secretly breed foxes to ensure a population for hunting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 5, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you just brought up culling, am I incorrect in that, Anthony?
Introducing a new variation on a topic then saying, "Nono, we're not talking about (what I just brought up), we're talking about (the overall opinion on the subject I hold!" doesn't seem quite sporting, if you'll pardon the pun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
