pearls and oyster cruelty?

[Guest]

I saw a Nova show on PBS the other night on the pearl industry. It brought to mind a good question: have any animal rights groups gotten their dander up and complained about the damage and eventual death done to the oysters to cultivate the pearl? I have not heard anything like that, but find it terribly hard to believe no one has made a stink about this. Now don't get me wrong, I love pearls and would love a south sea black pearl necklace... so I have no issue with the industry. It just struck me as odd that's all. Obviously, the oyster isn't cute or adorable enough to matter to the animal rights people. But they are cut open in an assembly line like manner when they place the irritant that will become the pearl. Region to region, the mortality rate varies greatly, but in some places, more than half of the oysters die before they produce the first pearl. The longest an oyster lasted was about 7 years, and that was much more rare. Seeing that south sea pearls that are perfectly round in size go for big $, I wonder why pearlers don't get flack the way that fur farmers do. I just wanted others opinions on this and to know if any anti-pearling campaigns were out there that I'd missed.

[Guest]

Ys good point. Its the hypocrisy of someone who is anti fur and pro pearl

 

BUT the worst is the diamond wearer who is anti fur.

 

 

One supermodel...I forget who...maybe mini or missy...got engaged and refused to hae a diamond ring though she models and is pro fur cos she says the Bushmen of the Kalahari have been treated abysmally for diamonds. Now they have their land back PETA must be livid because they will be be able to hunt big game again. yet what that means is that their way of life will protect habitats.

 

Just goes to show that people don't look into things. Good relevant post Miss T as usual!

[Guest]

I've tonged a lot of oysters in my youth but no matter how many I opened and cucked down after dipping them in hot sauce I never found a pearl.

 

I'm sure PeTA would accuse me of practicing animal cannibalism if there is such a thing. I'm sure they'll reconfigure the dictionary to make it so

 

 

 

OFF

[Ravens8]

Sweet avatar Off.

 

What about mussels, cockles and winkles etc. And the fishing industry? Tons of living creatures being poured from the nets, still alive to die suffocating unable to move under the weight of fish above them.

 

What about vegetables and plants. Just because they cant think like us, move like us etc, they are still living things. And now a lot of evidence that they communicate information between themselves. But they dont make a noise to communicate, so that's ok then, rip them up and eat them alive! If they can communicate, wgat else can they do which we cannot even start to comprehend because they are so different from us.

 

Who drew the line between animal and plant anyway, the line could have been put in other places, it's just convention.

 

I guess there's no right or wrong , everybody draws their own lines depending on belief. Not sure PETA has any lines at all. Too dim to stop and think things through, like a lot of people who just follow the herd, and dont think for themselves

[Worker 11811]

Judging by the way P∂TA-freaks whine about lobsters being tortured and killed, it's just a short leap of logic to oysters.

 

I think it would be a good rhetorical device to fight AGAINST P∂TA-freaks:

 

P∂TA -- Fur is cruel.

 

You -- What about lobsters? Isn't boiling them alive cruelty to lobsters?

 

P -- Of course it is! They scream when you kill them!

 

Y -- Well, then, killing oysters for their pearls would be cruelty, too. Wouldn't it?

 

If they agree, you can lead them down the Primrose Path to an absird conclusion like, "Since oyesters and lobsters eat seaweed and algae, it should therefore be wrong to kill and eat seaweed."

 

If they disagree, you simply say what Miss T. did:

 

"Because animals are cute and furry and oysters are ugly and slimy, does that give YOU the exclusive right to decide what is cruelty and not?"

 

Truth be told, commercial aquaculture is doing as much damage to the ocean as commercial farming is doing to the land. Floating rafts of oysters and underwater cages of fish displace aquatic species just the same way slash-and-burn agriculture displaces land animals.

 

People need to realize that, in order to feed the growing population of the earth, SOMETHING is going to have to give. Either we're going to have to stop whining and accept the destruction of a few species that we may live or else we're going to have to start practicing forced sterilization of our population to keep the birth rate down. Fail those two measures, the only options are a "Logan's Run" style program of euthanasia or we're just going to have to accept our lot and starve to death.

 

When you get right down to it, there are NO actions without consequences. We just have to learn to chose those actions with the least objectionable consequences...

 

BTW: My wife's diamond ring was made before Sierra Leone was even an independant country so it does not contain "Blood Diamonds".

[Ravens8]

Either we're going to have to stop whining and accept the destruction of a few species that we may live or else we're going to have to start practicing forced sterilization of our population to keep the birth rate down.

 

This is only partially true Worker. The global population needs to be brought down, true, otherwise we will run out of sustainable resources for continual life. But that is exactly the crux of the problem and the cause of our woes.

 

If governments would just jump off the bandwagon, forget all this crap about carbon emissions control, greenhouse gasses etc, then they could actually do something positive that would make a difference. The global warming crap is not because of human activities, its because there are too many humans being active - there's a difference.

 

If governments devoted the considerable financial resources being squandered on useless ideas that wont make a scrap of difference, and started implementing alternative poicies, tat if started now would not be painfull, then there are many ways to make a difference to the global population within a few generations, without all this cataclysmic stuff about enforced sterilisation, euthanasia, water wars etc etc.

 

They wont ever do this, because the present policies bolster their egos and feather their nest. Which means they are condeming us to Natures way of culling overpopulated species which is as you say, starvation, drought and catastrophic disease.

 

And we are sitting meekly by letting them do it.

 

Wew are totally dillusional in thinking that we are in control in any way of our destiny. Nature is controlling us the whole way, and always has done so.

[Guest]

Just discouraging wasteful use of resources would be a start. Trouble is the goverment put all that on the taxpayer, frquent flyer etc when they get active in that dept. A major address of the manufacturing of complete crap, made from non renewables, and doing things like releasing things then needing an upgraded vrsion two years later when all the time th tech is there to bring out the upgrade form day one. Same as a team changing its kit every year to encourage sales . How do you do that though? Our whole western economy is basd on it and that is what is causing the trouble to animals. I mean I went in IKEA the other day cos I was dragged by a friend and thought thre is no way I would want any of this stuff let alone pay for it but the drones just queue for it.

 

Oh point of order the lobsters screams are air leaving the shell...it has no vocal apparatus capable of screaming. The Nazis banned it btw as their first act after the Labour Laws.

[Ravens8]

Wot? the nazis banned air leaving the lobster's shell?? - clever

[Worker 11811]

Oh point of order the lobsters screams are air leaving the shell...it has no vocal apparatus capable of screaming.

 

I know this. Most normal people do. But it is one of the silly arguments P∂TA-freaks love to use when arguing that killing lobsters is cruel. I used it as a stereotypical thing a P∂TA-freak would say.

 

This, too, can be used to paint a P∂TA-freak into a logical corner, so to speak. Get them to rant on a point of minutia like whether or not lobsters actually scream. Allow them to pontificate until they are blue in the face. Then quiety ask:

 

"How can a lobster scream when it has no vocal aparatus?"

 

Once you have them pinned, follow their chain of logic back to the top, picking apart each item as you go. Once you have come back to their original argument, you say:

 

"Every single point of argument you made in support of your conclusion has been proved false. How do you expect people to believe you when you have done nothing but spout falsehood after falsehood?"

 

I have done this to more than one person. They all walk a wide circle around me. They know better than to start up another debate when I am within earshot, lest they be publicly made a fool of a second time.

[Guest]

Wot? the nazis banned air leaving the lobster's shell?? - clever

 

Ravens read that Mark Almond article; everyone here should :

 

http://www.editrixoffice.com/sport_hitler.htm

 

Good points worker it gets them mad though cos you have made a fool of them.

[Worker 11811]

Standard debating technique: Get your opponent pissed off enough that they start to stutter and holler and stamp their feet.

 

Remember, a debate isn't about the dialoge between you and your opponent. It is about the rapport you establish between you and your audience. Your job is to make your opponent look bad in the audience's eyes. You are there to win the hearts and minds of the public. You don't give a rat's ass WHAT your opponent does or says as long as it makes YOU look better in the audience's eyes.

 

I was the technical operator for the venue that hosted a debate between an incumbent congressman and his challenger. The congressman just stood there and let the challenger rant and rave about any old subject he wanted to. He accused the congressman of being corrupt in just about every way you can imagine. He answered every question with direct, one-sentence answers. He stood behind his lectern with his hands at his sides, simply smiling politely whenever his opponent spoke.

 

At the end of the debate, when it was time to make closing remarks, the congressman reached under his lectern and pulled out a book, written by the opponent. He held it up, pointed out the author's name and verified that it was his opponent who wrote it.

 

Then he quoted several pages from the book to the effect that prostitution ought to be legalized and that certain drugs should be decriminalized and several other things. The challenger started screaming at the top of his lungs that it wasn't fair: "I wrote that book 20 years ago!"... "That's not what I meant!"... "You quote me out of context!" The guy was LIVID! He shouted and stamped his feet and pounded his fist on the podium.

 

The congressman stood there quietly waiting for the noise to die down then he pointed at his opponent and said in a calm voice, "THIS man, Mr. John Smith, wants to be your next congressman."

 

In this kind of political debate, the challenger usually gets to make his closing remarks last but he didn't even bother. He just walked off the stage because he knew that he'd been beat.

 

This perfectly illustrates what I've been saying about style vs. substance.

 

I don't care if it was the Nazis who started the anti-smoking movement or if it was little green men in flying saucers! In a debate about animal rights or whether killing oysters for pearls is cruel, facts like that are miniscule even if they are true. The whole point is to pin your opponent down so that nobody will believe him, no matter what he says.

 

Allowing him to make a stink about such a things as whether lobsters scream can only make YOU look good if you play your cards right!

[Guest]

I love the way oysters scream and wiggle when I dip them in the hot sauce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

Yes we know that worker.

It is not how it works in the UK.

 

We do...well until Blair anyway....put content truth and strength of argument in front of public perceptions. Many are shocked by the UK parliament.

 

Sadly maybe we will have to learn it as Blair and Cameron have. Neither have any strength of character but it appears to be what people want these days.

 

What I want to know is whether the lobster screams, what evidence there is for and against and what the implications are, and how far the state should be involved in doingg something about it....... rather than politicians who pretend the lobster does not exist while they play PR games!

[Worker 11811]

But, you miss the point. It's NOT P.R. games. It's all about getting the audience to side with you instead of the opponent.

 

P.R. is all about blowing sunshine up a person's ass so they don't notice your real agenda until it's too late. (i.e.: "You can fool some of the people some of the time...")

 

A good debater is a person who can get the audience to applaud him for saying the sky is yellow even though every single one of them know it's a damn lie.

 

That's what P∂TA does. Who doesn't know by now that they kill more animals than they save? Who doesn't know that half the animals that go to the pound are sent to the gas chamber? But P∂TA are the ones who can make people think THEY are the good guys for doing it!

 

Nobody cares WHO decided to abolish smoking. Nobody cares WHO invented animal rights, nor do they care WHY. All they care about is seeing carismatic individuals stand up on television and use people like YOU as examples of why they should follow a given cause.

 

This has very little to do with facts or even a person's looks. It has EVERYTHING to do with winning the hearts and minds of the population just long enough so that they can pull off whatever scam they come up with next.

 

This is going to continue until you can get enough people to stand up and say, "Bullshit!" And, you're not going to do that spouting off about how the Nazis invented animal rights campaigns.

[Guest]

Oh yes we are.

And that is because its the truth.

It may not win me friends for pointing that out and providing many pieces of evidence but those that reject it are deluded.

 

Hitler was the first person to say animals had rights; and the first person to use the term "passive smoking".

 

That is fact not debating tactic.

I am not a politician . All I can do is tell the politicians the facts. Then they debate them in Parliament. Where do you think they find out stuff like this?

And how they put it over in debate is waht may cahnge public perception but that isn't my job. My job is to expose lies and propaganda. My job is to change policy.

 

Because if someone doesnt keep screaming at the politicians they have to buy the heroin crop Afghanistan is going to be another Iraq. They are getting the message but its only me and a couple of army officers been saying it.

 

The fact that Hitler banned Hunting is probably the biggest single thing responsible for the turn around in public opinion in the UK and Hunting will be relegalised in the next government which will be conservative. Yes that is because Cameron is good at debate but he has to have ammunition to debate with; he may use it in more subtle ways but believe me it is used.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Guest

[Worker 11811]

The party knows that Blair is probably on his way out unless he can pull off an upset victory in the next election. But they ALSO know that they are still in control until then.

 

So, what they are going to do is let people like you stand up and rail against Blair and make themselves look like kooks. The party is using him as a political tar baby.

 

"Oh, PLEASE don't throw me into the briar patch!"... That's exactly what they want you do to!

 

While YOU are out there screaming your head off they are using YOU as cover to slip by as many silly laws as they can until they are either voted out or until they can find another party leader to take Blair's place. They've got nothing to lose.

 

Either way, YOU LOSE!

[Guest]

Wait and see on 3 May when we have the welsh assembly elections.

 

The party is using Blair? give me a break they haven't got the brains. Blair will hand over to Brown for the next phase unless they produce a challenge because they realise that the party is led by another authoritarian one.

 

They are all dead men walking and that is largely because of the f word: foxhunting.

 

The 59% for it list it as a priority and 30% of the remainder list it as a low priority. We have won the argument with the people who count.

Cameron has a low populaity rating yet surges in the polls because everyone hates New labour now bcause evrything they do is authroitarian, spin, and downright wicked.

 

Getting caught with their pants down lying about the maps of where Iranian waters are by the people who make the maps was a typical case in point. They looked very good doing it but it was a lie.

 

Don't get me wrong I know what you are saying is right if you are a politician or tv presenter; or are debating to win hearts and minds. I know I am not good at it. Nevertheless I have been very succesful at getting infrormation over to those that are; and that info has been used extensively in Parliamentary debate; and by the Countryside Alliance who are very good at what you suggest. they ain't very good at getting the arguments and evidence in the first place though.

[Worker 11811]

What you should do is sit back in your chair and quietly wait. Then when the opportunity presents, lean back, smile and say, "Remember when I told you Blair was full of it?!"

 

Let the OTHER guy do all the useless talking but, when he comes on YOUR turf, let him walk into your rhetorical trap and make HIM look like the fool!

 

Before you know it, you'll have more people standing on your side of the aisle and all you'll have to do is quietly ask, "What do you think we should do?"

 

You'll get a resounding, "Vote the bastards out!"

 

Fait

[sta]

TOS, I do partially agree with you. Blair and labour are definitely on the way out, but it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, the majority of the people in the UK are sick of hearing the Telegraph/Mail readers rant and rave and try their desperate tactics to try and get their point across, the rest of the population either don't care as it has been banned and the rest would balk at the fact of the whole farce being raised again in parliment. The reason Blair and his gang are on the way out is the cash for honours scandal and without a doubt The Iraq war. Apart from your little gang of 'country' (the majority of which live in the city but have pushed real country people out of their villages with their second homes) no one really gives a sh1t about hunting in the UK anymore. I'd hate to see a Conservative government get in and a return to huge unemployment, NHS underspending and neglect in our schools, but then again I hate the way the Labour party has gone with their refusal to clamp down on dole scum and their constant brown nosing of Bush. Which just leaves the Liberals,,, and who in their right mind would vote for them!

[Guest]

Quote :

the majority of the people in the UK are sick of hearing the Telegraph/Mail readers rant and rave and try their desperate tactics to try and get their point across, the rest of the population either don't care as it has been banned and the rest would balk at the fact of the whole farce being raised again in parliment.

End Quote

 

Yes Sta that is true.

(Please forgive this long post but your post deserves considered repsonse)

 

And that is my point. IF you are going to victimise a minority you had better be sure that it is worth it; otherwise they will make your life hell.

Eventually you have to listen to them. Because truth will be heard. Read the 600 veterinary surgeons evidence to the Burns report Sta; that is evidence that was ignored. Three former high officilas that include the Directors of the league Against cruel Sports now campaign for us; hell that is like the ufrden converting Ingrid Newkirk!

 

And beware the anger of a patient man.

 

While it is NOT as your rightly say a prioroty to the vast majority of people, it is to the 2 million who have been criminalised. The couple of thousand who screamd loudest and bribed Labour with a million pounds care about the ban staying in place but their arguments are weak; and now two million have put their point well.

 

BTW the Mail is not particularly pro hunting and is anti fur. It is a petit bourgeois newspaper of the middle class; with all its prejudices.

 

The Telegraph is a far better newspaper as you well know.

 

So what it comes down to is persuading the electorate that our point is not just valid; but because it is so unjust it will not go away without a big fight.

 

The only sucess the Tories had in the last election was with the two MPS in Wales who were brave enough to stannd on the hunting issue alone; Monmouthshire and pembrokeshire. Now we would not win Cardif true; but if enough smokers are incensed by such illiberalism and enough moslems incensed buy it too (and yes Iraq) then that is enough to get the swing.

 

You cannot victimise significant minority groups by criminilising them or legislating aginst their culture.

 

Hunting is not just a sport in the Welsh countrysde it is the whole basis of our society.

 

Your point about the "settlers" is completely erroneous. The ONLY people who DON'T understand that are the people who have moved into the countryside: they are the ONLY antis.

It isn't just foxhunting its the way we do things....hawks, ferrets everything. You cannot leave cardiff in any direction even by sea without seeing sheep. We are a WORKING contryside and antis do NOT exist in it apart from vilaages like the Gower infiltrated by petit bourgeois surfers and wealthy trendy liberals from London etc. But they tend not to be too vocal or they will upset the locals: the Banwen Miners Hunt.

 

Your prconceptions are a myth; at least as far as Wales is concerned. Remember it was Owain Glendower that invented foxghunting and his hounds are still with us: the Curre hounds.

 

Your assertion that Labour will lose the lection partly because of the Iraq war is true, as is the cash for honours scandal. But it is the vicious marginalisation of decent law abiding people like smokers hunters and moslems that will give them the bloody nose.

 

People in cardiff the other night were incensed by the ban and people who have always voted Labour will not do so again. People who have never voted will vote against them too. The vast majority couldn't give a hoot about hunting or Iraq but they are now looking at these issues because they have been victimised. Hunters smokers and moslems not interested in politics have been politicised; maybe too quickly for the Assembly elections but I think not.

 

And the people inside who are happy with the smoking ban fidget nervously because they know the depth of the anger. Again it not smoking that is the issue but the way in which the government have enforced it. One shopkeeper has already been threatened with a fine by Police and yet he does not smoke and has never allowed smoking in his shop...he didn't have the CORRECT sign up. He is voting against Labour solely because of that.

 

Peopl don't care about politics; they don't listen to politicians; don't believe the mail; they think the Guardian is for hippies and they know the Sun is a comic (but one which can sway elctions true)....a large amount don't bother to vote. But if you poke enough people in the eye and they get incensed by it and start talking to each other they will become politicised. And it is those minorities who are mobilised to the ballot box that will sway elections this time.

 

Two Million Hunting folk; 13 million smokers; five million moselms will not be voting Labour....if thy get to the ballot box that is it Aswell as the oyster eaters who know they are next lol! Seriously though the fishing community are already being targeted by antis and they will mobilise against what they know is an AR compromised government too.

 

You cannot pass 3000 restrictive unecessary laws and also hit certain people with heavy taxes (4by4 drivers, flyers) without the people they affect getting mad enough to vote against you at the ballot box.

[sta]

Finally! We pretty much agree on something! Everything you've just said is pretty much in theory how I think. You know my stand on hunting, whereas I have no objections to people riding out ( as I said, I hunted many times in my youth) the riding aspect is thrilling. I'm not totally against hunting, I'm against the concept of the 'bagman' - where a fox is dugout whilst going for cover, and then released from a sack to be chased again or a fox that has been dugout earlier on in the day to be released in no clean state of mind to be chased. I see this as very unsporting and in my opinion if the hounds lose a fox to ground then that should be the end of it, the hunt has been 'outfoxed' and should move on. I am indeed, speaking from firsthand experience. A few of my relatives hunt and are incensed by the ban. For me I would have prefered to see a change in hunt ethics, taking away the terriermen (many of whom are very sick individuals, trust me I know!) Rather than the ridiculous 'partial' ban that is in place.

But at least we agree on one thing, not one of the parties in this country represent the majority of hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding people. And you're right labour have shot themselves in the foot by angering the people that in the past didn't vote and didn't care, these people will now turnout and vote against them.

 

We've agreed on something!!!!

[Guest]

Yes I agree (with all the points except for the terriermen thing....all the terriermen I know do their job with utmost decency and respect for the quarry....however yes they should ONLY be used in the case of a persistent lamb killer or an identified rare wild species at threat as otherwise it is unsporting).

So do you need legisalation for that? No. You ask the Hunts to regulate themselves and having to fill in paperwork and submit it to Defra every time they have a fox who has to be dug. Rather like the Police do when they have recourse to guns.

Our Hunts only use terriermen in these instances anyway...though yes I have seen one hunt use them a little too often if you ask me. So if these hunts are licensed then not operating within their own code of ethics would lead to license withdrawal.

 

But then this is like fur farming.....its a welfare issue. Penalise those who do not go by the industry/activity regulations. Horse racing for xample has a jockey club to run itself and the fines are enormous...far more than the Police could impose anyway...and other penalties far worse. Graham Bradley the jockey for example has been banned from racecourses despite the fact he has broken no real criminal law.

 

Likewise a pub can ban people whose behaviour they don't like, and regulkate themselves by providing the correct smoking non smoking areas.

 

these things put in the hands of governemts are used as an excuse for tax and affect many other civil liberties.

 

You see if you say "Hunting needs a regulatory body" that is in charge of following its own ethical code, that is acceptable.

The same with the brewery/restaurant trade. Mayb ven establish that it is all non smoking EXCEPT for a seperate non bar room with extractors and licensed smoking clubs. The Trade itself sorts it out.

 

Because otherwise governments go OTT.

 

This way we may have a chance of keeping fur too btw.....and stopping the erosion of trade by aboriginal and good welfare standard nations by countries that do not have the same standards.

 

The Czech republic for example...its own fur trade has ben decimated by cheap chinese imports and he quality (and therefore the standard of welfare) is apalling in some cases. They have virtually had to cease fox farming in czech though still have fine rabbit and of course superb hare (rabbit) felt trilbies.

 

But ban fur and all the good guys suffer...and ironically the bad guys still go on.

It is simply wrong for governments to pass restrictive laws on everyone because there are a few issues. Guns for example: they are now banned in the UK so that affects the shooting team not the gangland member who doesn't care about the ban anyway.