(No subject)

[Guest guest]

> I'm sorry I keep going off on tangents, I guess I'm wondering

> why you guys think it is so wrong to have pets

 

 

 

> the pet industry sux...there is so much more pleasure in chance

> encounters with wildlife...otherwise we are all gona end up in a

> world of cats rats dogs and cockroaches....nice!

 

and cats dont care much for endangered species, did you see the figures for how

many small bird domenstic cats kill each years, i think it was in in the ten of

millions. the same goes for voles and shrews etc.

 

you will be interested to know japanese dogs love rice, vegetables and miso

soup.

 

i guess one big divide in this debate is between city and country. animals

deserve to live in the city even less than people do and most owners are not

capable of looking after their little shit-machines never mind their children.

dobermans in 12th storey flats, obese little mutt waddling down the road,

geriatric old grannies having relationships their lapdogs in pissy house instead

of other human beings etc ...

 

cats might help de-stress people but i think it would be a lot healthier if

people stroked each other instead. like with child abuse offenders justify it on

the basis that it is easier and satisfies them.

 

having said that, we are in a transitional stage, sacrifices and good

compromises such as caring for rescues need to be made to reach an enevitable

end. but would you give the money that you give to feed an animal to feed a

starving black kid? [ i dont do either, so i an not taking the moral high ground

].

 

> NICE ONE!!...I¨M PISSED OFF AT THE MOMENT!!!....is there any

> pro-active radicals here?...or is this network a sheltered middle

> class utopia?

 

what is your definition of " radical " .

 

the real world has taught that, like Bob, being enlightened, compassionate,

honest, thoughtful, selfless; having integrity are probably the most radical

things to do above all. certainly the rarest. only it needs to be balanced with

strength as well.

 

y'all must have read that the director of huntingdon life sciences got attacked

by three balaclava wearing assailants. who beat him around the head knocking

several stitches into it.

 

whereas i really cant help raising a small cheer for it, it must have spoken a

lot to the new american owners of what they are getting into, i wonder who

actually did it. i am always a bit suspicious about this sort of radicalism

because it could always be other parties who have some vested interests in.

 

often debates have been stoked up by those that want to discredit the green,

animal, community movements in order to get more tighter laws, more legislation,

heavier punishments. the manipulation of Hegelian Dialectics is i think what

they call it. setting two parties against themselve in order to achieve the

third outcome that you/they want.

 

i remember that during the MacLibel case something like 3 out of 5 people at the

London Greenpeace meeting were employed to snoop, stir up by the plaintiffs.

another women, a friend of a friend who was part, i think it was of LG fell in

love with and slept with a guy who latter turned out to be a snoop. this was a

seperate case, i can get the exact details if you wish. it does go on.

 

likewise i am cautious to rise to the encouragement of the violently disaffected

or radicals, because you really do not know where they are coming from. whether

they are just idiotically nihilist and destructive to even their own cause or

whether they are agent provocateurs.

 

you join a list like this and you can guarantee that it is being monitored now

that the NCIS and other security and intelligence services have targetted

sabbing, animal rights and even vegetarians and vegans are being hotbeds of

radicalism. [ yes, it is true guys, we are aspiring to be radically sweet and

nice and love all living beings ]. you would think that they might have

something better to do with their time.

 

i wonder about this at some of the big demo that are lost to the rent a riot

crew. a bit like the socialist worker party or class war trying to whip people

up with base emotions of anger and envy. it is all likely to backfire just as

well.

 

i am sure that someone if going to get killed on the side of the animal abusers

and it will not be too long in happening. an attack like that could have done

it. heads are not that hard and can break like eggshells. i would not be

surprised if it happened in america at all, guns being so easy to have, life

being more exaggerated.

 

i wonder how it will effect the debate? it will obviously bring it to a higher

head. they can " ban " vegetarian or veganism. they can defend every indiviudal

working in the animal industry. i am very upset at the present governments, any

government's fudging of the issues for the sake of vested interests.

 

it is interesting that people on our side always bring up the case of Mahatma

Gandhi as a successor of non-violent tactics. but yet if you study history, the

independence movement in India had two sides. Mahatma and the saint on one side,

and the guys out there blowing up railway track and duffing up rivals on the

other. the result cae after both ends and, my guess was concreted after the

killing of Gandhi. something had to be done. enough was enough.

 

the outcome was equally mixed. everyone universally agrees that it was right for

the british to get out of India [ pilaging rife on their way out as ever ] but

on the other hand most Indians i know lament the British leaving and say that

things were much better when they were their. the bitter feuding and abuse of

power did not stop. party started fighting against themselves.

 

how would this apply to our desires?

 

no answers, no advice, no inspirations, just observations.

 

john

 

oops, click, there goes the computer recording all my emails now.