Elizabeth Tepper wrote:
Wayne, the only questions posed were by Meghan. I provided you with some material created by the people of China, Korea and Thailand, and from several sources.
Which did little to answer the questions posed.
There is little that is narrow-minded there.
I never said it was narrow minded I said the focus was narrow. There is a significant difference between the two. The target is animals being boiled or skinned alive, which seem to only target specific industries or markets. They are also highly questionable as being common within those industries when the processes are logically considered.
As for the focus being 'overly-narrow', I'm not entirely sure what that means.
It means the targeted regulations are overly narrow, such as boiling or skinning animals alive as opposed to any form of death which would be similarly cruel. This gives the appearance of an attempt to impact only specific industries such as been the method used by the animal rights groups in the US, for example.
Laws are changed slowly, in small steps. Not having too broad a focus is wise. Having too broad a focus in counter-productive.
Like say the civil rights laws in the US?
Wayne, it is your comments that I cannot take at face-value. You do nothing to justify yourself. It comes across as , well, uneducated.
If you needed specific information on the prior discussions and associated research it would have been easy to request, but then you would have had to deal with an actual response.
I'm going to disable my message alerts now.
It is easier to ignore questions than answer them when they are difficult.