EnviroLink Forum

Only to those easily misled. Concerns deal with rights as well as welfare and other issues, obviously.



If memory serves, the Animal Concerns forum once had "Animal Rights" in it's title, but was changed for the very reason that animal issues encompassed more than extremist AR views. No need to eliminate something when it can be improved (or has been already). Reminds me of the AR view on factory farming.



Unrealistic, misguided aspirations built on half-truths and ignorance should and will be challenged.



Perhaps, or maybe they read and just don't post for whatever reason.



Try distinguishing the terms "concerns" and "rights", and you'll be better off.

Are you guys really concerned about animals or just obsessed with anti-AR. Come on, be honest.

It is difficult for you to recognize others' concern because your own is limited to AR philosophy. If someone doesn't share your views, it doesn't register with you that they are concerned. This is a shame.

The plight of animals concerns me, as well as that of all living things but most importantly the environment. This is a broad concern that requires an understanding of the biological and physical world--something about which the predominantly philosophical AR movement has little clue.

"It is difficult for you to recognize others' concern because your own is limited to AR philosophy. If someone doesn't share your views, it doesn't register with you that they are concerned. This is a shame."

-I understand what you're saying and it might be true with some people, but not with me. I can recognize concern for animals in others even if they don't share my philosophies. If you actually posted here to talk about your concern for animals, I would never question it. But I don't see you and most of the others here doing that. The only thing I see is AR bashing. If I wrote something in the animal forum right now, I would get a refute almost instantly. But nobody else has written here in days. So it is to my understanding that the majority of the people who post here, view the forum nearly every day and only reply to debate when someone says something pro-veg*an or pro-AR. What do you think? Is my conclusion totally off or what?
Just out of curiosity, how does environmentalism tie into anti-AR? Is it just because of this website or are there some other major elements involved?

So you have a special power to detect "true" animal concerns based on postings to a forum? I hope you use this power only for good ...



Well, the problem is this board crashed and several years of prior discussions were lost, which those of us, like Fosgate, who were here before have not rehashed old postings just to be typing.



Only if it were in need of bashing, which might be the case with a pure AR statement, but not with an AW statement that also can show concerns for animals.



They reply if there is something that piques their interest. the only problem with pro-veg*n diet statements are when they misrepresent the diets. There is nothing wrong with either diet as long as they are balanced and proper supplements are taken, which is the same for any diet. If there is a morality benefit presented that can be a point of contention.



Pretty much ..



That is Josh's call. I fought him tooth and nail over the combination of the two as I was involved with the separate environmental board when they combined the two (more history lessons can come form this) and I had no interest in the AR discussions. Until I saw some misrepresentations and got some things cleared up in another aspect of the involvement, and I was sucked in to trying to correct those misrepresentations.



My vote is that it is just this website as the only connection between the two is when the AR movement tries to use an environmental issue to further their goals instead of allowing a mitigation of the problem.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The reason that you see "AR bashing (although that isn't what it is)" is that very frequently, AR is not about the animals at all.
AR seeks the end of companion animals, domestic livestock and all interaction with animals.
Frankly, I don't see their concern for animals very frequently, as they would rather involve themselves in campaigns to promote donations to their organizations rather than actually hands on helping animals.
The animal welfare movement has actually gone out and made changes in laws, for stricter enforcement of cruelty and neglect, more laws and guidelines for humane treatment of livestock and lab animals and educated people on spaying and neutering their companion animals, and on responsible breeding practices.




When you post false information relating to diet and 'compassion', you are definitely going to get responses.
Posting actual numbers and figures to refute the lies published by AR groups is not "bashing" AR, it's correcting false information. You may not like it, but the facts are that AR groups lie to further their agenda. That is why you get so many responses.

Just because I wouldn't hold up a protest sign at a fast food restaurant and I eat meat and drink milk doesn't mean I don't like animals. In all seriousness, do you think that you are only concerned about animals if you go with everything PETA and other similar groups say?

The real concern for animals in an environmental forum should be for habitat destruction and species loss. It should also be about management of wildlife and habitats, varying carrying capacity and number of hunting licenses/tags issued and where. There should be a lot of argument against "development", and overpopulation of humans causing habitat loss and extinction of species throughout the world.
The treatment of pets, animals for useful experimentation, fur use and eating of meat should only be in there IF it relates to the ecology/environment.
Definitely, it should not be used to promote vegetarianism, when we are omnivores by evolution and dietary micronutrient needs.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

I knew over population was going to get in there somewhere.

Unfortunately, what oinks says is quite right with certain organisations. Thats kinda why I created my own help organisation as I know my own agenda. You know what I mean. I personally see myself as an AWA with a few AR tendencies, such as I think animal cruelty should carry a bigger sentence than it does. Although that could be AW... At the moment PETA is fairly infamous although I do stress that they do some good work although, for the amount of money, they should do a lot more. It has become a corporate charity.

Please read the topic of this particular posting area. It is not to debate issues, that's best done elsewhere in the EnviroLink Forum. While you may feel the need to express your opinion about everything, unless it is direct feedback for EnviroLink, your post belongs elsewhere.

Thanks,

-josh

Dear Cheerful Fawn:

I completely agree with you. I didn't realize this was actually an anti-animal rights forum. The heading was misleading, to say the least, and I'm very unhappy about it.

I, too, think that they should either completely delete this forum or delete anti-animal posts.

Choo

I guess it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

As one of the people in charge of this forum, I can tell you that it exists for the discussion and debate of environmental and animal concerns issues. It's not a place for everyone to agree about stuff on any particular issues. That's kind of boring and doesn't help to bring about any change in the world.

Open up your mind and learn to interact with those that disagree with you. That's a message for folks on all sides of the issues discussed here.

-josh

The existance of the board for debate and discussion is great, and I believe that many on that board are mentally stable enough for civilized discussion. Archer, mostly, and a few others have given me items to think about and I have enjoyed their company at times despite the fact that I disagree with their base philosophy. Unfortunately, once a good discussion is flowing, a select few enter the board and destroy it all. They incite anger, resentment and defensiveness. A discussion about a specific item turns into an all out attack against the AR philosophy.

I admit that I have been sucked into this game and have swung back when I should not have.

I believe that anti-AR posts are what keeps the AR philosophy true to itself.
On the other hand, I would like to see a few individuals banned from posting to the discussion.

_________________
"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them whenever they require it."

Saint Francis of Assisi