Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 238
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Man shoots a horse to prove a point

  1. #1 Man shoots a horse to prove a point 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    WARNING THIS VIDEO IS VERY DISTURBING TO ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    http://content3.catalog.video.msn.co...c0f227c3ff.mp4

    The video shows Tim Sappington of Dexter leading a seemingly healthy horse by a rope to a spot in dirt road. He strokes his nose and neck, says, "All you animal activists, (expletive) you," then shoots it in the head.
    Chaves County Sheriff Rob Coon said the department is bracing for things to get worse as the company nears a final inspection by federal regulators with the hope of opening horse slaughter operations next month.
    The video, he said, "didn't help anything," noting the issue is "very emotional."



    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An Internet video that shows a meat company employee swearing at animal activists before shooting a horse in the head underscores the increasing emotional intensity of the national debate over whether a southeastern New Mexico plant should be allowed to resume domestic horse slaughter.
    This week, animal rights groups uncovered the video posted by a former employee of Valley Meat Co., which has been fighting the United State Department of Agriculture for more than a year for approval to convert its former cattle slaughter operation into a horse slaughterhouse.
    Valley Meat Co. owner Rick De Los Santos said the employee, who has been let go, was reacting to harassment by animal rights activists who have targeted the plant since its plans were made public about a year ago. The harassment has worsened since the video, made a year ago, was uncovered this week, he said.

    NM worker films himself fatally shooting a horse in the head


    While I do not approve this kind of sensationalism and abhor such videos it shows what many people have come to think, that horses are to be eaten not just ridden. I think that if you wanted to raise something to eat then cattle would be a much better animal to raise because it has been made into a livestock animal unlike a horse which is multi functional. Trained horses , unlike cattle, can be very domesticated and trained to do many things not just to be eaten. We have taken the wildness out of horses to better help humans with certain things that need to be done around a farm or ranch so they are domesticated and don't fear humans so are very trusting . To kill a horse when you are starving in order to survive is one thing but to just pick a horse that is fine and kill it to show off that you can do it is reprehensible and makes many people feel very upset.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    I find it morally reprehensible to eat animals that we tamed as work animals. It feels wrong to me.

    On an aside, I did not, nor do I plan to, watch the videos.


    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I've seen animals killed, so I don't find it all that disturbing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I find it morally reprehensible to eat animals that we tamed as work animals. It feels wrong to me.
    Agreed. It is not the norm in nature to spend a great deal of time gaining the trust of your prey, then pet them and kill them. Most of nature is opportunistic, either feeding on the already dead or killing at need.

    Humans just get more and more twisted...

    Now, I see Harolds point, as well. But I've not disassociated myself from empathy just because I realize that it's all illusion or programming.
    If not for how I feel about things, I wouldn't experience life as I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I've seen animals killed, so I don't find it all that disturbing.
    Some people would , that's why the warning.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,006
    On the good side....... Somebody's job to: make a gun, make ammunition, sell a gun, sell ammunition, arrest assholes, try assholes, defend assholes, judge assholes, guard assholes, dispose of horse.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    I think he was just trying to make a point to his friends, the conversation prior to the video likely went this way.
    "Tim, we're going to find someone else to star in Dexter, you just don't have the cold-hearted vibes we need."
    "You don't think I'm mean enough to play Dexter?" *points gun at horse*
    "Tim, we all know that gun isn't real."
    *pew pew
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    I'm on the fence with these sorts of issues. How can anyone decide whether or not it's ethical to eat a type of animal? Aren't pigs smarter than horses? Who cares if they've always been a food animal, they're still one of the most intelligent animals on the planet - I just don't really see why it's okay to pigs, but not horses. To me the argument sounds like: We use this animal for labour, and they trust us - so its wrong to eat them --and-- We provide these animals food and shelter so they trust us but we eat them anyway, because that's their purpose. It just sounds like favoritism to me. Not eating endangered animals is something I understand, but I think it's fair game when it comes to any other animal... Except Dolphins and Primates because I am also a hypocrite.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I think that killing senselessly as he had makes a point, alright. Being able to respect that life is life, that it must be taken but must also be preserved is as important for self preservation is anyone can claim it is for ethics or morals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I am a horse owner of many decades and there is a need for a facility to handle the end of life issues of horses. The reality is that horses average 1000 lbs or more and because there are many inexperienced and well meaning horse owners, many of these animals suffer from lameness caused by obesity or from neglect due to increasing financial hardship, just to name two circumstances that I am familiar with. Horses are also prone to injury and they make poor patients as they do not care for confinement.

    Here in the Yukon, if your horse should expire or need euthanizing for a broken leg as example, you then need to dispose of this 1000 lb. animal. If drugs are used to put down the animal, it cannot be interred within 100 feet of a waterway and must be either buried very deep or taken to a landfill, under permit, for incineration to prevent harm to wildlife or the environment. As the article in the OP points out, the lack of a facility is posing even greater hardship for unhealthy or unwanted animals.

    Of course this is largely a 'people problem' as in the wild a horse would naturally be overcome by the elements or predators when it's ability to fend for itself becomes compromised.
    icewendigo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    IMO it is foolish if he only did it to upset animal rights groups but, it is his property and as long as he does not hurt anyone else with that property he can do what he wants with it. He chose to shoot his horse and as a human rights supporter I support the right to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    IMO it is foolish if he only did it to upset animal rights groups but, it is his property and as long as he does not hurt anyone else with that property he can do what he wants with it. He chose to shoot his horse and as a human rights supporter I support the right to do so.
    It always strikes me as odd... that it's perfectly "ok" to think of a living thing as property as long as it is not human, and that he has the right to kill said property if he wants to...
    Sounds a bit 1797 to me.

    Humans really are a short sighted and arrogant species...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    IMO it is foolish if he only did it to upset animal rights groups but, it is his property and as long as he does not hurt anyone else with that property he can do what he wants with it. He chose to shoot his horse and as a human rights supporter I support the right to do so.
    It always strikes me as odd... that it's perfectly "ok" to think of a living thing as property as long as it is not human, and that he has the right to kill said property if he wants to...Sounds a bit 1797 to me.Humans really are a short sighted and arrogant species...
    The beauty of your belief/position is that it only exists in the privileged after or while the unprivileged elevated or are elevating them to their status. I would caution that beliefs and thoughts found in luxury concerning animals are not grounded in the reality of basic or critcal human needs and/or prospects.

    Animals must be the property of someone. They are a resource, and without ownership of them someone will be able to take that resource from you legally. This belief, this position, that animals are the property of someone has sustained mankind for countless millennia and it will continue to serve mankind, regardless of their situation, for many millennia to come.

    Moral beliefs and values, IMO, should not be hypocritical nor so easily altered, changed or forgotten. Animals, IMO are a great resource. They are the property of the people's who's lands they are on or the property of the people who keep or capture them. IMO, what someone does with their animals, as long as they do not hurt or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I do not care what they do with them.

    This does not mean I agree with what they do with their animals, it just means it is none of my business and I, IMO, have no right to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties for something they do or did with their animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The beauty of your belief/position is that it only exists in the privileged after or while the unprivileged elevated or are elevating them to their status. I would caution that beliefs and thoughts found in luxury concerning animals are not grounded in the reality of basic or critcal human needs and/or prospects.

    Animals must be the property of someone. They are a resource, and without ownership of them someone will be able to take that resource from you legally. This belief, this position, that animals are the property of someone has sustained mankind for countless millennia and it will continue to serve mankind, regardless of their situation, for many millennia to come.
    This sounds just like an argument for slavery. In the meantime, if you really want to talk about mankind practices for millennia, my people managed to symbiotically use the same resource- including the tonka tatanka (buffalo) and the Sunka Wakan (horse)- without your concept of property and ownership for many, many millennia.

    Do not presume to tell me about ownership. I have seen the European American concept of ownership and it is very wanting.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Moral beliefs and values, IMO, should not be hypocritical nor so easily altered, changed or forgotten. Animals, IMO are a great resource.
    As are humans. We get paid, they get called property. Yet, this stems from the religious morals and superiority complex of the belief that animals are created for them to use. That animals are just dirty Earthen things and humans are created as divine images of God.
    Humans forget that every single trait we have, every emotion, want and feeling is a trait we inherited from our ancestors- the animals that we use and the animals that we remain to this day.
    This is not my belief, nor the belief of my culture. It is your belief and the belief of your culture.

    You believe that you can own land. You believe that you can own others. You believe they can be your property.

    You wish to control the world. To mold it to your liking instead of taking your place within it. And in so doing, you are harming the world and all of us along with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    They are the property of the people's who's lands they are on or the property of the people who keep or capture them. IMO, what someone does with their animals, as long as they do not hurt or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I do not care what they do with them.
    Because these "rights" you speak of and "harm" you speak of only applies to Divine special humans, right? After-all, one cannot harm an animal. They are just animals, right? They do not cry or feel pain, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    This does not mean I agree with what they do with their animals, it just means it is none of my business and I, IMO, have no right to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties for something they do or did with their animals.
    You speak of hypocrisy above while being so, here. You think that one has the right to harm another for any reason they wish. But in the natural world, that "right" is balanced against necessity and food. You have the right to build your strength to take down your prey and your prey has the right to defend itself from you.
    Your concept of rights are oddly self serving. Unbalanced and dishonorable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I respect your views Neverfly.

    The horse was not introduced to America until Europeans brought them over.

    The buffalo was your people's food source, as well utilizing the skins, and so they destroyed/desimated that resource. I do not agree with these type of tactics, although highly effective, on the grounds that it harmed and killed many innocent people. I do not care about the buffalo beyond how humans utilized it, I care about the people who used the buffalo as a resource.

    Animals are not humans. Nature has not put them at the top of the food chain, and for pro human folks, this usually means humans come first.

    Owning humans, IMO, is a basic violation of the rights and liberties of mankind.

    Rights and liberties for mankind are simple for me.

    1. Do not harm, restrict or violate the rights and liberties of others. If you do then there should be consequences.
    2. Rights are given by nature, you are born with them and/or grow into them. Life, intelligence, consciousness, speech, abilities, etc..
    3. Liberty is utilizing the rights given to you by nature and the laws of nature.

    Animals are, by natures law at this point in time, subject to the wishes, wants and needs of mankind. Perhaps this will change one day or perhaps it won't. Until evolution or nature changes it though, they will remain subject to the wishes, wants and needs of mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Animals are not humans.
    But humans evolved from animals and are still classified as animals today.


    Nature has not put them at the top of the food chain, and for pro human folks, this usually means humans come first.
    But humans need food which the animals provide and without those animals humans could become extinct. So humans need animals while the animals don't need us so where does that put humans?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The horse was not introduced to America until Europeans brought them over.
    The horse originated on the North American continent. From there, they eventually crossed the landbridge to Asia, spreading across Asia and Europe. This was the time when my distant ancestors and the ancestors of my people and the horse existed together. For many thousands of years before that climate change, my more direct ancestors and the horse traveled from the Asian continent, back along the landbrige, across Alaska and across the Americas.
    Approx. 10,000 years ago, global cooling along North America (and some speculate Inuit hunters) brought an end to the horse of the west. When the cooling ended, the North American horse was gone.
    But in the sixteenth century, the horse returned with the Spanish.
    And they thrived in their home alongside my ancestors for hundreds of years, again.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The buffalo was your people's food source, as well utilizing the skins, and so they destroyed/desimated that resource
    Absolute crap.
    Yes, we hunted the Buffalo but not senselessly and not beyond any form of reasonable limit. The population was stable and had been stable. It was the white settlers that decimated the population. In just a few short years, the buffalo numbers dropped drastically with the Europeans arrival.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Animals are not humans.
    Humans are animals.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Nature has not put them at the top of the food chain, and for pro human folks, this usually means humans come first.
    Humans are not the top of the food chain, in my opinion. Most any human can barely survive in the wild at all and humans are flabby, weak and timid. Usually, humans fear even the more docile species.
    It is the human intelligence that gives the upper hand and humans use it terribly and irresponsibly, quite often. Look into climate change...
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Owning humans, IMO, is a basic violation of the rights and liberties of mankind.
    Humans are animals in every sense of the word. They are animals in behavior and in physical form. Only a God can be used to create a separation between human and animal. There are no rights, just what you declare as rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    1. Do not harm, restrict or violate the rights and liberties of others. If you do then there should be consequences.
    Such as killing without need, breaking basic trust to take a life?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    2. Rights are given by nature, you are born with them and/or grow into them. Life, intelligence, consciousness, speech, abilities, etc..
    Rights are declared by Might Makes Right.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    3. Liberty is utilizing the rights given to you by nature and the laws of nature.
    Liberty is the right to defend yourself, to preserve your life, not the right to needlessly and wantonly kill. Needlessly and wantonly killing ends up getting the killer killed.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Animals are, by natures law at this point in time, subject to the wishes, wants and needs of mankind. Perhaps this will change one day or perhaps it won't. Until evolution or nature changes it though, they will remain subject to the wishes, wants and needs of mankind.
    Simply because you declare it so as a personal belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    History of research



    Indigenous modern horses died out in the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, about 12,000 years ago, and thus were absent until the Spanish brought domestic horses from Europe, beginning in 1493. Escaped horses quickly established large wild herds. In the 1760s, the early naturalist Buffon suggested this was an indication of inferiority of the New World fauna, but later reconsidered this idea.[2] William Clark's 1807 expedition to Big Bone Lick found "leg and foot bones of the Horses", which were included with other fossils sent to Thomas Jefferson and evaluated by the anatomist Caspar Wistar, but neither commented on the significance of this find.[3]
    The first equid fossil was found in the gypsum quarries in Montmartre, Paris in the 1820s. The tooth was sent to the Paris Conservatory, where it was identified by Georges Cuvier, who identified it as a browsing equine related to the tapir.[4] His sketch of the entire animal matched later skeletons found at the site.[5]
    During the Beagle survey expedition, the young naturalist Charles Darwin had remarkable success with fossil hunting in Patagonia. On 10 October 1833 at Santa Fe, Argentina, he was "filled with astonishment" when he found a horse's tooth in the same stratum as fossil giant armadillos, and wondered if it might have been washed down from a later layer, but concluded this was "not very probable".[6] After the expedition returned in 1836, the anatomist Richard Owen confirmed the tooth was from an extinct species, which he subsequently named Equus curvidens, and remarked, "This evidence of the former existence of a genus, which, as regards South America, had become extinct, and has a second time been introduced into that Continent, is not one of the least interesting fruits of Mr. Darwin's palæontological discoveries."

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...YiZMITv8JifLng
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, I was talking about Europeans hunting down the buffalo in order to cut off a food supply. Concerning the horse, the natives did not have any. There was some roaming the lands 10-12k years ago in American but they all died off then. Big difference between a few roaming around 10-12k years ago then dying off vs. natives knowing what they are or were. Europeans brought them to American and the natives had no clue what they were and they had never seen one or heard of one before.

    You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 26th, 2013 at 03:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    So would you then destroy your own resources since over 200 animals a day are becoming extinct http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...44442042,d.eWU and they are linked to other animals up the food chain.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    So would you then destroy your own resources since over 200 animals a day are becoming extinct http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...44442042,d.eWU and they are linked to other animals up the food chain.
    I fail to see your point. Horses aren't becoming extinct, at least not the domesticated varieties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, I was talking about Europeans hunting down the buffalo in order to cut off a food supply. Concerning the horse, the natives did not have any. There was some roaming the lands 10-12k years ago in American but they all died off then. Big difference between a few roaming around 10-12k years ago then dying off vs. natives knowing what they are or were. Europeans brought them to American and the natives had no clue what they were and they had never seen one or heard of one before.

    You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    Do you feel the same about other intelligent animals? Many animals feel emotions, grief, depression, anger, and many animals "porpoises, primates, even some birds" have human qualities. Would it be okay to just use them as a resource? Considering we humans are the most evolved and sentient species on the planet, that entitles us to butcher other intelligent entities and destroy the environment for all?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    Animals are to be eaten and studied in zoos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    So would you then destroy your own resources since over 200 animals a day are becoming extinct http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...44442042,d.eWU and they are linked to other animals up the food chain.
    I am not the type of person who looks to destroy any of my own resources. IMO it is not wise. I am also not going to support or advocate harming those who do. There are already way to many reasons given and laws on the books for humans to harm humans. Animal rights or animal welfare, IMO, should never be an acceptable reason or justification for people to harm other people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am not the type of person who looks to destroy any of my own resources. IMO it is not wise. I am also not going to support or advocate harming those who do. There are already way to many reasons given and laws on the books for humans to harm humans...... and animals rights or animal welfare, IMO, should never be an acceptable reason for people to harm other people.
    What is this harm to people you refer to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, I was talking about Europeans hunting down the buffalo in order to cut off a food supply. Concerning the horse, the natives did not have any. There was some roaming the lands 10-12k years ago in American but they all died off then. Big difference between a few roaming around 10-12k years ago then dying off vs. natives knowing what they are or were. Europeans brought them to American and the natives had no clue what they were and they had never seen one or heard of one before. You have your beliefs and I have mine concerning animals. For me, IMO, they are a resource and people own them.
    Do you feel the same about other intelligent animals? Many animals feel emotions, grief, depression, anger, and many animals "porpoises, primates, even some birds" have human qualities. Would it be okay to just use them as a resource? Considering we humans are the most evolved and sentient species on the planet, that entitles us to butcher other intelligent entities and destroy the environment for all?
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    shlunka likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am not the type of person who looks to destroy any of my own resources. IMO it is not wise. I am also not going to support or advocate harming those who do. There are already way to many reasons given and laws on the books for humans to harm humans...... and animals rights or animal welfare, IMO, should never be an acceptable reason for people to harm other people.
    What is this harm to people you refer to?
    Countless people have been harmed already by other people in the name of animals rights or animal welfare.

    On top of this, plenty more advocate or wish for harm to come to other people in the name of animal rights and welfare.

    For instance, who believes the man in the video should be punished for shooting his horse, and/or that people should be stopped from doing the same exact thing, under the same conditions, to their horses? Now, how are they going to stop them? how are they going to punish them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Countless people have been harmed already by other people in the name of animals rights or animal welfare.

    On top of this, plenty more advocate or wish for harm to come to other people in the name of animal rights and welfare.
    You have not defined your use of the word, "harm."
    Does "harm" mean violence acted out on other humans?
    Is preventing needless or unnecessary violence harmful?

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For instance, who believes the man in the video should be punished for shooting his horse, and/or that people should be stopped from doing the same exact thing, under the same conditions, to their horses? Now, how are they going to stop them? how are they going to punish them?
    There are already animal cruelty laws in place and those prosecuted are prosecuted and punished the same was as other crimes are. You make it sound like there are just so many people running around shooting horses in the had for no real reason that the law enforcement officers couldn't catch them all... Absolute nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.

    Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.
    If you can ignore butchering and harm in order to justify your argument- so can I.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    It is not relevant whether they are human. Again- you are presenting the same arguments that past slave owners used to validate their RIGHTS to own and breed and trade slaves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.

    Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    I think you used intelligence earlier as something to separate humans from animals? Would it be okay to kill a human suffering some severe mental retardation, since they are less intelligent than chimps?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neveryfly, the irony is often lost on animal rights and welfare folks. Do you really need to know that if you advocate or support fining people in the name of animals, you harm many people directly and indirectly? Do you know when you put people in jail, or advocate that happen to them, you harm many people directly and indirectly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neveryfly, the irony is often lost on animal rights and welfare folks. Do you really need to know that if you advocate or support fining people in the name of animals, you harm many people directly and indirectly? Do you know when you put people in jail, or advocate that happen to them, you harm many people directly and indirectly?
    And... Do you realize that by this argument, any "Harm" inflicted by fining or jailing people for doing whatever they want to do is therfor wrong and we should all live in anarchy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neveryfly, the irony is often lost on animal rights and welfare folks. Do you really need to know that if you advocate or support fining people in the name of animals, you harm many people directly and indirectly? Do you know when you put people in jail, or advocate that happen to them, you harm many people directly and indirectly?
    You've seemed to have ripped out the "C" letter section from your dictionary, there's a word, "consequence". Any human being that willingly shoots a domestic/sentient animal in the cranium for reasons exclusive to their own amusement, in my opinion, probably doesn't have much to contribute to society.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am not the type of person who looks to destroy any of my own resources. IMO it is not wise. I am also not going to support or advocate harming those who do. There are already way to many reasons given and laws on the books for humans to harm humans...... and animals rights or animal welfare, IMO, should never be an acceptable reason for people to harm other people.
    What is this harm to people you refer to?
    Countless people have been harmed already by other people in the name of animals rights or animal welfare.

    On top of this, plenty more advocate or wish for harm to come to other people in the name of animal rights and welfare.

    For instance, who believes the man in the video should be punished for shooting his horse, and/or that people should be stopped from doing the same exact thing, under the same conditions, to their horses? Now, how are they going to stop them? how are they going to punish them?
    Countless? really so many they are not countable at all. How about less rhetoric an more specifics...

    How many people exactly can you name have been "harmed"? And what is your specific definition of "harm" in each case?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neveryfly, the irony is often lost on animal rights and welfare folks. Do you really need to know that if you advocate or support fining people in the name of animals, you harm many people directly and indirectly? Do you know when you put people in jail, or advocate that happen to them, you harm many people directly and indirectly?
    You've seemed to have ripped out the "C" letter section from your dictionary, there's a word, "consequence". Any human being that willingly shoots a domestic/sentient animal in the cranium for reasons exclusive to their own amusement, in my opinion, probably doesn't have much to contribute to society.
    Easy now... He's trying to indirectly advocate harm, slavery and murder by the self serving creation that only his very own "kind" is exempt. In the old days, Your "Kind" referred to your white race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    I think you used intelligence earlier as something to separate humans from animals? Would it be okay to kill a human suffering some severe mental retardation, since they are less intelligent than chimps?
    Nope. Not ok.

    Now let me ask you something. If that same mentally retarded person kicked his dog in the face, is it ok for the police to come out, shackle that person, take his freedom, fine him and very likely put him and his family through serious financial troubles?

    Do those in charge really care about the dog or the people they harm? Or do they really only care about being able to put their boots on the necks of people to obtain more power, control and money?

    Animal rights and welfare are convenient, for some, just as other reasons and laws are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Nope. Not ok.
    Why not? If someone exerted their right to superiority in such a manner, is it ok for the police to come out, shackle that person, take his freedom, fine him and very likely put him and his family through serious financial troubles?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Now let me ask you something. If that same mentally retarded person kicked his dog in the face, is it ok for the police to come out, shackle that person, take his freedom, fine him and very likely put him and his family through serious financial troubles?
    Why not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    I think you used intelligence earlier as something to separate humans from animals? Would it be okay to kill a human suffering some severe mental retardation, since they are less intelligent than chimps?
    Nope. Not ok.Now let me ask you something. If that same mentally retarded person kicked his dog in the face, is it ok for the police to come out, shackle that person, take his freedom, fine him and very likely put him and his family through serious financial troubles?
    You're saying that intelligence isn't a factor? I don't see the point in your question, for one it's a logical fallacy considering there are laws specific to the mentally incapacitated. I don't believe it's logical to incarcerate the one in your example, nor do I believe it'd be justifiable to put down a chimp that committed the same crime.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Yes, We, humans, can butcher the animals beneath us on the food chain. Concerning the invironment, so many people have different definitions about what destroyed is, and so I won't dive into that topic in detail. I will say though that as long as it does not harm or violate others rights or liberties then I have no problem with it.
    By this argument, we should be able to butcher people that are beneath us, as long as no one violates their right to do so.
    Butchering other people would harm them as well as violate their rights and liberties. If they have done nothing to harm or violate someone else's rights or liberties, I see no justification for harming them or violating their rights and liberties.Butchering your own animal or animals is, IMO, a right that any and all humans can choose to exercise or not. The animal or animals are subject to the wants, needs and wishes of their human owners. They themselves are not human.
    I think you used intelligence earlier as something to separate humans from animals? Would it be okay to kill a human suffering some severe mental retardation, since they are less intelligent than chimps?
    Nope. Not ok.Now let me ask you something. If that same mentally retarded person kicked his dog in the face, is it ok for the police to come out, shackle that person, take his freedom, fine him and very likely put him and his family through serious financial troubles?
    You're saying that intelligence isn't a factor? I don't see the point in your question, for one it's a logical fallacy considering there are laws specific to the mentally incapacitated. I don't believe it's logical to incarcerate the one in your example, nor do I believe it'd be justifiable to put down a chimp that committed the same crime.
    The law takes time to be sorted out and often, judges rubber stamping things tend to not care about the details. A mentally retaded man, under those conditions, will be shackled and lose his freedom. If he has a job he will lose it. If he has a family they will suffer. Plenty of damage and suffering will have occurred to that man and his family well before any court does the right thing.

    My way of living and looking at things never harms or hurts people who do not do it to others and at the same time vigorously protects and/or defends people.

    Other's ways use many excuses and reasons to hate people, to dislike people, to go after people, to harm people and to violate their rights and liberties. For me, this is unacceptable.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 30th, 2013 at 11:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    My way of living and looking at things never harms or hurts people and at the same time vigorously protects and/or defends people.(*)
    (*) As long as defined to protect "my Kind" and anything outside of that definition does not count as living or entitled to anything whatsoever except what I dictate.


    Your entire series of posts is nothing but carefully worded propaganda.
    You use descriptions like "Hate" and "violate" to describe what people that don't agree with your limited view do.
    You paint a picture of punishment for crimes committed where the criminal is a Victim of justice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    My way of living and looking at things never harms or hurts people and at the same time vigorously protects and/or defends people.(*)
    (*) As long as defined to protect "my Kind" and anything outside of that definition does not count as living or entitled to anything whatsoever except what I dictate.Your entire series of posts is nothing but carefully worded propaganda.You use descriptions like "Hate" and "violate" to describe what people that don't agree with your limited view do.You paint a picture of punishment for crimes committed where the criminal is a Victim of justice.
    I do not agree with you on this thread but, I will not advocate or support people or the government going after you or trying to harm you. In fact, if I seen something like that i would come to your aide.

    Just because something is a crime to do, it does not make the law nor the punishment just or right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    still waiting for a response to my post
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Paleoichneum, I guess someone could attempt to count every case and incident in the world that has ever occurred and come up with some sort of number but, I don't think it would be an accurate number, nor do i expect the amount they would be able to come up with to be far off from my point that the number would be very high. I used an expression, a saying, comprehension is sometimes required when communicating with others.

    If someone was to go into your home, shackle you, lock you up, taking your freedom, take you from your family and friends, costing you and your family money and other problems, etc.. Would not anyone of these things be harming and/or violating someones rights and liberties?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Post examples.........
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Post examples.........
    Butterball Workers Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges - ABC News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I do not agree with you on this thread but, I will not advocate or support people or the government going after you or trying to harm you. In fact, if I seen something like that i would come to your aide.

    Just because something is a crime to do, it does not make the law nor the punishment just or right.
    This entire post you just made is where we are in complete agreement. I would never advocate you be punished or charged for disagreeing with me. I would stand by your side of others were to charge you and seek to punish you.
    I do not agree that something being a law makes the law justified- after all, see my sig.

    Let's clarify how I perceive this and just why I disagree with you.

    I do not believe that seat belt laws are proper. I have heard all the justifications for why and if anyone who disagrees with me decides to debate the law in this thread, I will ignore it as off topic. I use it to demonstrate this point: A law that infringes freedom over oneself is improper to my view. I do not believe that the law should tell a person whether they can smoke pot on their night off in their own home. Personally, I do not use mind zonking drugs and I don't respect its use. But I do not get to enforce that opinion on others.
    I do not believe the law should tell you that you have to use a seatbelt or quit smoking or who you date.

    But all of it deals with how one lives. On Topic, we are discussing a persons choice that ends the life of another. The topic is one where a man forced a lead slug into the brain of another creature, simply to annoy people that say, "Do not harm."

    Your argument is about who does harm to others. Yet, you are advocating committing harm on others. You draw the line rather shortsightedly on humans, alone. But the self serving argument does little to detract from the nature of all higher animals.

    My argument is one that a being cannot take ownership of another being against its will. The horse lacked the concept of ownership and the horse lacked the means to have reason to believe the man would plant a slug in it, ending its life, for no reason.
    The horse trusted the behavior of the man and the man betrayed that trust- because we all know that if that horse knew the danger he was in, the horse would have defended himself, killing that man if necessary.
    The horse is not property even if the laws on the books say they are because a law is not necessarily proper just because it is a law.

    I do not believe a man can own land. I am sure a lot of people who would raise Title and Deed above their head would disagree. Yet, in the end, the land answers to no one- but all of us end up back in the land.

    Our petty and self righteous behavior is not the standard- we are deluding ourselves with these concepts of ownership, nothing more.
    You cannot own the sky.
    You cannot own the sea.
    You can convince yourself that you do- but you do not and you never will. Only other humans will respond to it.

    You do not own land. You do not own animals. You do not own the sky.
    You merely pretend that you do. Fine...
    If you so enjoy your illusions, then enjoy them.

    But I argue against the point where you cross the line and you think, in your arrogance, that your ownership can entitle you to harm others. To take lives simply because you believe that you own those lives.

    I would defend you if anyone claimed you cannot do what you wish in your home, and I would join the posse to arrest if if, while in your own home, you rape and murder another.
    I would defend you to have your right to do anything you want with your car or truck or tractor or any other property that has no will of its own.
    But when it has its own will, you do not have the right to do whatever you wish. Because you are then harming others, enforcing your will against theirs.... And THAT is the very basis of the thing you believe in, the thing you argue for and fight for- the Freedom of a will to not be forced, or subjugated against its will.

    You believe in the same thing I do. But you drew the line in a spot that serves only one interest- your own, instead of the actual interests of the involved parties.
    This contradiction is glaring.

    To kill needlessly is not proper, no matter your claims. It is improper in nature, it is improper by animal and human standards alike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neveryfly, there is no doubt that I drawl a line and seperate humans on one side and animals, plants, bugs etc. on the other side.

    As a resource, animals do and have benefited all humans. The interest they serve is not just my own, they serve the wants, needs and wishes of all humans. You can ride a horse all day long, pulling his hair, head or mouth to steer him while whipping him, kicking him or stabbing him to make him go forward and then call him your free friend if you wish but, treat me like that and call me your free friend and I will argue with you all day long that I am neither free nor your friend, and I will do so regardless of what you or Disney say/claim or suggest.

    You see, a horse is a resource. No different than a very valuable car or tractor, while also having the value of being like ones meat section at the local grocery store if need be. One can love that horse like they do a car, or a piece of meat, and they might even confuse that type of love for being like that of the love they have for people in their life but, not a single sane person would let someone treat them that way and then suggest the person treating them that way loves them.

    Politically, animal rights and welfare laws are, IMO, just another tool, another excuse, for twisted people and tyrants to go after and harm humans.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 31st, 2013 at 02:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Post examples.........
    Butterball Workers Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges - ABC News
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans? that is bs
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Tactic of propaganda, again. You paint the image of a person beating and stabbing a horse and then claiming they are friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Post examples.........
    Butterball Workers Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges - ABC News
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans? that is bs
    Stuffing people in stalls and then killing them for food is wrong. That is what we do to animals, not humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Post examples.........
    Butterball Workers Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges - ABC News
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans? that is bs
    Stuffing people in stalls and then killing them for food is wrong. That is what we do to animals, not humans.
    Why is treating animals differently then we would treat humans right? They were arrested for kicking, throwing and beating the turkeys. Asserting there is a difference is bullshit.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Post examples.........
    Butterball Workers Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges - ABC News
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans? that is bs
    Stuffing people in stalls and then killing them for food is wrong. That is what we do to animals, not humans.
    Why is treating animals differently then we would treat humans right? They were arrested for kicking, throwing and beating the turkeys. Asserting there is a difference is bullshit.
    Who, in the name of crimes against turkeys, issues warrants and rounds up human beings? I just don't get it. You kicked a turkey, now your freedom is gone and we want your money. Lol

    Save the horse or turkey, harm the human.. It just don't make sense to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why is treating animals differently then we would treat humans right? They were arrested for kicking, throwing and beating the turkeys. Asserting there is a difference is bullshit.
    Who, in the name of crimes against turkeys, issues warrants and rounds up human beings? I just don't get it. You kicked a turkey, now your freedom is gone and we want your money. Lol

    Save the horse or turkey, harm the human.. It just don't make sense to me.
    The state and federal gov's issue the warrants, against people the violate the law. They have NOT lost their freedom (misdemeanor charges) so stop with the hyperventilating rhetoric, and fines the prescribed penalty for many charges.

    Human do NOT have superior rights to animals and animals are protected by law. Why shouldnt they be?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Who, in the name of crimes against turkeys, issues warrants and rounds up human beings? I just don't get it.
    What is it you don't get? Is it that you think that animals should not be protected from abuse by humans because they are somehow something that can be abused for nothing more than the thrill of torturing them by humans? If that's so then I think you should reconsider your views because there are many examples where humans that abuse animals also abuse other humans for the "thrill' of it.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Human do NOT have superior rights to animals
    Wow. You really think that? You really believe that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Please give your thoughts on post number 48.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Who, in the name of crimes against turkeys, issues warrants and rounds up human beings? I just don't get it.
    What is it you don't get? Is it that you think that animals should not be protected from abuse by humans because they are somehow something that can be abused for nothing more than the thrill of torturing them by humans? If that's so then I think you should reconsider your views because there are many examples where humans that abuse animals also abuse other humans for the "thrill' of it.
    Concerning thrills and what people get off on, if i had to choose one, I would rather live next door to someone who got his thrills by shooting his own horse than someone who gets their thrills off of wanting or sending armed men and women to go after humans in the name of animal rights.

    Perhaps the man who shot his horse was foolish, perhaps he is even off mentally but, he did not harm or violate the rights or liberties of another human being by his action.

    For me, the more foolish, the sicker, the greater threat, would be those who go after people, to harm people, so easily, so eagerly, for any and all reasons/excuses one can imagine.

    A wanton disregard for ones own animals is something, if need be, I can live next to. However, the wanton disregard for humans and human rights is something I find repulsive and inexcusable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Please give your thoughts on post number 48.
    I did in post 49.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Human do NOT have superior rights to animals
    Wow. You really think that? You really believe that?
    Yes i do we are the same, animals, just as they, what reasonable reason do you have that I should not feel that way?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Concerning thrills and what people get off on, if i had to choose one, I would rather live next door to someone who got his thrills by shooting his own horse than someone who gets their thrills off of wanting or sending armed men and women to go after humans in the name of animal rights.
    You have a rather odd perspective on things. You use exaggeration and conspiracy style speculation to support your arguments.
    Let's remove the exaggeration and examine some reality:
    Oftentimes, it is the ASPCA that makes the arrest- Oftentimes, it is unarmed officers sent to collect on the warrant. The ASPCA does have armed officers as well, but they are reserved for offenders who are considered dangerous.

    You really need to get some perspective. Not every argument needs twisting and distortion. Just stay honest.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Perhaps the man who shot his horse was foolish, perhaps he is even off mentally but, he did not harm or violate the rights or liberties of another human being by his action.
    Did a pretty damn good job of violating the life of the horse, though. Perhaps you operate under the belief that animals do not have the right to live, eh, Johnny come lately? Hate to bust your bathtime bubbles, but humans are only the latest violators of territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For me, the more foolish, the sicker, the greater threat, would be those who go after people, to harm people, so easily, so eagerly, for any and all reasons/excuses one can imagine.
    Let's reassert perspective:
    You seem to be trying to claim that humans are trying to violate other humans right to kill without need nor threat to themselves. And you have the audacity to call people that don't agree with that assessment sick, foolish and the greatest threat?
    Utterly amazing...
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    A wanton disregard for ones own animals is something, if need be, I can live next to. However, the wanton disregard for humans and human rights is something I find repulsive and inexcusable.
    You're lying, again- it is not a wanton disregard for human rights.
    You lack the most basic respect or value of something as precious and rare as life. And you call others repulsive, foolish, sick, threatening and inexcusable?
    And you're dishonest in your entire presentation. You have been nothing but dishonest in this argument, through out. Have you no shame? No self awareness?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Please give your thoughts on post number 48.
    I did in post 49.
    It was such a poor response, I did not associate it with the post above it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans?
    As long as it is their own animal/s, No, they should not be arrested or harmed in anyway. Which is worse? A man or woman kicking their own turkey/s or men and women arresting and harming human beings?

    If you believe they are equal, or the turkey's "rights" are more important, then have at it, keep arresting and harming humans. However, don't cry when politics switch and its your door knocked on and it's you or your family being arrested and harmed for some foolish reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans?
    As long as it is their own animal/s, No, they should not be arrested or harmed in anyway.Which is worse? A man or woman kicking their own turkey/s or men and women arresting and harming human beings?
    WHY? Why does the ownership of the animals immediately mean the animals are void of any right to not be abused/tortured/starved/killed?

    you have yet to provide a rational reason as to how humans are manifestly different and better then animals. your logic is the exact same logic that fueled the concept of manifest destiny and westward expansion at the obliteration of entire human populatins.
    Neverfly likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans?
    As long as it is their own animal/s, No, they should not be arrested or harmed in anyway.Which is worse? A man or woman kicking their own turkey/s or men and women arresting and harming human beings?
    How about the Bile Bears (I provided links)?
    Is that perfectly acceptable, in your view?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Firefly, the ASPCA is a corporation. They are not the government. The fact that they are running around with guns and warrants to arrest people should be enough to give you at least pause.

    Like many corporations, the ASPCA has many lobbyist and many friends in Washington and within cities and states. These relationships are all about power and money. However, and unlike other corporations, the ASPCA gets to be armed to the teeth and they get to go after people with those arms. This is how they make their money.

    Perhaps in the future the NRA will be able to hunt you down and arrest you for something silly, perhaps its a different conservative corporations but, either way I expect you to support and agree with it as well.

    Concerning your statement about the Hollywood native fantasy that no one can own anything and animals are treated with the utmost respect and love, the treatment and keeping of horses alone shows how unbelievable, foolish, silly and hypocritical such statement and/or suggestions are.

    You also do not have to get so upset, nor do others, because I believe animal right and animal welfare should never be used or allowed to be used as a reason or excuse to violate, abuse or remove the rights and liberties of human beings. I also believe that those who violate, abuse or remove the rights and liberties of human beings in the name of animal rights and welfare are a bit disturbed. These are just my opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So people should not be arrested for the purposeful mistreatment of animals that would result in charges if it happened to other humans?
    As long as it is their own animal/s, No, they should not be arrested or harmed in anyway.Which is worse? A man or woman kicking their own turkey/s or men and women arresting and harming human beings?
    WHY? Why does the ownership of the animals immediately mean the animals are void of any right to not be abused/tortured/starved/killed?you have yet to provide a rational reason as to how humans are manifestly different and better then animals. your logic is the exact same logic that fueled the concept of manifest destiny and westward expansion at the obliteration of entire human populatins.
    It is actually not my beliefs that wipes out or attacks other human populations. Lets not lose sight that it is your belief that allows and calls for the arrest and harm to come to other humans for something as petty as animal rights and welfare. This is a very petty reason. If a person, city or nation can harm humans in the name of animal rights and animal welfare, then they can do it in the name of anything. Any excuse or reason can surely be justified by this standard.

    Animals are the resources of human beings. They are our food, our transportation, our labor, our means of income, etc.. They are, by natures governance and natural law below humans on the evolutionary scale and food chain. They are not our equals or our gods. They are our resource.

    And regardless of how well many humans have it, you are not a god either. You are bound to the rules your evolutionary path on this planet has taken, and like it or not, realize it our not, dominion, superiority and dependence upon animals is, and has been, critical to human survival. Our very survival depends upon this evolutionary reality.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 1st, 2013 at 01:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Firefly,
    Why, thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The fact that they are running around with guns and warrants to arrest people should be enough to give you at least pause.
    It doesn't.
    I can arrest people and I can run around just as armed, Gonzo.
    So can you. You, also, have the authority to make arrests and to obtain a license to carry a weapon.
    This is nothing new. We ALL, as citizens, have that capacity. Law enforcement is simply one agency that does it regularly.
    But any citizen in the united states may make an arrest on a perp if they catch the perp with probable cause of having committed a crime and detain the perp until law enforcement takes him to a facility.
    I would have thought you knew this.

    Law enforcement must obtain warrants in order to enter property and make an arrest. You cannot enter property and arrest your neighbor... unless you obtain a warrant which you have the capability to file and request. So much for your conspiracy theory about lobbyists.

    Now, I will admit that the odds of you getting a warrant are slimmer than the odds of the ASPCA getting one due to training and readily available trained officers to pick up on the lead you brought in... However, in a time of crisis when enough officers are not available and if you are licensed, you can, indeed, be granted that warrant if you have probable cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Concerning your statement about the Hollywood native fantasy that no one can own anything and animals are treated with the utmost respect and love, the treatment and keeping of horses alone shows how unbelievable, foolish, silly and hypocritical such statement and/or suggestions are.
    It ain't Hollywood, Buster; I am Lakota (Sioux) and I did not get my ideas from any movie.
    Perhaps Scheherezade can provide you on better insight on raising horses and alleviate your conspiracy addled ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You also do not have to get so upset, nor do others, because I believe animal right and animal welfare should never be used or allowed to be used as a reason or excuse to violate, abuse or remove the rights and liberties of human beings.
    Oh, don't bother. You have been dishonest and been called out for your repeated misleading claims and twisting of facts. You advocate direct needless and senseless killing for fear of violating someones right to senselessly take a life.

    I have news for you- Rights are granted by a governing body- they are not ordained by God and you are not born with any RIGHTS. And you do not get the right handed to you on a silver platter to abuse, harm, violate or kill others without reason. Period.
    You do not get the right to enslave, treat others with bigotry, or beat your wife. Beat your wife? She's YOUR wife, right? You can do whatever you want with her, right? I've actually heard people make that claim! You sound just like them.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    These are just my opinions.
    Your shortsighted, self centered and bloodthirsty opinions are rather disturbing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    calls for the arrest and harm to come to other humans for something as petty as animal rights and welfare.
    Petty...
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    This is a very petty reason.
    There you go, again... No respect nor value for life whatsoever... You call it petty... It's PETTY to act against the use of Bile Bears, too... And you call us foolish, sick, disturbed, a great threat, violators and inexcusable?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Animals are the resources of human beings. They are our food,
    We are just as easily their food, fool.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    our transportation,
    Maybe in the old days... but they only transport you willingly- Ever try riding an unwilling horse? Good luck with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    our labor,
    Paid with protection from other predators, shelter, veterinary care and food. Paid with fair and proper treatment, NOT abuse.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    They are, by natures governance and nature law below humans on the evolutionary and food chain.
    Yes, that's why tigers, anacondas, pythons, lions, cougars and the like ALL will eat people. Oops...
    No, you do not understand evolution. You are almost religious in your God Ordained placement and rights fundamentalism.
    Evolution is not progressive nor is it a superiority contest.
    By the way, humans are also a resource for labor (Slavery) and food (cannibalism) because, sorry to break your religious views but... We are animals.

    We are just as much animals as every other, with the same traits, territoriality, group behaviors and individual behaviors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, no one rides a willing horse, they ride a broken horse. Also, how is a horse moved from side to side or backwards when someone is riding it? How does someone make them go forward? How does someone make them speed up or slow down? How does someone capture a horse and keep a horse?

    Respectfully, I do not want to hear all the hypocrisies about how wonderful a horse owner and rider is for animal rights and welfare. It's bs. Can't kick a turkey but you can whip, kick or drive spurs into a horse to make it go. Can't throw a turkey, but you can shove rods in a horses mouth and yank on the horses mouth to make it turn or stop, or just pull its mane.

    The only difference between me and you is that you want people to be arrested and harmed for animal rights and animal welfare and I believe that animal rights and animal welfare is far to petty a reason/excuse to harm and violate human rights and liberties.

    Well that and the fact that you believe rights and liberties are given to people by the government and I do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Respectfully, I do not want to hear all the hypocrisies about how wonderful a horse owner and rider is for animal rights and welfare. It's bs. Can't kick a turkey but you can whip, kick or drive spurs into a horse to make it go. Can't throw a turkey, but you can shove rods in a horses mouth and yank on the horses mouth to make it turn or stop, or just pull its mane.
    You clearly assume a lot and know little.
    Maybe you should research horseback riding and learn what actually is the case instead of claiming that it is brutal only for the purpose of making a case.
    Spurs do not cause injury- but they can if used improperly. If used improperly, the horse will react to the pain it causes and not on a manner you enjoy, either. You'll be in danger of being thrown from the horse. This is why inexperienced riders and even experienced riders do not use spurs.

    You're not making a valid point. You're just spewing hoping it will stick.

    As far as "whipping," goes... Whenever I rode, there was a rope tied off at the front of the saddle. But either way, it's the cracking noise it makes that gets the horse moving, not pain.

    Now, either you're just making assumptions; Or you're being dishonest. Given the nature of your arguments and claims so far, though...

    EDIT:
    Some of what I posit here is what I have been taught but I cannot vouch for full accuracy.
    This being the case, I'm looking for more information.
    My intent is to refute the claimed brutality of stabbing and gouging and beating and such.
    Last edited by Neverfly; April 1st, 2013 at 02:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Respectfully, I do not want to hear all the hypocrisies about how wonderful a horse owner and rider is for animal rights and welfare. It's bs. Can't kick a turkey but you can whip, kick or drive spurs into a horse to make it go. Can't throw a turkey, but you can shove rods in a horses mouth and yank on the horses mouth to make it turn or stop, or just pull its mane.
    You clearly assume a lot and know little.Maybe you should research horseback riding and learn what actually is the case instead of claiming that it is brutal only for the purpose of making a case.Spurs do not cause injury- but they can if used improperly. If used improperly, the horse will react to the pain it causes and not on a manner you enjoy, either. You'll be in danger of being thrown from the horse. This is why inexperienced riders and even experienced riders do not use spurs.You're not making a valid point. You're just spewing hoping it will stick.As far as "whipping," goes... Whenever I rode, there was a rope tied off at the front of the saddle. But either way, it's the cracking noise it makes that gets the horse moving, not pain.Now, either you're just making assumptions; Or you're being dishonest. Given the nature of your arguments and claims so far, though...EDIT:Some of what I posit here is what I have been taught but I cannot vouch for full accuracy.This being the case, I'm looking for more information.My intent is to refute the claimed brutality of stabbing and gouging and beating and such.
    I ride horses, I know... But while you are at it can you tell people who don't know why this is jammed in a horses mouth and how it is used?

    http://0.tqn.com/d/horses/1/0/B/2/halfchksnaff.jpg

    I have no problem with it but I am not the one claiming that Animals are not owned by anyone and are to be treated like they are equal to humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I ride horses, I know... But while you are at it can you tell people who don't know why this is jammed in a horses mouth and how it is used?

    http://0.tqn.com/d/horses/1/0/B/2/halfchksnaff.jpg
    A bit must be fitted properly. It fits in the gap between the front incisors and the back grinding teeth.
    A bit to a horse is mostly just annoying. Some horses are not annoyed and so eager to ride, they will tap the bit with their nose to indicate to the rider they are ready to go. Other horses use no bit and are ridden with just the halter.

    As I am opposed to certain practices (Including spurs, normally) and rodeos, bull fights and the like ( I consider that abuse, as well) and since my experience is more limited, I do not know if I can properly weigh in.

    My point is directed at your claims that exaggerate brutality. But in fairness, I do not see such practices as brutal does not mean they are all fun for the horse, either. You have validity in claiming that causing discomfort is used in training a horse- just as one can say spanking can be used to train a child.
    How much spanking is needed may depend on the stubbornness of the child...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    However, if horses are to be treated with the respect and dignity given to humans, or as you put it, all life, how is it you can justify even owning and riding a horse? Would you break a humans spirit, gear it up and ride it around? I understand horses are a tool, a resource, living of course but, mans resource.. For you though, with your positions here... Well I will let you explain it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    However, if horses are to be treated with the respect and dignity given to humans, or as you put it, all life, how is it you can justify even owning and riding a horse? Would you break a humans spirit, gear it up and ride it around? I understand horses are a tool, a resource, living of course but, mans resource.. For you though, with your positions here...
    Have you not noticed? We are treated that way. We are broken and beaten. Try growing up around other children... Try working in a fast paced work environment. We, absolutely, are treated in that manner and we are spanked, grounded, ostracized, fined, put in jail or otherwise punished if we do not conform to the wants of society, employers, parents, family, friends or other groups.
    We do act as transportation; We sigh in annoyance as we pick up and carry a small child that is whining about aching legs.
    We put them in strollers to push them around in comfort.
    We drive others around town, or even drive many people for treats, such as on buses and taxi's.

    We often do things we don't want to do in order to get treats.

    We are not better than those animals. We are the same. We are motivated by others in ways that are uncomfortable as often as rewarding.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Well I will let you explain it.
    My own personal belief is against abusing or taking life without need. For the Lakota, wild horses were bonded with. Not fenced in. They did not wear bits. They did not feel spurs. I do not fully understand the practices of today with the bridles and the spurs, I admit that and have asked for input from others. I edited the post above to reflect that.

    I believe that every person on this planet should have to hunt for meat if they want meat. I am opposed to the slaughterhouses, opposed to the neat little packages at the supermarket.
    I think that if meat was not a wholesale commodity, much less of it would ever go to waste.
    People would have a greater respect for life.
    More land would need to be maintained to account for grazing, hunting and quality of life- this would put greater reliance on less population and less urban development.
    I believe that you should only kill when that which you are about to kill sees you as the threat that you are.

    I do not agree with society that wants big macs handed to their fat butts out of convenience. But I am outvoted. I cannot enforce my beliefs on society.
    I would not kill a cow, a horse, a hog, a goat, a dog - unless they know that it is my intention to kill them and they can properly defend themselves. I agree with you that society has a major hypocrisy.

    That is a personal belief on my part.

    I must have a reason to take life.
    If I kill bacteria, it is because they are a threat to my or my families health. If they interfere, they are very low on my priority list.
    If I kill a spider or a bug, it must be because they are an immediate threat. I catch bees and the like and I put them outside. I take proper steps to not feed roaches inside. I usually just leave spiders as they are... but the kids demand they go out of their room if they see one- So I carry it out. It does not bite, therefor does not see me as a threat- I respect it's life and set it outside rather than kill without need. (ETA: There are only two venomous spiders in the U.S. and I've never seen either inside the home. I did kill centipedes that were in my -then 4 years old- sons play area outside.)
    If I kill anything larger than a bug, it is out of greater necessity. Either it is an immediate threat to health and safety or it is food. Period.

    I am opposed to the exploitation of other living things that suffer, that feel, that are abused just because people lack a respect for life and see it as a resource as God directed and not the living creature it is and that it is very much like ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I think we see things pretty similarly until we get to the point of when and why we are going to invade the space and violate the rights and liberties of others. I am not going to advocate for or support harming or violating peoples rights and liberties in the name of animal rights or animal welfare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think we see things pretty similarly up to the point
    I know this. I appreciate your posts and the argument, in spite of being frustrated about where we don't see eye to eye or what I find to be exaggerations intended to mislead on your part.
    Because I think your belief is as strong for you as mine is for me. I think you're willing to examine things as favorably as you can for your view, too.
    But we are not so different and I defend the right to be free just as strongly- the only difference is I do not believe in the freedom to take freedom or life from others as you do.
    I think your freedom ends when it immediately or abusively takes freedom or life from others.

    But freedom is as precious as life is. Freedom, in these times, is a very rare thing, indeed. None of us have it, I can tell you that. You are not free and neither are am I. We are subjugated by society, indentured servants of the system.

    My belief is that a person needs freedom. But I do not believe that freedom can be taken by force with the subjugation of others.
    cosmictraveler likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    @ gonzales56

    Would you address my point about humans who abuse animals are also found to abuse other humans and sometimes become very mean and bullies to the point of committing felonies like batteries upon others they don't like. Many times they, professionals, find that those in jail for killing others started out by torturing and abusing animals. Thank you.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    @ gonzales56

    Would you address my point about humans who abuse animals are also found to abuse other humans and sometimes become very mean and bullies to the point of committing felonies like batteries upon others they don't like. Many times they, professionals, find that those in jail for killing others started out by torturing and abusing animals. Thank you.
    Hitler was an animal rights activist, which shows there isn't necessarily a connection between killing animals and killing people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    @ gonzales56

    Would you address my point about humans who abuse animals are also found to abuse other humans and sometimes become very mean and bullies to the point of committing felonies like batteries upon others they don't like. Many times they, professionals, find that those in jail for killing others started out by torturing and abusing animals. Thank you.
    Hitler was an animal rights activist, which shows there isn't necessarily a connection between killing animals and killing people.
    I never said ALL people that abuse animals go onto becoming criminal batterers only some. It is still a sign that must not be overlooked in children who abuse animals and should be stopped before they can do more harm, especially to other humans not just those animals.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    @ gonzales56 Would you address my point about humans who abuse animals are also found to abuse other humans and sometimes become very mean and bullies to the point of committing felonies like batteries upon others they don't like. Many times they, professionals, find that those in jail for killing others started out by torturing and abusing animals. Thank you.
    I, personally, am not swayed one way or another by those type of stats or associations. Surprisingly enough though they do cause even the well educated and intelligent to stop thinking and obsorb those type of stats and loose associations as proof positive in support for someones claim/position.

    For starters, what is or isn't animal abuse is not universal. What is or isn't animal abuse will very wildly amongst people. Secondly, under anyone's definition of animal abuse, the percentage of people who have only abused an animal compared to people who are murderers and have abused an animal will be so large that it would literally be easier to show that animal abuse is not associated with murder nor does it lead to murder.

    One could also say, "A high percentage of murderers abused an animal"... Well, a high percentage also have done drugs, stole something, came from a broken home, etc.. These loose connections are not valid.

    With that said though, i understand that torturing animals can be connected to mental illness. No one will get any resistance from me to the idea that if someone is torturing animals that it can and often should warrant professional help to determine the depth of their issues/problems in order to assess if they are mentally ill and/or pose a danger to themselves or others.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 1st, 2013 at 06:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    One could also say, "A high percentage of murderers abused an animal"... Well, a high percentage also have done drugs, stole something, came from a broken home, etc.. These loose connections are not valid.
    But they are. Because you do not believe that they aren't doesn't mean that you are correct and they are wrong. All that provides us with is that you do not want to learn the truth about what causes people to do certain things like murder or battery SOMETIMES. I know that the evidence is not overwhelming but there's enough fact finding that has been done to show a correlation between animal abuse and those who mistreat others. Just to know that there is a way to prevent children especially from turning into murders SOMETIMES or who kill or hurt others I would think is a good fact to learn.

    While the evidence is in all you need do is just learn more but instead you just "believe" that these things are not related but cannot provide me with facts to show how your way of believing is true. Please take the time and read some studies that were done by just a few well known organizations and people to understand how misguided you are with your beliefs. Here are a few well known samples that I can provide to you. Can you provide to me some that show us the opposite? Thanks.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...44442042,d.eWU

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Jabne0mOzektzA

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...3LRlz5gLoxnWpQ
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Gonzales- your opinion of manifestly destined superiority is bullshit. we are centrally placed in the foodchain, and are not in any way superior to many animals. That you think humans have a universal immunity from consequences were animals are involved is not supported by any actual evidence.
    Neverfly likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    However, if horses are to be treated with the respect and dignity given to humans, or as you put it, all life, how is it you can justify even owning and riding a horse? Would you break a humans spirit, gear it up and ride it around? I understand horses are a tool, a resource, living of course but, mans resource.. For you though, with your positions here... Well I will let you explain it.
    There are far too many side points in this thread for me to respond to them all, but I will interject a few thoughts for I have always admired horses and made it my goal as a young girl to arrange my life so that I could have some of these animals in my care, to learn from and to spend time with, which includes teaching them how to interpret my requests using signals from their own means on communication with each other.

    My justification for keeping horses in containment is that my own species has pretty much claimed all of the habitable land suitable for horses and there are few places left for them to run free
    and in those areas they become their own enemy as they soon multiply to the point of overgrazing and then begin to fight and starve as they have nowhere to expand unto. Well meaning humans attempt to intervene by capturing and placing these horses up for adoption but some are injured by the process and there are too few humans with resources and experience to take on the responsibility of gentling a feral horse.

    The horse was amenable to cohabitation with our species as early as 5000 years ago and although individual animals have been utilized in ways that some may not agree with, the reality is that both species have enjoyed great benefits from the relationship.
    The Cambridge team, working with colleagues in Germany, believe 77 wild mares or more were the original breeding stock of domesticated horses.
    BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Origins of domestic horse revealed

    Humans have expanded at a much accelerated pace into the far regions of the globe, even transporting horses by ship to other continents (that must have been hell for a horse, IMO, fear of containment being one of their strongest. They are unable to vomit or regurgitate so I can only ponder how their innards fared.) In exchange, we have protected the horse from other predators and provided it with food and shelter from the elements, although their form may be variable sometimes being pasture and a grove of trees, which actually are the horse's natural habitat in many locales.

    Today's horses are mostly descended from animals that have been domesticated for many generations and the methods of teaching them have greatly improved in the last hundred years as have the tools utilized in the methodology. Where horses have been treated in such a manner as to 'break' them and ridden roughly, the fault lies with the training of the human and the horse has been most patient in tolerating our shortcomings in this regard. I am not proud to admit that I used to be less considerate in my teachings than I am now, yet I offer as my defense that those I first learned from knew no better and that horses have taught me much more in that regard.

    The following video shows Stacy Westfall riding a reining pattern, in tribute to her father who died shortly before this ride. She uses no saddle or bridle although she does have spurs on to act as a leg aid. The horse demonstrates some of the more complicated actions that it is capable of performing in the wild, in response to shifts in her body weight, gentle squeezes from her calf muscles, finger snaps and light touches from the spur. That this is a 'pattern' is also a teaching aid for the horse because it is learned by repetition and memory though horses and riders must learn many patterns because the one used at most competitions is selected at random from a prepared list on the day of the show.

    This is a remarkable demonstration of the co-operation between human and horse that is possible and for that reason I post it on this thread.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Gonzales- your opinion of manifestly destined superiority is bullshit. we are centrally placed in the foodchain, and are not in any way superior to many animals. That you think humans have a universal immunity from consequences were animals are involved is not supported by any actual evidence.
    Immunity from what consequences? I don't see what it matters where we fit in a food chain. Organisms anywhere in the food chain exploit, kill, or otherwise harm other species. Why should we be different?
    If someone thinks something is cruel, then I don't have a problem with that. We all have grown up in different cultures and have different experiences, so we will have different beliefs about these sorts of thing. But, don't try to claim science supports your opinion, when it is only that - an opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why should we be different?
    We have the capacity to be self aware enough.
    Just because an amoeba might eat your brain doesn't mean that you can claim the "right" to eat brains. Your intellect shows more self awareness. Additionally, we have a massive effect on the environment and on ourselves. We are aware of that responsibility and cannot plea ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    But, don't try to claim science supports your opinion
    He did not say, "Science." He said, "Evidence."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why should we be different?
    We have the capacity to be self aware enough.
    Just because an amoeba might eat your brain doesn't mean that you can claim the "right" to eat brains. Your intellect shows more self awareness. Additionally, we have a massive effect on the environment and on ourselves. We are aware of that responsibility and cannot plea ignorance.
    Yes, I do claim the right to eat brains. How does self awareness affect someone's opinion about shooting horses? Shooting horses will not affect the environment. What effect do you think it will have on ourselves?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    But, don't try to claim science supports your opinion
    He did not say, "Science." He said, "Evidence."
    One does not need evidence to have an opinion about shooting horses. It is just a matter of what you were raised to believe, or have been convinced to believe about it. What is your evidence about shooting horses? People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes, I do claim the right to eat brains.
    Then you need to provide a Source for having that right granted to you.

    And awareness has everything to do with it. If you're aware of consequences but you ignore them, then those consequences are not avoided.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    One does not need evidence to have an opinion about shooting horses. It is just a matter of what you were raised to believe, or have been convinced to believe about it. What is your evidence about shooting horses? People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    Like Gonzales, you are now making a redundant assumption. "Objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong?"
    Well, several things are wrong with this statement... It assumes that there is a sudden change.
    It assumes a morality.
    It assumes that the argument is that "killing is wrong" with zero qualifiers.
    I cannot reasonably be expected to give a proper response to such loaded statements.

    My posts above have clarified my argument to the point that you have no excuse for any confusion over my stance.
    I suggest that you read them, then get back to me.

    Evidence was asked for in order to support ones statements. You, now, claiming that evidence is unneeded smacks of nothing more than a cop out to avoid having to provide any.
    Evidence is crucial to understanding and citing it as pure faith or belief is not a proper response on a scientific forum. Claiming it is just a belief is an excuse that smacks of religious dogma. I know you can do better than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Gonzales- your opinion of manifestly destined superiority is bullshit. we are centrally placed in the foodchain, and are not in any way superior to many animals. That you think humans have a universal immunity from consequences were animals are involved is not supported by any actual evidence.
    Immunity from what consequences? I don't see what it matters where we fit in a food chain. Organisms anywhere in the food chain exploit, kill, or otherwise harm other species. Why should we be different?
    If someone thinks something is cruel, then I don't have a problem with that. We all have grown up in different cultures and have different experiences, so we will have different beliefs about these sorts of thing. But, don't try to claim science supports your opinion, when it is only that - an opinion.
    Ummmmmm, excuse me? Where in my statement are you getting this from? I did not at any point claim science supported my point. If you are going to make accusations please do them based off what is said. The conversation is about animal abuse, and that is very clear from the exchanges between myself and Gonzales.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    For the same reason we decided that killing one another was "wrong".
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes, I do claim the right to eat brains.
    Then you need to provide a Source for having that right granted to you.

    And awareness has everything to do with it. If you're aware of consequences but you ignore them, then those consequences are not avoided.
    Why do I need a source? What is the source of any right? What is the source of the animal's right? What are the consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    One does not need evidence to have an opinion about shooting horses. It is just a matter of what you were raised to believe, or have been convinced to believe about it. What is your evidence about shooting horses? People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    Like Gonzales, you are now making a redundant assumption. "Objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong?"
    Well, several things are wrong with this statement... It assumes that there is a sudden change.
    It assumes a morality.
    It assumes that the argument is that "killing is wrong" with zero qualifiers.
    I cannot reasonably be expected to give a proper response to such loaded statements.

    My posts above have clarified my argument to the point that you have no excuse for any confusion over my stance.
    I suggest that you read them, then get back to me.

    Evidence was asked for in order to support ones statements. You, now, claiming that evidence is unneeded smacks of nothing more than a cop out to avoid having to provide any.
    Evidence is crucial to understanding and citing it as pure faith or belief is not a proper response on a scientific forum. Claiming it is just a belief is an excuse that smacks of religious dogma. I know you can do better than that.
    There is not religious dogma involved. You are the one who is dogmatically claiming some sort of animal rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    For the same reason we decided that killing one another was "wrong".
    The definition of 'right' and 'wrong' being subjective and highly dependent on the circumstances of the time and place in question.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    People have been killing animals for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There is no objective reason to think that it should suddenly become morally wrong.
    For the same reason we decided that killing one another was "wrong".
    What reason was that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do I need a source?
    Because you claimed a "right."
    In order to have any kind of right, since there are no absolutes, as I know you are fully aware, there must be a source granting you that "right." I know that you are fully aware of that. So stop obfuscating and dodging. You are not discussing the topic by pulling these tactics. You are not answering questions, you are asking questions as a response to being questioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is not religious dogma involved. You are the one who is dogmatically claiming some sort of animal rights.
    It is the other way around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    animal abuse
    a few years ago, the doe i had targeted moved out of my zeroed in kill zone, then turned
    as she turned, I corrected for distance and fired
    unfortunately, the bullet struck her in the chest and exited the lower abdomen
    gut shot, damned poor shooting
    she ran off 20 yards, and turned to face me,
    then ran off into the fennwood
    ..............
    I felt remorse
    not just because I had to follow her and drag her up another couple hundred yards(puff pant)
    but because she suffered for all of the 200 yards she managed to run
    .......
    'tain't right
    if'n you can't do a clean kill
    you better think about what you're doing wrong
    ...
    god bless her wearied soul
    she fed us well
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    animal abuse
    a few years ago, the doe i had targeted moved out of my zeroed in kill zone, then turned
    as she turned, I corrected for distance and fired
    unfortunately, the bullet struck her in the chest and exited the lower abdomen
    gut shot, damned poor shooting
    she ran off 20 yards, and turned to face me,
    then ran off into the fennwood
    ..............
    I felt remorse
    not just because I had to follow her and drag her up another couple hundred yards(puff pant)
    but because she suffered for all of the 200 yards she managed to run
    .......
    'tain't right
    if'n you can't do a clean kill
    you better think about what you're doing wrong
    ...
    god bless her wearied soul
    she fed us well
    That's what you get for shooting at a DOE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do I need a source?
    Because you claimed a "right."
    In order to have any kind of right, since there are no absolutes, as I know you are fully aware, there must be a source granting you that "right."
    No. There doesn't have to be a source. What are you trying to say - that there are no rights?

    I know that you are fully aware of that. So stop obfuscating and dodging. You are not discussing the topic by pulling these tactics. You are not answering questions, you are asking questions as a response to being questioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is not religious dogma involved. You are the one who is dogmatically claiming some sort of animal rights.
    It is the other way around.
    No it isn't. You are dodging the questions. Where do you think rights come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ...
    That's what you get for shooting at a DOE.
    really healthy wild game
    excellent source of protein for the cost of a bullet and a couple bucks for the state
    some quality time with my son and daughter-in-law butchering the harvest
    and
    i'm a pretty good cook, as is my daughter-in-law, so we feast well
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do I need a source? What is the source of any right? What is the source of the animal's right? What are the consequences?
    Did you really just ask this? This is the type of question that would result in newforum members being cautioned or sanctioned on. The legal governing body of a region/country determines whether something has rights or not, as you are fully aware. The consequences of violating those rights are described in detail in the legal code.

    What legal evidences do you have to support the removal of those legally granted rights from the legal code?
    Neverfly likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why does man perceive god made Man in his image
    By Genesis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 06:25 AM
  2. How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 20th, 2010, 07:24 PM
  4. Horse woman
    By Robin Hood in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 28th, 2007, 11:50 AM
  5. has anybody seen my horse!
    By susan in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 28th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •