The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 279
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Check out this article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63246,00.html#top

    It reminds me of the new anti-drug PSAs on TV, where it traces back from "Dan's joint" to the dealer, the supplier, the cartel, to the family shot and killed because they got in the way.

    So, for all of you on this board who have said that they sent PETA money, you have helped support an attempted murder of a medical executive, assault on a police officer, and multiple firebombings. Way to go.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Check out this article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63246,00.html#top

    It reminds me of the new anti-drug PSAs on TV, where it traces back from "Dan's joint" to the dealer, the supplier, the cartel, to the family shot and killed because they got in the way.

    So, for all of you on this board who have said that they sent PETA money, you have helped support an attempted murder of a medical executive, assault on a police officer, and multiple firebombings. Way to go.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov. 12, 2001
    Location
    Minnesotan living in PARIS!
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Once again I feel the need to say:

    PETA is NOT the animal rights movement. I am an animal rights person and abhor PETA, used to work for them.

    Keep this in mind:

    PETA IS TO ANIMAL RIGHTS AS JIM AND TAMMY BAKER ARE TO CHRISTIANITY.

    Just because there are unethical things going on in the christian community, does not make the whole system corrupt.

    Thanks for listening.
    \"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a wand and a strip search.\"



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    hoodoo, I'm surprised that as an animal rights person you would ride horses. AR policies are against the keeping of pets and definitely against riding and/or competing horses. AR means you believe that animals have the SAME rights as humans. IOW, you don't have a right to buy & sell me, or to ride me or jump me (no comments please!!!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] )and therefore since animals have the same rights, you have no right to get on a horse's back. I've read enough issues of Animal Agenda plus everything else AR I can get my hands on to know this is true. Perhaps you are an animal welfare perseon, not an AR person?



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
    hoodoo, I'm surprised that as an animal rights person you would ride horses. AR policies are against the keeping of pets and definitely against riding and/or competing horses<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    That's like saying all Christians are Pro-Life. Are they?

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bgoosewood:

    That's like saying all Christians are Pro-Life.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Uh, no, it's not like saying that at all.

    Animal rights, by the definitions set out by the animal rights people themselves, means that animals have equal rights to humans. Therefore, among other things, they cannot/should not be owned, eaten, ridden, bred, anything, by humans.

    I certainly don't believe that all animal rights people want to murder people and blow things up, but BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION, animal rights people want to give animals human rights, which means no riding, no ownership.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul. 2, 1999
    Posts
    17,599

    Default

    I thought it was rather humorous when Maryland's well publicized problem with the snakehead fish arose last month and the state took action to destroy them PETA actually supported the extermination.

    I guess if it was a cute and fuzzy animal you'd have oodles of the PETA flock out there chanting to save them. Nothing like picking and choosing what is popular ...



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2000
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Anne, I disagree.

    I believe an Animal has rights. Not all animal rights groups say that they have to have the same rights as humans. They have a right to a decent quality of life. Therefore, I don't believe in Factory farming. In My opinion they should not be used to test cosmetics and it is not kind to wear fur. And IF we are testing on Animals, they need to be taken care of in a Humane way. And we need to monitor the testing that is done. There have been cases where grants are given for years to run tests that have absolutely no positive results.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    I think the animal rights = human rights view is probably a very simplified view of the AR movement. Yes, they think animals should have rights, but there's more to it than that.

    I'm not an animal rightist by any means, but I've been meaning to do an article on the movement for a long time... and just from doing some cursory research, I can tell you it's a very complicated "theology," for lack of a better word. I don't think it can just be boiled down to "they think animals are the same as humans."

    From the FAQ at www.animal-rights.com (which I found on Google, don't know how reputable they are):

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals
    deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
    exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat
    animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
    says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and
    exploitation, just as humans possess this right. The withholding of this
    right from the nonhuman animals based on their species membership is
    referred to as "speciesism".

    ....

    It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking
    of animals as having rights, that does not imply or require that they
    possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans possess all
    the rights that animals possess. Consider the human right to vote. (On the
    view taken here, this would derive from an ethical imperative to give humans
    influence over actions that influence their lives.) Since animals lack the
    capacity to rationally consider actions and their implications, and to
    understand the concept of democracy and voting, they lack the capacity to
    vote. There is, therefore, no ethical imperative to allow them to do so,
    and thus they do not possess the right to vote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would think that riding is probably not consistent with the very strictest view of AR, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. (Would love to hear hoodoo's thoughts, though. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) But, as in everything, people probably ascribe to the beliefs to the degree that they're comfortable. Just like some very religious people still support gay rights, even though it goes against what the church teaches.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    I believe that animals have certain rights...the right to good care, a quality of life, and humane treatment. I do believe that we have the right to own them and use them for specific purposes such as horse shows, rescue work, and even in limited circumstances for medical purposes, research. I do believe than frivolous animal research such as in the cosmetics industry is unethical and should be stopped. I do eat meat and try to buy organically raised meat, eggs, and milk products whenever possible. I've turned down a job offer from a cosmetics company when I found out that they used animals for research so I will stand behind what I believe. What does that make me? A half way animal rights activist? I think like bgoosewood is saying is that you can be an animal rights proponent and not believe 100% like PETA and other radicals just like every christian isn't a fundamentalist or is PRO LIFE, there are varying degrees of belief and practice in any religion's followers. I think it's wrong to jump on hoodoo for stating that. I think you can be an animal rights activist and not be 100% like PETA.

    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself." D.H. Lawrence



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep. 14, 2000
    Location
    Goochland, VA
    Posts
    8,572

    Default

    pretty much sums up what Ann just said. The word "exploitation"can be broadly defined to include nearly everything, from just being ridden or trained, to being made to perform in shows, to circuses and theme parks. And having to stretch to find the "right to vote" as a human right that animals do not posess (because they can't) reinforces to me that the movement believes animals SHOULD have every right that humans have that they physically can.

    I do agree that PETA is not representative of animal rights groups in general and that many of these groups despise PETA for skewing the message they are trying to convey with its antics. But nonetheless, this movement strives to put some serious obstacles in the way of animal/pet ownership and what we can/should do with them.

    And who, when it comes down to it, gets to define what is cruel? What is not natural? I submit that it isn't natural for me to have to get up and go to work every day, but I do it a) to survive and b) because it is expected of me. So, are we out of line in asking an animal to work, too, just because it isn't natural?

    And when an animal CLEARLY enjoys what it is doing, does that influence the animal rights people? Or is it a blanket condemnation of what it considers unfair to the animal?

    Very tough questions among animal lovers.

    Laurie
    Laurie
    Finding, preparing, showing and training young hunters, in hand and performance.
    www.juniorjohnsontrainingandsales.com



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    <<The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
    exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
    says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this right. >>

    EXACTLY. Going "further than just saying that we should treat animals well". Of course everyone should agree with that, but they want to go further. "free from human cruelty and exploitation" - Yes, from cruelty; now, define 'exploitation.' If you read AR writings, exploitation is defined as any contact with humans - it would cover riding.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    Again from the FAQ:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A loving relationship with a proper companion animal, a relationship
    that adequately provides for the animal's physical and psychological needs,
    is not at all inconsistent with the principles and advocacy of animal rights.
    Indeed, animal rights advocates have been leaders in drawing attention to
    some of the abuses and neglects of our "beloved" pets. Many of the taken for
    granted practices do need to be reexamined and changed. The questions that
    animal rights raises about companion animals are important questions:
    * Can we maintain animals as companions and still properly address their needs? Obviously, we can't do this for all animals. For example,
    keeping birds in cages denies those creatures their capacity and
    inherent need to fly.
    * Is manipulating companion animals for our needs in the the best
    interests of the nonhuman animal as well? Tail docking would thus be
    a practice to condemn in this regard.
    * Might some of our taken-for-granted practices of pet keeping be really
    a form of exploitation? Animals in circuses or panhandlers using
    animals on the street to get money from passersby would arguably be
    cases of exploitation.
    * Which attitudes of human caretakers are truly expressions of our
    respect and love towards these animals, and which might not be?
    Exotic breeding is one example of this kind of abuse, especially when
    the breeding results in animals that are at a greater risk for
    certain diseases or biological defects.

    All that animal rights is really asking is that we consider more deeply
    and authentically the practice at hand and whether or not it truly meets
    the benchmark that BOTH the needs of human AND nonhuman animals be
    considered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So, contrary to popular belief, keeping pets is not in conflict with being an animal rightist.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
    <<The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
    exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
    says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this right. >>

    EXACTLY. Going "further than just saying that we should treat animals well". Of course everyone should agree with that, but they want to go further. "free from human cruelty and exploitation" - Yes, from cruelty; now, define 'exploitation.' If you read AR writings, exploitation is defined as any contact with humans - it would cover riding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Anne FS, I posted that paragraph in response to your assertion that animal rightists believe that animals should have rights equal to humans.

    Yes, I think it's pretty obvious that AR's don't think we should "exploit" animals, which would probably include riding.

    But no, being AR does NOT necessarily mean you believe animals have all rights humans do, or that you believe they shouldn't be pets, or that they shouldn't be spayed/neutered, etc.

    I'm just trying to clear up the generalizations and misconceptions here. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Anyway, so what if the strictest view of AR says that we shouldn't ride horses? Maybe the strictest view of human rights says we shouldn't have to work and should live in communes with no material possessions. Extreme views are extreme for a reason -- they aren't practical, and most people don't want them. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    More from the FAQ... sorry for the long quoting, but it's really pretty interesting! (Sorry, I enjoy philosophical/ethical discussion... it's an interesting brain exercise. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

    This is from a section talking about the use of animals in entertainment, and horse/greyhound racing.

    Interesting to see how the actions of a few "bad apples" like George Lindemann and Barney Ward are being used to portray the whole horse industry in a bad light. (Hmm... much like how the actions of a few PETA wackos are used to paint the animal rights movement... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] *stir, stir, stir* )

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures
    are common in both flat and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to
    allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious injury.
    And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not
    perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed of. Horses are lucky in that
    they occasionally go to a home where they are well treated and respected, but
    the knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products derived from worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a new practice has come to light: owners of race horses sometimes murder horses that do not reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime", and then file fraudulent
    insurance claims.) The likely homes for a greyhound are few and far between.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And one more quote relevant to lauriep's post:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A simple approach to this question might be to suggest that we all must
    work for a living and it should be no different for animals. The problem is
    that we want to look at the animals as like children, i.e., worthy of the
    same protections and rights, and, like them, incapable of being morally
    responsible. But we don't force children into labor! One can make a
    distinction, however, that goes something like this: The animals are
    permanently in their diminished state (i.e., incapable of voluntarily
    assenting to work); children are not. We do not impose a choice of work for
    children because they need the time to develop into their full adult and
    moral selves. With the animals, we choose for them a role that allows them
    to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them by eating them, etc. If this
    is done with true concern that their work conditions are appropriate and not
    of a sweat-shop nature, that they get enough rest and leisure time, etc.,
    this would constitute a form of stewardship that is acceptable and beneficial
    to both sides, and one that is not at odds with AR philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hmm. There goes my argument that it's okay for me to ask my horse to participate in the relatively "dangerous" sport of eventing in exchange for being doted upon and given the best of care. Oh well. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    [This message was edited by Erin on Sep. 17, 2002 at 10:29 AM.]



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Look, AR people themselves aren't for animal welfare. Listen to their own words; read PETA's Statement on Companion Animals, there's no room for horseback riding in there. I'm not making this stuff up; know what you are supporting:

    Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2:

    "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare...Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights."

    Gary Francione and Tom Regan, The Animals' Agenda:

    "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences...the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights...Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved."

    PETA's statement on companion animals:

    "In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme."

    Peter Singer, AR supporter and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton:

    "Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong."

    "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs,cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals."


    Ingrid Newkirk, national director, PETA:

    "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

    "One day,we would like an end to...the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild."

    "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

    "The bottom line is that people don't have the right...to breed dogs and cats...If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."

    NJ Animal Rights Alliance:

    "...it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as pets."

    John Bryant, PETA:

    "The cat, like the dog, must disappear."
    Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA:

    "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause."



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
    Maybe the strictest view of human rights says we shouldn't have to work and should live in communes with no material possessions.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Erin, show me this in writing by human rights advocates and you'll have a point. Maybe this, maybe that...no 'maybe' about it, this is what these people are working for. I gave you direct quotes. Look at what's happening in England with Huntingdon labs - banks and pension plans were threatened with bombings and personal injury unless they removed their investments. And they did remove them! The official AR movement = terrorism. If a person says "I am a part of this movement" then they are a part of this. You can't say, oh, I'm a part of the movement but not of this or not of that. Ask John Walker Lindh. It doesn't work that way.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    Anne FS, will you stop and READ the posts here for a second?

    What hoodoo is saying is that PETA is not representative of the AR movement. So using quotes from PETA to define AR isn't really proving anything.

    What *I* am saying is that AR is not as it is often portrayed. No, they don't necessarily think animals should have all the rights humans do. No, they don't necessarily think animals should not be kept as pets.

    Yes, I think PETA is completely off its rocker. And yes, I think many AR people would not want us to ride horses. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. However, you are also making statements that are not true, which I am trying to refute purely as a devil's advocate. (And no, I do NOT support "animal rights," in the generally accepted sense of the term.)

    BTW, when the PETA site says that AR is inconsistent with animal welfare, that is because they believe the animal welfare movement does not go far enough. It does not mean they are anti-animal welfare or that they think it's okay to abuse animals.

    Sorry, it just irks me when people generalize. It's no more fair for us to paint all AR people as PETA wackos than it is for the PETA wackos to paint all of us as being like George Lindemann.

    [This message was edited by Erin on Sep. 17, 2002 at 10:57 AM.]



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2000
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Erin,
    I don't see this as horsey and it is getting Political. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Posts
    6,723

    Default

    I posted, in a reply, a warning about PETA and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) on this BB back in July:

    http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/Op...726#8473078726

    Yes, I do animal research. Yes, our labs are targets of PETA, ELF, ALF... Because of their actions, the animal research laboratories around the US have developed a pretty good monitoring system of groups such as PETA so we get some advanced warning about possible attacks. Now, however, these groups have started to attack the researchers themselves. This scares me plenty.

    Why do I mention this here? Again, it is a warning to ALL horsemen/women that these groups are NOT benign! They have shown that when they target a specific activity, e.g. competitive horse competitions, if they do not get their way, they tend towards extremist measures to get their point across. I really think that one day they may consider the targeting of upper level riders as justifiable attacks if the horse industry does not cowtow to their desires.

    I find PETA's "innocent" ads on the radio, utilizing famous personalities, very misleading- even if they have valid points embedded; and therein lies the rub. The general public will respond favorably to someone like Tom Cruise touting "save the animals" more than they will to David O'Conner wining the gold in Sydney. Thus, as an industry/lifestyle, we will always have to be ready to defend our choices to the majority of the population in the US as a result of various "animal rights" groups lunacy.

    Reed



Similar Threads

  1. PETA - are they really that bad?
    By Kate66 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: Sep. 10, 2012, 11:36 AM
  2. WETA in DC PETA ad
    By red mares in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun. 28, 2012, 10:35 AM
  3. Holy cow, PETA is #$%^ offensive!!!!
    By JoZ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Feb. 15, 2012, 03:47 AM
  4. PETA Wants $360 fee added...
    By ThisTooShallPass in forum Racing
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Jun. 1, 2011, 11:13 AM
  5. Lea Michele/PETA/ Carriages in NYC
    By BlueBobRadar in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jan. 7, 2011, 11:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness