The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 648
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    Yes, another straw man argument.

    Considering that gaspeth, the meat was by in large exported. To countries were horse meat is food, like any other meat.

    Along with the misunderstanding on what 'renewable' means.

    Yes, I got a few laughs out of that one. Still laughing.

    And oh, right: the FDA labels suggesting use o non use of a drug in certain species....oh my goodness, how many times to repeat this:
    when the same active ingredient is used in a beef cow, it stands to reason that other factors play into the label, mainly money as the tests are rather costly.

    It is much easier to exclude use on the label than to run a gamut of tests.

    But again, we have covered that.

    That and a bunch of other arguments.

    talk about growth....

    Yes, a horse is a renewable natural resource.
    What part of bute is not used in cattle do you not understand?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    4 members found this post helpful.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispatcher View Post
    I don't object to you stating that you know what horse slaughter is. And I haven't told you what you should or should not post.

    Why do you think everyone who objects to inhumane treatment is really relaying secret messages from PETA, HSUS, RARA's, etc?
    Your second paragraph doesn't make sense, I expect you are using writer's license for that one?

    No one is saying we should not be for animal welfare, it is animal rights extremists agendas we are at times questioning.

    Any abuse is wrong, in slaughter, in rescue, in any anyone does, with horses, other animals, humans, abuse is always wrong and we have laws against that already.

    Trying again to brand those that think to ban slaughter because someone found abuse there makes as much sense as banning rescues because there has been plenty found to be abusing and mismanaging their horses, none at all.



  3. #183
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, that is mixing the topics so nothing makes sense?

    A natural, renewable resource is one that you don't have to use artificial means to produce, although you may do so.
    Horses, just because we don't have them for sale as a steak in the grocery stores in the USA that making them now not a natural, renewable resource?

    Doesn't make sense because a natural, renewable resources are those that are natural, as horses are and renewable as such, as horses are.
    We don't manufacture them in a plant, as we do the pot you may cook your food on.
    That pot may not be a natural, renewable resource, but what you put in it, your vegetables and any animal protein, horses included, are natural, renewable resources.
    That the pot is in an USA household or somewhere else doesn't change that.

    Hope that explain the difference.
    My point is that any bird, fish, fowl or mammal can be considered a renewable resource, except if they are on the verge of extinction. Why don't we eat cats and dogs, they're renewable. There are a lot more excess cats and dogs in this country than horses...looks like you're on the wrong bandwagon. Why are we wasting all those perfectly good dogs and cats. There are starving people who would probably love a great cat stew or doggie BBQ. Heck, the rats in NY alone could probably keep the soup kitchens supplied with meat. They're a natural renewable resource, yet we poison them and dump them in the landfill.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    My point is that any bird, fish, fowl or mammal can be considered a renewable resource, except if they are on the verge of extinction. Why don't we eat cats and dogs, they're renewable. There are a lot more excess cats and dogs in this country than horses...looks like you're on the wrong bandwagon. Why are we wasting all those perfectly good dogs and cats. There are starving people who would probably love a great cat stew or doggie BBQ. Heck, the rats in NY alone could probably keep the soup kitchens supplied with meat. They're a natural renewable resource, yet we poison them and dump them in the landfill.
    We in the USA waste so much, but that doesn't mean we have to waste even more.
    That is why to ban slaughter with the excuse that few may use that produced thru that process and so waste all that deserves a second thought.

    Already touched a time or thousands why the abuse and mismanagement card also are not sensible reasons to ban, but fall under working on stopping abuses and mismanagement thru animal welfare, not following animal rights extremists to ban use.

    This is a debate, many are listening, all have a right and should have a chance to state their opinions and all to make their own mind what makes sense to them.
    I think that is what these debates are all about.



  5. #185
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    You do realize Bluey, that repeating your redundant mantra does nothing to change anyone's mind, right?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    7 members found this post helpful.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    The lesson Bluey is simple - drop the term "animal rights extremists" and you will speak your mind and your own sense without offense.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    What part of bute is not used in cattle do you not understand?
    What part of 'no research' do you not get?

    Or rather: If it actually IS a carcinogen, why on earth do you still feed it to your horse?!

    Again, straw man argument.

    You do realize LauraKY, that repeating your redundant mantra does nothing to change anyone's mind, right?

    oops....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    You do realize Bluey, that repeating your redundant mantra does nothing to change anyone's mind, right?
    You do realize that I don't start these threads with a certain, as you say, "Mantra" to them, don't you

    I just respond to that mantra.



  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    The lesson Bluey is simple - drop the term "animal rights extremists" and you will speak your mind and your own sense without offense.
    Well, what do you know, first I could not say animal rights fanatics without offending, kept changing it, but didn't want to go to RARA, didn't think it was appropriate for what I mean and ended up with animal rights extremists, as mellow a designation as can be, for who they are, anything but mellow.
    Now that also is not acceptable?

    So, what do you want me to write when I am talking about the, well, animal rights extremists?



  10. #190
    Join Date
    Mar. 8, 2006
    Location
    Southeast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Your second paragraph doesn't make sense, I expect you are using writer's license for that one?

    No one is saying we should not be for animal welfare, it is animal rights extremists agendas we are at times questioning.

    Any abuse is wrong, in slaughter, in rescue, in any anyone does, with horses, other animals, humans, abuse is always wrong and we have laws against that already.

    Trying again to brand those that think to ban slaughter because someone found abuse there makes as much sense as banning rescues because there has been plenty found to be abusing and mismanaging their horses, none at all.
    why do I think that? because whenever someone here documents a cruel act to horses in the slaughter pipeline, you immediately say they are following PETA, HSUS, RARA's etc.propaganda.

    Those who document the cruelty are for the WELFARE of the animals, not their RIGHTS

    Many, many, posters, including myself, have said they are not against slaughter, but ARE against the inhumane treatment.

    Since you seem to agree that abuse is wrong, then I submit that you too are a RARA.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Well, what do you know, first I could not say animal rights fanatics without offending, kept changing it, but didn't want to go to RARA, didn't think it was appropriate for what I mean and ended up with animal rights extremists, as mellow a designation as can be, for who they are, anything but mellow.
    Now that also is not acceptable?

    So, what do you want me to write when I am talking about the, well, animal rights extremists?

    Just state your own position. Since you are not an animal rights extremist out there lobbying for law change - no need to state their position. I think you can simply state your view of the info other's present without label. Like maybe just let a post stand on its own merit.

    It makes for great discussion and education.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post

    Or rather: If it actually IS a carcinogen, why on earth do you still feed it to your horse?!

    Again, straw man argument.
    Substances that cause a disease in one species do not necessarily cause it in another.

    For one thing, horses live about 1/3 shorter lives than humans. If horses lived into their 70s, 80s and 90s you might see diseases from use of these drugs we do not use in humans or animals for human consumption. But they don't.

    There are many factors determining how drugs effect differing subjects.

    And I've already explained, with links to references, why even though there may be no studies of humans taking Bute how it was still, without 'studies', shown to be harmful to humans.

    Some substances don't require an actual study to show that they shouldn't be ingested... are there studies in which the results of people ingesting rat poison showed that people shouldn't eat rat poison?

    Or did we come to that conclusion via instances where the harm of ingesting rat poison was obvious enough without a large subject group, a large placebo group and various dosage levels of rat poison being administered to humans to make it clear it was a bad idea? Extrapolation [not a study] of 'if it does ___ to rats, it will do ___ to humans'?

    Some things you don't need to conduct a study of to determine it's a bad idea.

    Furthermore, your belief that it's not harmful is irrelevant. My belief that it most likely, based on the side effects/damage done to patients who used it in the past, is harmful is irrelevant.

    The EU, the USDA, the MHLW, and other agencies do not want certain substances in the meat they import for human consumption.
    That alone should be enough reason to make sure those substances aren't in it.

    Insisting that this [existence of banned substances in the meat] is a straw man argument, is actually the straw man argument.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Feb. 15, 2004
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    7,620

    Default

    why are animal rights ALWAYS considered extremists? Do we go and blow up anything? Shoot at people who disagree with us? NO... We stand by the animals, for the animals. They are entitled to care to the end, however the end may be.

    It is interesting to see this thread with so many posts on ignore.. Too bad some people still feel the need to quote though...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    The FDA list of drugs that are not to be used in horses intended as food animals. Yes, a couple of them are also used for cattle, however, because we don't raise horses as food animals in this country, withdrawal times have not been tested.

    http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/...ited-drugs.php
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Location
    Greenville, MI,
    Posts
    11,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Your second paragraph doesn't make sense, I expect you are using writer's license for that one?

    No one is saying we should not be for animal welfare, it is animal rights extremists agendas we are at times questioning.

    Any abuse is wrong, in slaughter, in rescue, in any anyone does, with horses, other animals, humans, abuse is always wrong and we have laws against that already.

    Trying again to brand those that think to ban slaughter because someone found abuse there makes as much sense as banning rescues because there has been plenty found to be abusing and mismanaging their horses, none at all.
    That sentence is very plain to understand, I cannot imagine what is so unclear.
    Here it is in case this does not copy.
    Why do you think everyone who objects to inhumane treatment is really relaying secret messages from PETA, HSUS, RARA's, etc?
    "you can only ride the drama llama so hard before it decides to spit in your face." ?Caffeinated.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FalseImpression View Post
    why are animal rights ALWAYS considered extremists? Do we go and blow up anything? Shoot at people who disagree with us? NO... We stand by the animals, for the animals. They are entitled to care to the end, however the end may be.

    It is interesting to see this thread with so many posts on ignore.. Too bad some people still feel the need to quote though...

    Been there - done that. It does make for an easy read. What was it sannois said about a wreck... I think there is good reason to discuss these matters - but it seems the ignore works well to block noise.

    I see the problem with assigning animals "rights" legally. It would be an absolute mess simply because we eat them. But I sure would like to know someone would pay dearly if they slaughtered or intentionally maimed one of my horses. As it now stands, most laws would just give them a swat.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispatcher View Post
    why do I think that? because whenever someone here documents a cruel act to horses in the slaughter pipeline, you immediately say they are following PETA, HSUS, RARA's etc.propaganda.

    Those who document the cruelty are for the WELFARE of the animals, not their RIGHTS

    Many, many, posters, including myself, have said they are not against slaughter, but ARE against the inhumane treatment.

    Since you seem to agree that abuse is wrong, then I submit that you too are a RARA.
    No, welfare is trying to do what we do with our animals the best way we know how.

    Ban slaughter is what animal rights extremists, for lack of a better way to name them, do as part of their drives to eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans.

    That is an important difference some seem to muddle repeatedly.



  18. #198
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Location
    Greenville, MI,
    Posts
    11,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Well, what do you know, first I could not say animal rights fanatics without offending, kept changing it, but didn't want to go to RARA, didn't think it was appropriate for what I mean and ended up with animal rights extremists, as mellow a designation as can be, for who they are, anything but mellow.
    Now that also is not acceptable?

    So, what do you want me to write when I am talking about the, well, animal rights extremists?
    STOP REFERRING To people on here as animal rights extremists.
    Being unsure or not totally on board with something does not make one an extremist.
    "you can only ride the drama llama so hard before it decides to spit in your face." ?Caffeinated.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FalseImpression View Post
    why are animal rights ALWAYS considered extremists? Do we go and blow up anything? Shoot at people who disagree with us? NO... We stand by the animals, for the animals. They are entitled to care to the end, however the end may be.

    It is interesting to see this thread with so many posts on ignore.. Too bad some people still feel the need to quote though...
    You, personally may not have blown anything up.

    and just by definition, Animal Rights are about as extreme as it gets.

    Another point where reading comprehension is failing on a larger level:
    I - as about anybody else here is all for a species appropriate treatment of any given animal. In good as in bad times.

    However 'rights' do imply something completely different and as much as I love my animals, they are not little fur people, they are still animals. And at the end of the day I am the owner and make the decisions to the best of my knowledge and ability.

    You are mistaking welfare with rights. These two terms are - regardless what HSUS and PETA trying to tell you - NOT interchangeable!
    trust me, you don't want to go down that 'rights' road. Not really.
    because it could mean that somebody like me could work the system and tell you how to treat your animal.

    As for animal rights people:
    yes, there are plenty who do blow stuff up, instigate others to blow stuff up, harass and threaten, stalk people, terrorize people.

    And yes, it is official, PETA has spend money on animal rights terrorists. Paying lawyer bills for ALF and ELF members. Of course they officially proclaimed they had not a thing to do with it

    Head lady of WAR (Win Animal Rights) was at one time so busy cussing a driver out and getting in his way she forgot she was a vet....forget helping the horse, she had to video the poor thing....


    Yes, you claim kinship to Animal Rights, you also claim kinship to the more radical elements who do blow stuff up and terrorize people. You support PETA and HSUS, you send money toward terrorism.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002145329

    yes...charming people!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  20. #200
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    Just state your own position. Since you are not an animal rights extremist out there lobbying for law change - no need to state their position. I think you can simply state your view of the info other's present without label. Like maybe just let a post stand on its own merit.

    It makes for great discussion and education.
    You can't very well debate if you don't make clear what you are referring to.
    "Don't name them" is not much of a sensible solution here.



Similar Threads

  1. Hoof cracks
    By Perchmom in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May. 25, 2011, 02:39 PM
  2. quarter cracks...HELP!
    By TwistofRed289 in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 19, 2010, 03:45 PM
  3. Cracks in the foundation
    By snoopy in forum Eventing
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: Jun. 22, 2010, 11:09 AM
  4. Quarter Cracks
    By EquestrianRunner in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Feb. 17, 2010, 03:39 PM
  5. Hoof cracks - what can be done to help?
    By Live2Jump in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2009, 05:12 PM

Posting Permissions

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