• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

And another one falls through the cracks! :(

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


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

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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....

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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?

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

                          http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

                          Comment

                          • Original Poster

                            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...

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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?

                                Comment


                                • 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

                                  Comment


                                  • 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.

                                    Comment


                                    • 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.

                                      Comment


                                      • 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!

                                        Comment


                                        • 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.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X