Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

61 - 80 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
As for breeders, I have have strong opinions about their practices because I have to rescue their products or see them killed in shelters. And, maybe you didn't read my posts very well, because I know tons of breeders. Just none I would consider ethical or responsible.

I know about animal rights people by what they write and distribute. I'm not sure how else to find out what they believe. I'm sure I could find an animal rights group in the area if I tried hard enough, but that seems like a lot of effort just to find out whether they believe the same things other AR people believe or not. And I'd rather not have my house torched or my cats killed just for the sake of intellectual exploration.
Unless you are rescuing animals directly from the breeders, I'd suggest that you are mostly dealing with an irresponsible OWNER situation. Not anyone's fault but your own that you only put yourself in a place to see the worst examples (if you do.) I know that I've seen breeders represented in dog sports, who would frequently be among the most responsible. And that the breeders I've encountered in rescue (IF I took the time to find out who they actually are and made them aware of the situation) were usually more than willing to step in and help their animals. Some are even willing to help animals who are not theirs. So dunno, either you live in a real hell hole or you are only looking for the worst, and can't make a fair extrapolation from that.
As to the ARs, it's interesting that you think they are basically okay folks, but you are worried about looking too closely for fear of retribution in the form of death or damage if you get too good a look at them. I'm pretty vocal, and they haven't killed me or mine yet. That's a knock wood situation, but I think it is too important to be a mushroom. Thing is, if you go by what you read from the AR movement for the most part you are reading not their innermost agenda or beliefs, but what they are willing to put out there to suck in people who may not be quite as crazy as they are. I'm sure when Jim Jones was trolling for followers, he didn't bring up the Koolaide option, even if he was already thinking about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
Sure, that's why H$U$ recommends that any pit bull taken by the state needs to be euthanized. Including puppies just a few days old.
Many many many anti-ARs believe that too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
As to the ARs, it's interesting that you think they are basically okay folks, but you are worried about looking too closely for fear of retribution in the form of death or damage if you get too good a look at them. I'm pretty vocal, and they haven't killed me or mine yet.
Hehe, you thought I meant the retribution would come FROM the AR people? Nooooo.

There is a reason there's only one animal rights group in the state (that I can find operating openly; there may be undergrounds groups), and they present themselves as mainly an anti-domestic violence group, with some info about "multi-species non-violence" and veganism.



And if a person can't believe what a group puts out about themselves publicly, I don't know how they're supposed to know anything about any group. Even if you join your local chapter of that group, you can't know if that's what every chapter of that same group believes. I guess some people can see a conspiracy anywhere. . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
Ferinstance?
I could bring you a bunch of old guys and farmers and small-town animal control officers and average people and mailmen (who would all say that they're anti AR) who think that all pit bulls should be killed. I don't know if the anti-AR groups have official opinions on the subject. . .the ones I know of are livestock groups and I don't know that they have an official opinion on the matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
Hehe, you thought I meant the retribution would come FROM the AR people? Nooooo.

And if a person can't believe what a group puts out about themselves publicly, I don't know how they're supposed to know anything about any group. Even if you join your local chapter of that group, you can't know if that's what every chapter of that same group believes. I guess some people can see a conspiracy theory anywhere. . .

You know, I've yet to hear of anyone who is anti-AR killing someones pets or setting fire to their home because they have AR leaning. I mean, Horseface and Slick Waynie are not only safe, they're rich. No assination attempts that I've heard of (unless wishing counts) Do you have some proof or even evidence of people who have been persecuted for having AR beliefs. Fact is, us anti-AR types aren't all that organized and violent. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

And, that's the point. You can't know anything about a group just by reading their PR. You seem to think that AR means something different to every person. If that's so, then it's not a movement and we don't have to worry about them. That's very good news indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
If there were proof, something could legally be done (would it? Depends on the sheriff in that county). But in farming states, if someone leans toward animal rights and lets it be known, they can expect trouble. Organized or not, some people really don't like ARs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
I could bring you a bunch of old guys and farmers and small-town animal control officers and average people and mailmen (who would all say that they're anti AR) who think that all pit bulls should be killed. I don't know if the anti-AR groups have official opinions on the subject. . .the ones I know of are livestock groups and I don't know that they have an official opinion on the matter.
Well, then, you shouldn't have any trouble finding us a few quotes to that effect (by people who are known to be anti-AR) right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
If there were proof, something could legally be done (would it? Depends on the sheriff in that county). But in farming states, if someone leans toward animal rights and lets it be known, they can expect trouble. Organized or not, some people really don't like ARs.
So, can you produce at least one case where someone's animals have been killed or they've been burned out by suspected Anti-AR people? I don't like em. But I wouldn't do that. Neither would anyone I have met, and I've met some people who are pretty radically anti-AR. I've never heard of it happening. (I have heard of a few people who met the brownshirts at the gate with a shotgun protecting their own property, but that's another story). It seems like you are full of assertions about this and that, and know "lots of people who . . . " but don't really have anything to back up your assertions. When you are accusing people of violence, and you have no proof (or even evidence) of that, I have to wonder why you are posting it on a public forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
Public quotes? I don't know anybody who makes public quotes, lol. I can see if there's something by a small-town AC officer in the local newpaper archives. I do know that several small towns in the area have banned pit bulls, and every one of the people responsible for those bans would punch you if you said it was motivated by AR sentiments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
When you are accusing people of violence and you have no proof (or even evidence) of that, I have to wonder why you are posting it on a public forum.
I don't think accusing anonymous people of anything is illegal. If I named names, maybe. And nobody has shown any proof that "the majority of" AR organizations think killing animals is preferable to keeping them in captivity, or that the majority of AR groups want to put an end to pets, and they have no trouble posting that on a public forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
I don't think accusing anonymous people of anything is illegal. If I named names, maybe. And nobody has shown any proof that "the majority of" AR organizations think killing animals is preferable to keeping them in captivity, or that the majority of AR groups want to put an end to pets, and they have no trouble posting that on a public forum.
Not illegal. Not particularly useful or compelling either. The AR movement is a MOVEMENT. That means it has a clear-cut set of beliefs. If you believe something else, maybe you should call it something else. Otherwise, I can provide plenty of quotes for you about what the acknowledge leaders of the movement have said it is about (if that would be useful - I think we've mostly all seen them) and I can also provide information on firebombing, bombs, sabotage, etc. that have been done in the name of that movement. If you want to claim to be a supporter of that movement, at least know what you support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
That's sort of silly. If I say I'm anti-abortion (not starting anything, just using a well-known example of another hot-button issue!), does that mean I support bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors? If I say I'm pro-abortion, does that mean I support the eugenicists? I don't think it's true that a movement is defined by their extremists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,511 Posts
It all comes down to the difference between animal rights and animal welfare groups. As stated in another thread you don't agree with the defined differences as posted by JB so of course you can't accept when I claim the majority of AR groups believe. You started talking about anti-AR people just above... THAT I would call a broad term. I'd consider myself an anti-AR person because I don't agree with the beliefs and actions of AR groups, but I wouldn't be what it seems YOUR idea of anti-AR people would be. I believe in promoting animal welfare, not animal rights.

Animal Rights groups as defined in the dog parks beware thread (sorry to lazy to find and link it) by JB WOULD kill an animal rather than have it continue on in captivity. They feel it is cruel for the animal to be captive and most understand that 'freeing' the animal will very likely result in it's death anyways. So rather than let freedom kill the animal they kill them to 'save' them from captivity.

As SOB said 'proof' is hard to come by as they don't exactly publish their actions for all to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
If we're going by the definitions JB posted, many self-professed AR groups aren't actually AR groups. If we can't go by what they call themselves, then there really is no set definition. And how would someone be categorized if he/she mostly supported animal welfare, but some of their beliefs fell into AR territory? Although, using JB's definition, nothing anybody believes falls into AR territory unless they believe that humans need to end their relationship with animals entirely. So then the anti-ARs need to stop accusing people of being ARs for less extreme beliefs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
If we're going by the definitions JB posted, many self-professed AR groups aren't actually AR groups. If we can't go by what they call themselves, then there really is no set definition. Although, using JB's definition, nothing anybody believes falls into AR territory unless they believe that humans need to end their relationship with animals entirely..
Bingo! There is a set definition though.

So then the anti-ARs need to stop accusing people of being ARs for less extreme beliefs..
I don't think I've ever called anybody an ARista unless A) they were spouting the party line or B) That's how they identified themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
I don't think I've ever called anybody an ARista unless A) they were spouting the party line or B) That's how they identified themselves.
I believe you have, or at least strongly implied it. Particularly in the anti-docking/cropping threads. Unless you somehow think that being against cropping/docking = doing away with domestic animals. I don't see the connection myself.

If the AR groups themselves don't agree on a definition, how can we say there's a set definition? Especially when that set definition does not actually include any rights for animals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,511 Posts
I'm not overly familiar with groups that call themselves animal rights groups myself so I can't dispute they exist. What group do you feel calls themselves an animal rights group but doesn't fall under that definition?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
Can you prove that? I can't.
Just look at PETA's 95% kill rate of the animals they take in. They have even said that they don't run a 'shelter' (then why do they take in animals? Why don't they work with other rescues and sanctuaries?). They take in thousands of homeless animals just to basically kill them immediately.

Ingrid Newkirk has said; "I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don’t have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves." and in defense of PETA's anti-TNR campaign for cats, she said, "We do not advocate "right to life" for animals.".

And Phyllis Wright of the HSUS: "I’ve put 70,000 dogs and cats to sleep… But I tell you one thing: I don’t worry about one of those animals that were put to sleep… Being dead is not cruelty to animals." She then went on to say that she worries more about the animals she's found homes for. Sounds a lot like she feels taking their lives is easier than letting them live out of her control. That belief explains why so many AR groups hate the No-Kill movement -- to them, the ultimate kindness to any needy animal is giving them a painless death, in every situation. They hate other people and always assume the worst of every pet owner, breeder, animal farmer, and of other human beings in general. Which is the opposite of those who feel each animal's life is worth fighting for and making the effort to find them homes and help, and who have seen and believe in the potential goodness of other people.

Their views seem pretty clear to me. There may be some AR groups that do not feel that way, but they're not the ones with millions of dollars and media influence.
 
61 - 80 of 90 Posts
Top