phebe121
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,098
Vary true there just big liers
Your thoughts on 2 tortoise owners.
- Thread starter @ndrew
- Start date
Since it would appear that you are only looking for a fight.....I will save you the trouble....I won't use up any of my time to debate with those that are incapable of differentiating between "A" crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals (domestic as well as wild)..so since there is not the ability to do so---one equates all groups to the extremist group and continues to bring the group of conversation back to the extreme one--so to further fear monger...that is fine--we will ABSOLUTELY not agree, I am alright with that-- I live in the world that is occupied by a variety of groups interested in the well being of animals--and let me assure you that the "humane society" is the worst killers, period...
Recently I was picked on by a group of drunk motorcar mechanics, fortunately I managed to run away. So are motorcar mechanics everyone's enemy too?
I would call myself an animal rightist. I don't really like to see animals in captivity, I have taken in a lot of abused or stray pets, because they can't survive on their own, but I would never buy from a breeder.
I stand by my opinion, but I have never insulted or hurt other people knowingly. Please explain, why am I your enemy?
i do apologize if i offended you or any one els that was not my intent, what i said came across wrong and i should have worded it better. what i meant to say was that no one (not even a pregnant woman in this case) is safe from the groups of extremists who think its ok to go that far. yes there are alot of activists out there doing good. but unfortunately there are also a lot of the extremists just lucking for an excuse to scare,bully and cause trouble.
living the lake district there's alot of fox hunts so as you can imagine its like a magnet for groups of extremists and we hear about things they do all the time. one group thought it ok to spray the hounds with pepper spray so they couldn't see or smell the foxes. the same group broke in to a mink farm and released them all. the mink decimated the local wild life wild life. these are the ones who i class as idiotic scum. they give no thought to their actions and claim its ok because they are helping the animals.
Look, you know my opinion on undomesticated mammals in captivity, and I'm not prepared to have that debate now. @Anyfoot is correct that in the UK and possibly under EU rules-not sure about that one- we cannot have them in circuses anymore, which I personally agree with.
However, by lumping all animal right groups into one, you are playing a very dangerous game. Sure, I don't agree with PETA for the most part, nor many others, but there are some good ones out there as well, mainly focusing on conservation on the species.
And kind of related to that, with regards to mixing species, while I would not promote it, there are a number of very successful long term keepers of mixed species. If they came on here as new members, they'd get slated by the whole forum. It can work, in the right circumstances, so while you shouldn't tell others to do so, don't immediately say 'you're going to kill the tortoises' when a new member joins with mixed species-ask them more. Using the TT's quote is very interesting as well, especially considering as a forum you generally don't seem to like their methods-one of which is that no red foots, pardalis or sulcatas should be bred in captivity. Make of that what you will for conservation...
There are cultural differences among people from different parts of the world. It seems some people in some places are okay with their government telling them what they can and can't do with their own property. They seem willing to give up their freedom of choice to prevent the few cases of people who might make the wrong choice. To me, this is the most "dangerous game".
About lumping all AR groups into one: If they define themselves as an AR group then their agenda and POV is well defined and I know what they are all about. A group that focuses on species conservation and is doing "good" work, is not an AR group by my definition.
FLINTUS, I have no idea what the state of things regarding AR groups over in the UK is, but over here AR groups are just one of the many groups that are attempting, successfully in some cases, to destroy all the things that make America what it is. Everyone is free to decide who they would like to make their choices for them. You've taken the stance that you are glad your government is restricting your freedoms and everyone else's. That is not what I would choose for myself or my countrymen. I believe the individual should have freedom of choice, even if that means we will have to deal with the consequences of some people making the wrong choice some of the time.
I'm glad about circus animals not being allowed yes, and I guess that is a restriction of liberty, but how 'free' are we to actually choose what we want? I'll try to avoid talking about Charlie Hebdo atm. Same thing goes for kids having guns etc...
We have bad AR groups here as well-the APA is the main problem for the reptile community-, but how one defines animal rights groups is a most subjective matter. Just because it's not 'your definition' of an AR group, does that make it not so? I personally believe that any groups that classify themselves as animal right groups are AR groups. And I'm trying really hard to avoid similes with current world politics here...
Sorry. I think we've gone way off topic here. I have no idea what left-wing French satirical newspapers or children enjoying hobbies has to do with any of this.
This is not about how "Tom" defines a group. This is about what actions any particular group takes or is attempting to take against me and people like me. Their actions are what define them, not my opinions. When a group lobbies to ban my tortoise and have them taken away from me, or restricted, or permitted by the government in some way, then they become the enemy of tortoise keepers.
Sure, not disagreeing about that particular example, but not all groups that claim to be AR activists do that.
The reference above was about you going on about governments restricting liberties, and therefore, I was kind of hinting at how much freedom do we actually have? Or should have?...
Did you read anything I posted, or did you just characterize me as some strawman and go from there? I CLEARLY differentiated between "Animal Rightsists" and groups interested in Animal Welfare. I even used examples and cited sources. I don't have a problem with any of these other animal rights groups of which you speak, ones that argue for animal welfare and the responsible stewardship of pets and wildlife resources. When I speak of "Animal Rightsists," I am referring specifially to groups such as ALF, ELF, and PETA (and that's three groups I mentioned, not "A" group, by the way). You, on the other hand, didn't defend any of your points, simply saying that you didn't wish to "use up any of my time" arguing with me, accusing me of simply "looking for a fight" and being "incapable of differentiating between a crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals," both of which are demonstrably false. I didn't attack you. You inaccurately characterized my comments as "fear mongering," then condescendingly asked "seriously?" Saying that PETA wants to press legislation to make it illegal for us to keep tortoises isn't fear mongering. It is the truth. And when it comes to decrying the actions of animal rightsists (not defenders of animal welfare or stewards of wildlife resources, but animal rightsists), you'd better believe I'm serious. I don't have anything against you, ascott; I'm not even sure we're disagreeing here. I don't understand why you think we disagree, given that you really haven't given me anything to go on here, since you won't "waste your time" talking to me. But hey, so be it. I am also alright with that.
T.G.
I do know, however, that we both agree that the Humane Society sucks. Their president is a total idiot who wants to restrict the keeping of any and all reptiles.
T.G.
T.G.
I totally read your post....word for word..there absolutely is lumping of animal rights groups to "an enemy to everyone" on this forum....fear mongering is what goes on when someone makes statements such as --oh, "will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed" and in this initial post you make no reference to PETA...so the lumping of animal rightists began here...then you go onto to say that yo automatically reject anything any of them say...again, no reference here to PETA....so yes, I have read your post and those thereafter....wherein you then begin to label PETA....at which time I believe I also agreed that I am not a fan of PETA....but do not have that same feeling for "animal rightists" as being the same and all inclusive PETA...that is when I realized that we are not going to agree (not about PETA but rather about all animal rightists) and decided that it be a waste of my time to continue.....I have not personal issue with you, I do not know you...but as you have the right to...so do I...to not agree with all that is shared, correct?
I did not use the name of the organization PETA in my first post, but I did use the term "Animal Rightsist," which is different from the terms animal rights activist and animal welfare proponent. I thought I explained that I feel an "Animal Rightsist" is different than someone concerned with animal welfare. I thought Tom explained it rather well also. An "animal rightsist" is an extremist, such as members of PETA, the ALF, and the ELF, those who would commit or support acts of terrorism in the name of an extreme agenda that would, yes, see all tortoises separated from their owners. This is not fear mongering. It is fact. Were I to describe Al Queda as a terrorist organization bent on killing or converting anyone who doesn't conform to their rigid view of Islam, I wouldn't be engaged in fear mongering. I would be stating a fact. In describing someone as an "animal rightsist," I am not describing a person who volunteers at a raptor rehabilitation center or someone who campaigns on behalf of preserving wilderness habitat, nor am I describing someone who fosters and acts as a proponent for the responsible ownership of pets or someone, such as myself, who regularly petitions the city to create a concrete burm on the Woodlawn spillway to allow turtles to escape to the surrounding habitat. I am referring, very specifically, to extremists mentioned of those particular organizations, the sort who would murder thousands of animals to "save" them from living in captivity. I am lumping nobody together, as I thought it was generally understood that when someone uses the term "animal rightsist," it is generally understood that said person is referring to an extremist who finds the very nature of keeping exotic animals of any kind an abomination, a practice that must be stopped. I did not explain that in my initial post, certainly, but I explained it in all proceeding posts, perhaps not as thoroughly as I did just now. But I apologize, I didn't realize it required such thorough explanation. Perhaps it didn't. I don't know.
I am still convinced this "disagreement" is the fruit of misunderstanding. You are, of course, correct in that we both have the right to disagree. I simply don't agree that we disagree here. At least I don't have demonstrable evidence of such. Perhaps there is a disagreement on definition of terms, but that is hardly a disagreement worthy of all the words spent elaborating upon the subject thus far. Though perhaps there's disagreement on that particular subject. I don't know. We shall see. But yeah, I was simply trying to say that PETA, and the terrorists they support, are terrible. That's it. Anything else interpreted from my posts is simply that, an interpretation. Perhaps I was somewhat bellicose in my denunciation of them, such that I led folks to believe that I was attacking anyone who felt animals should be treated responsibly, but I intended no such thing. I am taking issue with the extremists in particular, the sorts of extremists who would see our rights taken away. Well, them and the nimrods in government who enjoy abusing their petty little authority to shut down breeders selling their hatchlings at an expo. Those government stooges are also terrible.
T.G.
I am still convinced this "disagreement" is the fruit of misunderstanding. You are, of course, correct in that we both have the right to disagree. I simply don't agree that we disagree here. At least I don't have demonstrable evidence of such. Perhaps there is a disagreement on definition of terms, but that is hardly a disagreement worthy of all the words spent elaborating upon the subject thus far. Though perhaps there's disagreement on that particular subject. I don't know. We shall see. But yeah, I was simply trying to say that PETA, and the terrorists they support, are terrible. That's it. Anything else interpreted from my posts is simply that, an interpretation. Perhaps I was somewhat bellicose in my denunciation of them, such that I led folks to believe that I was attacking anyone who felt animals should be treated responsibly, but I intended no such thing. I am taking issue with the extremists in particular, the sorts of extremists who would see our rights taken away. Well, them and the nimrods in government who enjoy abusing their petty little authority to shut down breeders selling their hatchlings at an expo. Those government stooges are also terrible.
T.G.
Extremist groups of every stripe should get a grip & a life . In Uk we have the famous RSPCA, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .In America there is obviously the equivalent . That should be enough!!!!! All the others are just nut cases looking for a cause , like many people they end up following hateful paths . Thanks for an interesting discussion. You all did very well .
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 6
Has anyone called the animal people? I think with the painting they could seize it for abuse. Mixing species in their enclosure i don't think they can do anything about
I don't really think of painting the shell as abuse. Its silly , stupid & crass , but I'm still not convinced that it really harms the tortoise. Its not like the popes hundreds of years ago painting little boys with gold for a religious ceremony & naturally they died from over heating . (where did I hear that ?? crikey It must have been in school years ago & the teacher was telling us the importance of keeping our skins clean ) lol
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 6
Oh crap i should have read the whole thread before making a comment. I don't have an opinion I'd wish to share in this forum about animal rights for or against, I'll just say that i don't think any animals should be painted, or dyed their non-natural color. Living in LA I've seen lots of pink labradoodles in purses and at that point i think the owners should have opted for a Barbie rather than a pet. Same here. If you want to paint, take up art. If you want to make things unique for your tortoise, get creative with his habitat and show us pics of that. Not your pink tortoise.
All is forgiven , I was just thinking of dunking my 2 captive white pigeons in red food dye to see if it would take ,..... just kidding !!!
Purely elegant in your delivery. I also love when such a fun word is pulled into a conversation....you and I indeed do not disagree on the pertinent parts.
On this we agree, that we, indeed, do not disagree on those pertinent matters that matter most agreeably.
T.G.
T.G.
