phebe121
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,097
Vary true there just big liers
I was about to post some long thing describing and clarifying what an animal rightsist actually is after ascott scoffed at my assertion that they are the gravest enemy the herp community currently faces, but then Tom explained it as thoroughly as I could have, so no need. But I just can't help myself, so I'm going to say a few things anyway. Everything Tom said times a thousand. There is a big difference between an animal rights activist/supporter (someone who argues for community involvement in animal welfare) and an Animal Rightsist. My friend's wife is a personnel director for the Humane Society. Now, I think the president of The Humane Society is an idiot, given that he stands against the keeping of reptiles on the basis that they're dangerous, despite the fact that dogs kill a few hundred times more people per year than even the deadliest reptile, but regardless of the president's stupidity, my friend's wife is a nice, reasonable person who supports animal welfare. She doesn't contend that I'm a slave owner or that my animals should be taken from me and destroyed.
Now, if you search for PETA, one of the first things that comes up is "PETA kills animals." That is because this is what they were doing as of 2013 (they're probably still doing it; I just have no information on that). PETA argues against "no kill" animal shelters. They kill animals that are dropped off at their facilities, in the back of a van, even if the animals could be readily adopted. The New York Times and the Washington Times ran articles on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. PETA is the face of animal rightsists, and animal rightsists are scum, and they are the ones most directly responsible for the asinine laws on the books today that plague turtle and tortoise keepers at every turn. They will not rest until we "slave owners" are forced to relinquish our animals so that they may murder our pets and burn their remains in a kiln. I'm not engaged in sensationalism when I say that these disgusting people would rather see every animal on earth perish than see them confined, even in a free range run. And I don't know if Tom's claim that they are a terrorist group is entirely accurate. I do know that the USDA lists them as a terrorist group, and the FBI chastised them for offering material support to actual terrorist organizations the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. But hey, ultimately, the effect is, in my opinion, the same. Saying PETA is a terrorist organization vs. saying PETA supports terrorist organizations makes little difference.
T.G.
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?
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.The publicly stated goals of the current crop of animal rights groups is in direct opposition to YOUR goals and aspirations as a tortoise keeper. That is why they are YOUR enemy as well as mine. When jeffjeff referred to "everyone" I believe he was lumping all of us pet keepers together.
I don't know how you define "Animal Rightist", but if you truly were one, you would be going against your own views by keeping tortoises or any other pet. Or by eating chicken or fish. Or by wearing leather shoes, etc...
Further, PETA is listed as a terrorist organization by the FBI over here. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. I don't believe someone with a love of tortoises who wants to see them cared for properly is an animal rightist. I believe the you, like any decent human being, should be in favor of animal welfare (meaning being a responsible animal owner and taking care of animals in your care properly in every way), but not in favor of saying that every ant on the ground has all the same rights as every human being walking around today.
Do you wish to clarify your stance? I find that many people who claim to be in favor of animal rights don't really know what that means. I find that they want animals to be cared for and not abused, and that they have the best of intentions, but that they don't truly understand the group, or the intentions of the group, that they have aligned themselves with.
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.
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...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...
Sure, not disagreeing about that particular example, but not all groups that claim to be AR activists do that.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.
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...
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.
animal rightsists are an enemy to everyone on this forum. These idiots will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed. They are a bunch of animal hating monsters who would rather see every animal on earth die a horrible and torturous death than spend one moment in the care of a human being. This is one of the reasons I automatically reject anything any of them say. Those people are despicable liars, shameless opportunists who would burn the bill of rights at the slightest opportunity. What these horrible human beings do is incredibly damaging, because every day they are working to bend the law to meet their sick and twisted view of humanity's relationship with the world and the laws that govern that relationship.
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.
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.
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.