Until animals can give informed consent, all sports involving them should be banned.

[ohiosmith]

[Blue-Jay]

1. Even monkey knife fights?

[Shakespeare]

5. BRAK.

I live for the day Cartoon Planet is finally released on DVD.

[northzax]

6. well obviously not monkey knife fights

no one wants those banned. they are perfectly natural, if monkey had knives in the wild, they would fight with them, so we are simply creating a safe environment for them to act out their natural desire to serve as betting foils for corrupt gangsters and cartoon characters.

[TheBaldyMan]

97. Eeep! Ack! Ook!

[jobycom]

2. Do you include eating them in that? Or how about building houses where they live?

Which of course would be all houses.

Of the three--eating animals, building houses, or creating sports involving them, the first two are far worse on the animals than the latter.

[ohiosmith]

8. Whoever wants to eat one has to catch it and kill it and the animal must be given a fighting chance.

Additionally, anyone who does eat animals will have to run nude monthly through a wild animal habitat.

[seemunkee]

25. So we can only eat monkeys that we kill in a knife fight?

[ohiosmith]

78. Knife, gun, grenade launcher, whatever.

[mondo joe]

101. What if we just want to run nude bur don't want to kill or eat an animal?

Can that be arranged?

[sniffa]

3. and when they can give consent

bestiaLity is no Longer iLLegaL.

bring it on!!

[Orrex]

106. Animals can already consent to that

Has your leg never encountered an aggressively amorous dog?

Not my cup of tea, to be sure, but who am I to judge?

[northzax]

4. same thing for pet ownership, right?

I mean do all those cats CONSENT to be kept inside their entire lives? what about bomb-sniffing dogs? search and rescue dogs? therapy dogs? seeing eye dogs?

just to give you an idea:

there are roughly 10,000,000 horses in captivity in the US, roughly 30,000,000 dogs, and 50,000,000 cats. you just signed every single one of those animals' death warrants. After all, if they can't consent, we have to let them all go wild. how many you think last longer than a week?

[ohiosmith]

7. same

[pokerfan]

11. these guys are whacked

Animal rights groups seek the end to all breeding of animals. Their stated ultimate goal is no use of animals by man -- for food, fiber, medical research nor even as pets:

http://purebredcatbreedrescue.org/animal_rights.htm

[Solon]

26. In the 12 step agenda...

I agree with these:

2. This is considered UNNECESSARY animal testing, especially in regards to weapons, where artificial alternatives are available, ballistic gels, etc.

3. Uhm, freedom of choice? I don't see a problem with this.

5. This is more a health and enviromental issue than anything to do with animal rights themselves. We are destroying our topsoil with these non-sustainable methods of agriculture.

9. I would restrict this to endangered animal products, but that's already illegal.

Number 10 is problematic, I don't oppose having any pets, I have cats myself, however, I do NOT like how people breed dogs and cats. Its stupid to breed animals that abide by human standards of beauty, but can't even breathe through their noses, or have tear ducts that can't drain tears because they were bred that way(Persians anyone?).

Here's some information about purebred dogs:

http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/tutorial1.html

An excerpt:
(snip)

Purebreds are prone to health problems

* Bone and joint disorders that cause lameness
* Eye diseases that cause blindness
* Sudden heart disease that causes early death
* Epilepsy/seizures
* Immune system diseases
* Neurological diseases
* Skin diseases
* Bleeding disorders
* Cancers and tumors

Over 300 genetic health defects have been documented in dogs, and in many purebreds, the incidence of defects is extremely high. Reasons for this include:

1. A limited and closed gene pool. Most breeds were built on relatively few founding dogs, so the same sets of genes have been reproduced over and over since the breed began. Registries such as the AKC require that all future offspring come from the mating of dogs registered with their club. This restriction eliminates the vast majority of other dogs that would otherwise be available for breeding.
(snip)

These types of practices need to be rightly condemned, they are careless and have no regard for the animal's welfare whatsoever. Purebred cats have lesser problems, mostly because selective breeding hasn't been practiced on them for as long a time. However, this doesn't mean such practices need to be encouraged.

[flvegan]

89. Slick interpretation by a bunch of cat breeders, eh?

They link to the NAIA and support them. That should have been enough for deep belly laughs. If it wasn't, check out their board.

Laughable at best.

[Kali]

9. If this isn't just humor or flame-bait,

you've obviously never been around the kinds of animals that are involved in many of these activities.

[ohiosmith]

10. have so

[Kali]

13. And you don't think by virtue of their very behavior they consent?

Ever try to hold a racehorse back? Especially when another is in front?

[ohiosmith]

15. And some guy on your back is beating the crap out of you with a whip.

[Kali]

18. Not any of the race type horses I have been on.

And a riding crop is hardly something that could be used to "beat the crap out of a horse" especially if used properly. (certainly less painful or damaging than the kind of biting another horse would do to one it was trying to urge onward in a "natural" setting)

[LynneSin]

12. So tonight when I get home I should just toss Abbott & Evita out on the streets

They never asked to be brought inside - I guess they're hostages

[ohiosmith]

14. No. Give them the option.

[LynneSin]

16. Yes but how are they going to tell me

One Meow "YES", Two Meow "No"?

[ohiosmith]

17. Leave the door open. You'll find out if they want to stay or not.

[jobycom]

19. So then, in horse racing, just open the gate and see if the horses run?

Okay, we solved that one.

[ohiosmith]

20. yes

[jobycom]

27. Well, that's what happens, so your conditions are already met.

Congrats, now you can enjoy horse racing and feel comfortable that the horses are consenting.

[flvegan]

30. Do the horses whip themselves?

Now THAT would be consent.

[jobycom]

32. Good point.

No good counter to that. I'm still not jumping on the "horse racing is cruelty" bandwagon. Some aspects of rodeos, cockfighting, sport fishing (any fishing to me)--anything in which the goal or expected outcome is to hurt the animal--I can get behind criticism of. But an event where a horse runs alongside other horses for a couple of minutes a day, just doesn't get my blood pumping, horse crop or not.

As keeps getting said by others, I don't see a significant difference between keeping an animal confined as a pet and racing a horse. For that matter, what I see most people doing to dogs--leashing, training to obey every command, locking them up in house all day until they get home from work, even chaining them inside so they can't behave like dogs--bothers me a lot more than horse racing. (So much so that I won't have a dog unless I can keep it unleashed and un"schooled.") Even neutering a pet seems excessively cruel to me, though maybe justifiable.

Of course, I'm for regulating horse racing and monitoring it closely, and punishing strongly for cruelty and abuse. Horses at Barbaro's level are pampered beyond belief, but at the other end of the business, things are not so good.

[flvegan]

34. To me, it's in the training.

A pet does well with training through positive reinforcement. Horses (from what I've read) don't learn to run really hard for a long distance without painful provocation. Earlier, I made a comparison to the circus. If the elephants learned "sit" by getting a cookie and a pat on the head, I'd not be nearly as outraged as I am. The baseball bats, hooks and intense confinement really get to me though.

I will agree that the top level horses are pampered beyond belief. I think that as far as something to get into an uproar about, horse racing is honestly on the lower colors of the Animal Terra Alert System.

[LeftyMom]

36. The problem is that they are bred for racing

normally, natural selection chooses animals that are hardy, able to breed, etc. Humankind comes along and breeds things for our own needs and we run into problems like hip dysplasia in dogs the whole turkeys with enormous breast muscles that prevent them from breeding naturally thing. Racehorses are bred with enormous hearts and they run into all sorts of heart trouble, they are incredibly high strung and tend to hurt themselves and others because they are so easily frightened (that heightened fight or flight response is part of what separates racehorses from their everyday bretheren,) they are in short not bred for the qualities that make for a happy, healthy, long-lived horse, because there's no incentive to do that when they're only useful economic commodities for the first few years of their lives (somewhat longer if they're considered suitable for breeding.)

As a practice, horse racing is dangerous to horses. Both the racing itself and transport, which is very hard on animals who are both so delicate and so difficult to move, are a real strain on bodies that exist on the very margins of what's most efficient in movement but still hopefully not too delicate.

There is simply no reason to subject horses to the practice when it serves no legitimate human need either human or equine. Horses who want to run will run, and in a sane world when they want to stop they'll stop. There's no reason to commodify and regulate an instinct as natural as breathing, or to create such unnatural creatures in the pursuit of victory.

[Kali]

74. Judging by the popularity if it, it's a good thing puritanical thoughts about what is

a legitimate human need isn't the only way to make choices. Life would be pretty dull if it was restricted to basic needs.

[flvegan]

76. Life would be a lot better

if selfishness sometimes took a back seat.

[Kali]

79. Back seat? Aren't we traveling on foot?

We don't really NEED to be seated in some sort of conveyance, do we? What a selfish use of energy.

:P

[flvegan]

81. It's a rikshaw!

No...horse and buggy! Wait...horse...NOOOOOOO!!!! It's the backseat of a bicycle built for twelve. Mass transit.

[Kali]

83. ....

:rofl: a bicycle for a committee! Bet that would work well.

[mondo joe]

103. How long do you need to leave the door open?

[Kajsa]

108. Solution-

Install a pet door.

[mondo joe]

109. Some dogs would need a door big enough for a person to gain entry.

But maybe we should allow them to come and go too. :shrug:

[Kajsa]

116. They do make XLarge pet doors for dogs.

I don't think people would continue to use them if they allowed for human passage.
think about it-

If you have a fenced in yard ( because of the leash laws)
it would work.

[mondo joe]

128. I was thinking of burglars - not the family who lives in the house.

When I'm out my doors are locked. I can't think why I'd leave an XLarge door door open.

[Kajsa]

132. I was talking about burglars!

The pet doors aren't open, they open
and shut with a flap the animal can push.
They also include removable inserts that will shut them off, completely.

Like I said, if these doors allowed for burglars
to easily pass through, do you think;

-people would still buy/use them?

-they would still be on the market in our lawsuit
crazy country?

[mondo joe]

135. But if you seal it off completely - which i understand you can do - then

you are not giving the dog freedom to come or go.

If you leave just the flap, so the dog can come and go, then so can burglars.

I can't even believe this stupid issue has generated so many posts.

[Kajsa]

137. I've answered all your questions,

and then some.

Check out the pet door websites yourself
since you think they are such a joke.

Or not--

Obviously, it's not such a "stupid issue".

[mondo joe]

138. LOL! The point of the seal is to make the dog door inaccessible at

certain times.

But the reason the dog door is suggested here is so that your dog can choose to stay or go, which would require access at all times.

So the two don't jibe.

[Kajsa]

139. OK, let's try this.

Sometimes, the animals need to stay in.

That's when the seal is used.

Other times, it's OK for the animal to come and go.

That's when the seal is removed and the door is accessible.

We have occasional visits from coyotes in my area.


So, the seal goes on at bedtime and comes off first thing
in the morning.

i.e. I keep my cats in at night.

[mondo joe]

140. I got that. I understand that.

I thought the point in the thread was that the way a pet is supposed to decide if it wants to live with you or not is to leave the door open.

So my point was: how long do you leave the door open for the pet to "decide".

If you seal the dog door at some time you are denying the pet the "freedom to leave".

I don't think the dog door is stupid - the idea that your pet needs to consent to stay living with you is.

[Kajsa]

142. Actually, the OP is about the animals giving consent

before being used in sports.
The leaving thing came after.

I see it as a tongue in cheek commentary.

[uppityperson]

152. If a dog can push the flap, why couldn't a person?

There are cat ones that have a special magnetic lock, with the cat needing to wear a special collar to get it to open, not sure about dog ones. And our cat kept not being able to get the collar lined up just right so learned to hook in claws in the flap and pull it open. If a flapped door is big enough for even a medium sized dog, a small person can get through. If a dog can learn to push the flap open, so can a person. If the flap is sealed so a person can't push it open, neither can the dog, making it a non-functioning dog door.

[Kajsa]

155. That would be a good question to

ask a company that makes dog doors.

How are they safe?

Meanwhile, here's how I use my catdoor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6124875&mesg_id=6129508

[Hosnon]

31. But when is that option given? It is possible that very few people could have pets

because they would have to take them home and leave all of the doors/windows open to "ask" the animal for permission to keep it.

[Madspirit]

21. Hero

You're my hero. ...and no, I also don't eat or wear animals.
Madspirit

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. you cant have my cat. thats all i have to say about this matter.

[ohiosmith]

23. I don't want your, or any cat.

[jobycom]

28. What's wrong with her cats? You saying her cats aren't good enough for you!?

Okay, yeah, sorry, just being gratuitously silly. :hi:

[stuntcat]

24. animals in sports does seem,

sorta barbaric the more I think about it.
I'm real 21st-Century though :p

[billyskank]

29. No way am I giving up hamster racing

Not for you, or anybody.

[northzax]

33. how about Gerbil Tunnelling

you ever give that up?

[billyskank]

50. Oh yeah, that sport is a mug's game.

[Deep13]

35. Why should your views on this be forced on the rest of us?

[Madspirit]

37. Why?

Gee...why should views about child abuse or racism or...be forced on people. Geez.

Cruelty to animals and children...the two too helpless to defend themselves...need spokespersons. I'm a leftist not a pacifist and if I ever saw anyone being cruel to either, they would pay, big time.
Madspirit

[Deep13]

39. You are equating animals with abused children?

That's pretty fucked up.

[LeftyMom]

41. There's nothing fucked up about saying that abused creatures of any sort ought to be protected.

P.S. We're all animals. Science figured that one out some time ago.

[Deep13]

44. We are one variety of animal that owns other varieties.

We would never have survived without that. Putting children on an equal footing as dogs, cats, lab rats and cattle is pretty fucked up.

[LeftyMom]

47. We used to own other people too. Many humans think they own thier children and wives.

Other humans never really established the idea of ownership at all, or feel that all ownership is communal. Your argument is at best incredibly provincial, as you're arguing that something is a human norm that simply isn't.

[Deep13]

53. Provincial? Go ask a 3rd world citizen what he or she thinks of animal rights.

I find it patently offensive that you equate the victims of slavery with the mere domestication of animals. Ya know, most of these species only exist in their present form and numbers because they have been domesticated and bred for human purposes.

[LeftyMom]

63. You don't think people in the third world care about animal rights and welfare?

Do you really think that Chinese mock meat dishes come from our modern western ideas of animal rights and not thousand year old recipes from monestaries, created for Buddhist monks who would not cause harm to animals through diet but still wanted to participate in the festivals that were central to their villages social life, or that Jainism is a modern, western idea.

Obviously not everybody who cares about any issue can act on it, but to say that those of us who can should not simply because not everybody can is foolish and shortsighted. It's like saying nobody should buy a hybrid car because not all of us can afford one. Improve the world how you can, and try to help others to do the same, but don't suffer paralysis because you have options others do not, when you can be grateful for the opportunity instead. For that matter, so is wasting so many resources on animal exploitation via the food industry when there are so many humans who do without and could be fed if we chose more efficient plant-based foods instead.

[Deep13]

66. There are real practical reasons to eschew meat.

The first step to make sure no one goes hungry, however, is universal accessibility to contraceptives. There are too damn many of us. I am aware of religious prejudices practiced in places like India that prohibit the use of certain animals. That is for religious reasons and not because they think the cattle might suffer. I know about Jainism, but am unaware of any substantial population that practices it.

I am sick of this subject and am moving on.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

54. If you want to say screw you, you can be plain.

"A helpless little life is a helpless little life."

So said the abortion protester. Most people think of animals the way I do. Most people are not vegetarians. You say my different opinion is fucked up like a true religious fundamentalist.

[Susang]

67. What's with all the abortion/fetus talk?

Being pro-life really has nothing to do with this issue.

[Deep13]

68. I was drawing an analogy between one set of gut-feeling value judgments...

...and another. Why is one group right and the other wrong? (I'm not actually asking for an answer there.)

[Susang]

72. You're getting one anyway

Fetus: Unborn, cannot live on their own
Animals: Born, self-sufficent

Not even close to the same thing.

Whether you were discussing "gut-feeling value judgements" and just picked the fetus example randomly, it would still be more effective if you compared two like situations. Comparing two examples that are fundementally different does not make your point well. Not to mention, the repeated use of abortion rights activists is seriously flame-worthy and will blind most anyone on DU who might agree with you.

[Deep13]

99. Of course they are not the same. It's an analogy.

You are missing the point. Both are value judgments not based on any objective fact. I have already explained it and am not going to revisit it.

[Kajsa]

129. I see one of your hobbies is shooting.

Shooting what?

[Courtesy Flush]

73. I won't eat anything that has a face!

I always make sure they remove the face before cooking!

[Madspirit]

51. ...and to think

I never thought I would use the Ignore feature.
I was wrong.
Madspirit

[Deep13]

56. I accept your surrender. Thanks.

Ignore is like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala."

[Kajsa]

107. Or- it's saying

I can't communicate with this person.

[achtung_circus]

77. The equation was between abused aniumals and abused children.

The resultant diatribe from you was a strawman.

I don't keep track of the number of times I call Childrens' Aid because of what I see while investigating animal cases.

It's a lot and the linkages are well demonstrated. To simplify, if a person in a position of responsibility fails in one responsibility they are likely to fail in other areas as well.

[flvegan]

82. No, what's fucked up

is being unable to equate cruelty with cruelty, or abuse with abuse, regardless of the beings involved.

[Deep13]

100. Opinion noted. nt

[LeftyMom]

38. In the same vein, why should those of horse racing advocates be forced on horses?

It seems strange to prioritize the freedom of choice for those with the least at stake.

[Deep13]

42. Most people do not accept that animals have human rights.

How is your view different than Fundies who insist embryos don't consent to be turned into stem cells for research? There is nothing progressive about this whole animal rights thing. It is based on gut feeling alone like most other folk prejudices.

[LeftyMom]

46. Nonsense.

There's no legitimate science that suggests that embryos have the capacity to suffer. On the other hand, we have as much reason to believe horses do as we have for human infants, for example. We can look at brain activity, nervous system development, muscle tension, eye movement and tell that yes, a pain response is occurring. We can watch behavior that shows aversion to whatever caused that pain before. We certainly don't see that in clumps of human cells. The two are in no way analogous.

[Deep13]

52. Why is suffering the standard?

Of course mammals feel pain. Just what extent it is an autonomic response versus conscious suffering is another question. The point is you have made a value judgment that animal suffering is worth interspecies consideration. Why should it be, beyond the fact that some people subjectively feel that way? Why is that different than fundies who defend the right of so-called snow-flake children to exist at all. Frankly, most people in this world do not have the luxury to care about how animals feel. This strikes me as an artificial luxury issue that only Westerners who do not have to think about the daily struggle for subsistence living can afford to worry about.

When no one has disease or goes hungry or is suffering from whatever cause, then I will care about the subjective feelings of animals. Until then, there are enough real problems in the world to keep us busy for a long time.

[LeftyMom]

60. Because the two problems are interconnected.

The same "othering" process that allows you to dismiss the suffering of non-human animals as unimportant allows many human beings to dismiss many other, somehow different human beings as unimportant and animal-like.

[Deep13]

62. Well, I think a plain distinction can be made.

Blacks, Jews, gays, Arabs etc. are all walking, talking people who, by the way, own domestic animals. Obviously, this is all just a value judgement. The OP said "banned" not boycotted or protested. I can't see one person's (or several persons') value judgement being forced on others.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

61. Disagreeing with PETA doesn't make me a freeper.

Way to win over that farm vote, btw. Do you think all these new Democratic voters that gave us Congress agree with you that domestic animals deserve human rights? I'm not talking about conservation either, just domestic animals that we (not God) created. Obviously, I mentioned the embryo thing to illustrate how ridiculous the argument sounds to those not immersed in it.

For the record, you were the first to resort to name-calling.

[Susang]

58. Amazing

An animal is not the same as a fetus! Saying there is nothing progressive about animal rights is possibly one of the more ridiculous things I've heard on DU today. Just because you may not agree with them, it's patently wrong to accuse the movement of not being progressive. What exactly is your definition of "progressive"?

[Deep13]

69. Progressive simply is tending towards progress.

Progress being an overall improvement in the human condition: better working conditions, reductions in class distinctions, greater democracy, feminism and a reliance on fact versus folk prejudice or superstition. This overlaps with, but is not the same as, liberalism which basically means "generous."

At the beginning of the 20th century a cornerstone of the new progressive movement was the pursuit of the new scientific medicine which was making tremendous progress in fighting diseases that have hunted people since cassical times. Back then, half of children died as toddlers or earlier because of diptheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever and the granddaddy of all, pnuemonia. People got sick just by eating the unregulated food supply or drinking contaminated public water. Then their doctors made it worse. The regulation of the medical profession and its practices based on scientific medicine was a vast and almost instantaneous improvement. The cornerstone of scientific medicine was and is animal testing. Back then, there was a real fight between scientists on the one hand, and so-called humane societies on the other. The conservative humane-societies found the testing cruel and wanted it stopped legislatively. Fortunately for all the people who have been saved by scientific medicine since then, the progressive attitude of the time cause the doctors to win the fight. Now a century later, progress is again being threatened with this insane argument. We would never have stopped polio or diptheria or developed treatment for scores of other diseases without testing. We won't make any more progress without it either.

In the 18th century, British surgeon John Hunter was also accused of animal cruelty for his use of vivisection to develop new surgical procedures. Then, the rebuttal was easy. The same types of operations were done on wide-awake human patients, so how can the case be made that it is cruel to the animals test subjects. Because of animal research, humans now take it for granted that such cruel procedures such as the nonanaestetic gall bladder surgery of the future President Polk or the wide awake masectomy of President Adams' daughter are a thing of the past. Still, throught history, that was normal, assuming treatment was available at all.

That is why animal rights is not progressive.

[Susang]

75. Bullshit

I'd enjoy seeing your sources for that supposed "real fight" between humane societies and medical science in the early 20th century. That information doesn't quite jibe with my reading, particularly in the area of research. I'm not saying the humane societies didn't object, I'm just saying that they had little effect on whether animals were used. The only legislation that I'm aware of was by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As a matter of fact, safety testing on animals in the US began in the late 1800s/early 1900s and was required by law in 1938. The Animal Welfare act wasn't enacted until 1966.

I'm not saying that we can stop all animal testing now, but I believe progress entails finding ways to reduce it whenever possible. The continued use of animal testing in cosmetic manufacturing and pet food, for example. There are many scientists who don't see reducing animal testing as being detrimental to research, as long as alternatives are found.

[Deep13]

98. My information is from a side note in this book.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2005/great_influenza.html

I seem to remember it was in the last chapter discussing the lasting effects of the 1918 pandemic, although I cannot be sure of that. My own copy is the audio version so I do not have a bibliography. You may define "progressive" or any other word any way you want, but it does not fit the historic definition.

[idgiehkt]

71. the opposing view is no more rational.

It's completely irrational to believe that out of billions of species in existence since the origination of this planet that the species homo sapien is the only one that has sanctified rights. Either all species do to some degree or none do.

[mondo joe]

110. Since homo sapiens is the only species to develop or acknowledge rights, it

seems rather odd to force them onto other animals.

[idgiehkt]

147. I'm not sure how one develops rights

further, infants have rights even though they haven't developed them and surely can't acknowledge them.

[MoseyWalker]

40. I have signed and witnessed consent forms from

both the Koala and the Panda for their next chess match scheduled for Saturday.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. But are they notarized?

Are they?! Huh?!

btw, what's the over/under on the Koala?

[MoseyWalker]

45. oops

just forget I said anything about it! I don't know any Koala's, and never met a Panda. Never.

Where's a good notary when one needs one..........

(The Koala was a lock)

[slj0101]

48. There should be consent forms for stupid flamebait threads.

[Oeditpus Rex]

55. ...

:rofl:

Perfect!

:applause:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. ....

:evilgrin:

[deadparrot]

84. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[ohiosmith]

86. Your thoughtful response is sincerely appreciated and will be given all due consideration.

[BarenakedLady]

87. You are such a troublemaker

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

;)

[ohiosmith]

88. moi?

[BarenakedLady]

91. oui!

[ohiosmith]

92. non, jamais

[BarenakedLady]

93. toujours!

[ohiosmith]

95. vous m'avez blessé

[BarenakedLady]

96. je ne voulais pas te blesser :(

[ohiosmith]

105. je te pardonne le cheri

[BarenakedLady]

117. merci, mon ami

[ohiosmith]

118. non, merci vous

[BarenakedLady]

119. pourquoi?

[ohiosmith]

124. Je ne sais pas, je suis confus

[BarenakedLady]

144. moi aussi

[ohiosmith]

145. bienvenue au club

[BarenakedLady]

149. grille-pain ou un t-shirt?

[ohiosmith]

150. t-shirt. les grille-pain sont seulement pour des lesbiennes

[BarenakedLady]

151. LOL!!!

:applause:

[Kajsa]

131. A number of us are very sad

after Barbaro had to be euthanized.

It makes you questions things.

I think the OP had cajones to post this,
seeing how many are flaming it.

[slj0101]

133. I agree with the Barbaro thing.

I think the only reason they kept him alive was to stud him out.

But I call it like I see it- this is intentional flamebait. I see now that the OP was being tongue-in-cheek. Well played. :)

[Kajsa]

136. Yep, it's similar to my

"when animals are equipped with weapons,
we can call hunting a sport" adage.

;)

[Kajsa]

143. Btw,

Thank You.
:D

[Patiod]

64. Seriously? Even weiner dog races?

http://www.nonprofitnw.org/drnw/id50.html

[Madspirit]

70. Patoid...You're Bad!

Oh God Oh God Oh God...Damn you Patoid. After all I've said about animal rights, one of my main from-the-heart causes.... Confession is good for the soul, right?

We go to the Weiner Dog races every year. We're in Austin; Buda is only about 20 miles away. I always indulge in my favorite herb and then we hop in the 19 year old Volvo and go to The Weiner Dog races. We get funnel cakes and Dr. Peppers and some kind of strange-assed popcorn cooked in kettles and watch the Weiner dogs run. It's Hilarious.

..but no one disciplines them and they just let them run whichever way they want. ...and the course is only about 20 feet long and the Weiner dogs seem to have a grand time. They're just your usual fat little Wiener dogs. They don't seem to have any rigorous training or bad life. Some people even push them around in baby strollers. THAT is peculiar.

Mostly, it's a hoot and half. Weiner dogs are everywhere. They kind of started this on a lark. It benefits animal rights groups/no-kill shelters, etc. and it just took hold. Now people come from all over the world with their Weiner dogs. Last year there were over 500 contestants. ...and everyone watching brings their own Weiner dogs. It's fields and fields of Weiner dogs. It's kind of surreal.

The Weiner Dogs seem really happy. It's a great and odd time had by all. Am I bad?
Madspirit

[pokerfan]

85. Is this wrong?

[Madspirit]

90. Perverse and weird

Is the monkey a taskmaster?
Madspirit

[pokerfan]

94. I saw them on Letterman

Disturbing.

All that was missing was a bunch of bunnies to wrangle.

[Patiod]

102. They make me cry

from laughing so hard.

I can't even IMAGINE seeing one with an altered state of consciousness! Went to see Agility Trials once, and it featured Jack Russells running through obstacle courses, and I was literally rolling on the ground laughing. The little terrors seemed to LOVE it though - ran off some of their manic energy.

I had dachshunds growing up, and my parents still have one. Can't imagine anything funnier than seeing a race in person. 500 wiener dogs in one place would be true Patiod Heaven.

Closest I ever came was when the local Dachshund Club had "field trials", which are deadly serious in some sports (they show them on ESPN for hunting dogs), but pretty damned funny when they involve dachsies. The club rented some sort of field that had rabbits. At one point, a rabbit went whizzing by us, heading from left to right. About a minute later, two dachsies came flying by, heading right to left. The owners were embarrassed, but the spectators were in stitches. Needless to say, no rabbits were harmed during the entire day.

On a serious note, we know that no one races dachsies professionally - it's all in fun - these are pampered companion animals who are basically playing out in the park. But when they DO race dogs professionally ------ I have a buddy named Timmy who used to be a racing greyhound, and he doesn't say much, but we're pretty sure life was miserable before he came to live with my friend Patty. I have another little buddy named Martha, who was a breeding bitch at a puppy mill, and watching her try to acclimatize to life outside a cage was a heartbreaking thing. She's still painfully shy little Corgi, and still not 100% sure of herself on stairs and around people, and both she and Timmy make me want to bad things to the humans who put them through all that. Keep up the good work for animals, Madspirit!

[Madspirit]

125. dog racing

Yes, real dog racing is bad. We have a friend who works with Greyhound rescue. Those dogs are just a mess, physically and mentally.
Just an aside, my girlfriend and I have a little Corgi. She is the sweetest little dog.

...and thanks. If you ever get a chance to see the Weiner dog races...it's a hoot and half.
Madspirit

[ForrestGump]

65. But what will the Universities of Florida and Miami do for

football teams? :shrug:

[KamaAina]

80. Immediately! Particularly bears and colts.

Get this ban enacted before Sunday! Bears are godless killing machines. They eat saints! As for colts, they have an annoying tendency to switch stables in the middle of the night when they're not supposed to. :P

[MissMillie]

112. which I imagine would mean

it would be the Pats and the Saints in the Super Bowl on Sunday.

Works for me!

[redwitch]

104. Does this mean no more kitten juggling?

Damn.

[LynneSin]

111. Updated - Operation Cat Freedom at the LynneSin home

I opened to door and tossed out my Abbott and Evita. I shut the door, looked behind me and there were my two furballs wondering why I was tossing them outside when it's cold out. I gave them a couple of catnip treats and the curled up and went to sleep

[Kajsa]

LOL !

They're no dummies!

My kitties did that last night when I let them out
around 9 PM. It had just started to rain ( FINALLY- we've had a drought, here).

They took one look, ran back inside with their
" you must be kidding,lady!" looks on their faces.

Kitty treats and nap soon followed.

btw, I have a catdoor in case they change their minds.

:hi:

[ohiosmith]

115. Options LynneSin, options. No need to toss. If they want to leave allow them.

If they want to stay, and you are not opposed, then let them stay. Freedom is the choice to do as one desires as long as one's choices does not harm others.

[LynneSin]

141. But I never gave them the option to move into my place

I figured if they really wanted to live there they'd find a way back inside

[Taverner]

113. No you can't take away Cat Juggling!

[ScreamingMeemie]

114. We have a winner in the "I'm more progressive than you" sweepstakes.

Just try to get my dog to leave the warmth of the house...try it.

[LynneSin]

120. Wait - wasn't your Purina Contest Picture of your dog taken in the snow

I recall your sheltie having snow all over him

[ScreamingMeemie]

121. Her... and she was looking all pitiful remember?

She plays the in/out game all winter long. I want out...out OUT...no in...let me the f IN...IN IN IN...oh wait, out...OUT Let me out of here...no in...IN PLEASE. :D

[LynneSin]

122. SHE looked gleeful and happy to me

:shrug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

123. That's because you're a cat person...cat people can't tell what

dogs are thinking... :eyes:

[Coventina]

126. Seconded. The human thirst for spectacle causes untold misery.

I'm not even going to read this whole thread.

I can't deal with the compassion-challenged who claim to be progressive.

[zonkers]

127. Imagine if horses were able to give racing tips on other horses.

[ileus]

130. What about hunting animals?

[ohiosmith]

134. Only if it is on equal terms.

[BarenakedLady]

146. I support the right to arm bears.

[ohiosmith]

148. Now yer talk'n.

[Kajsa]

154. You got that one right!

:thumbsup:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6124875&mesg_id=6129408


:D

[uppityperson]

153. On the basis of the OP, I agree. eom