What, you want me to post every link available regarding the connection between the HSUS and PETA? You call me lazy because I went and got you three links (which were actually just the first three in a looooong list), yet you can’t bother to go look yourself?
Wiki entries? I won’t bother, since I can go change those myself to say anything I want.
If you want to believe that the HSUS is innocent and wants the best for animals, please provide a cite that you think is legit and that supports your opinion of them.
Here is another video from that same site, this one from Ringling Bros:
The site may be biased, but the videos speak for themselves imo. Here is a bit from their fact/fiction page on Ringling Bros:
Ringling vs. Reality
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus paints a picture of happy animals performing tricks because they like doing them. Consider the following, then decide whether that’s true. Here are some of Ringling’s frequent claims juxtaposed with the facts about the circus’s treatment of animals:
Ringling:
Our training methods are based on continual interaction with our animals, touch and words of praise, and food rewards.
Reality:
Video footage taken between 2001 and 2006 of Ringling trainers and handlers shows that elephants were aggressively hooked, lame elephants were forced to perform and travel, and a trainer inflicted a bloody bullhook wound behind an elephant’s ear flap. Former Ringling employees that left the circus in 2006 and 2007 describe violent beatings as well as the routine abuse of elephants, horses, camels, and zebras.
Ringling:
The ankus (bullhook) is used as an extension of the handler’s arm to guide the elephants.
Reality:
The bullhook, by design, is intended to cause pain and puncture the skin. Despite its appearance, an elephant’s skin is as sensitive as humans’ skin. The sharp metal hook on the end of the bullhook bruises, punctures, and tears elephants’ skin easily and often. Former Ringling animal crew employees report that the circus keeps a bag of topsoil handy to cover up bloody bullhook wounds on elephants.
HSUS stated goals and actions are not that close to PETA. Right off the bat and at the most basic level one is in favor of Pets and one it not. You made the outrageous claim, you support it with a cite from a real news source.
So, if my six-year-old neighbor is kicking stray dogs outside my house, it is inappropriate for me to tell him that this is wrong? Even if his parents are right there too? If a second-grader steals some candy from my store, I ought not lecture him about stealing?
Ok, another potential distinction. So if the parents are kicking the dog, I can’t speak to all of them, perhaps even telling the child that his parents are wrong?
I’m not clear where the line is here. But I don’t share the intuition that the above scenario is obviously inappropriate.
[To be clear, I’m not saying going to Circus is the equivalent of this, or even bad.]
The ‘morality of animal welfare’ is open to broad interpretation; I’m sure my definition is not even close to yours. You, and any other dinguses (dingi?) who share your sentiments, have as much right to attempt to cram your moral viewpoint down my kid’s throat as do the Jehovahs Witnesses, Right to Life, or the Republican Party…none.
I don’t think it’s morally wrong to train an animal to perform, I don’t think it’s wrong to eat meat, or to ‘factory farm’, or to clinically test on animals, or to kick a dog (under the right circumstances), or to hit a mule with a shovel (again, under the right circumstances), or to attend a sporting event where two monkeys knife fight to the death.
well there seems to be two main issues going on here:
the apporpriateness of leafletting children as thy attend the animal circus (or in reality any cause);
the level of care and consideration animals deserve (or don’t deserve) in general.
On the first, I think it is inappropriate for any cause to leaflet children.
On the second, in my opinion, how we treat animals is not necessarily a question of what rights the animals have. Instead it is more what responsibility to ourselves really to treat animals humanely. I think, since we have the capacity and capability, animals should be treated as humanely as possible, they should not be forced to suffer emotional or physical distress for our entertainment or food.
That DOES NOT mean I think we should not eat food. That DOES NOT mean I thnk all animal use in entertainment is wrong. But I do think there are humane and responible ways to do things and we, as in some ways, caretakers, should be using our best efforts in this regard.
Well, let’s separate three things. First, my right to talk to your kids about morality. Second, the propriety of exercising that right. And third whether PETA-style animal welfare is correct.
I have a right to stand in a public place and talk to your kids about political issues so long as what I say doesn’t otherwise lose First Amendment protection (I use indecent language, threaten your kid, etc.). That is my right, just as it is your right not to bring your kid to that place.
Whether doing so is appropriate depends on some other factors. But your mere disagreement with the position doesn’t seem like enough to make it inappropriate, in my mind. But I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.
I don’t care about the third one. It is irrelevant to the propriety of communicating a message.
It’s worth pointing out, again, that talking to someone in a public place is a far cry from “cramming your moral viewpoint down my kid’s throat.”
Checks and balances. For every issue there must be extreme stances,which are usually reprehensible, loathsome, and flat out pathetic. on the whole they serve the important purpose of providing an extreme from which a middle ground can be determined. Peta is one of those. Jetttboy, another.
Only on the 'dope would this kind of thing go on with such fervor for 4 pages.
I think it’s your right to lecture your kid on any subject you like. I’d draw the line at some stranger (looking significantly at the word ‘strange’) lecturing my kid at the circus however. I would find it more than disturbing in fact if some stranger tried to hand my young child a pamphlet of any kind to be honest.
How would you feel about it if someone tried to hand your kid a tract on religion or bigotry? Would you folks who don’t seem to see the OP’s point feel comfortable about that? Why or why not?
I think the OP showed admirable restraint to be honest. I don’t care what the subject was, if some disheveled asshole tried to hand my young daughter (when she was 3) something I would have probably reacted much more violently for several reasons, not least of them being…I don’t know where this guy has been or what his motives are, what his intentions are or what germs or diseases he may have. Some here might think that’s paranoid, but I’ve seen my kids sick from colds and flu enough that I’m not eager to see it again because some random asshole feels the self righteous urge to pass out his propaganda to children. I would have probably pushed the guy away (fairly roughly) and asked questions later.
One thing that always amuses me in these kinds of discussions though is the difference in perspective. I did some work in various parts of Africa when I was younger and I remember this guy telling me that American’s (and Europeans) are all crazy about this subject. To him, monkeys and elephants were just pests…or worse. According to him they would ravage the crops and even periodically attack or even kill villagers when they were moving through (the elephants not the monkeys ;)). Granted, one of the reasons for this is because of their shrinking habitat…and also the fact that cultivated fields are pretty attractive to wild grazing animals. And also granted that this shouldn’t give any license to abuse animals. However, given that people aren’t likely to just go away and let the elephants have their habitat back (or allow the elephants to share in their own cultivated crops), one of the solutions to this is either to shoot the elephants (which they do) or capture young elephants for transport back to zoos and circuses. Actually both probably, since the modus operendi seems to be to kill the adults to capture the younger ones.
I completely dislike this ‘solution’ of course, but then I have the advantage in that I don’t have to live in an area where elephants are both a danger and a pest, so it’s easier for me to take such a view. And while I doubt anything these folks in most of the circuses (especially the bigger ones like that mentioned in the OP) are doing is more cruel than shooting the elephants for their tusks or killing them to get to the young (or using them for war, as beasts of burden, or even for lion chow, nature being inherently cruel itself when stripped of all the new age star in the eyes view), that’s no excuse. We have laws for the treatment of animals and if people violate those laws they should certainly be prosecuted (which according to another poster in the thread is happens). Frankly not only is it cruel but it seems stupid to me to mistreat something that is your main attraction.
While I agree that people or organizations who are being cruel to animals should be prosecuted, the right forum for your protest is NOT a child who is just there to see an animal that s/he wouldn’t be able to see in the normal course of their life. While I’m no big fan of the circus myself (the clowns just disturb me), I think it’s good for children to see real life animals like that so they can connect with them in their own terms.
“Start?” 