If he was a fat guy he must have been one of those Reformed Amish not the regular kind.
Marc
i have been to a auction house run by the Amish and i did not see any puppies for sale lots of other animals but no puppies
Take it from me. You can’t trash Law Enforcement on this board 
j
Sometimes (often lately) I want to say something, but by the time I finish reading the posts above, I really don’t know what to say! 
You could always check out www.amish.net & you’ll discover that not all of the Amish are identical in what modern conveniences they shun. The FAQ is quite informative.
Nuh-uh.
Too many veterans and active duty on this board. The military is generally not a safe target.
And I thought it was bizarre when I learned that an otherwise intelligent and rational friend of mine has it in for Mennonites. People are strange.
Actually, there have been, at minimum, two rather fierce threads recently condemning the use of the terms “white trash,” “trailer trash,” or “redneck” as being baseless stereotypes. Additionally, the use of “fat” as a generic negative will nearly always call down the wrath of a number of posters. The Assembly of God churches would generally suffer no more taunting than is general among the strongly anti-religious on this MB except that Ashcroft has, himself, blamed some of his more anti-American and anti-human beliefs on his faith.
(And I do not recall anyone attacking the police in a long time. Attacks on police or military tend to arise among specific factions on the MB and are either defended against or ignored depending on how seriously the poster making such attacks is viewed by the rest of the MB community.)
Now, Jack Chick and fans of Marilyn vos Savant continue to be fair targets at all times.
Don’t forget Scientologists. If the Amish ever recruit John Travolta, or produce the sci-fi epic Canolafield Earth, we’ll be able to make fun of them, too.
You wanna know what the Amish are really like, look at this: http://sonoguy.tripod.com/
I think they are responsible for all the popups that occur linking to the site as well.
Er, to clarify so that post isn’t completely undecipherable…
I was under the impression that it is generally frowned upon here to denigrate someone based on their appearance, let alone their weight.
Since I was called out as a supposed idiot, let me explain my position:
There have been many reports of puppy mills being run by Amish farmers in Pennsylvania. Some have been extraordinarily foul, while raising lots of money for their operators. Readers Digest even made this a cover story in February, 1999. See:
http://www.dvgrr.org/goldengateway/frompres.htm
http://www.hua.org/Prisoners/Lancastercounty.html
http://www.allbreed.net/chows/Adopt/Adopt18.htm
The evidence has pointed out that those in the business see nothing wrong with it, the puppies are just a product, and if they become sick and die as a direct result of the conditions in which they were bred, well, that’s just what animals do. It hasn’t seemed to be taken as an indication that changes need to be made.
With regard to agricultural practices, there is no doubt that farming runoff and soil erosion into watersheds does pose a risk to the Chesapeake Bay. It is well known in “English” agricultural communities that certain plowing and fertilizing techniques exacerbate runoff and erosion, while others help preserve the integrity of the topsoil and the water table. (I lived on a farm every summer from ages 1-18, and started working on the land around age 9, so I do know a little about this.) Many Amish farmers, relying upon the traditions which have served them well for lo these many years, retain techniques, like crosscut plowing, which are not positive for the environment at large.
These are facts. I said, simply, were it not for these two particular issues, I can’t imagine that anyone would have any problem with the Amish. How stating that is translated into bigotry, I don’t know.
If someone had a low opinion of Amish communities because of their religion, that would be bigotry. If I were slagging on them because they don’t believe in zippers, or because they refuse to use phones, or because of the fact that they lead their lives in accordance to religious principles that I do not share, that would be bigotry.
But nothing in the Bible says that farmers should crosscut plow. Nothing in the Bible says that puppies should be bred for maximum cost effectiveness without regard for their health, or health of their dames. This isn’t about their religion or their culture, save that their culture insulates them thereby giving them certain liberties to act without overmuch regard for the principles of the “English” world, even on matters, such as these, in which those principles may in fact be more appropriate than their own.
I’m not sure how it is that pointing this out, and suggesting that these are areas in which certain Amish need improvement, and recognizing that the reputation of the community as a whole – especially given the enclave nature and interconnectivity of their communities – is tainted because of these issues is somehow an indication of prejudice, intolerance or hatred. If I hate the Amish, I wouldn’t care if they addressed these problems – it is, in fact, that I would prefer that there were no marks against their otherwise positive reputations that I remarked on these issues to begin with.
tlw, I think that Rickjays point is that while many Amish may run puppy mills, not all Amish run puppy mills, just as while many black men have a criminal record, not all black men have a criminal record. Therefore, it is never acceptable to say that “if those black just stoped with the crime, I don’t imagene why anyone would have a problem with them”. In the same way, it is never acceptable to say “If those Amish just stopped with the puppy mills, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with them.”
I didn’t say that “If those Amish just stopped…” with anything, I said that if there were not these issues within the Amish community, I can’t imagine why anyone would have a problem with them. I probably should have appended the words “at all” to the end of the phrase.
Note that I have never said that it makes sense to have a lesser opinion of the entirety of the sect because of these issues, but of course there are those who do, just as they think poorly of all X people because subset Y of that group engages in practice Z. That’s how things go, I don’t support that, I just recognize it to be true.
Gah, talk about shooting the messenger.
I think what I find objectionable in this statement is the insinuation (likely unintended on your part) that it is the responsbility of the Amish as a whole to police their group, and that if others don’t like them, they have themselves to blame for doing a poor job of it. There is a great deal of this behavoir amoung racists: “Those blacks need to do something about the way education just isn’t valued in the community. If they did that, noone’d have a problem with them. I didn’t make the rules, that’s just how everybody else thinks.”
Upon a reread, I think it is easy to see that this is not the attitude you are espousing: you were answering the question “why do some people dislike the Amish?”, not “why do I dislike the Amish?” However, it is really easy to be over sensitive to the innsinuation that a group’s unpopular status is somehow their own fault, and I am glad there was a chance to lear the air on this.
So, tlw, what’s your opinion of non-organic farming practices, such as pesticide spraying of crops?
Indeed, and that wasn’t what I was suggesting, I was merely recognizing that this is the attitude that some would take.
Again, that’s exactly it. Though I’m curious – “a group’s unpopular status” – does that really apply here? Are the Amish universally disliked, or just generally misunderstood? A point to ponder, methinks.
Whoo, that’s a whole 'nother ball of wax, and rather far afield of this topic. In short, I am not a fan of chemical pesticides, and I am heartily in favor of the propagation of organic farming practices when implemented wisely and with due diligence required of the methodology. Obviously, there are drawbacks on many levels with both chemical and organic farming techniques, however, I’m personally of the opinion that organic farming, when employed properly, is more sustainable and has less of a negative impact in the long run.
I’m not sure what that had to do with anything, though.
Just adding to the organic/non-organic farming tangent:
The current issue of New Scientist (an excellent British popular science magazine) has a series of articles about sustainable farming practices. They make, IMO, a convincing argument that both organic and “traditional” industrial farming damage the environment in their own way, but judiciously combining the best ideas from each could reduce the impact on soil, water and air and increase food production.
</hijack>
tlw:
THIS IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH IT:
Yes, I yelled. 'Twas to make a point. Antiquated doesn’t always equal bad.