From: pallas@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Sarah Pallas)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re:  Animal Rights Bashing
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:09:05 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Oct12.175121.2931@morrow.stanford.edu> GC.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon) writes:

>>(Sarah Pallas) writes:
>>
>>When you say you support animal RIGHTS, that means you support at
>>>least the platform, and I might assume it means you support the
>>violent means of obtaining the goals of the platform.  In that case, I
>>have no respect for your opinion, as it means disrespect for human
>>life.


 >I think it's a dangerous thing, to assume that someone supports an
 >entire agenda when they use a word that is otherwise just a word.
 >Did Tracy say, "I support Animal Rights as defined by...." or did
 >she just say "animal rights"? Not to mention the fact that you're
 >assuming she'd rather blow up a person than ride a horse. For pete's
 >sake, SHE'S A RIDER.
 >
 >=gwyn

As many of my statements have been misunderstood and taken out of
context, let me clarify what the intent of my post was.  I did not
mean to shove words down anyone's throat.  I want people on the net to
be aware that some pro-animal groups do not have the best interests of
horse people in mind.  I think that is an important thing to say and I
stand by it.  I NEVER said that there are no animal groups worth
supporting, just that one needs to be careful about which ones you
give your cash to.  I pursued the argument because it was clear that
at least one person thought my statement was inaccurate, and I
defended my argument with facts and examples.  For that I have been
severely and I think unfairly chastised.

I am assuming that groups (and people) who call themselves pro-animal
rights are interested in animals having RIGHTS, as in constitutional
or otherwise.  I don't think that's a silly assumption.  The term has
been well-defined by the groups themselves, and I take their
definition to be accurate.  If someone says animal rights but means
animal welfare, then it only adds confusion.  I do not think Tracy is
an animal rights terrorist!  I just wanted to clarify language which
can be used to confuse people, because in this case I think confusion
is dangerous, more dangerous than the possibility of offending someone
unintentionally. 

-Sarah (call me crazy) Pallas


In article <1992Oct12.175121.2931@morrow.stanford.edu> GC.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.201317.24883@cascade.Stanford.EDU>,
>king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>>(Sarah Pallas) writes:
>>>
>>>When you say you support animal RIGHTS, that means you support at
>>>least the platform, and I might assume it means you support the
>>>violent means of obtaining the goals of the platform.  In that case, I
>>>have no respect for your opinion, as it means disrespect for human
>>>life.
>>
>>        Whoa!  The word "rights" has different meanings to
>>        different people.  Instead of assuming you (everyone)
>>        know what people "mean" by a particular buzzword,
>>        try to listen to what they're saying.
>>
>>        My too sense,   :^)
>>        Robin
>>
>
>Agreed. How many meanings exist for the following words:
>
>-feminist
>-conservative
>-liberal
>-government
>-diversity
>
>etc., etc., etc.
>
>I think it's a dangerous thing, to assume that someone supports an
>entire agenda when they use a word that is otherwise just a word.
>Did Tracy say, "I support Animal Rights as defined by...." or did
>she just say "animal rights"? Not to mention the fact that you're
>assuming she'd rather blow up a person than ride a horse. For pete's
>sake, SHE'S A RIDER.
>
>=gwyn














Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: Animal Rights bashing
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,Tx
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct12.175121.2931@morrow.stanford.edu> GC.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.201317.24883@cascade.Stanford.EDU>,
>king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>>(Sarah Pallas) writes:
>>>
>>>When you say you support animal RIGHTS, that means you support at
>>>least the platform, and I might assume it means you support the
>>>violent means of obtaining the goals of the platform.  In that case, I
>>>have no respect for your opinion, as it means disrespect for human
>>>life.
>>
>>        Whoa!  The word "rights" has different meanings to
>>        different people.  Instead of assuming you (everyone)
>>        know what people "mean" by a particular buzzword,
>>        try to listen to what they're saying.
>>
>>        My too sense,   :^)
>>        Robin
>>
>
>Agreed. How many meanings exist for the following words:
>
>-feminist
>-conservative
>-liberal
>-government
>-diversity
>
>etc., etc., etc.
>
>I think it's a dangerous thing, to assume that someone supports an
>entire agenda when they use a word that is otherwise just a word.
>Did Tracy say, "I support Animal Rights as defined by...." or did
>she just say "animal rights"? Not to mention the fact that you're
>assuming she'd rather blow up a person than ride a horse. For pete's
>sake, SHE'S A RIDER.
>
>=gwyn