My high school had bullet holes in the "windows". I use the term windows loosely, because all of them save  like, 10 or so were opaque, and none of them opened, though there was a wooden hatch of sorts on the third floor. Junkies snuck in pretty regularly too. I remember one leaving a present in the music room. Though my first and second elementary schools were both in pretty nice ares with pretty nice schools

I'd have to disagree about the school systems thing, since it really depends on how rich that area is. A large total of my school years were spent in broken down underfunded facilities with extremely outdated everything. As for discipline, that's a parental issue. Special snowflake-ism is disgustingly rampant

Quote from: Medium Rare on April 25, 2012, 02:19 am

Asphixa, you and I got off on the wrong foot over legislation and enforcement. We do agree on some aspects of animal welfare. However, it has been my experience that anytime legislation and/or enforcemant are implemented, I pay for it twice to start with. Just because I agree and the law may not affect me, that doesn't mean that others will be. We have enough damned intrusiveness as it is from corrupt politicians and people wanting to force others to live by their way of life (such as right and left wing religious groups.).

1. My tax money for legislation/enforcement.

2. Legislation and enforcement costs the industry that the legislation is targeting. Those increased costs are passed on to me in higher prices.

My state already has an animal cruelty law, can get you up to five years in state penitentiary. A real hell hole here, I don't know about the UK. Of course, we pick up the prosecution tab via taxes.

So, when someone mentions legislation and enforcement, I am not going to be favorable to much that is said.

Yes fuck Virginia. Especially the Hampton Roads area. Bunch of communists...

We are one of two communist wealth's in the country. This one howevedr, allows concelaed carry and guarantees you the right to hunt and fish.

No state is perfect. We have Pat Robertson (Who the frick knows what he will say next, he's Liberace's secret gay boy toy from the past?) and Ingrid Newkirk to deal with. PETA has nice waterfront property off the Elizabeth River (I beleive) in downtown Norfolk. Ingrid lives there. I've seen nice sailboats tied up there. Ingrid may not make much money on taxes, but she leads an easy life.

Asphixa, you and I got off on the wrong foot over legislation and enforcement. We do agree on some aspects of animal welfare. However, it has been my experience that anytime legislation and/or enforcemant are implemented, I pay for it twice to start with. Just because I agree and the law may not affect me, that doesn't mean that others will be. We have enough damned intrusiveness as it is from corrupt politicians and people wanting to force others to live by their way of life (such as right and left wing religious groups.).

1. My tax money for legislation/enforcement.

2. Legislation and enforcement costs the industry that the legislation is targeting. Those increased costs are passed on to me in higher prices.

My state already has an animal cruelty law, can get you up to five years in state penitentiary. A real hell hole here, I don't know about the UK. Of course, we pick up the prosecution tab via taxes.

So, when someone mentions legislation and enforcement, I am not going to be favorable to much that is said.

Yes fuck Virginia. Especially the Hampton Roads area. Bunch of communists...

And NASCAR sounds perfect for you, that's something I could believe.

Lol, generalize much?

I'll reply to you later, Angry. Before I do however, Saudi Arabia don't work under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They work under the Islamic version of this paper more commonly refered to as the Cairo Declaration. Also as I've told you before and as I'm going to keep iterating, violation in no way means non-existence.

Your opinion =/= a fact, as I've also told you before

On top of that, any religion including Islam are beyond stupid and generally a bad way to conduct a debate based on rational, logical thinking.

1. The only one having a debate is you. Me? I'm just here to waste some time between things I need to do
2. Rights are a belief, religion is an organized system of beliefs. So you finding it bad and me actually caring that you think it's bad are going to have to be two different things, because both rights and religion work on extremely similar principles, the first of which includes having to believe that this thing is true

Since when is religion, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran meant for the furtherment of the average person?

Who said that a qualification of rights had to be furthering the average person? Because I can't find anyone that says that. Sounds like to me you're trying to suggest that if it's a right you don't like then it's not a right

Infact, if you're not a man in many of these countries you're worthless. That isn't because of the human rights issue. That's because of Shari'ah and because of the Qu'ran. You're talking about countries where the general populace are brought up to think very perculiar, very strange and very stupid ideas from a very flawed, idiotic book. Pretty much like countries who still do the same with the Bible.

How is it better or more effective than assuming we should all follow ineffectual and worthless "bills" that you're essentially pulling out of your ass? Sounds like some prime denialism to me and in that same breath, no better than the Witnesses at my door every Sunday morning. It may not seem to you like that's what you're doing, but it is. No matter what you think you're throwing into this, it's for the most part all been meta

You can state what you like. The fact that you are trying so hard to prove your AW stance to people who are generally pro AW makes me think you are AR. You take days to reply even though you stop in several times a day. Perhaps it takes that long for you to formulate a reply , perhaps it takes that long for you to consult with others for a reply. I'm not buying your bs.

Did you know that I am actually a famous driver for NASCAR?

If you were generally pro-animal welfare then.. what is the problem in answering the questions I gave you earlier and what exactly is your problem with something like UDAW in general (Fourth time I ask now)? You're the one saying it won't work or there are problems. I asked you how they would affect you after you claimed something like this would be forced on you. No reply.

Secondly, contrary to your belief I can come and go on this website as I please. Generally I visit to see if anyone replies and if I feel like replying, I do so. I have other things to do during my day and not all of my time is spent replying to you. I don't care what you believe really, so go ahead and think whatever or theorise as you wish, as I said all that will come of it is I'll end up ignoring you which is no problem to me as you're bringing nothing to this debate.

And NASCAR sounds perfect for you, that's something I could believe.

And again, you're the only one who thinks I'm trying to push anything on you. You've got a confrontational and obnoxious way of trying to debate. You don't even know what a forum is for or debate is for clearly. I'm not trying to push anything on you, I've asked you, again, many times to tell me why these things would be wrong, or why you couldn't back something like UDAW. Still no compelling or factual arguments from you or even an attempt.

I'll reply to you later, Angry. Before I do however, Saudi Arabia don't work under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They work under the Islamic version of this paper more commonly refered to as the Cairo Declaration. Also as I've told you before and as I'm going to keep iterating, violation in no way means non-existence. On top of that, any religion including Islam are beyond stupid and generally a bad way to conduct a debate based on rational, logical thinking. Since when is religion, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran meant for the furtherment of the average person? Infact, if you're not a man in many of these countries you're worthless. That isn't because of the human rights issue. That's because of Shari'ah and because of the Qu'ran. You're talking about countries where the general populace are brought up to think very perculiar, very strange and very stupid ideas from a very flawed, idiotic book. Pretty much like countries who still do the same with the Bible.

You assuming you have the right to steal from someones home is what you believe to be a personal right not an established right, I don't think you're so stupid as to not understand that rights are generally an appeal to fairness and therefore I don't really see why you believe this is an adequate avenue to approach the argument from.

Sharia and the entirety of Saudi Arabia say hello

A simple way of doing this then is to monitor them in their various existing conditions by several groups of scientists and deducting from those facts exactly what kind of situations are needed for optimal animal welfare. No bias, no opinions. Facts. That is all that is needed, as I pointed out before hand, opinion is irrelevent where there are obvious facts. Opinion A could be that animals need a box to live in no bigger than themselves, opinion B could be a field. Neither of those matter, what matters is what exactly the animal needs to be in full mental and physical condition under a scientific process to determine that from observation of animals that are already in captivity by various groups of scientists which would then equal to a culmination of enough data to be adequately aware of what exactly each animal needs to be healthy and sufficient. Data and facts are all that are needed, it's rather hard to make data opinionated if it's kept rigourously and in many forms.

Federal Python ban, California ferret ban. GG

HSUS is irrelevent here, as is PETA or any pro-meat group. Obviously these decisions would be made by an unbiased group created specifically for that purpose.

Because it's been going that way for years!

...oh wait, no, no it totally hasn't

That doesn't mean we take people from animal rights groups or animal welfare groups or meat companies or corporations with ties to them. It means we take agricultural scientists and create a group similar to the Food and Agriculture organization of the European Union. Who then do the tests mentioned and set individualised guildelines for specific animals and use them as a guideline. Naturally all of these things would be if something like UDAW was put in place, to which HSUS would have no ability to take precedence over as it is down to a vote. Not down to HSUS or meat corporations.

Big assumptions and wishful thinking with little proof to these actual happenings at best.

As I said data cannot be opinionated. The only way it can be opinionted is if we're sitting here discussing it as a hypothetical situation in which one person says animals need A and the other says animal needs B without actually conducting any tests or research. If a group was set up solely to the research of this, there would be no problem.

Python ban says hello

Given the fact that animal agriculture accounts for a considerable amount of animals within human captivity it's obviously going to be the main focus. Perhaps this is a bit of a guess but I'm going to assume it's a safe one and say I'm sure there are more animals in agriculture than there are in reptile breeding. I doubt it would even touch breeding specific types of animals and if it did it would be down to the same systems as the argicultural animals

Your doubt isn't good enough

Do you have any examples?

Vaccination costs, food costs, vet check costs, deworming, breed specific altering, and so on and so forth. It adds up

Have there every been any studies on these tanks/bins conducted to determine the needs of the animals rather than the opinions of breeders or the opinions of 'experts'. Also may I have a source of these bins and any information you can provide with them as well as the studies if you are aware of them.

Fun thing about the experts dealing with reptiles is that they tend to you know, be actual experts in the terms of herpetology and herpetoculture practices. When we in the reptile world say experts, we mention people like Ron Tremper, the BHB crew, and numerous other actual experts int he field with decades of care behind them

No. But are you trying to imply that my talking to them means they're not doing it, or it doesn't exist?

No, just that it would help put a lot of things into perspective

All of those breeds were used specifically for hunting by humans and thus on top of their natural predatory instinct there is a drive instilled upon them via artificial selection. Same goes for most animals within human confinement, we have effected them all with artificial selection, cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, so on. So on top of the natural instincts especially in for example terriers to hunt and kill rabbits, they have a hightened voilatility towards them because in the past we utilised them as hunting dogs, some still do and they thrived due to it.

Still missing the point, which is that the drive is naturally there. Some dogs have more of it, but it doesn't mean that the drive isn't there anyway
 

Are you going to tell me those types of dogs aggression and protective qualities don't appeal to people who wish to own them? That it's solely down to the aesthetic reasons?

I don't love APBTs because of aggression. You want a dog that will never quit on you as long as you don't quit on it? You want a dog that can do damn near any task you put him to without hesitation and won't stop till you say stop or till they die? To those of us that love the breed, that's what they are. But if you don't believe me, feel free to skip over to pitbull-chat.com and ask them what they think as well

Feel free to link me and obviously the way those animals are handled are also to blame by people who don't know how to. Those who use them for fighting I would also catagorise into those who do not know how to handle them.

Before I link you some of these fun things, let me link you this: http://www.badrap.org/dog-parks
Now let me link you this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/police-officers-pit-bull-_n_1434786.html?ref=chicago

Why was that dog even there? Irresponsible and negligible ownership, that's why

Yes, they can. But dogs bred and trained for those specific actions are usually much, much more prone to those situations if they arise than animals who are not. I'm not saying breeds of dogs are not naturally aggressive, they are but as both of us have pointed out here, those breeds of dogs have been artifically selected through breeding and training for generations for those roles. On top of that if those animals are then trained to do exactly what their breed are known for they're then even more so inclined to do those things if a situation arises where they escape their home etc.

Splitting hairs. "Trained" or not, the problem is still an issue. I wouldn't trust a dog not "trained" anymore than I would one that was, and neither should anyone else. It's that manner of thinking that furmommies use that gets dogs in trouble

Not really. Your bitterness about those things in this topic again is irrelevant even with your background. They obviously give you your basis for thinking the way you do but they shouldn't really be brought into the debate because they're not related. Whether or not it bothers you it doesn't hold sway over the the fact because those things also happen in the world that this one should be ignored in place of them, or vice-versa. They bother me too, as do other things. I could sit here and say when I see an omnivore post a link of facebook of abused dog or cat that it enbitters me because they then go on a tangent about how animal cruelty is despicable and these people should be punished yet the same rule doesn't apply for their food so long as they close their eyes, everything is fine  to them. But quite honestly it's irrelevant too and holds no scope in this discussion.

Then stop going on about your homelessness. It brings just as much to the table, if not less