Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[MaineShark]

The search warrant and supporting affidavit remain sealed in the case and police have not commented on the probable cause that led to the warrant.

So it remains sealed. Then I have to guess whomever it was that said they spoke to Brian and were told that the documents were unsealed and Beth's name was on it was fibbing? Or that Brian was fibbing about that? I'd quote that post too, but it seems to be gone now?

Um, no.  There are various levels to which a document can be "sealed."  It sounds (from the description) like this one was open to Brian's lawyer (and hence to Brian), but not to the general public (eg, a newspaper couldn't call up and get a copy faxed).

So for months they were being told that the horses were in dangeroous condition and needed better shelter and more food. And although Beth started buying food for Heidi's horses out of her own pocket and was no longer allowed to speak directly to Heidi...this is all still her fault that they didn't know how to care for their horses?

Hearsay.  I'm willing to listen to first-hand accounts, but "I'm telling you that Beth told me that..." is hearsay, and not worth notice.

Color me cynical...but seriously...who else needed to talk to these two folks to tell them how to care for their horses enough to keep them healthy? They claim not to have known...it's easy to see it was more of a "we don't really care and nobody can tell us what to do." It seems even if the other members of the FSP had talked to these two, nothing would have been done.

No one has even established that the horses were unhealthy.  Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.

...if Heidi has issues getting along with people, prefers to be alone or isolated more often than not, cannot get along with other people well, tries to drive off other people, doesn't have any/many close personal friends, often attempts to obtain more animals, [etc]

I don't know Heidi, but I've met her at an event or two.  She seems friendly enough and didn't appear to have trouble interacting with folks.  I've met their dogs, which are certainly happy and healthy animals.

If Brian does contact some of you for help...please offer to do so? Heidi may need some females to make closer friendships with her if she hasn't done that yet in NH...something to help take the place of the hoarding feelings. This could be something to bring the community closer.

Why, specifically, would she needs female friends?  That seems rather sexist, to me...

Joe

[MistyBlue]

Hi Maineshark. 

Um, no.  There are various levels to which a document can be "sealed."  It sounds (from the description) like this one was open to Brian's lawyer (and hence to Brian), but not to the general public (eg, a newspaper couldn't call up and get a copy faxed).

The it would seem his attorney's suggestion to keep quiet about the case is being used on a convenience only basis. 

No one has even established that the horses were unhealthy.  Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.

2 veterinarians established that some of the horse were unhealthy enough to be removed for their own safety. Now it may be your position that the vets are involved in a great conspiracy against Brian and Heidi, but that is most likely not the case. If I hear hoofbeats I usually think "horse" and not "unicorn." 
There was also the released news video...clearly showed young horses in very poor weight and body condition. And that was after already a length of time for them to have gained some weight in the foster's hands. We all were able to see with our own eyes the condition of the horses. If you do not understand healthy body condition of horses...it doesn't make sense to speculated in either direction to me. Not being experienced with equines or being around them enough to recognize a health weight one from a very skinny one means that you might not have understood what you were looking at in that video. But experienced vets, other experienced horse people, some folks from this BB, etc have all stated that the horses were in pretty bad shape. Brian has stated he's not a horse person and has also danced around the replies about the condition of the horses himself.
Some folks didn't want to believe the horses were skinny...they wanted photo or video proof. Well, that was posted. Photos will be at the trial.

Why, specifically, would she needs female friends?  That seems rather sexist, to me...

I apologize for it seeming that way. I should have made it more clear...but so far research into certain disorders such as hoarding have shown that strong social relationships with people of the same gender have been a help. Would be the same for a male hoarder to have more male close friends.
Of course it can depend from person to person too. I have more make friends than female ones...although I do also have female friends too. It's just my daily living style usually is more similar to the males in my area outside of the equine folks. When we're out in public I tend to have less to discuss with non-equine females so will end up in more conversations/friendships with the males. Not many non-horsie females chatter often about the growing conditions for hay, hunting, fishing, tractors, etc.
As you seem to have noticed...I might be a bit of an oddball at times. 

[MaineShark]

The it would seem his attorney's suggestion to keep quiet about the case is being used on a convenience only basis. 

Attorneys will often tell a client that they may discuss certain aspects of a case, but not others.

For example, I was involved in a case where the police had destroyed evidence, and we were able to prove that they had done so.  I was advised not to discuss that aspect of the case, is being able to prove such behavior in front of a jury would obviously have substantial effect, which might be lost if the State had some time to fabricate an excuse for it.

Generally, something that is part of an affidavit would not be of concern in that sort of situation, since the State is obviously aware of what is on their own affidavit.

No one has even established that the horses were unhealthy.  Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.

2 veterinarians established that some of the horse were unhealthy enough to be removed for their own safety. Now it may be your position that the vets are involved in a great conspiracy against Brian and Heidi, but that is most likely not the case. If I hear hoofbeats I usually think "horse" and not "unicorn."

A handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy."  It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.

There was also the released news video...clearly showed young horses in very poor weight and body condition. And that was after already a length of time for them to have gained some weight in the foster's hands. We all were able to see with our own eyes the condition of the horses.

I haven't seen any such video.

If you do not understand healthy body condition of horses...it doesn't make sense to speculated in either direction to me. Not being experienced with equines or being around them enough to recognize a health weight one from a very skinny one means that you might not have understood what you were looking at in that video.

I live across the road from a horse farm, and there are cows, alpacas, and a variety of other livestock on farms within walking distance.  I've been around farms all my life.  I might not be able to identify the difference between a show-winner and an average horse, but I would like to think that I would be able to identify the difference between a horse in danger of starvation, and one that is not, if someone were to actually present me with quality images of that horse.

Why, specifically, would she needs female friends?  That seems rather sexist, to me...

I apologize for it seeming that way. I should have made it more clear...but so far research into certain disorders such as hoarding have shown that strong social relationships with people of the same gender have been a help. Would be the same for a male hoarder to have more male close friends.

What research?  I'd like to see some specific citations...

Joe

[MistyBlue]

Here's the video:
http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/index.html

A handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy."  It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.

So it's common enough to assume conspiracy by the vets as opposed to the fact that the vets might be telling the truth? Or that the video is wrong? Have vets been involved in that many conspiracies? Do you know many large animal vets? Do you have a lot of personal experience with them? Or do you automatically assume conspiracy by these two vets because that fits your personal feelings best?
Also, why the conspiracy? What would be the reason for it? It's a financial loss to the vets and to the SPCA. Seizures usually are. Because seized horses are in crappy condition...and the seized horses will not have their registration papers so even if they get the animals back to health unregistered horses are "a dime a dozen." A horse without papers is called a Grade horse. They can't be bred for profit, raced, shown in breed shows and sell for pennies on the dollar compared to papered horses.
So what would be the purpose of a conspiracy? To lose money on? Especially in the state of NH the first seizure BY LAW is temporary 90% or more of the time. So why conspire to take someone's animals that are in horrid condition, where they won't have the papers for the animals, who will cost a small fortune in vet care and rehab, who weren't even trained to do anything (and pro training costs a buttload) and who have to be given back?
That makes zero sense.

For the research...you'll have to google it yourself if you're really interested in the information. I though to hand out what I know and have read for others to read...specifically for Brian to read too since it would affect him the most if this is the case. I googled the video for you and posted the link here. But I'm getting ready to go bring in the horses for the night and do night care, then am hoping to take a ride downtown, gas up the truck, get a coffee and talk to the hay farmers probably down there now to see how this year's crop is looking so far. Keeping ahead of the coming year's crops is one of the many aspects of having a horse farm.
Not to mention I've heard a friend of mine got a new combine and I'm dying to wrangle an invitation to go check it out. 

[MaineShark]

Here's the video:
http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/index.html

I don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property.  Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses.  Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.

A handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy."  It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.

So it's common enough to assume conspiracy by the vets as opposed to the fact that the vets might be telling the truth? Or that the video is wrong? Have vets been involved in that many conspiracies? Do you know many large animal vets? Do you have a lot of personal experience with them? Or do you automatically assume conspiracy by these two vets because that fits your personal feelings best?

I don't assume anything.  I don't assume that anyone is conspiring.  I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source.  It's called having an open mind.

So what would be the purpose of a conspiracy? To lose money on? Especially in the state of NH the first seizure BY LAW is temporary 90% or more of the time. So why conspire to take someone's animals that are in horrid condition, where they won't have the papers for the animals, who will cost a small fortune in vet care and rehab, who weren't even trained to do anything (and pro training costs a buttload) and who have to be given back?
That makes zero sense.

Few things that the government does, make any sense.  They will spend a hundred thousand dollars on a court case to obtain a conviction against a little old lady who smokes a joint to deal with pain from her cancer, only to win a suspended sentence and a thousand-dollar fine, or to pay money to keep her in prison, if they can get a prison sentence.

That's standard procedure for the government.

For the research...you'll have to google it yourself if you're really interested in the information.

No.  You asserted something as fact.  If you can't back it up, then you're just making baseless claims.  Since that seems to be all you do, I'm not expecting you to back it up.  But I can hope.  I enjoy reading psychology papers: if they're good, I can learn something, and if they're not, I can amuse myself by trashing the fallacious arguments.  Win-win.

Joe

[MistyBlue]

*sigh* What was that hilarious term used earlier in this thread? Masturdebating?
I guess I now have the definition of that.  (BTW...I'm still giggling over that word, it's perfect for many scenarios)

Since you've decided A) Nobody likes me B) It's your career in life to reply to everything I state in an obtuse way for some odd reason and C) seem to enjoy playing point to point I guess I'll reply.

Again.

I live across the road from a horse farm, and there are cows, alpacas, and a variety of other livestock on farms within walking distance.  I've been around farms all my life.  I might not be able to identify the difference between a show-winner and an average horse, but I would like to think that I would be able to identify the difference between a horse in danger of starvation, and one that is not, if someone were to actually present me with quality images of that horse.

I've lived near a lot of things. Never made me knowledgeable in it though so I'll assume your base of argument is experience through osmosis.
Recognizing a horse expperiencing starvation, emaciation or varying degrees of neglect does indeed take some education on the animals, their digestive systems, varying differences in type and breeds of horses, age of animals and general conformation of the animals.
Since it can be subjective considering these varying types/situation there a scale/body scoring chart used called the Henneke Scale. A person using that must know the conformation of the animal because horses store fat in different areas and those areas become depleted at different stages of weight loss. There are exact correlations between the depletion of these areas and the health of the horse and it's organs and digestive system. You need to know neck, withers, loin, tail head, ribs and shoulder and what each should look and feel like in a healthy animal and then a visible exam followed by a hands on palpation of each area is needed to verify score.
In this case there is the added problem of many of the animals being young stock with possibly stunted growth from lack of proper nutrition during the developing stages and the fact that they were carrying wormy bloated bellies (many inexperienced will see bony horses with fat bellies and assume they're okay not realizing those fat bellies are fat due to there being more parasites in there than room for them) and winter coats. Which is why the horses are evaluated on palpation as well as visible. Visible can give one degree...when you use hands on that lowers the degree even more due to thickness of fat pads.
As someone who evaluates horses often enough...those young horses in the video eyeball at around a 2.5 after being fed for a couple weeks. A hands on would lower that somewhat. A 2 is Very Thin...3 is Thin, 4 is Moderately Thin, 5 is ideal, over 5s are varying degrees of overweight to obese and a 1 is emaciated. A 1.5 and under is feeding on it's own muscle and in danger (if not already starting) or organ shut down. Since horses gain weight fast and lose slowly as Mother Nature designed them to...it's a good bet those were 1.5 or so at seizure.
I also notice how you qualify your own statement as "present me with quality images of that horse" just in case somebody did present you with photos...you had your "out" already in place so you could claim that the photos weren't "quality." So I already figured when you saw the video I was planning on posting that you'd already have some inane "well those weren't QUALITY photos"...imagine my surprise when instead you went with this:

I don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property.  Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses.  Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.

Ahhh haa....okay...so it's not the quality...now it's the location. Despite numerous requests to see photos of the horses now they needed to have been in the location of your own choosing. Okay, got it. In other words...doesn't matter what someone posts to try to explain anything further to you, you will find a way to refute it.
So now it's a new conspiracy...the SPCA and the vets colluded somewhere to steal a bunch of worthless to them horses to spend a crapload of time and money on only to then video different young Arabian horses they happened to have at the same time someone else had their young Arabian horses taken. And the ones taken were taken for neglect and poor weight and they just happened to have stand-in stunt young Arabian horses that they keep scrawny just in case they might need photos of scrawny Arabian yearlings.
Yup, makes perfect sense. 
And yet...someone else on here stated they'd noticed the horses while on Brian and Heidi's property looking really poor. Beth knew the horses were in poor condition. Brian can't seem to decide if they were in poor condition or not...and he lives on the same property with them. He even posted his own conspiracy theory of the SPCA possibly purposely starving those horses after they got them to prove a point. And yet you still managed to top that theory with stand-in horses of the same age and breed that are skinny looking.
So despite vets, another FSPer on here stating the same thing, the video, Beth who is also an FSPer and Brian's hemming and hawing over the subject you prefer to think these are possibly fakes?   
And you also admit that while you think they don't look "near death" you also admit "even if they were." So doesn't that basically say that even if they were near death, you wouldn't recognize it?

I don't assume anything.  I don't assume that anyone is conspiring.  I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source.  It's called having an open mind.

And yet you're assuming those aren't actually Heidi's horses. How is that not assuming and not conspiring? And it wasn't one vet...it was two at the scene to make the call on what the actual health conditions of the horses were and then the SPCA also works with different vets. (they use non-SPCA vets for seizures) So now we're over 3 vets, all apparently biased.
I personally don't see that as an open mind.
There's a saying that a person should keep an open mind...but not so open that their brains fall out. 

No.  You asserted something as fact.  If you can't back it up, then you're just making baseless claims.  Since that seems to be all you do, I'm not expecting you to back it up.  But I can hope.  I enjoy reading psychology papers: if they're good, I can learn something, and if they're not, I can amuse myself by trashing the fallacious arguments.  Win-win.

So now on top of nobody liking me...*all* of my claims are baseless? Okay.  I'd hate to have to use the word "dramatic" again Joe.      If you're not expecting me to back it up then I won't. Because this tit for tat is tiring when it devolves into "but those probably aren't Heidi's horses!" and other such drivel. Seriously...I've typed out what information I can pass on in the spirit of *helping.* Some to help others learn a tad more about equines in general so they may have a better understanding of the severity of things. Some to help others think of ways to help Heidi and Brian. ALL to help the future care of those animals. I don't really enjoy typing out tomes...but I had hoped it would help someone somewhere on here. You keep turning into personal attacks. I'm glad you're having fun...but at least try to HELP. More than just trying to help Brian come up with new conspiracy theories after his "the SPCA is starving them" comment.
I understand you hate the idea of animal welfare laws. I hate the idea that they're necessary. So we're different. Deal with it. Neither of us are drones...that's a good thing.
But if you want to ensure that the government never comes in and takes Brian or Heidi's property again...I'm GIVING you blueprints on how to keep that from happening. I'm giving you guys the HOW...take care of the HOW and then you can take care of the WHY without the "harassment" of government interferrence.
And if you want the damned research on animal hoarding...go to the library, go to google.com and type in keywords. I'm only here to try to help the animals stay healthy and to give out the info on how to do that since Brian mentioned more than once that nobody was willing to tell them anything when they asked. I'm not here to act like a secretary for someone who professes to not like me, who cares nothing about the animals and who is coming up with the most ridiculous arguments I think I've ever debated online. And believe me...I've talked with some really off the wall conspiracy freaks before.

If you want to play the "repeated quote and reply" game then at least ask questions that may benefit Brian and Heidi keeping those horses healthy and the government out of their lives. This *isn't* about you.

[MaineShark]

B) It's your career in life to reply to everything I state in an obtuse way for some odd reason and C) seem to enjoy playing point to point I guess I'll reply.

Nothing I've said has been the least bit obtuse.  I would suggest looking up the definitions of words before attempting to use them as accusations.

Replying to each point is done for the purpose of being thorough and accurate.  And to get the posts quoted in case you attempt to edit them.  Since I've already caught you doing that, you can't exactly claim that it's not a valid concern.

I've lived near a lot of things. Never made me knowledgeable in it though so I'll assume your base of argument is experience through osmosis.

No, it's a general level of experience.  Not "expert" status, but probably as much as most "average" horse owners that I've met.  As I said, I've been about farms all my life.

Recognizing a horse expperiencing starvation, emaciation or varying degrees of neglect does indeed take some education on the animals, their digestive systems, varying differences in type and breeds of horses, age of animals and general conformation of the animals.

Oh, so now it requires some sort of special skill?  We must be told from on-high if the horses are healthy or not?

Since it can be subjective considering these varying types/situation there a scale/body scoring chart used called the Henneke Scale.

And you've just proved my point, nicely.  Science isn't subjective.  Science is objective.  You're supporting violence against innocent people based upon someone's subjective opinion.

...and the fact that they were carrying wormy bloated bellies (many inexperienced will see bony horses with fat bellies and assume they're okay not realizing those fat bellies are fat due to there being more parasites in there than room for them)...

That level of infestation by parasites would be something that could actually be verified, scientifically.  Why don't you provide some evidence?

I also notice how you qualify your own statement as "present me with quality images of that horse" just in case somebody did present you with photos...you had your "out" already in place so you could claim that the photos weren't "quality."

It's not an "out."  Or are you going to assert that any photo of a horse could be used for evaluation?  You've already said that photos are difficult to use, so it's rather obvious that a quality photo would be necessary.  Some blurry nonsense would clearly be inadequate, right?

I don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property.  Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses.  Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.

Ahhh haa....okay...so it's not the quality...now it's the location. Despite numerous requests to see photos of the horses now they needed to have been in the location of your own choosing. Okay, got it. In other words...doesn't matter what someone posts to try to explain anything further to you, you will find a way to refute it.

No.  I will just refute it if it doesn't apply.  I'm sure you could post photos of hundreds of horses from all over the world.  How would that say anything about Brian or Heidi?  I recognize their property, so if I were to see images of horses there, I could say with a high degree of certainty that they are actually Brian and Heidi's horses.  Images of horses that are most obviously not located on their property tells me nothing.

So despite vets, another FSPer on here stating the same thing, the video, Beth who is also an FSPer and Brian's hemming and hawing over the subject you prefer to think these are possibly fakes?   

I don't "prefer to think" anything.  I'm a scientist.  Show me evidence.  So far, you've provided assertions that some individuals of unknown integrity and some individuals who are known liars claim that the horses were in danger.  That's not evidence.  You're asserting that I should just believe these assertions, without anything to back them up.  It sounds like you are very used to dealing with Statists who just automatically believe anything that a government official tells them, and your religious faith in those officials doesn't allow room for doubt.  Well, I'm an agnostic.  I want evidence, not assertions that I should have faith.

And you also admit that while you think they don't look "near death" you also admit "even if they were." So doesn't that basically say that even if they were near death, you wouldn't recognize it?

No, I said "even if they were" in response to whether or not they might be Brian and Heidi's horses.  As I said, I'm not assuming either way, when I see horses that are not obviously on their farm.  Try to keep up.

I don't assume anything.  I don't assume that anyone is conspiring.  I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source.  It's called having an open mind.

And yet you're assuming those aren't actually Heidi's horses. How is that not assuming and not conspiring?

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't assume that they are.  I don't assume that they aren't.  I haven't seen any credible evidence to indicate either as being the case.

So now on top of nobody liking me...*all* of my claims are baseless? Okay.  I'd hate to have to use the word "dramatic" again Joe.      If you're not expecting me to back it up then I won't.

Your choice.  I'll just assume that you are sexist, then, and were just making up more claims to try and distract us from that fact.

Seriously...I've typed out what information I can pass on in the spirit of *helping.*

No, you've provided claims and opinions in an attempt to support a violent attack against innocent individuals.  You didn't just wander by and post some information about horses, because you happened to think we might like to know.  You came here because you support that violent attack, and are grasping at straws to try and justify it.  Let's be honest, shall we?  If you are honest, we can discuss how your position differs from my position.  If you are going to misrepresent what your position is, then discussion becomes rather difficult...

...who cares nothing about the animals...

Which is yet another blatantly-false assertion.  I've already stated that I want to know if actual abuse was occurring, because disapprove of animal abuse and won't have anything to do with actual animal abusers.

I'm simply unwilling to enforce my opinions on others at gunpoint.

If you want to play the "repeated quote and reply" game then at least ask questions that may benefit Brian and Heidi keeping those horses healthy and the government out of their lives. This *isn't* about you.

No, this is about you, and your peers.  It's not about Brian, or Heidi, or the horses, or me.  The first three were minding their own business on that farm.  I wasn't involved other than knowing vaguely that there was a horse farm in that location.  You (speaking in general about your "side") went out of your way to invade and attack Brian and Heidi and steal the horses, thereby involving me, and others like me.  Without you, this situation wouldn't exist.  This is all about you.

Joe

[MaineShark]

I guess there will always be bottom feeders that only care for their veiws and no one elses.

Yes.  Like you and your "animals rights" buddies.  I'm willing to tolerate any views.  You believe in enforcing your opinions as if they were absolute truth, and at gunpoint.

The ones who still would like to make this a goverment issue, are the ones who will make alot of noise for any reason .

Again with the self-description?

As far as Joe the scientist goes, the ones I know lack compassion and would use animals for thier own personal gain,.Is this you Joe?...

Why do you have horses, if not for personal gain?  If it's for the horses' sake, shouldn't they be running free?  You keep them for your own private, personal gain.

If you think scientists lack compassion, you probably don't know any real scientists.

Humans most likely will not be on the earth forever and if we are we will be ruled by other animals or insects...

Oh, good.  We should treat animals nicely because some day the ants will rule, and punish our distant ancestors?  I'm glad you're so very sensible...

FYI, if I ever do meet an ant capable of reason, I will treat her with all the rights than any person has.  Those capable of reason are persons, regardless of their physical appearance or biological makeup.  I don't discriminate.  Do you?

Joe

[Keyser Soce]

In a perfect world...

There will never be a perfect world. Deal with it. Your infatuation with utopia is what leads you to believe that you can fix everything with the magic wand of government all the while making things worse.

But history shows that's a massive mistake on the parts of the animals.

History shows that coercive government is a massive mistake on the part of humans. Social engineering has and will continue to fail. The best of intentions lead to the worst unintended consequences the road to hell being paved with them and all.

Also current times show the same...

Yes they do.

An obese pet can develop serious health issues,

So we should or should not send out the morality police?

but the possibility of killing with kindness has a much different impact on a social group than killing with malice or neglect.

So, killing is fine as long as it's done in a way you approve of? Perhaps I missed the study on how this impacts my social group.

An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell.

Have you ever gone a day without food in your life? My friend here just came off a 42 day fast and guess what? No pain! Also, obesity causes joint and back pain because their skeleton was not designed to carry that kind of load.

And before someone jumps in with "Oh they weren't showing signs of that!"

No! Don't mention that there are no signs of what I'm talking about. Just take my word for it.

please be aware that prey animals and predators act and react completely opposite to many outside influences. A hurt predator isn't risking it's own life by showing weakness in many cases. It may risk being outcast if it's part of a pride or pack but most predators aren't. If an animal is a natural food source for other animals and *especially* if it's a herd animal...any of it's own kind acting off/differently/slow becomes an instant target for predators. So that makes large herbivores sch as common livestock excessively stoic in regards to showing any weakness.

Well, they could be "excessively stoic" but a more reasonable explanation might be; there's nothing wrong with them.

To *me*...allowing suffering due to a political or social opinion isn't a compassionate thing to do.

To *me*...placing your ideas about compassion ahead of basic human rights (to keep, use and dispose of property) is loopy.

If there is a way to prevent live property from suffering while being owned by abusive or neglectful owners without the intervention of a third party, I'm all ears.

See, you've got the sequence backwards. First, you decide to go to the moon, then you find a way. First, you decide to make a light source run on electricity, then you find a way. First, you decide to help animals without stealing money from people to hire thugs to trespass, then, you find a way. First, you decide that the ends do not justify the means, then, you live that way.

[NJLiberty]

An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell.

Have you ever gone a day without food in your life? My friend here just came off a 42 day fast and guess what? No pain! Also, obesity causes joint and back pain because their skeleton was not designed to carry that kind of load.

This I can attest to. My uncle starved himself to death. He had cancer, had had it treated, it returned, and rather than subject himself to more torturous treatment he opted to starve himself to death. After the first few days he was no longer hungry. He never complained of there being any pain from his body feeding off its own muscles. He wasted away slowly in spite of folks trying to convince him to eat. It was very, very sad to watch, but I have to say he never complained about any of it. He continued to live his life his way and was mentally sharp right up until the last few days. The last time I saw him was at Thanksgiving a few weeks before he died and he spent the afternoon telling me about his adventures during WWII as a paratrooper. He certainly wasn't unhappy or in any pain and at that point had hardly eaten for weeks.

George

[Free libertarian]

Just curious...When the "'insects rule"  will we have to bow and curtsy to Queen bees and stuff like that?      

[Lloyd Danforth]

Not bow'in to no fuck'in Bees, either!

[MaineShark]

Just curious...When the "'insects rule"  will we have to bow and curtsy to Queen bees and stuff like that?   

Not bowing to the bees is abusive.  They will send their minions to get you, if you don't bow to them...

Edited to add: just noticed that he deleted his post.  Luckily, I have him quoted, so he's on record claiming that the insects are going to take over.

Joe

[shyfrog]

Luckily, I have him quoted, so he's on record claiming that the insects are going to take over.

And we're the whack jobs? o.O;

I hear there are lizard people who control the government too...

[Pat K]