Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[sandm000]

Too Little Information To "Take Sides"

All my data is coming in Second Hand.

[shyfrog]

Jumped the shark have we? 

[MaineShark]

*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input 

There's a not of dissonant cognition around, these days.  I think it's contagious.  Maybe we should test for it, and "seize" those who are "infected," for "the greater good," eh?

Joe

[shyfrog]

*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input 

There's a not of dissonant cognition around, these days.  I think it's contagious.  Maybe we should test for it, and "seize" those who are "infected," for "the greater good," eh?

Joe

As long as we have someone else doing it for us. The thought of violence makes me ill. That's why we have elected officials and their enforcement thugs, right? There ought to be a law against cognitive dissonance. Perhaps a eugenics program? 

[MaineShark]

As long as we have someone else doing it for us. The thought of violence makes me ill. That's why we have elected officials and their enforcement thugs, right? There ought to be a law against cognitive dissonance. Perhaps a eugenics program? 

Well, obviously.  We wouldn't want to do it, ourselves.  But if we hire someone else, that means we're not guilty.  Or does it mean that our employees are not guilty, and we are?  I'm so confused!

Joe

[Keyser Soce]

But no...go ahead and argue everything under the sun. Seriously...why keep on topic?

The topic is "invaded by bureaucrats".

[erisian]

Violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights.  Since you argue that violence is acceptable in response to animal abuse, then you are arguing that animals have a right not to be abused.

Of course, animals don't have rights, so you are arguing a contradictory set of assertions.

In a perfect world, violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. In this world, the thugs with guns come out to enforce the laws. The laws, as you know, have nothing to do with rights, except to interfere with them.

The law in NH gives no rights to animals. It gives responsibilities to the owners. In this case, it is alleged that the owners failed to fulfill those responsibilities, thus violating the law and causing the thugs with guns to appear.

The law and the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues are completely different things. Your argument above conflates them. In terms of animal welfare, abuse of livestock constitutes the initiation of violence as you are using the term. Since you are opposed to the use of violence, you must therefore be opposed to the abuse of livestock. If you are opposed to the abuse of livestock, then you are in favor of stopping it. The law is intended to stop it. Therefore you must be in favor of the law.

[AntonLee]

yeah and with that, I think I check out of this thread. . .    so long Misty 

[MaineShark]

In a perfect world, violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. In this world, the thugs with guns come out to enforce the laws. The laws, as you know, have nothing to do with rights, except to interfere with them.

The law in NH gives no rights to animals. It gives responsibilities to the owners. In this case, it is alleged that the owners failed to fulfill those responsibilities, thus violating the law and causing the thugs with guns to appear.

Responsibilities only actually result from rights.  You have a right to life, hence I have a responsibility to refrain from walking up to you on the street and killing you without cause.  I have a similar right, so you have a commensurate responsibility towards me.  We have the right to enter into contracts, so if we do so, we each have the responsibility to fulfill the terms of that contract.

The owners failed to fulfill the dictates of thugs with guns.  They had no contract with those armed thugs, so they have no responsibility to engage in any particular behavior.

The law and the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues are completely different things. Your argument above conflates them. In terms of animal welfare, abuse of livestock constitutes the initiation of violence as you are using the term. Since you are opposed to the use of violence, you must therefore be opposed to the abuse of livestock.

You can't engage in violence against things.

If you are opposed to the abuse of livestock, then you are in favor of stopping it. The law is intended to stop it. Therefore you must be in favor of the law.

That doesn't even vaguely follow by any stretch of logic.  "The law" is one particular method that is (supposedly) intended to stop it.  Opposing something does not mean supporting any and all proposed methods of stopping it.  Summary execution of anyone who abuses animals would also be a possible method of preventing abuse, but I wouldn't support that, either.

Despite the fact that animals don't have rights to violate, I do find cruel treatment of those which can feel pain (which, in turn, only includes some animals) to be aesthetically-displeasing.  I would, therefore, support non-violent means of discouraging abuse, including support for education of animal owners as to their proper care, voluntary sanctions against abusers (ie, encouraging local businesses to charge the abusers higher prices, for example), or outright ostracism in severe cases (ie, I will have nothing to do with someone who engages in dog-fighting, as I consider that irredeemably offensive).

The fact that I oppose something does not mean that I would support immoral methods of stopping that behavior.  Ends don't justify means.  Ever.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.

If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affadavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.

I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).

I for one am fully on board with an ostracism campaign. Until and unless Brian and Heidi forgive Beth for what she did, it sounds quite deserved to me.

[ny2nh]

Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.

The only vendetta I have is defending the people I consider to be friends when an anonymous poster creates a new account and posts a bunch of completely unfounded, bizarre stuff to try and make Beth look horrible. Gee, I would never think Sharon could have anything to do with that. It's not like she ever called the feds on anyone or anything.....but now Veracity would like to somehow say that Beth is responsible for that? Okay then.

If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affidavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.

As usual, there is always more to the story than meets the eye. But I guess because Brian declared the truth at a party, it must be so. Sure, people can talk to Brian and get one side of the story. They can also talk to Beth and get the other side of the story. Or is Beth's side just completely wrong because she was put in a situation that involved the government?

I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).

I actually do care what the condition of the horses was. I cared enough to go out and help build a shelter last fall. Beth cared about the condition of the horses was. Unfortunately it seems like Heidi did not. That's unfortunate.

And why does it matter whether it was another freestater or not? Is there two different ways to act - one towards freestaters and one towards the rest of the community? Like someone recently posted - I think on this very forum - being a freestater shouldn't mean you are expected to be held to a lower standard. I've paraphrased and I apologize to the poster for that, but it was along those lines....as to why we tolerate poor behavior just because someone moved here because of the FSP.

And, yes, your principles and mine are different....they always have been....and I'm really okay with that. Really. And you of course are always 100% correct. After all, you surround yourself with some pretty damn principled folks. Gladly, I surround myself with different folks. Honestly, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think about me, my principles, or the people I associate with. Really.

I for one am fully on board with an ostracism campaign. Until and unless Brian and Heidi forgive Beth for what she did, it sounds quite deserved to me.

I'm always on board for holding people to a certain standard. Oddly, that isn't what seems to be happening here at all.

[aworldnervelink]

I don't care what the condition of the horses was.

No surprise coming from the pervert android. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to hold a kitten in your lap.

---

I've been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning, and I haven't said anything. Each time I think the conversation has hit rock bottom it manages to plunge into new depths.

First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it, as some feel that the community should be self-policing. My own view is that Heidi is mainly responsible, and Brian is just along for the ride... but if he wants to ride that train off the cliff it's his choice. I think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.

Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals, feel free to stay away from me. Don't come to my parties or movie nights, once I've sufficiently overcome the bad taste in my mouth to start having them again. You disgust me.

It seems the FSP is polarizing into two distinct groups. The first, original group came to the state with the intent of working for positive change. Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency. The second group, which seems to include a lot of latecomers, doesn't give a damn about anyone apart from themselves, and wants to make the most waves possible. I count myself in the first group. This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.

See you all at the Taproom. It's gonna be a fun one.

[Russell Kanning]

We are not going to be able to keep anyone from posting lies here.
Since the front door is once again open to this forum, then anyone can join here and post. We have had many horsey people join lately and tell us all what to do and how to stay on topic in threads complaining about bureaucrats. Maybe they can start threads about horse care.

I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.

Maybe you guys will want to take your discussions elsewhere. Many people don't read this thread or skip the long posts  about horses. Most people won't have read this long post.

The thugs are putting the pressure on us and we will realize who our real friends are and who will actually help others. It will be interesting.

[Russell Kanning]

No surprise coming from the pervert android. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to hold a kitten in your lap.
I've been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning, and I haven't said anything. Each time I think the conversation has hit rock bottom it manages to plunge into new depths.
First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about ..
You disgust me.
This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.

pretty strong words
If you had spoken up about Heidi's horses ... what would you have said or done?
I don't think this has embarrased the FSP. We are not going to be able to make other members of the group do what we want. Or at least I am not planning to.
I must not know jeremy very well ... because he seems like a decent guy who helps people.
I obviously don't know very much about a lot of these situations. I seem to have some friends on both sides of many different issues.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I'm thinking that the FSP should stop accepting women from Rhode Island.  If there is a third woman from RI here, I apologize.