Ridiculous (AOL equates pit fighting/racing)

[MaTH716]

Did anyone see the AOL welcome page this morning, trying to compare dog fighting to horse racing. I do not know how to post the link, but check it out it is absurd. How can you even put dog fighting and horse racing in the smae sentence? I am sure that there are some bad people in horse racing, that do not care about the horses as much as they should, but to compare it to a sport where animals fight to the death. Come on!

Well obviously the article accomplished what it was intended to do. You're outraged.

[slotdirt]

Nice, the guy who wrote the article is such a coward he doesn't even use his own name, just initials. Either way, to compare horse racing to dog fighting is a stretch to say the least.

[MaTH716]

If you are passionate about horse racing you should be outraged. I want to see horse racing flourish. Now you have to hear all these AHoles complain about it. Why don't they do something productive. Worry about the homeless, unemployment, hell the NFL is a violent sport where past heroes are just put away and forgotten. Many of them with serious illnesses, go after them. Hell, I want to believe that many horses are treated better than humans.

I'm not outraged because I don't use AOL. You should cancel the subscription to show how outraged you are.

[Danzig]

i was listening to mike and mike this morning...they played (or espn did)a brief bit from another show on espn radio--there was a stat quoted that said 77% of people who participate in dog fighting are later charged with assault-whether on a child, a spouse, etc. we all know that serial killers have often started their 'career' by abusing animals.
i somehow doubt that you would find that kind of connection between a fan or participant in horse racing and future criminal behavior.

horses are runners, racing is an extension of their natural behavior.

dog fighting is NOT an extension of natural canine behavior. dogs are pack animals, who naturally work together for the health of the pack.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i was listening to mike and mike this morning...they played (or espn did)a brief bit from another show on espn radio--there was a stat quoted that said 77% of people who participate in dog fighting are later charged with assault-whether on a child, a spouse, etc. we all know that serial killers have often started their 'career' by abusing animals.
i somehow doubt that you would find that kind of connection between a fan or participant in horse racing and future criminal behavior.

horses are runners, racing is an extension of their natural behavior.

dog fighting is NOT an extension of natural canine behavior. dogs are pack animals, who naturally work together for the health of the pack.

only at aqueduct!

[IrishofNDMan]

the author of the article is an idiot, he obviously doesn't know a lick about horse racing, yet he decided to write an article comparing it to dog fighting. I would compare UFC to dog fighting, not horse racing. what a fricken joke.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Did anyone see the AOL welcome page this morning, trying to compare dog fighting to horse racing. I do not know how to post the link, but check it out it is absurd. How can you even put dog fighting and horse racing in the smae sentence? I am sure that there are some bad people in horse racing, that do not care about the horses as much as they should, but to compare it to a sport where animals fight to the death. Come on!

ON the Clinton Portis thread here in the sports section, I tried to do the same thing. My basis was that there are certain groups of people that view horse racing as barbaric. On the face it appears ridiculous to compare the two...but you can pretty much argue anything and get away with it. I can see how people view horse racing as they do even if I don't agree.

Some people view dog fighting as cruel and some don't. Some people view horse racing as cruel and some don't. That is how you compare them...it is simply the scale of perceived cruelty by those opposed that differs.

[fpsoxfan]

Well it's interesting we just had a recent thread where we discussed the worst spills we've ever seen. The experiences that people shared were very heartfelt. So there certainly isn't anyone in our sport that participates to see a horse suffer. No normal human being can take any joy in seeing a horse fall or break down. Now Dogfighting on the other hand is an amusement for sick folks that want to see one animal do harm to another. How the author of this ridiculous article can make a connection between the two is beyond my comprehension. In the end I wouldn't make too much of it. He can have his say. I certainly don't agree with him/her, but he/she is obviously a very confused human being.

[fpsoxfan]

Just for the record...I had edited my signature days before this story came out.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Just for the record...I had edited my signature days before this story came out.

That signature is a little different!

[Riot]

The "animal rights" movement in the US is strong and frankly, quite dangerous.

There is a huge difference between the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare. I think it's quite important for people to be quite clear in their minds where they, themselves, stand - and from where authors or speakers are coming from when these topics are discussed.

For example, there is currently a bill in committee in CA that makes it mandatory that any dog or cat living in the state be spayed/neutered. Sounds fairly harmless, no? But the ultimate intent and result of this bill, if it is passed, is the elimination of private ownership of pets in CA. Last year, a bill taking away the right to hunt was narrowly defeated in that state.

PETA has long been recognized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization, and The Humane Society of the United States, under president Wayne Parcell, has the publically stated goal of eliminating all private ownership of dogs and cats in the US.

Neither organization, although taking in millions of dollars in donations from well-intentioned folks wanting to "help animals", does anything in the least to help animals. Their intent is quite the opposite.

Horse racing hasn't yet been the focused target of either of these organizations (it's a power/money issue) - but it will be some day.

I urge anyone with a serious or vested interest in animal welfare to be very, very cautious, and very, very well-educated, about what "causes" or "groups" one supports, when it comes to "animal" issues.

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Did anyone see the AOL welcome page this morning, trying to compare dog fighting to horse racing. I do not know how to post the link, but check it out it is absurd. How can you even put dog fighting and horse racing in the smae sentence? I am sure that there are some bad people in horse racing, that do not care about the horses as much as they should, but to compare it to a sport where animals fight to the death. Come on!

Here's the link, (I hope) with the 375 comments, I haven't read them all.
I abhor animal rights activists, hey I don't support animal abuse, cruelty or neglect, but I certainly don't believe in all the PETA, HSUS ridiculousness.
And IMO you should be outraged.
All they want is for animals to sit on the couch and be treated like children.
Oh and they especially hate greyhound racing.
Please be outraged, they outnumber us. You should visit their sites they are crazy.
http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05...zers/#comments

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The "animal rights" movement in the US is strong and frankly, quite dangerous.

There is a huge difference between the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare. I think it's quite important for people to be quite clear in their minds where they, themselves, stand - and from where authors or speakers are coming from when these topics are discussed.

For example, there is currently a bill in committee in CA that makes it mandatory that any dog or cat living in the state be spayed/neutered. Sounds fairly harmless, no? But the ultimate intent and result of this bill, if it is passed, is the elimination of private ownership of pets in CA. Last year, a bill taking away the right to hunt was narrowly defeated in that state.

PETA has long been recognized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization, and The Humane Society of the United States, under president Wayne Parcell, has the publically stated goal of eliminating all private ownership of dogs and cats in the US.

Neither organization, although taking in millions of dollars in donations from well-intentioned folks wanting to "help animals", does anything in the least to help animals. Their intent is quite the opposite.

Horse racing hasn't yet been the focused target of either of these organizations (it's a power/money issue) - but it will be some day.

I urge anyone with a serious or vested interest in animal welfare to be very, very cautious, and very, very well-educated, about what "causes" or "groups" one supports, when it comes to "animal" issues.

Hey Riot, apparently we think alike.
I fight the bunny huggers all the time.
And in the UK there are a number of groups that are fighting horseracing.
Did you know PETA had their guy in a bear suit following the Queen around so the bear was at the Derby.
And how bout the polar bear baby deal, they can't even make up their own minds.
We have to fight them. We have several pieces of legislation we are monitoring down here.
Keep fightin them riot, I always am.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Riot

The "animal rights" movement in the US is strong and frankly, quite dangerous.

There is a huge difference between the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare. I think it's quite important for people to be quite clear in their minds where they, themselves, stand - and from where authors or speakers are coming from when these topics are discussed.

For example, there is currently a bill in committee in CA that makes it mandatory that any dog or cat living in the state be spayed/neutered. Sounds fairly harmless, no? But the ultimate intent and result of this bill, if it is passed, is the elimination of private ownership of pets in CA. Last year, a bill taking away the right to hunt was narrowly defeated in that state.

PETA has long been recognized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization, and The Humane Society of the United States, under president Wayne Parcell, has the publically stated goal of eliminating all private ownership of dogs and cats in the US.

Neither organization, although taking in millions of dollars in donations from well-intentioned folks wanting to "help animals", does anything in the least to help animals. Their intent is quite the opposite.

Horse racing hasn't yet been the focused target of either of these organizations (it's a power/money issue) - but it will be some day.

I urge anyone with a serious or vested interest in animal welfare to be very, very cautious, and very, very well-educated, about what "causes" or "groups" one supports, when it comes to "animal" issues.

I didn't get to read the article cause I don't link to AOL.
Maybe someone could post it.
Is there an opinion about greyhounds? Cock fighting? Siamese fighting fish (betas)?
Heck, I even bet on male rats in a cage if there's a female rat nearby.
So, what's the problem?
President Bush is even betting with humans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What's the difference?
The amount of the bet or the amount of the blood?
Hmmmmmm.....

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Hickory Hill Hoff

That signature is a little different!

Old line from NORM on Cheers

[Riot]

[quote=FGFan]And in the UK there are a number of groups that are fighting horseracing. QUOTE]

In the UK "they" have already eliminated the Waterloo Cup.

[quote=FGFan] Did you know PETA had their guy in a bear suit following the Queen around so the bear was at the Derby. QUOTE]

I have been more worried, over the past 20 years, about PETA's long history of funding arson and murder.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

How the author of this ridiculous article can make a connection between the two is beyond my comprehension. In the end I wouldn't make too much of it. He can have his say. I certainly don't agree with him/her, but he/she is obviously a very confused human being.

I do not think that author's opinion is necessarily a minority representation within opinions held by the general public.

I have had clients appalled that I have and breed coursing dogs. That I allow to course.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Riot

I do not think that author's opinion is necessarily a minority representation within opinions held by the general public.

I have had clients appalled that I have and breed coursing dogs. That I allow to course.

You are absolutley right insofar as his topic, but his connection that he's trying to make is WAY off base and I find it hard to believe that many other people would share that convoluted viewpoint. These smucks from PETA would rather see human die before an animal.