Comment history

Unhappy horses

certainly my point wasn't that good intentions should replace facts. my point was that their motivation was to be involved and that is a positive thing. as such, their activism and their character for deciding to be involved with regards to this type of issue, shouldn't be attacked.

absolutely attack the accuracy, with a mind towards the possibility that you might not be armed with the complete set of facts yourself, but leave the judgment about what issues they should be upset about behind.

how's this. i don't like leashes. it gives me the creeps when i see dogs being yanked by their necks. i like harnasses instead. and quesss what, i'm aware most dogs are used to leashes. i'm also well aware there are other more pressing issues in the world! and still i would think it odd that someone would blast me if i decided to make my opinion known.

welcome your neighbors activism and efforts to improve things as they see them and seek to change their inaccurate facts if need be.

September 20, 2006 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Unhappy horses

knowledge of horses or not and justified or not, sounds like they were concerned and trying to be active about something. the trend of comments here seems to begrudge people from voicing concerns when those concerns aren't the same as everyone elses. that's a shame. for example, compassion for horses, even if overly touchy-feely by most people's take, doesn't preclude compassion for children.

everyone knows these horses are usually incredibly pampered horses and most of us know "broken" horses are used to bits, but maybe the juolas saw something others didn't and that was later corrected. maybe one of the horses was new and reacted poorly initially. maybe they thought that for non-working horses, bits aren't the way to go b/c they can't be that comfortable. who knows and that is the point. i believe it shows as much ignorance to assume you have all the facts and therefore another person is an idiot based on your version, than it does to be untrained in horses.

i'm always frustrated when people elect to use their time chipping away at what others are concerned about. i welcome people that care to be involved even if their cause isn't mine.

September 20, 2006 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Case highlights vicious cycle of domestic abuse

i want to just briefly respond to one of the very first comments, authored by Sigmund, and then discuss the general flow of the comments.

"the women themselves that have the best chance of ending their abuse". no, the abuser (traditionally a man) has the best chance of ending the abuse by never having started. or a society that has a no tolerance view of abuse have the best chance of ending the abuse. the focus in these problem solving discussions should not be placed on the abused.

with that in mind, i'd like to not that our conversations have primarily been about the woman- first blaming them and then more kindly trying to understand them. although i think this is a good forum to chat about why woman stay in abusive relationships to dispell myths, i am always struck by how the subject of the abuser seems to fade from these conversations and the topic shifts to the abused.

i'm most interested in seeing a society and system that don't tolerate it. i'm interested in discussing how to make the abuse stop, not so much how to end it once it starts.

and as one last comment, the decedant in the article DID have a no contact order of some sort. that is why belone was charged not only with 2nd degree murder but with violating a court order not to go near begay. ironically, a significant amount of victims met their demise while under the protection of a TRO or the likes. in fact, for those that understand the abuser's mentality, this loss of control over the abused's life, frequently incites wrath.

August 14, 2006 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just wait

is someone here really joking aside suggesting that sex with a 10-year old boy (or girl) is a civil liberty the ACLU aims to protect? nice!

December 28, 2005 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Recycling help

ragingbear, if you have evidence that this business is illegally dumping, may i ask that you do the responsible thing and go forward with that information. i would support you fully.

however, if not, careful about suggesting another is engaged in criminal business practices.

December 28, 2005 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New feudalism?

the cost of shopping at wal-mart isn't simply what is listed on the price tag and that is the problem with happily chalking their practices up to capitalism. happenings like subsidies for doing business in a town and full-time employees on tax supported welfare need to be taken into account when pricing a store.

if you buy a sweater for $5, you can't truly believe there aren't other costs somewhere else!

December 28, 2005 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Animal friends

many a great thinker has noted that you can judge a society by how they treat their most vulnerable. you don't have to be a great thinker to see the logic in this.

debating whether or not a several thousand pound animal is physically capable of "defending" itself seems futile when that animal holds an undeniable place below us on the ultimate power pole.

the author was simply stating that the animals in our care, immediate care or indirect care, deserve our compassion. i agree and second the hope that if anyone witnesses abuse, of a non-human or human animal, that they report it. to some extent, we are our brother's keeper.

December 28, 2005 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Choice clarified

i often, if not in every post you make, disagree strongly with you. that said, i'm just fine with that and do not have a difficult time remaining respectful. i can always benefit from hearing another viewpoint and am not so threatened by different takes that i need to attempt to bully others out of sharing.

however, what i find drains your points to nothing for me is not that they differ from my views, but that you frequently engage in name-calling. there is no need to call anyone an "airhead" nor a "femi-nazi". we are all multi-dimensional and even if think you know a person's true and complete feelings on one single topic, i would still recommend you steer clear of labeling them in their entirety.

not only do i find it childish, unnecessary and rude, but, for my part, i discount you and your opinions when you do so. if you are bothering to post here in order to share ideas and potentially impact people's lives, your name-calling is counter productive to your own goal as you have no influence when you participate in such activities.

i hope you take this into account in the future.

December 23, 2005 at 1:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Recycling service

wal-mart has good environmental practices? wow- having read a laundry list of their recent violations and fines nation wide, i never would have thought that was the case.

they make money off of the recycling center- don't forget that. naturally making money is just fine, but let's not pretend their motivation is altruistic. look to their environmental practices that don't yield revenue (how they store their pesticides, etc;) and you'll see where they really fall on the topic.

December 23, 2005 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Smoking logic

"Clearly businesses lose money by banning smoking." is there any evidence that this is the case? i'm here defending that second hand smoke is even harmful (despite so so much evidence) and you're putting forward this statement without any indication of whether this assertion is founded in any data. from what i've read, the evidence remains contradictory at this point.

what i do know is that my friends that smoke, haven't stopped going out- they're addicted, but not so much so that they refuse to leave their house for a place they can't smoke! i on the other hand have started going out more. i don't have worry about dry cleaning my clothes after a night out, washing my hair both before and after i've gone out, or having a sore throat the next day and, as such, i am inclined to head out to the bars!

certainly i would never offer myself or group of friends' actions as conclusory evidence of the way of the world, but it is definitely a valid response that has occurred for at least some people and should be taken into account. to suggest there is only one side- that smokers won't go out for drinks with their friends b/c they have to get up and go outside every so often- is selective reasoning as well as a powerful suggestion that smokers are governed by their addiction to an extreme point!

December 23, 2005 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )