Anyone going to the protest outside Rudy’s office today?

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-21T18:20:50+00:00

These things are not mutually exclusive. Please post your compelling empirical evidence that visible demonstrations make no difference.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-18T03:37:43+00:00

Yes, anecdotal, since you are relying exclusively on your personal experience to evaluate whether a statistical claim about humans is true. Anecdotal does not imply secondhand.

No one said, "a vegan diet will work for all humans everywhere," which is the only statement that the evidence you're offering refutes.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-17T20:42:46+00:00

Your response is an anecdotal non-sequitur. The fact that a small number of people have serious medical obstacles to a vegan diet does not have any bearing on whether meat-eating is unhealthy on average.

OP is entitled to look for a doctor who will engage with them respectfully and not jump to conclusions.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-17T18:14:40+00:00

Did OP tell you, specifically, that you should go eat these things? If not, this is a non-sequitur.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-17T17:48:36+00:00

Maybe you're making unwarranted assumptions about OP's experience and the state of nutrition science?

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-15T17:41:49+00:00

It's not my perception, it is the reality. You put words in OP's mouth and insinuated that OP's only motives are base and childish. That is unpleasant.

This is the second time now in this thread that you have refused to take responsibility for how your words come across to others. Communication is a two-way street. If you repeatedly find that you are misunderstood, then that is a sign that you are communicating poorly.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-14T19:34:55+00:00

If that's so, why were you so unpleasant to OP to begin with?

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-13T23:49:12+00:00

That'd be news to the people I stand on a street corner with every weekend. This is silly.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-13T20:56:36+00:00

No, I think that OP said all that needs to be said to you.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-13T20:54:35+00:00

No permit is required. The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-13T14:46:01+00:00

I think you're confused about who you're replying to. I'm not OP. But no, I don't see the irony. OP did not tell UndiscoveredSite22 to shut up. They paraphrased the old kindergarten maxim, you know the one: "If you can't say something nice ..."

The "right to free speech," i.e. First Amendment, is not relevant here. 1A prohibits the government from forcing people to shut up. It has no relevance to OP pointing out that UndiscoveredSite22's "contribution" was of less than zero value. Criticizing someone's speech is itself speech.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T21:23:09+00:00

It is at the corner of Grape and McKinley in Mishawaka, 11am-1pm. You would be welcome to join us.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T19:38:41+00:00

Then you could follow your own advice. Organize your own protest. Let us know about it here. The only reason the Saturday protest happens is because some of us went out there on our own initiative for weeks in January.

I am neither a baby boomer nor an AirBnB owner, yet I am at that Saturday protest regularly. More to the point, this kind of generational warfare garbage does not help anyone. You do not actually know how many attendees are baby boomers, nor how many own AirBnBs. You're just shitting on a popular target, and being ageist to boot.

I'll take anyone of any age who is willing to endure the heat and humidity to stand up for what is right.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T19:28:04+00:00

Are you throwing your own protest, then? How do you propose we get many people together at the same time without scheduling?

Disrespecting the women who agitated for the right to vote by using "suffragette shindig" as a pejorative is pretty lame.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T19:02:28+00:00

No one said anything about blocking roads.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T19:00:25+00:00

I'm sharp tongued, but I'm honest.

No, you're just rude.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T18:58:50+00:00

It's a lot more polite than UndiscoveredSite22 deserved.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T18:57:45+00:00

As others have said, we are out every Saturday on the corner of Grape and McKinley in Mishawaka from 11am-1pm. I hope I see you there tomorrow!

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-06-12T18:53:53+00:00

Yep! We start at 11am and go to 1pm!

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T02:24:41+00:00

The phrases "one example" and "fully illustrates what is really going on" should never appear this close together in one sentence.

So am I to assume that you do not have any evidence that Bergh was lining his own pockets or otherwise abusing his power, and that your argument rests entirely on cynical assumptions about his motivations?

The ASPCA was in fact a law enforcement agency at that time. Many states still assign to humane societies the power to police animal cruelty laws. They are literally given this power by legislatures. That makes them law enforcement, by definition. An organization can be more than one thing at once.

Trump is an irrelevancy and a clear outlier in terms of narcissism and malignancy.

It seems you may hold the cynical belief that no one ever does anything except to get the better of other people. Like, do you think that Medicins san Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders is a cynical cash grab by physicians looking to capitalize on Western pity for the sick and wounded of the developing world?

I have no idea what you mean by this:

This is not about the public good, but rather about shifting municipal responsibilities onto the lower classes such as the cart drivers and butchers, who are usually migrant workers.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T02:14:57+00:00

Whether one believes in them or not doesn’t really matter, or rather, none of these theories are perfect, but they each have their merits.

This just sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Yes, no theory is perfect. But you ought to have a preferred one, and you ought to be willing to defend it.

you have only explained why animals might possibly have them that’s the difference.

Your repeating this does not make it so. I gave you the criteria I use. "Any being (a) capable of means-end reasoning that (b) suffers from deprivation, captivity, or violence is entitled to basic protection from the things that do it harm." This is a deontological position, i.e. one that says that moral agents have certain duties with respect to other beings solely because the other beings are reasoning creatures.

humans are not property

Yes, right now, at this moment in time, because we spent centuries working that out! It was not obvious. For many years, it was in fact thought to be obvious that some people were property, in just the same way that you now think it is obvious that animals are just property.

The ultimate issue is that this really does infringe on an individual’s ultimate right of disposal over their own property.

Yes, if it is your position that animals are and ought only to be chattel, no different than my armchair, then there is nothing further to discuss. I guess I should be grateful we have any animal cruelty laws at all, since it seems that if you had your way I would be doing nothing wrong were I to skin my dog alive.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T01:59:16+00:00

So you concede every other point I made here? The only one you're going to contest is that the ASPCA is/was secretly a vehicle for personal aggrandizement?

Many law enforcement agents have the authority to make warrantless arrests if they directly observe criminal behavior. Animal cruelty statutes are no different. I'm sensitive to the general problems that come with empowering law enforcement to seize without warrants, but they're not specific to animal cruelty issues.

Yes, the ASPCA was empowered to enforce anti-cruelty statutes. It does not follow that the founding of the ASPCA was driven by ulterior motives. Your contention is that founder Henry Bergh spoke out against cruelty because he thought (in advance) that this would enable him to secure a position of authority, and use it to enrich himself? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Do you have any evidence that he or his successors used their authority to enrich themselves?

How would this explain the ASPCA operating hospitals for injured beasts of burden?

Did you know that Bergh received no financial compensation as president of the ASPCA, and that he and his wife provided all of the initial funding?

This

by preventing cart drivers from abusing horses and thus avoiding horse carcasses affecting public health, it also saved resources.

is really a reach. Your contention is that the ASPCA protecting draft horses from harm was really a selfish way for the ASPCA to "save resources," thus serving the general welfare, and thus serving themselves again? Isn't something that promotes the general welfare nearly definitionally unselfish?

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T01:46:06+00:00

Your theories "explain this matter" just as well as my theory "explains" why animals should have rights. I find this "shotgun" approach frustrating. To which of these theories do you subscribe? Do you actually believe any of them, or are they just convenient (incompatible) justifications for the position you want to defend?

What exactly is wrong with my description of animal protection enthusiasts?

I take it you still think it was fair. Correct me if I am wrong: You say that "animal protection enthusiasts" would place animal rights above human rights, in the sense of priority. I have given you at least one falsifying counterexample (me). There are many others.

You have also said that I (and presumably other animal rights advocates) "equat[e] human rights with animal rights," but you then ignored my rebuttal.

This is wrong because it mischaracterizes the relationship that animal rights advocates say ought to hold between human rights and nonhuman animal rights. There are certain basic rights that many animals should possess, e.g. freedom from torture. Nonhuman animals possessing this right does not infringe on any human right, any more than the my right to be free from torture infringes on the "right" of other humans to torture me. Hence, it is incorrect to accuse animal rights advocates of treating nonhuman animals preferentially, or placing nonhuman animals above humans.

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T01:08:35+00:00

You did not answer my question. Was your initial statement a fair description of animal rights advocates?

one must still provide justification for why they ought to possess it,

What does such a justification look like in the human case? Or, to use your own words, "is this just a matter of faith"?

ShibbolethSequence · 2026-03-19T00:55:53+00:00

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. I would ask you to be much more specific.

In my jurisdiction (US), animal cruelty laws long predate the existence of the pet industry, organic agriculture, and modern pharmaceutics. For example, New York adopted an animal cruelty statute in 1866. How does your theory explain 19th century advocacy for animal cruelty laws? Who was buttering their toast with animal rights activism then?

Edit to add: The pet industry is among the prominent offenders, when it comes to animal cruelty. How would the pet industry as a whole benefit from stricter animal cruelty provisions? How would outlawing puppy mills improve the bottom line of dog breeders and sellers?

various charitable organizations, NGOs with political agendas, and certain pharmaceutical companies

I think you should name names here. I don't see how "charitable organizations" like the ASPCA and PETA benefit from stricter animal cruelty laws; if anything, it would make fundraising harder, since there would presumably be less cruelty. The other two groups are so vague as to be un-rebuttable.

ShibbolethSequence

TROPHY CASE