Chicagoist: Alderman Proposes Ban on Cruelty Toward Elephants

shellaroo

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:22:36 -0600

The world would certainly be a much less interesting and beautiful place without the animals. If the animals of the world were replaced with people like you simplecreature, the world wouldn't be such a beautiful place.

gasman

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:03:18 -0600

What? Is Mary Ann Smith dating Ed Burke now? Maybe they can get together and put together a measure that will pass, like banning anyone from eating the trans fats out of the liver of elephants. I don't think anybody would object to that.

simplecreature

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:02:00 -0600

I can't tell if this is sincere simplecreature or faux-troll simplecreature. About 90% me. I can't STAND animal rights activism. It's simply people applying human characteristics to animals they think are cute. You don't see these people out there trying to save endangered forms of rodents or hideous insects, it's always "Save the cuddly ones". I used that line "Charismatic Mega-Fauna". It's a remark from one of the founders of Greenpeace who left the organization because he became disgusted with their tactics and emphasis on sparing animals that people identified with as opposed to sensible environmental policy. 10% is I love to swear at people on their high horses. It's the Yankee in me.

Kostandinos

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:08:50 -0600

Are you kidding me!? Why is this "Asshat" wasting time on this tripe, how about dealing with some real issues. Our tax dollars at work...

Spook

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:01:03 -0600

Fight fight fight! My Money is on A Tilda the Hun! I can see the two facing off. Tilda would simply pull Spav’s pink Polo sweater draped around her shoulders, over her head and pummel her to the ground. Then as too the victor go the spoils, I’m sure Tilda would remove Spav1’s Coach wallet, disdainfully toss away the Banana Republic, Victoria Secrete, Gap credit cards, etc, and keep the cash!

Ingrid

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:46:42 -0600

Simple, read the post again. Where did I equate children with elephants? Prescott is right, your ad hominem attacks are a sure fire sign of a troll. A very angry, foot stomping, butt grabbin' troll. And how dare you accuse me of listening to Dave Matthews!

UTV

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:59:25 -0600

"Fuck you and all the elephants" I believe I'll be yelling that the next time I'm angry and at a bar.

Prescott Carlson

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:14:59 -0600

I can't tell if this is sincere simplecreature or faux-troll simplecreature.

simplecreature

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:15:12 -0600

Ingrid, you're 10lbs of hippie in a 5lb bag. Smoke a joint, put on some Dave Matthews band and make sure your PETA membership is up to date. Did your stank "I don't believe in organized religion" Richard Gere Buddhist ass really just compare CHILDREN to ELEPHANTS? Do me a favor, while you're out saving the whiles and sniffing your ptchoulhi stink, get your tubes tied. Seriously. Do not breed. Don't adopt, don't even associate with kids. Because anyone stupid enough to equate children with circus elephants is not safe for man. Or beast.

southbymidwest

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:24:58 -0600

Rights? Let me check my Animal Constitution...Let's see..."We the Animals, blah blah blah.." ..."right to BEAR arms"...har...yeah...ah, here it is, "Article IX. We reserve the right to not be on chains..." Man, how did we miss this all these years? It's like animal 4th of July never happened. I kind of feel like if there was any legitimate cruelty going on here, these folks would have more problems than the Chicago City Council.

clarenceweatherspoon

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:30 -0600

Instead of a new law, I propose that the city enforce the animal cruelty law already on the book: municipal ordinance 7-12-290, which already provides for fines of $1000-$5000. There are state laws against animal cruelty as well, which provide for felony convictions in instances of cruelty. Why promote and write an overlapping, redundant law? If this treatment is indeed cruelty, there are already ample resources for prosecuting the offenders.

Ingrid

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:38:17 -0600

Simple, you have anger issues. And elephants are sentient...even ants are sentient. Also...I'm not buddhist, I just said it was the 'buddhist in me'. I don't follow any organized religion. And yes, animals do absolutely have rights. Go take a xanax and have a glass of wine...chill out, Simple. And if you want a safer community, start a neighborhood watch group, you want better schools? Volunteer. You have the power to make those changes. The elephants, and any abused animal does not have the choice to be in a circus, or a cage or under a hook or electric prod. The animals, children and any other defenseless being depends on human beings who are in power to keep them safe.

simplecreature

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:35:49 -0600

Smussy: Vote Binky/Dumbo '08 Just because people anthropomorphize animals doesn't make them capable of reason, thought or sentience. Again, I don't want to see the things abused. I love animals. I'm a pet owner, and a kindly one at that, I go weak-kneed for things on cute-overload just as much as the next person. But affording animals rights, using dwindling reasources to protect those rights? Nonsense.. Penn Jillette said it best on the show "BULLSHIT", "I would kill every ape with my bare hands if it would save the life of one teenage junkie on heroin" People are more important than animals. If more folks realized that and acted accordingly it would be a much better world.

smussy

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:21:32 -0600

my $.04: i think this smacks of grandstanding. they should enforce the anti-cruelty laws on the books. however, elephants defintely are sentient beings.

simplecreature

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:56:29 -0600

Hey Ingrid, I call bullshit on your claims to altruism. If everyone on the internet was volunteering as much as they claim we'd live in a shiny happy utopia. I was a ballwasher for Gandhi, that doesn't make my arguments any more or less effective. First, it's a redundant and grand-standing law. Cruelty to animals is already outlawed, this is just bowing to the precious animals rights crowd who get squishy about circus animals. Second, Elephants aren't sentient, did you miss out on vocabualary while you were out in the streets healing the sick and raising the dead? They're animals. Do I enjoy watching them suffer? Of course not, only the deranged do. Animals don't have rights, and it offends me on the deepest possible level when people claim they do. China is executing monks in Tibet RIGHT. FUCKING. NOW. And you're worried about Jumbo getting bruised? Perspective you myopic 'tard. As for people saying "Why can't you care about both?" You can indeed, but this isn't simply caring, this is asking the government to devote already limitied time, money and resources to protecting Dumbo. I want more Community policing, better schools (40% drop-out rate at CPS) and better-maintained roads and infrastructure. I don't want a dime of my money going to make some animal rights fart-sniffer feel better for the charismatic mega-fauna. Fuck the Elephants.

magilla gorilla

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:18:39 -0600

are there not laws/ordinances in regards murder/abuse against humans? perhaps the alderman should have proposed an ordinance that simply reinforced the principle that shooting a gun at someone would get them in trouble. legislators create laws. the police enforce them. anyone of you angry little people (simplecreature) that have a problem with the miniscule amount of time the city council will spend on this, are fools

Scooter Libbby

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:57:14 -0600

So, Ingrid, it's the Buddhist in you! Stop trying to inflict your religious beliefs on the rest of us! And make no mistake of it, that's what you're doing. I'll give up my seeing elephants at the zoo or circus when you pry my cold, dead hands off of their trunks.

ezfinn

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:25:15 -0600

Simplecreature: Normally I'm on board, but you've lost me on this last one. Why does it have to be one or the other? Unless there is some deep-rooted reason you want Stampy to be gone.

Tower18

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:07:57 -0600

Actually, since there is a finite amount of time in the universe, all time spent on legislation involving elephants is time not spent on legislation involving humans, particularly things that could address some of the things simplecreature mentioned. Also, like Spav1 said...why just elephants?

Reuben

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:03:02 -0600

Of course this is a worthy expenditure of time; preventing abuse of any kind is one of the best goals of lawmakers. When we teach our kids that abusing animals, or treating them as objects for our entertainment, is acceptable - then we are teaching them to disrespect life in all forms. Animal cruelty, abuse to fellow humans, and the disappearance of species from the face of the earth - these are things that are all tied together and all stem from the view that other living beings can be treated as if they have no feelings and no value. For the city council to try to teach the opposite lesson is, in my view, absolutely commendable.

Ingrid

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:36:58 -0600

Hey Simple...not that it's any of your bizniss, but I have, in the past spent many years being a CASA volunteer (google that). And at this point in my life I volunteer as a rape victim advocate. I respect all life. I don't like to see innocent people suffer, or innocent animals. I guess that's the Buddhist in me...but you can care about animals as well as humans. Is that too difficult for you to understand? There is room in our hearts for all sentient beings.

simplecreature

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:24:37 -0600

Hey Ingrid, while you're wrapping yourself in your self-righteous animal-humping bullshit do you think you can spare a moment to think about the homeless people, abused spouses and the 17 chicago school kids who have been shot and killed this year? Fuck you and all the elephants, people come first.

Slaphappy

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:14:59 -0600

If only they'd ban cruelty towards taxpayers.

magilla gorilla

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:10:38 -0600

i'm confused, are you people under the impression that this ordinance will raise our taxes or something? or is this just the regular crybaby bitchfest that happens on this site every day? again, nothing wrong with this proposal at all

Ingrid

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:06:19 -0600

I'm glad that the city council is doing this. They really don't have to spend that much time on it...the fact that they are calling attention to the problem is maybe all will take to get other people on board. And btw, I can't think of a better way for a city council to spend some time than bringing animal abuse to the attention of the public. Did you see the footage of the almost 800 dogs and puppies and birds that were rescued from a puppy mill in Arizona over the weekend? These people lived in a triple wide trailer and housed 800 animals...shoved into cages...some of these dogs didn't even have paws because of fighting because of living in such close quarters. People around them knew about this...but they don't care. So, if more public figures would spend some time talking about abuse then maybe more citizens would wake up and report abuse when they see it instead of just turning a blind eye. I have not been to a zoo in over 20 years and refuse to patronize the circus. When they're in town I wear my t-shirt with an elephant on it that says "Don't Go To The Circus"...and I guess that's how I'll end this post: Please!! Don't Go To The Circus.....(pass it around!)

Spav1

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:57:08 -0600

Why stop at elephants?!

simplecreature

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:49:48 -0600

"City Council proposes ban on bans, negates self, vanishes"

curmudgeon

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:48:09 -0600

Fire all these assholes and save some money on their wages. What a bunch of idiots.

sparky

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0600

Hey, I am in favor of strict animal cruelty laws, with harsh punishments for people that abuse animals. I am not a big fan of circuses or the Lincoln Park Zoo, for that matter. The USDA regulates circuses, and only the USDA has the authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. Ringling is already under investigation for animal abuse by the USDA. I just think that there are better things that the city council could be focusing on instead of spending their time on making ordinances about baggies, elephants, foie gras, and transfats.

mich

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:30:02 -0600

plastic baggies and elephants. Im worried.

magilla gorilla

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:15:25 -0600

obviously, she feels the state laws aren't doing enough. nothing wrong with this proposed ordinance

sparky

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:07:16 -0600

Uh, again, doesn't the city council have anything better to do? There are already state laws in the books regarding animal cruelty, and I would imagine that they would apply to all animals, including elephants, as they define an animal and any living non-human domestic or wild creature. Oh, and it appears that Pink is the one that started all of this: http://www.petakids.com/feat/Pink/ I wish my letters to the city council held as much weight as a no-talent singer who doesn't even live here.

annieF

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:04:20 -0600

i'm sorry, i abhor cruelty to animals, but why the f*** do these city (and/or county, state) officials spend their time stuff like this!? this is absurd.