EPTMight be the single worst argument ever used on a Brit
U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
Might be the single worst argument ever used on a Brit | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
| ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say. But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog. I'm kinda perplexed that you have had six dogs and gotten them from shelters and yet you harbor that opinion. And no, I'm not drawing my entire argument off the fact that I own a Pit Bull, it was a basis for experience with Pit Bulls (more than one). I was merely preempting any bullshit attempt at a rebuttal based around my ownership of a Pit Bull. My ownership of a Pit Bull does not preclude my ability to make logical statements about Pit Bulls in a discussion. Also, I like how you stopped at the automatic guns portion of that rather than continuing into the portions which are based off the SAME threads of logic. Same with BlackJack. | ||
|
lightrise
United States1355 Posts
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say. But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog. Kwark you do well to derail the main topics of threads with your own opinions First: You are citing evidence of the Dangerous Dog Act as good evidence and because "dangerous dogs" thus should be banned because they can harm people. According to BBC and lots of high up officials this is voted as one of the worst and most unfavorable laws in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/8481943.stm This sounds to me like a very rushed law in response to a few incidents regarding some dogs without much thought put into it or really much research done at all. Secondly we have been talking about AMERICAN politics and animal cruelty laws here in the states. To me this seems like UK laws would not be the best basis for argument as we have seen the UK has some of the most restrictive laws concerning gun ownership. All automatic guns are not banned in the US. Semi-automatic guns are also not banned in the US. Most airsoft guns by way of your law produced in the united states are against the law in your country due to restrictions on muzzle velocities. Because of that they are considered dangerous weapons which seems pretty outrageous. Just figured id point out some problems with UK laws as you always have problems with ours. Anyways to continue on the point. You grabbed the automatic gun quote and excluded the other part of the quote. It just said that all guns can then be abused and should be banned. No one should have a gun because it can be dangerous. The same then should be said for alcohol, we should just ban alcohol as well because it can be very dangerous if abused to you and people around you. The argument is that lots of things can be abused and thus why don't we just ban them all? Overall though it seems crazy that one can harm an animal and take a video of it and not receive a punishment for it. I have seen that video of the gang where they beat and kill that man in the woods. They are the same people who nailed a cat to a board and shot it repeatedly with bb's for entertainment. Torturing an animal and making a video about it is just wrong. | ||
|
SheepKiller
United States74 Posts
On April 21 2010 10:00 sc4k wrote: PS sheepkiller did you literally sign up to post in this thread lol? No, I did create this account recently though. | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say. But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog. That UK law is absolute bullshit and everyone in the UK (besides you apparently) knows that. The way a pit bull acts when it is grown is exactly the same as ANY dog will act when it's grown. It depends entirely on the environment the pit bull was brought up in and the owner of said dog. The banning of an entire breed is flawed at absolute best and your ridiculous "Dangerous Dogs Act" is laughable as evidence. I can honestly say I've run into far more aggressive Chihuahuas than Pit Bulls but nobody cares because you can punt the stupid rat dog across a fence if you have to.. a Pit Bull is much more resilient. I'm also willing to bet that my personal experience with all sorts of dogs is going to outstrip anyone besides a full fledged veterinarian at that. ANY dog is going to be insanely aggressive if it's raised to be that way. Pit Bulls have a social stigma.. a horribly misguided one but it's going to make a lot of studies biased. You will notice a near universal commonality in Pit Bull attacks and by proxy all dog attacks...shitty owners. The UK has a habit of banning anything that isn't 100% safe anyway so this further makes your evidence shaky at best. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
On April 21 2010 11:49 Gryffindor_us wrote: I'm kinda perplexed that you have had six dogs and gotten them from shelters and yet you harbor that opinion. And no, I'm not drawing my entire argument off the fact that I own a Pit Bull, it was a basis for experience with Pit Bulls (more than one). I was merely preempting any bullshit attempt at a rebuttal based around my ownership of a Pit Bull. My ownership of a Pit Bull does not preclude my ability to make logical statements about Pit Bulls in a discussion. Also, I like how you stopped at the automatic guns portion of that rather than continuing into the portions which are based off the SAME threads of logic. Same with BlackJack. Well, they appear to be going after knives next + Show Spoiler + http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm Give them time, they will make it through the rest of your list  | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9103 Posts
Don't kill animals to get a boner... god. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not actually an issue of this law restricting speech so much as the fact that the law is so vague that it's not entirely clear what it does or doesn't actually restrict. And yet, reading excerpts from the law, it seems pretty clear about what it restricts, at least as clearly as any child pornography law. I don't know if such a law is a good idea or not, even though I am repulsed by the idea of maiming or killing any living being for sexual gratification, because I'm not sure why animals are considered sacred in this regard and not in others. The fact that I can eat delicious beef tacos as I did earlier tonight for dinner I think tells me all that I should need to know about the true regard that exists for animals as a whole in human society. They are disposable property. If they are disposed of for sexual gratification, I find the idea repellent, and yet I don't really see how that form of expression is inherently less moral than consuming their flesh because of its flavor. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say. But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog. Does the British government ban swimming pools? I guarantee that more children and adults have died in swimming pools in the past year than have died from firearms and animals combined. And a swimming pool does not have the power to protect our liberty from a thug, the way that a dog or a gun might. I don't think we ban things like certain dogs or certain guns for reasons that are rational at all. I think we have an emotional reaction, and we then try to justify that reaction in rational terms to make ourselves feel better about it. Hence we ban a gun or a dog because our emotional reaction to violence is, by nature, much stronger than our emotional reaction to accidents. Our brains evolved in an era millions of years ago when violence was a more immediate threat to our survival than accidental drowning, and that has carried over into making irrational decisions in an era when accidental drowning is a far greater threat than physical violence. If we were making our laws on a truly rational basis, we would ban swimming pools long before we banned guns or dogs. Hell, we'd have banned soft drinks and McDonald's before we even got to swimming pools, because in America at least, obesity is virtually the greatest preventable health risk that exists. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 21 2010 13:58 Saturnize wrote: The government is not god. you're right, government exists | ||
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
im not sure if anyone is forgetting, but animals die just like everything else. what does it matter how they die? fuck em... they are animals O_O now, dont get me wrong. im not saying torture them, but if an animal gets crushed, it feels pain for MAYBE a split second. so... im not really seeing the problem. i kill birds every day with my pellet gun, and its actually pretty fun. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote: Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I. Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarchies where higher order thought is characterized by degrees self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display very limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. Self Reflection, a prerequisite of self awareness comes from the Thalamocortical, ours being literally 10000 bigger then a mouses. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me, if they experience it at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On April 21 2010 14:36 Half wrote: No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarches where higher order thought is characterized by self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me. Mirror test is a good one. Whether an animal can recognise the image in the mirror as itself is a good indication of whether they understand what they are. Most animals can't but several primates, dolphins and, oddly enough, magpies can. Babies can't until they're a few years old. | ||
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
So you can cause him pain because of what he believes about causing animals pain? Lol | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 21 2010 14:43 KwarK wrote: Mirror test is a good one. Whether an animal can recognise the image in the mirror as itself is a good indication of whether they understand what they are. Most animals can't but several primates, dolphins and, oddly enough, magpies can. Babies can't until they're a few years old. Basically. Animals are not fully conscious, they only react, they do not reflect. Reflection is what gives life value; your computer is capable of reaction. Even dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Because they have no selves. Our society values individuals, to protect them. That's good and all, and animals are not individuals. By the way I'm against senseless violence against animals. Its stupid and "wrong". However, I'm against it In the same way I'm against..idk... arson, senseless destruction of property or nature, not in the same way I'm against harming human beings, or harming an agent entity. | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
Back to the main topic, violence against animals is wrong, and should be illegal. But it should not be any more illegal to film someone doing something illegal than it is to film someone doing something legal. I can see the exception in certain fringe pornographies, beastiality, pedophelia, snuff porn etc. But there's just not that much reason to regulate in general the filming of violent acts or criminal acts. Such a law does more harm than good. | ||
| ||
