EPTBut of course the animal rights activists will choose to ignore all that
U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Straylight
Canada706 Posts
But of course the animal rights activists will choose to ignore all that | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
I was feeling so good today too  | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On April 21 2010 14:51 zobz wrote: I think the strongest argument for pitbulls being banned and not guns, is that pitbulls have a will of their own, and even under the correct training and control, everything done right by the owner, the pitbull may still burst out in sudden acts of violence, since they've been bred to be so agressive. A gun at least can be controlled dependably if it is used properly. Whether a pit bull can be raised or trained to be free of risk of assaulting innocent people, is arguable. What the hell are you talking about? Where on earth did you read such absolute bullshit? Pitbulls in general aren't even aggressive towards human beings at all. They have a strong instinct to prey on small animals like you know...SQUIRRELS or something but are in general one of the most loyal dogs you could possibly own. Pit Bulls are not inherently violent towards humans and they aren't prone to sudden acts of biting peoples hands off. People that believe this are completely brain washed. I'm telling you hands off that small breed dogs like Chihuahuas are much more likely to bite you for absolutely no reason than a Pit Bull ever will. Pit Bulls are extremely resilient animals, have a powerful bite, and are intelligent. This combination unfortunately makes them a crowd favorite for Dog Fighting and other attack like sports. Seeing as they dominate that arena the amount of aggressive dogs you see being pit bull type is obviously tilted in their direction..because they are the BEST at fighting. That does not mean they are inherently aggressive or that they just bite people because they can. Pit Bulls can be raised and trained to be completely free of risk of assaulting innocent people, and it's been done over and over and over again. Blame the owner, not the dog. I have yet to take a case where a Pit Bull attacked a human being and that Pit Bull came from a loving home where it was well taken care of...that shit just doesn't happen to any frequent degree. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
Its all about how you take care of the dog, i think we should give way more responsibility to the owner about his dogs actions, that way we make sure people dont be irresponsible with their dogs, if your dog kills a child, you should face years behind bars, that would also be an incentive to not have these dogs if you are not ready. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
| ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On April 21 2010 01:09 DexterHGTourney wrote: This is an area where I'm sure hardly anyone agrees with me, though logically, most people are so hypocritical and illogical it blows my mind when it comes to this issue. Do I agree with the decision? Yes. For the reasons stipulated by the SCOTUS? No. Animals do not have rights. Therefore, animal cruelty while heinous and sickening should not be illegal. They overturned the law based on the First Amendment, but I think they should have went further and dissected the issue at hand. Do animals have rights or not? Now, Governments do not grant rights, they merely enumerate them. Rights are negative. Our rights deriving from Natural Law, and recognized as such by the formation of this Union (Decl. of Independance, ConCon, AoC, state Constitutions, etc.). If indeed they do not have rights, then they are property. Since reason and sentience is for me, a pre-requisite to the self-evidence of Natural Rights, then it becomes quite silly to criminalize someone for harming their own property. Moreover, if we are to believe that animals do have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness then how do we hold them accountable? As is, liberty is borne from negative rights. Where you have the liberty to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on anothers liberty. Once this occurs both parties must have the sentience to acknowledge and to formulate just laws to recompense for this violation. It is blindingly clear that animals show no ability to either acknowledge through reason or any semblance of sentience these truths. In that vein, the SCOTUS should have struck down all Federal Laws on the books criminalizing the use of the persons property (animal). The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights. I mean, are people ready to go down that road? That also means you cannot own pets, since slavery violates the rights of the animal. So how do we bring animals to justice? Yeah... Now, I do not support the disgusting acts perpetuated upon defenseless animals. I also however, do not support criminalization. +1 p.s. why do all the ancaps get banned? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17257 Posts
| ||
|
onihunter
United States515 Posts
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal. EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
unpopular speech is often times bannable speech here. Something to keep in mind | ||
|
Queequeg
Germany263 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On April 21 2010 01:37 KwarK wrote: Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually. sorry for bumping page one post. I also hate pit bulls and think that they are as dangerous as they can get, however I cannot find any evidence for them being banned in the USA. Furthermore one could argue that pit bull fights turn the animals to killing machines but then the owner should be charged with endangerment and sentenced accordingly. I still think that getting 3 years prison for filming a dog fight is just plain wrong. | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On April 21 2010 17:15 onihunter wrote: I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person. Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal. EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws. re: the bolded (bold is mine). That's an interesting phrase. I'm wondering why being cruel to animals would be considered a right (whether it hurts a person or not seems irrelevant.) It certainly doesn't seem to be a right on par with right to life, liberty, and security of person. The issue of ethics would turn into an entirely other topic- is there such thing as absolute morals or is everything relative? Chances are, that's where the debate would to go as I feel some of the arguments rely upon different assumptions and therefore the conclusion make no sense when debating (until the presuppositions are exposed.) But that would just make this thread a real headache. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
No I don't, I just don't like it when uninformed people advocate things like culling entire breeds based on stereotypes. And to Kwark, the people still actually using pit bull terriers for dogfighting are an extremely small drop in the bucket compared to those who aren't. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 21 2010 14:49 Half wrote: 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. You guys need to think about what you are saying some more. It makes no sense. Pain is felt in the moment. Right now. Thats when you feel things, right now. Reflection has nothing to do with it. Why do you think animals scream out in pain? You actually think it's a different reason than why you scream out in pain? That's retarded. why would you guys think self-awareness is a requisite for experiencing things? explain how that makes sense. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
so you think all these animals are out living their lives "only reacting" to things and not actually experiencing anything? what the hell? that actually makes sense to people? so at what point in evolution did animals go from "only acting" to "actually experiencing", and why would that happen?? | ||
|
haley
64 Posts
On April 21 2010 15:02 Straylight wrote: The law got overturned because it was too broad. It got voted down and then they'll rework it and send it out again. No problem here. But of course the animal rights activists will choose to ignore all that If only everyone read the article before posting -- that includes the topic starter. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4728 Posts
On April 21 2010 04:23 Funchucks wrote: I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Do you want me to link the Two Girls One Pup video or not? Actualy i am quite confused myself. Learning new things is cool, but sometimes You think You would be better without certain knowledge. That might be the instance here, i am not realy sure right now. And about that video, no thank You. I have heard about it, i do not wish to see it. Sometimes ignorance is realy a bliss. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
You guys need to think about what you are saying some more. It makes no sense. Pain is felt in the moment. Right now. Thats when you feel things, right now. Reflection has nothing to do with it. Why do you think animals scream out in pain? You actually think it's a different reason than why you scream out in pain? That's retarded. why would you guys think self-awareness is a requisite for experiencing things? explain how that makes sense. No, you need to think about it instead of relying on social bias. Think about why you experience pain, not react to it. Animals scream in pain because of a biological mechanism that causes a reaction when painful stimuli is recieved. Thats exactly why humans react to pain, and nobody was trying to say anything different. We are not talking about reaction, we are talking about experiencing. A rock reacts to getting hit with a hammer, but a rock does not experience getting hit with a hammer. You experience it because you are conscious. Right now, all evidence points to mpst animals not being on the same level of consciousness as human beings are. Exceptions are their, mostly in highly developed social mammals such as dolphins or apes. On April 22 2010 02:41 travis wrote: so at what point in evolution did animals go from "only acting" to "actually experiencing", and why would that happen?? When animals evolved developed pre-frontal lobe and a thalamocortical system. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
you do not have to be self aware to experience things. why would you have to be? I experience things all the time without being self aware, while awake and while asleep. want an example? dreams. most people have no self awareness during dreams but sure enough we experience those right? | ||
|
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
All I have to say is, for the people debating about which animals (or living things for the matter) should have which rights over other kind of animals, it's pretty obvious. I think that as long as the animal in question has potential to have social attachment and connections with a human, they should be deemed of more worth, and of more "rights", whatever those may be. if you disagree with me, try raising a puppy and becoming close friends with it, and then continue to argue otherwise | ||
| ||
