EPT+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tMV96xULk
I'm joking. But that is like one of the worst songs ever created.
I'm joking. But that is like one of the worst songs ever created.
U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
people have emotions, empathy, compassion.. etc if you lack empathy i would say(and science agrees) you are defect animals have measurable emotions and very similar nervous systems to humans (science agrees) i think most sane educated people would agree there needs to be some basic animal rights. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
lightrise
United States1355 Posts
On April 21 2010 17:01 BlackJack wrote: I guess I'll contribute to the derailing. This is actually a very well made video, worth a watch. very nice video blackjack. really good explanation of the situation. I agree dogs need to have some type of basic rights. | ||
|
onihunter
United States515 Posts
On April 21 2010 19:54 Falling wrote: 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. I consider animals to be property (as we buy and sell them), and it is our right to be able to do what we want with what we own. And yeah I agree with that second paragraph; it all depends on whether ethics can ever be considered absolute, and if so, when. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 23 2010 16:40 onihunter wrote: I consider animals to be property (as we buy and sell them), and it is our right to be able to do what we want with what we own. And yeah I agree with that second paragraph; it all depends on whether ethics can ever be considered absolute, and if so, when. and lots of people consider other people (slaves) to be their property, as they buy and sell them, so what exactly is your point yes I will continue to argue with people about this shit as long as people are making posts equivalent to "I think it should be done this way because that's how I want it to be done" | ||
|
uNcontroLable
United States1180 Posts
| ||
|
Myrkul
Croatia132 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. I find the philosophical concept of "Natural rights" completely ridicoulus, but I suppose elaborating on that will derail the thread so I wont. | ||
|
Harma
Finland6 Posts
So overall if person can enjoy torturing animals without any empathy, i would think hes capable of doing same for humans and is getting his rights revoked also, as unfit society member. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
The supreme court is right. 1st amendment needs to be kept strong even when it is being abused for immoral reasons. | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
Since the animal exists purely for my pleasure, there should be no reason to put the baby kitten out of its misery first either. In fact, a writhing, drowning kitten more effectively removes said excrement. And of course, I also must emphasize the literal delineation of "consumption" and believe that any animal is suitable in some capacity for food. As it so happens, 99.99% of all animals, no matter how poisonous, fluffy, or harmless, have edible body parts, a fact which should henceforth be exploited in totality. Bunny ears, for example, while attached to live bunnies are full of nutritious blood. To kill the bunny would halt its respiration and necessarily reduce the richness of the ear's hemoglobin and to anesthetize the rabbit in any way would only mar the purity God's natural gift. Thus, the only moral way to enjoy this delicacy is to take from a fully conscious and squirming bunny a hearty bite. If this course of action seems excessively cruel or unnecessary, fear not for there is still time to repent your sinful worldview and embrace the Righteous path. If animal suffering irks your pagan sensibilities, you need only ask yourself how irked Jesus Christ must have been when he suffered for mankind on the Cross, and God will help you return from whence you have strayed. It is my prayer that, with the help of God, I have enlightened your hearts to the proper Scriptural stance on animal rights, and graced your minds with a moral methodology for that stance's righteous implementation. May Jesus bless you. Amen. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 24 2010 03:49 Harma wrote: Dexter comment just shows example of how he seems to lack empathy and could be analyzed as some level of psychopath. Babies or young child dont understand laws as much as animals wont, but they are still granted protection, as its not normal behaviour to torture someone for fun or kill for fun. Hunting has tradition of doing it for living and today domestic slaughterhouse etc work with ethical levels society sees required. So overall if person can enjoy torturing animals without any empathy, i would think hes capable of doing same for humans and is getting his rights revoked also, as unfit society member. would buying a steak at the supermarket constitute that person as an "unfit" if not then, why is torture bad, but killing is fine? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
what matters the most is the economical feasibility of recognizing rights in animals. right now it's not worth it. maybe one day when we can grow cheap synthetic meat to eat then it may be. slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Myrkul
Croatia132 Posts
On April 24 2010 04:33 Yurebis wrote: slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go Very interesting. So that would mean that medieval canon law that abolished slavery in Christian Europe was not devised because slavery went directly against scripture and the "spirit of Christianity", but because the slavemasters of that time found that it was economically viable to let them go? Care to state those economic reasons? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
even if those people dont personally torture and even if the south didnt profit that much from slaves anymore slavery was not the main cause of the civil war, it was the issue of federal govt. v. the states. of course the state would want you to believe that lincoln was a saint and was doing it for the blacks, but it was just an excuse. an excuse like many others used in other wars to further central power no I'm not racist. and no this wasn't my main point. main point is, people are gonna do what they want to do. statist restrictions just play a minor role in what they choose to do. writings on legal papers don't make the world go round. the people make the world go round. and if they want to crush kitties skulls with high heels then kitties skulls are going to be crushed and no I do not like that and I wish it could stop, but it's not going to stop w\ stupid laws is my point. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 24 2010 04:52 Myrkul wrote: Very interesting. So that would mean that medieval canon law that abolished slavery in Christian Europe was not devised because slavery went directly against scripture and the "spirit of Christianity", but because the slavemasters of that time found that it was economically viable to let them go? Care to state those economic reasons? i argue that it is cheaper to not babysit and provide housing, food, enough sanitation so they dont die to slaves, but instead just give them a paycheck and let them handle themselves think self-service restaurants for example. freedom pays for itself if given a chance edit: and I believe it will also be true with animals, again, once its viable | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
| ||
| ||
