U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 9

On April 24 2010 05:02 love1another wrote:
I agree. People need to abuse animals until they don't want to do it anymore. Then the law won't even be needed!

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.

On April 24 2010 05:01 Yurebis wrote:


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

On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote:
If your primary concern is cost-effectiveness i would argue that you can maintain a slave for a much smaller cost than a salary you'd be paying a free man. AKA 1 meal a day, 18 hours of work, and when he's not working he's chained to the floor(or perhaps even while he's working).

On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote:I would agree though, that in terms of productiveness it is immensely better to have a society of equal free men, than a society of free men and slaves, but in no way do I agree that slavery was abolished(anywhere) primarily because of those reasons, or any economic reasons for that matter.

On April 21 2010 02:11 KwarK wrote:

Dog fighting is still going on. The breeding for aggression is still going on.

On April 24 2010 01:42 travis wrote:
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"

On April 24 2010 06:25 Dx Fx wrote:


Doesn't it make you equal to guys which you are fighting and declaring to be wrong? You are fighting [assumption of myself, feel free to correct me if i'm saying something inaccurate] because you refuse to accept the moral of the ones who says "who cares, we will die anyway". It's making us worse in your definition. I'm not saying that you are wrong but neither i do say that you are right. I say that you cannot accept that not every one is the way [insert come random religion / believe whatever you want to] want it to be. You made a decision and you are fighting for it.

On April 24 2010 07:46 travis wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the opinions of those who use actual reasoning to come to their conclusions. But it took me about 5 seconds to explain why his didn't make any sense. "I consider animals to be property". Oh really, and why is that? Just because?

On April 24 2010 05:59 Yurebis wrote:
^ this...


^ and this
are mutually exclusive

the society is nothing but an aggregation of individuals
something cant be best for one and not the other

if you concede that its more productive to hire than to babysit
then you concede my point
thank you

On April 24 2010 09:23 Dx Fx wrote:


Ironic as it is, but it is just because, at least if you ask me. No god said that we have to live in the equilibrium with other species and we shouldn't harm others. We don't have to rectitude to anyone. All the moral, ethic and stuff we believe in, is created by mankind and it's not set in stone. Nothing prohibit us to change into a different direction? It's simple a change, nothing special in particular. Do you have to like it? Of course not.

Today we have something against children-pornography, as we look 200+ years back it was normal to get a child with 13 years or something like that. If we go much further then it was normal to do it with young boys. Today it's impossible and it's neither good or bad.

The ones who enjoy torturing animals do it, because they simple can. Do you have to like them? No, then you can choose to avoid this people (and they will avoid you, if we assume that this kind of people believe that animals are property, they won't touch your property, so both sides are "happy") or declare a war and if win it, you are good and they are evil

On April 25 2010 20:29 sc4k wrote:


Well, all I can say about insane opinions like yours is that at least you are probably far in the minority. You might have aspergers syndrome or something, or you just may be very emotionally cold to the world. Perhaps you suffered a personal tragedy when young, or no one likes you and you have few friends, leading you to detach yourself from the world. Perhaps you are young and too influenced by the ethics of the internet (ie. none).

Regardless, all I can say in the face of opinions of people like yours (and by the way I include your previous long post as well as this one quoted); is thank god that there are enough sane, caring people to realise animal cruelty is disgusting and must be stopped just like any vile underside of human society, including the ones you mentioned. Thank god not every country is run in the completely economically driven way the US is.

I can't even believe that some people believe government is entirely for creating economic viability in a country. No, no and no.

Hah, we even have huge, huge arguments about people hunting foxes; which literally are classed as vermin, albeit protected vermin in many cases. Thank god I live in a sane country with enough moral people to make the thought of broadly legalizing animal cruelty unthinkable.