PDA

View Full Version : How would the free market handle Animal Abuse?




socialize_me
03-19-2009, 11:54 PM
Any good resources on this? I just saw on Animal Planet a guy get arrested for torturing dogs, starving them, etc. I can't really take watching those programs because I can't tolerate assholes who would do such things. At least with humans they can fight back...but when you do it to puppies and dogs that just lower their heads and cower, it boils my blood.

devil21
03-20-2009, 12:27 AM
It's a crime and already punishable as such. What does the free market have to do with it?

socialize_me
03-20-2009, 12:42 AM
It's a crime and already punishable as such. What does the free market have to do with it?

My point is that if we had no government and solely the free market, how would the free market solve this issue?

Kludge
03-20-2009, 12:51 AM
Animals do not have rights.

People do not have rights.

That said, the Golden Rule ought to be followed for civilization to continue to exist even when faith in God is dead.

Animals which are self-aware ought to be treated as people by people, but not by law, as is how abortions are handled. If you don't like animal slaughter/torture, do not contribute to it.

silverhandorder
03-20-2009, 12:58 AM
My point is that if we had no government and solely the free market, how would the free market solve this issue?

I don't think you will find many anarchists in conservative circles. I know many libertarians are pissed about the libertarian party trying to attract conservatives. Try to keep both separated it would be easier to navigate the discussion. Paul's camp draws people from both sides. I am afraid that the constitutional stance would be that each state/city/county provides it's own laws.

socialize_me
03-20-2009, 01:02 AM
Animals do not have rights.

People do not have rights.

That said, the Golden Rule ought to be followed for civilization to continue to exist even when faith in God is dead.

Animals which are self-aware ought to be treated as people by people, but not by law, as is how abortions are handled. If you don't like animal slaughter/torture, do not contribute to it.

Ok, but most people act that way anyway. The point isn't to have everyone act morally, but to prevent aggression and immorality or at least punish it. To say we need faith in God is all fine and dandy, but a priest could be as devout as you could be but still molest children.

So the answer to human murder is to just not murder? Sorry, but that's the entire premise that government exists. That's exactly why market anarchists spend time thinking of how the free market can do things better than government can. Your solution is just to do the right thing. Again, if everyone did the right thing then we wouldn't need government and the statists would agree. The only reason why anarchy is feared by people is because most people say "Well how do you stop murder, fraud, theft, etc. etc.?"


If we have no rights, I'm not sure why you're associated with a Ron Paul message board. You want America to get to a more Constitutional stance, but what good does that do? In the end we have no rights...so basically you're in favor of wasting your time just to be happy that our government reads a 200+ year old document more thoroughly??

socialize_me
03-20-2009, 01:08 AM
I don't think you will find many anarchists in conservative circles. I know many libertarians are pissed about the libertarian party trying to attract conservatives. Try to keep both separated it would be easier to navigate the discussion. Paul's camp draws people from both sides. I am afraid that the constitutional stance would be that each state/city/county provides it's own laws.

See, my point isn't to find out how local or state governments could replace federal law. That's quite easy...basically all federal laws could be just stamped on with your state's name and there'd be little practical difference.

My question was this: How does the free market protect against animal abuse?

This is in the view that government does not exist. This is very similar to stripping the government of building roads and instead have the private sector handle the job. I'm simply asking how the private sector could replace government in the department of preventing animal torture which is clearly very immoral for any rational person. If you think starving and beating domesticated dogs for pleasure to be a moral act, then kindly go fuck yourself. I'm not directing that at you, silverhandorder, just any of the smartasses out there claiming that domesticated animals don't deserve life and we can slaughter them for pleasure.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 01:16 AM
Ok, but most people act that way anyway. The point isn't to have everyone act morally, but to prevent aggression and immorality or at least punish it. To say we need faith in God is all fine and dandy, but a priest could be as devout as you could be but still molest children.

Neither animals nor people have rights. Humans made that concept up to justify their own aggression (government). God (Allah, or whoever) formally dictated morals, and, for the most part, those morals were ethical and assisted in the creation of moral nations with a non-aggressive society.

However, with Theism dying, people need to become self-aware and monitor themselves more than was formerly necessary in just accepting arbitrary (for the sheep, as opposed to those theists who questioned their faith and became stronger believers for it) morals dictated by God.

I love life. To kill you would be detrimental to my own chances at prolonging life, since people tend to get emotional over murder -- just look what's happening in Israel. All must follow the Golden Rule in a nation with no God, or else life will be, to quote Hobbes, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".


So the answer to human murder is to just not murder? Sorry, but that's the entire premise that government exists. That's exactly why market anarchists spend time thinking of how the free market can do things better than government can. Your solution is just to do the right thing. Again, if everyone did the right thing then we wouldn't need government and the statists would agree. The only reason why anarchy is feared by people is because most people say "Well how do you stop murder, fraud, theft, etc. etc.?"

You are right, of course. Are you willing to sacrifice your privileges granted by government (mislabeled as rights) to live an ethical life?


If we have no rights, I'm not sure why you're associated with a Ron Paul message board. You want America to get to a more Constitutional stance [false], but what good does that do? In the end we have no rights...so basically you're in favor of wasting your time just to be happy that our government reads a 200+ year old document more thoroughly??

I do not much like the Constitution. I prefer the Articles of Confederation, but while speaking on principle, I really just want the reduction of government to maximize liberty and minimize aggression. If the Ron Paul Revolution can reduce the size of government, then there is obvious reason to work in it.

idiom
03-20-2009, 01:23 AM
The animals would freely choose a new owner. The same way a child will freely chose a new parent.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 01:26 AM
The animals would freely choose a new owner. The same way a child will freely chose a new parent.

That's silly. The anarcho-capitalists' private court systems would "non-aggressively" punish the parents and the child would be directed to proper parents with the help of the Invisible Hand.

silverhandorder
03-20-2009, 01:28 AM
See, my point isn't to find out how local or state governments could replace federal law. That's quite easy...basically all federal laws could be just stamped on with your state's name and there'd be little practical difference.

My question was this: How does the free market protect against animal abuse?

This is in the view that government does not exist. This is very similar to stripping the government of building roads and instead have the private sector handle the job. I'm simply asking how the private sector could replace government in the department of preventing animal torture which is clearly very immoral for any rational person. If you think starving and beating domesticated dogs for pleasure to be a moral act, then kindly go fuck yourself. I'm not directing that at you, silverhandorder, just any of the smartasses out there claiming that domesticated animals don't deserve life and we can slaughter them for pleasure.

Well basically the free market has nothing to do with animals. So in effect animals have natural rights too. Maybe they are different from ours because we do mass slaughter them. However I think cruelty is something that is illegal no matter at who it is directed.

In this case I think the closest thing that can come to a "free-market" is any witness to the crime to act upon calling the authorities. The animals then can either A) be taken to private animal shelter/clinic/zoo that will take them or B) put to sleep. I don't think it is a big problem as is. I don't even think the department that overlooks this now is that big. I have to admit I am ignorant on the subject overall.

idiom
03-20-2009, 01:57 AM
That's silly. The anarcho-capitalists' private court systems would "non-aggressively" punish the parents and the child would be directed to proper parents with the help of the Invisible Hand.

Thats Gold. Don't let TW read that.

Invalid
03-20-2009, 02:20 AM
I would ban it on a local level. I would ban meat farms too.

Invalid
03-20-2009, 02:22 AM
Hunting is fine with me, I just don't like those meat farms where they are grown for food.

There is actually an entire philosophy around this with 4-5 different viewpoints as to animals rights that gets debated by the NIH with regard to animals testing.

So it depends on which viewpoint you buy into. I tend to think they have rights, but not quite as much rights as a human. Larger animals have more rights than an ant obviously.

Yieu
03-20-2009, 03:56 AM
just any of the smartasses out there claiming that domesticated animals don't deserve life and we can slaughter them for pleasure.

Why only domesticated animals? How are they different from other animals? If you are going to say that about domesticated animals, it does not follow to not say that about all animals.

OptionsTrader
03-20-2009, 04:07 AM
If someone hurts my golden retrievers, I know what free market approach I would take to defend against the attacker.

V-rod
03-20-2009, 04:14 AM
Any good resources on this? I just saw on Animal Planet a guy get arrested for torturing dogs, starving them, etc. I can't really take watching those programs because I can't tolerate assholes who would do such things. At least with humans they can fight back...but when you do it to puppies and dogs that just lower their heads and cower, it boils my blood.



The answer is simple, there would be mob rule or vigilantism when it comes down to punishing those who tortures animals. No way around it.

Zippyjuan
03-20-2009, 12:47 PM
A truely free market would have no restrictions. Animal abuse would not be illegal- that would be an interference in the market imposing on people and businesses rules on how they had to treat their animals.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 12:52 PM
A truely free market would have no restrictions. Animal abuse would not be illegal- that would be an interference in the market imposing on people and businesses rules on how they had to treat their animals.

Well you have to consider that animal abuse already isn't illegal, only for certain people and certain forms of abuse. If you look closely at the meat industry, you will find that it is definitely not illegal.

pcosmar
03-20-2009, 01:02 PM
This thread has really brought a lot of collectivist thinking.

Private property= None of your business

animal rights??:confused:

I love my pets and would do violence to any that harmed them. I care for my rabbits. and will clean and cook them at will.
My neighbors cows are my neighbors cows and none of my business.( though I may deal with him for a 1/4 or 1/2) I did fix a fence for him, but that is just neighborly.

brandon
03-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Here is a recent example of free people "punishing" an animal abuser:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kenny_Glenn (website NSFW)

Cliffs:
- Kid posts youtube video of himself abusing his cat
- People on internet site "4chan" see video and are outraged
- They find out kids name and address
- send emails/call his family, his neighbors, the police, his school and tell them about it
- call local media and end up with several feature stories in MSM about the kid
- Kid is arrested and his social life is runied. He is outcast from his community

Even if he wasn't arrested, he still got the punishment he deserved.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 01:13 PM
Here is a recent example of free people "punishing" an animal abuser:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kenny_Glenn (website NSFW)

Cliffs:
- Kid posts youtube video of himself abusing his cat
- People on internet site "4chan" see video and are outraged
- They find out kids name and address
- send emails/call his family, his neighbors, the police, his school and tell them about it
- call local media and end up with several feature stories in MSM about the kid
- Kid is arrested and his social life is runied. He is outcast from his community

Even if he wasn't arrested, he still got the punishment he deserved.

Not that it'd stop a sociopath. A few sick fucks have proudly told me they torture animals.

socialize_me
03-20-2009, 01:17 PM
Why only domesticated animals? How are they different from other animals? If you are going to say that about domesticated animals, it does not follow to not say that about all animals.

Basically humans are at the top of the food chain as we have been given the ability of critical thought and reason. We can kill animals for food--no question about that--but to torture animals that we acquire for the sole purpose of being pets is quite inhumane. It's on a whole different level than saying "Well why not wild animals??" If your reasoning cannot see that, then I pray you don't purchase a dog in your lifetime for their sake and hope you do get your ass thrown in jail for acting like a jackass who tortures pet animals.

Torture is far worse than death. The Japanese tortured people because that gave them more satisfaction than simply killing you. In fact, the Japanese didn't do things like pluck out your eyeballs, which would suck, because they could only do that once. Instead, the Japanese would shove bamboo under your fingernails as they could do this on a daily basis. They could give you electric shocks, rape your family in front of your eyes, give you sleep depravation, etc. etc. because they could do it over, and over, and over, and over.

Last I checked, we all only have one life to live. Clearly there's a reason why people torture instead of murder because it can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But then again the fact that I had to explain any of the above is quite sad. The fact that what I said isn't part of every human being's reasoning means you clearly see nothing wrong with torturing pet animals, in which case I have wasted my time and really don't care to "convert" someone like yourself. If you're psychotic enough to believe there's no difference between torturing a domestic pet for entertainment and killing a wild animal to survive, then you are indeed of a lesser-evolved species than me.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 01:20 PM
Animals are property.
Humans have rights.
Other animals do not have rights (unless they're trying to eat you, lolz).

Kludge
03-20-2009, 01:21 PM
Humans have rights.

Prove it.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 01:21 PM
I just think trying to give rights to the food is absurd. :rolleyes:

Torture me or not, if you're going to eat me I have no rights.

ARealConservative
03-20-2009, 01:21 PM
The free market would serve to mitigate these issues quite well actually.

Let's assume that the vast majority of us are strongly apposed to animal cruelty but we live in a state of anarchy preventing us from outright banning of such acts.

There will be some of us that would refuse to let this person shop in our stores. Others of us would refuse to allow them to buy land, or hire them. Others would even use acts of aggression to get the person to stop. Depending on how bad of a social taboo the animal abuse amounts to, the abuser may find that nobody cares enough about his rights to defend them and would turn a blind eye to these acts of aggression.

Essentially, without a social safety net and all the entitlements that have been put into place people would feel more obligated to live within the realm of acceptable behavior, not less obligated.

dannno
03-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Not that it'd stop a sociopath. A few sick fucks have proudly told me they torture animals.

A lot of young males torture animals, it's almost natural really.

I don't eat meat often, but when I do I make sure that it isn't coming from some factory farm. I buy meat where the animals are allowed to roam. When I eat eggs I make sure they are cage free chickens.

The thing is, all that stuff tastes better. If people knew where their food was coming from, we would be much better off. Instead we have these huge corporations and factory farms, all a product of the Federal Reserve and Federal Regulations and Federal food subsidies, I say.

Natalie
03-20-2009, 01:24 PM
There would be laws against it at the local level. I do not believe that we should get rid of government all together. I just think we can drastically reduce the size of govt. I see nothing wrong with laws against abusing animals.

idiom
03-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Animals are property.
Humans have rights.
Other animals do not have rights (unless they're trying to eat you, lolz).

Soley by the virtue of the fact that on Rights day they were being awarded bya miserly *human*.

If animals could right long winded books about property rights then they would have rights too.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 01:26 PM
There would be laws against it at the local level. I do not believe that we should get rid of government all together. I just think we can drastically reduce the size of govt. I see nothing wrong with laws against abusing animals.

I forgot that the ownaz of this forumz are statists (albeit, minarchists). :p

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 01:27 PM
Prove it.

/facepalm. No! You disprove it!!!!!!

Natalie
03-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Prove it.

Humans have God-given rights.

Lets turn this into another religious debate, jk, lol :D

ladyjade3
03-20-2009, 01:42 PM
I'm a huge animal lover. I think its a moral issue, and a free society isn't free from moral values, it just handles them outside of government force.

We're social animals. No man is an island unto himself, and I think a free society is a more closely knit society and bad behavior like this will get you shunned and looked down upon. It is unacceptable, and I don't know what exact ramifications there would be for this, but I do think there would be some. Perhaps people would opt not to do business with you, sell you food, etc... ??? Dunno.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm a huge animal lover. I think its a moral issue, and a free society isn't free from moral values, it just handles them outside of government force.

We're social animals. No man is an island unto himself, and I think a free society is a more closely knit society and bad behavior like this will get you shunned and looked down upon. It is unacceptable, and I don't know what exact ramifications there would be for this, but I do think there would be some. Perhaps people would opt not to do business with you, sell you food, etc... ??? Dunno.

This.

Mesogen
03-20-2009, 01:49 PM
If someone were torturing animals and there were no police and no courts then people (me) would have to deal with it voluntarily (shotgun). If other people want to shun those who defended the animals then fudge'em.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 01:51 PM
If someone were torturing animals and there were no police and no courts then people (me) would have to deal with it voluntarily (shotgun). If other people want to shun those who defended the animals then fudge'em.

people actually torture animals? i mean c'mon. thats probably like .00000001% of the world

I;ve seen more humans than animals get tortured by humans.

ARealConservative
03-20-2009, 01:52 PM
This.

post #27 said the same thing....suck ass :p

brandon
03-20-2009, 01:53 PM
Back to the thread title, there is one obvious way that the free market alone punishes animal abusers. If word gets around about said abuser's abuse, many people won't hire him/her, work for him/her, or trade with him/her. The abusers ability to prosper would be damaged.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 02:01 PM
A lot of young males torture animals, it's almost natural really.

Mmmmm... I don't think so. I think it's appalling at 18, and those sick fucks are the only people I'd imagine capable of such an act.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 02:01 PM
post #27 said the same thing....suck ass :p

lol. my bad. i started reading at post #29.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 02:02 PM
/facepalm. No! You disprove it!!!!!!

Tell me you're a Christian and I'll let it go.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't believe animals have rights. They do not have rights because rights are ethical principles, and ethics deals solely with choices. Animals do not make choices in the same sense humans do. They are incapable of conceptualizing and ascribing moral value to anything. If ever an 'animal' were to grasp the concept of a right, and assert it for themselves, we could no longer call that creature an animal.

This also begs the question: what about infant babies? Toddlers? Anyone who would favor parental coercion (any form of telling a child what they can or can't do, grounding them, etc.) has to accept that THEY don't believe children have the same rights as adults. As the child grows and becomes a rational, thinking adult, they are deserving of more rights. But even a human baby has more rights than an animal, because they are becoming rational. Child abuse is a serious moral offense.

Common decency is something else. I believe that the average human being possesses empathy. I have never abused an animal. I've never even wanted to go hunting because I can't stand to inflict pain. I buy cage-free chicken eggs. People that abuse animals anger me, and I would argue for their ostracization.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 02:11 PM
Tell me you're a Christian and I'll let it go.

Hey Kludge! Are you letting Josh_LA use your account?

Natalie
03-20-2009, 02:13 PM
Since so many people brought up the cage free egg thing, I'm going to have to start a new thread on this.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Since so many people brought up the cage free egg thing, I'm going to have to start a new thread on this.

Don't eat caged birds! ('s eggs)

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:14 PM
How would the free market handle Animal Abuse?

You need not worry, I am confident that the market is perfectly capable of abusing animals as severely as anything we have now!

Kludge
03-20-2009, 02:17 PM
Hey Kludge! Are you letting Josh_LA use your account?

:confused: If you believe God granted us rights, I can accept that. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument in support of the existence of rights by non-Theists.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 02:25 PM
:confused: If you believe God granted us rights, I can accept that. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument in support of the existence of rights by non-Theists.

Read Rothbard.

Kludge
03-20-2009, 02:27 PM
//

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:37 PM
:confused: If you believe God granted us rights, I can accept that. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument in support of the existence of rights by non-Theists.

Then you haven't been reading.

mconder
03-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Animals are property, pure and simple. I do not view them as anything remotely close to human kind. If I did, I wouldn't eat them. I wouldn't take an oil tanker and spill the contents of such on my land, though some might. If a person did want to destroy his own property in the most gruesome way, but in a way that does not harm any other, does the collective have a right to stop him? I personally feel animals have a spirit, though incomparable with mans. Does that give me the right to force my religious belief on a satanist who wants to perform animal sacrifice as part of his religion? I say let such indiscretions between men and their animals be between them and their God (or not god as the case may be). As long as I don't have to see it or be aware of it, then I am not harmed. Animals are property under our current legal system.

mconder
03-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Larger animals have more rights than an ant obviously.

Some smaller animals are smarter than some bigger ones. I am guessing the beauty we see in certain animals also gives them higher status than other animals that aren't very pretty. Certainly, a flying squirrel should have more rights than a pesky groundhog. ok...all that was tongue in cheek. Animals are property. No exceptions. If I can eat a cow, I can just as easily eat a bald eagle and fell good about it. Ya...I said it. I am a horrible person, I know.

Joe3113
03-20-2009, 04:59 PM
People on this forum use logic and moral axioms to reach 'individual liberty' as a moral outcome, but they seem to stop such logical thought when it comes to something that might interfere with their shallow, everyday activities.

You cannot ascribe humans with rights and arbitrarily deny them to other species. All species, including **** Sapien are the result of a process of genetic variability and natural selection. Hence you cannot make judgements other than those objectively observed.

An animal is not pure property. It can't be. In particular, the case of domesticated animals, humans have a responsibility to see that these animals are well fed, have clean water avaliable and have shelter. Failure to do this requires reparations and punishment by the community.

danberkeley
03-20-2009, 05:05 PM
People on this forum use logic and moral axioms to reach 'individual liberty' as a moral outcome, but they seem to stop such logical thought when it comes to something that might interfere with their shallow, everyday activities.

You cannot ascribe humans with rights and arbitrarily deny them to other species. All species, including **** Sapien are the result of a process of genetic variability and natural selection. Hence you cannot make judgements other than those objectively observed.

An animal is not pure property. It can't be. In particular, the case of domesticated animals, humans have a responsibility to see that these animals are well fed, have clean water avaliable and have shelter. Failure to do this requires reparations and punishment by the community.

In that case, humans arent property. Individual humans do not own themselves. :rolleyes: Dont dare sell your hair or liver since they are not ownable.

idiom
03-20-2009, 05:06 PM
You cannot ascribe humans with rights and arbitrarily deny them to other species.

Rothbard did. Humans are arbitrarily a special form of object that can own itself. No real justification of this is given. The idea of property rights of which human rights a special sub-class is also a given and never justified.


In that case, humans arent property. Individual humans do not own themselves. :rolleyes:

What ever made you think otherwise?

Largely this all comes from a mistake in ones understanding or 'rights'. 'Rights' are not things, but descriptions. They are type of clauses taht exist within agreements, written or de facto, between two or more entities. They reflect values.

Working Poor
03-20-2009, 06:05 PM
Free people are good people and understand cruelty comes from an enslaved mind

Original_Intent
03-20-2009, 06:23 PM
How would the free market handle animal abuse?

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb17/Denryu/lucy.gif

Brassmouth
03-20-2009, 07:43 PM
Any good resources on this? I just saw on Animal Planet a guy get arrested for torturing dogs, starving them, etc. I can't really take watching those programs because I can't tolerate assholes who would do such things. At least with humans they can fight back...but when you do it to puppies and dogs that just lower their heads and cower, it boils my blood.

Since animal abuse is one of the telltale signs of violent, psychopathic behavior, and an indicator of future offenses against humans, the aggressor's DRO would take note of any animal abuse and act accordingly. This action would conform to the aggressor's contract and may include rate hikes, mandatory ethics courses and/or removal of the animals.


That's silly. The anarcho-capitalists' private court systems would "non-aggressively" punish the parents and the child would be directed to proper parents with the help of the Invisible Hand.

You're an idiot.

Funny how anti-market all you so-called libertarians have become. This thread shows your true colors. Go back to the GOP, posers.

Kludge
03-21-2009, 12:45 AM
Okay. I woke up from sleeping. (yeah, my sleep schedule is messed up.)


Give me your logic as to how humans inherently have rights (do not reply if you are a theist, as I already accept your answers). Do NOT link me an article.

Do you still have those rights in anarchy if no one recognizes them?

Yieu
03-21-2009, 05:31 AM
Basically humans are at the top of the food chain as we have been given the ability of critical thought and reason. We can kill animals for food--no question about that--but to torture animals that we acquire for the sole purpose of being pets is quite inhumane. It's on a whole different level than saying "Well why not wild animals??" If your reasoning cannot see that, then I pray you don't purchase a dog in your lifetime for their sake and hope you do get your ass thrown in jail for acting like a jackass who tortures pet animals.

...

But then again the fact that I had to explain any of the above is quite sad. The fact that what I said isn't part of every human being's reasoning means you clearly see nothing wrong with torturing pet animals, in which case I have wasted my time and really don't care to "convert" someone like yourself. If you're psychotic enough to believe there's no difference between torturing a domestic pet for entertainment and killing a wild animal to survive, then you are indeed of a lesser-evolved species than me.

I did not state that I wish to torture or kill animals, so your insults are based on assumptions. I said to apply your logic to all animals, or else it is based on a personal bias rather than logic.

In the post that I quoted, you said:


just any of the smartasses out there claiming that domesticated animals don't deserve life and we can slaughter them for pleasure.


Why would only domesticated animals deserve life and not to be slaughtered for pleasure?

Either it is alright to torture all animals, or it is not alright to torture any animals. Either it is alright to kill all animals, or it is not alright to kill any animals. Either it is alright to eat all animals, or it is not alright to eat any animals.

There is no difference between killing a dog or a pig. There is no difference between underground dog fights and public rodeos in which the bull is stabbed to aggravate it. The only difference one could find is if they have a personal bias for certain animals, but such a bias is not based in logic but rather emotional attachment and/or cultural mores.

To quote a religious text: "The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater." -- BG 5.18

Yieu
03-21-2009, 07:33 PM
//

Rael
03-21-2009, 07:42 PM
Well, if someone was being cruel to an animal, I would use force to stop them, even now with the existing laws we already have. I imagine many people would also do this if government were not around.

Yieu
03-22-2009, 08:45 PM
//

UnReconstructed
03-23-2009, 11:50 AM
what if someone hits a deer that is trying to peacefully cross the road? does the deer have the right to cross the road? and should I be charged with murder if I hit the deer? what about the deer's family?

Kraig
03-23-2009, 11:58 AM
what if someone hits a deer that is trying to peacefully cross the road? does the deer have the right to cross the road? and should I be charged with murder if I hit the deer? what about the deer's family?

That happened to my friend a few weeks ago, only he didn't hit the deer, the deer ran into the side of his car and left a huge dent. The deer should be charged with destruction of property IMO! :D

UnReconstructed
03-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Agreed Kraig.

We should take animal rights/animal abuse to it's conclusion. The deer could be charged with vandalism, aggravated assault and wreckless endangerment etc...

Auntie Republicrat
03-23-2009, 03:15 PM
SOCIALIZE WRITES: "How would the free market handle Animal Abuse?"

..Honestly..how would the/?your UNfree market 'handle animal abuse?'

LibForestPaul
03-23-2009, 06:07 PM
I go fishing. It really is awesome plunging a hook through a minos eyes. Seeing it wiggly around with a big piece of metal through its frkn head.

Oh noz, quick hide, itz dah animal fuzz!

Kludge
03-23-2009, 09:33 PM
I go fishing. It really is awesome plunging a hook through a minos eyes. Seeing it wiggly around with a big piece of metal through its frkn head.

Eh, it's far more fascinating to hook the head of a Jew or Mexican. You can hear them scream.

Rael
03-23-2009, 11:10 PM
Eh, it's far more fascinating to hook the head of a Jew or Mexican. You can hear them scream.

Yeah but unless you speak Yiddish or Spanish you can't understand them =(

idiom
03-25-2009, 12:14 AM
If its not you causing the animal abuse, you move on.

All this intervention all the time. Go invade Sudan or something.