My Neighbors Just Ate their Dog (Seriously). What is the libertarian stance on this?

[phill4paul]

Why are we bumping this thread? Is there a new recipe?

It's Friday night. In a search for something else it crossed my path.

As with anything. Low and slow. Hickory and Cherry.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's Friday night. In a search for something else it crossed my path.

As with anything. Low and slow. Hickory and Cherry.

Was the dog named "Smokey"?

[presence]

My neighbors dog has been in the freezer for 4 years now. She doesn't want to bury it...


in case she forecloses on her home.

[Dr.3D]

Was the dog named "Smokey"?

I always thought that would be a good name for a lynx.

[JK/SEA]

as an 'in progress' libertarian, my opinion is, if you want to eat dogs, and live next door to me, i reserve the right to raise Rottweilers in my kennels. And i love dogs, and i own guns.

go for it.

[osan]

Well, one thing you could have done was go over there with a rifle and kill all of them.

[osan]

My neighbors dog has been in the freezer for 4 years now. She doesn't want to bury it...


in case she forecloses on her home.

Well, I can sort of relate. When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks. I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving. My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions. There he remains to this day.

[FloralScent]

...if the dog was killed quickly, then it's all good.

That's my only concern.

[osan]

It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.

Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.

Why is it disgusting? What is it about the act that makes it so?

[otherone]

Well, I can sort of relate. When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks. I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving. My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions. There he remains to this day.

pic?

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, one thing you could have done was go over there with a rifle and kill all of them.

No, you could not have. That would have been unjust aggression. You would be a criminal if you did that, specifically a murderer. Osan may be OK with murder. I am not.

[Natural Citizen]

Eating cat for Christmas: Activists call on Swiss parliament to outlaw pet consumption...

Reuters / Arnd Wiegmann

The animal protection group, SOS Chats Noraingue, has handed over a petition with 16,000 signatures, including such notable animal rights defenders as Brigitte Bardot, to the Swiss parliament on Tuesday.

Dog meat is often used to make sausage, while cats are prepared around the holiday season in a similar style to rabbit - in a white wine and garlic sauce. A type of mostbröckli made from marinated cat or dog is another local favorite.

While the commercial sale of dog meat is banned nationwide, its consumption is still legal and is particularly popular in Lucerne, Appenzell, Jura and in the canton of Bern, according to Tomek. Farmers are free to kill and eat their own animals. Those in the Appenzell and St. Gallen areas are said to favor a beefy breed of dog related to Rottweilers.

In a 2012 report on pet eating in the Swiss paper Tages Anzeiger, the Swiss Veterinary Office chalked up the practice to a “cultural matter” and noted that some countries breed dogs specifically for slaughter.

One farmer, defending the practice, told the paper, “There’s nothing odd about it. Meat is meat. Construction workers in particular like eating it.”

Continued - Eating cat for Christmas: Activists call on Swiss parliament to outlaw pet consumption

[Anti Federalist]

bump for another thread

[Anti Federalist]

Leaving aside the issue of inhumane slaughter, which certainly seems to be the case here, how difficult can it be?

You own the animal, how is slaughtering it for food any different than slaughtering a lamb or goat or a chicken or a steer?

We are not the ones who are nuts.

A whole generation of soft, disconnected Americans who have no idea where their food comes from, no idea where their energy comes from, no idea where their consumer goods come from, they are the crazy ones, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, what I said.

[Anti Federalist]

This is self evident fact.

The lion has no concept of or respect for the "rights" of the gazelle.

Nor does the bluefish for the squid.

And so on...

And also: what I said.

[gaazn]

Why do dogs seem to have more rights than every other animal?

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, what I said.

So long as you don't cage the animal for spectacle, allowing the soft to supposedly breeze the Serengeti, I might refrain from offering the obvious opinion that you are barberous and cruel in your quest for satisfaction in watching animals $#@! and be rather dull for a price.

Eat the endangered polar bears for what I give a $#@!. It is still weird to cage them for tourists and in my opinion, the truly weak.

[Anti Federalist]

So long as you don't cage the animal for spectacle, allowing the soft to supposedly breeze the Serengeti, I might refrain from offering the obvious opinion that you are barberous and cruel in your quest for satisfaction in watching animals $#@! and be rather dull for a price.

Eat the endangered polar bears for what I give a $#@!. It is still weird to cage them for tourists and in my opinion, the truly weak.

Polar bear meat is very distasteful and the internal organs are poisonous.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This thread is making me hungry.

[r3volution 3.0]

[loveshiscountry]

Better to eat the dog than to starve. I just hope they ate slowly and didn't wolf it down.

[kpitcher]

Well, I can sort of relate. When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks. I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving. My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions. There he remains to this day.

Cremation is always an option... I know my mom was buried with the cremated remains of one of her furry loved ones.

[osan]

There is no black and white. IMO, if the dog was killed quickly, then it's all good.

I would put humans on a level above the other animals (given many more rights beyond (inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain), though I have no solid reasoning to support that.

So then it would seem there is no real basis for elevating man for praise above other life.

[otherone]

So then it would seem there is no real basis for elevating man for praise above other life.

Man praises man. Let other life praise itself.

[osan]

Man praises man. Let other life praise itself.

Seems a mite self-serving, would you not say? "Let them eat cake..."

While men have, and continue to do much that is praiseworthy, far more often they do that which ranges from "meh", to that which is downright evil and disgusting. For such reasons I have come to a more tempered view on the tendency of man. On average, he is nothing to praise, therefore indicating that such lauding should be reserved for the individual found guilty of having done something worthy thereof. The typical example of the species merits far more clinical treatment, as does the typical act of even the best among us. Observation of huge numbers of examples of both men and their actions most definitely does not include general praise of any sort Here "men" refers almost universally to people of Empire, whose plague-like mindset infects virtually all examples.

The notion that only men have rights is idiotic on its face. All life claims itself as First-Property. To live is to steal away the First-Property from others - this is God's inescapable way. So be it. But men seem too often to indulge in gratuitous theft beyond that which is required for their own lives, and yet we praise ourselves. How amusing.

Were the deer and chickens and cockroaches, etc., able and of a mind to make a coordinated stand against us, we would soon see just how "special" we really were in the relevant sense.

It is the superiority of our instrumentality that separates us in some very narrow sense from the non-human rest, and oftentimes from each other as well. I see no basis for praise of the race of man simply because they are men, nor because they possess the raw capabilities unique to them. It is a lousy and most often blood-soaked lie that whispers to us how "special" we are.

Men of untempered instrumentality are most often worthy of naught but the blade and disgust of the warrior. It is precisely the distemper of the mean man that renders him a Weakman in contrast to the Freeman who understands the responsibilities that come to hand along with the instruments he wields. That responsibility extends to all beings and all things, and not just to other men. It is precisely the failure of men to recognize and embrace the other side of the coin of their status as free beings different from the rest that has caused them, as well as others, the boundless miseries they enjoy. Rather than accepting his gifts with humility and grace, he has taken them to hand in the manner of an ill-bred and reckless brat, devoid of any sense beyond his own skin, who rampages through his days seeking only to gratify and glorify his stunted self within the narrow channel of his wither-hobbled perceptions.

Just my worthless opinion on the matter, mind you.

[otherone]

Seems a mite self-serving, would you not say? "Let them eat cake..."

While men have, and continue to do much that is praiseworthy, far more often they do that which ranges from "meh", to that which is downright evil and disgusting. For such reasons I have come to a more tempered view on the tendency of man. On average, he is nothing to praise, therefore indicating that such lauding should be reserved for the individual found guilty of having done something worthy thereof. The typical example of the species merits far more clinical treatment, as does the typical act of even the best among us. Observation of huge numbers of examples of both men and their actions most definitely does not include general praise of any sort Here "men" refers almost universally to people of Empire, whose plague-like mindset infects virtually all examples.

The notion that only men have rights is idiotic on its face. All life claims itself as First-Property. To live is to steal away the First-Property from others - this is God's inescapable way. So be it. But men seem too often to indulge in gratuitous theft beyond that which is required for their own lives, and yet we praise ourselves. How amusing.

Were the deer and chickens and cockroaches, etc., able and of a mind to make a coordinated stand against us, we would soon see just how "special" we really were in the relevant sense.

It is the superiority of our instrumentality that separates us in some very narrow sense from the non-human rest, and oftentimes from each other as well. I see no basis for praise of the race of man simply because they are men, nor because they possess the raw capabilities unique to them. It is a lousy and most often blood-soaked lie that whispers to us how "special" we are.

Men of untempered instrumentality are most often worthy of naught but the blade and disgust of the warrior. It is precisely the distemper of the mean man that renders him a Weakman in contrast to the Freeman who understands the responsibilities that come to hand along with the instruments he wields. That responsibility extends to all beings and all things, and not just to other men. It is precisely the failure of men to recognize and embrace the other side of the coin of their status as free beings different from the rest that has caused them, as well as others, the boundless miseries they enjoy. Rather than accepting his gifts with humility and grace, he has taken them to hand in the manner of an ill-bred and reckless brat, devoid of any sense beyond his own skin, who rampages through his days seeking only to gratify and glorify his stunted self within the narrow channel of his wither-hobbled perceptions.

Just my worthless opinion on the matter, mind you.

Exceptionally well written.

The entire occurrence of rights are nothing more than a pact sometimes shared among men, for the purpose of survival. They are a supernatural concept, the result of the imagination, that do not not exist in practical reality. An animal does not have the right to survival, it has an imperative to survive; as does every organism extant. Man is no different. The entire biomass is nothing more than one giant food processing machine.

It is the ability to conceptualize that sets man apart; not just from nature, but from his fellow man, and IMO, from God. The ability to claim "I", born of self-awareness, creates a barrier between the individual and his environment that it not permeable. Man is figuratively trapped by his ego. The ability to create and grasp ideas that are the result of self-awareness is the foundation of man's exceptionalism. But in reality we are monkeys with imaginations.

One fella's opinion.

[PierzStyx]

So you trespassed, stole someone else's property, and then called the corrupt, local thugs to come and beat them up?

The only one doing anything wrong is you.


Dogs are non-human meat. Meat is food. End of story.

[osan]

The entire occurrence of rights are nothing more than a pact sometimes shared among men, for the purpose of survival.

That is the practical aspect of it. There is also a conceptual aspect based in analytic reason applied in examination of the nature of the relationship of one man to another. That is how I came to cobble the Canon of Proper Human Relations. Basically, no man is endowed with authority over another. Likewise, no man is inherently subservient to another. There is no basis one could offer in defense of inherent master/slave relations that I, or any reasonably well trained sixth-grader, could not summarily demolish in while sleeping.

They are a supernatural concept,

I do not think I can agree with this bit. I think they are very natural. What to me is unnatural is the notion that humans are the only ones who hold them. Given the definition of "right", it is clear that all living beings have them. That human instrumentality leaves men in a position of vast material superiority over all other terrestrial beings, it does not follow that only humans have rights. It simply means that men hold the ability to impose their wills upon the rest, and even each other, through our various means.

the result of the imagination

Not sure they are the result of imagination, but rather that imagination allows us to discover and make sense of them.

that do not not exist in practical reality.

Interesting choice of words. Does the fact that some violate the rights of the rest mean that the rights asserted do not exist? I don't think so. I think that it means only that that some violate others.

An animal does not have the right to survival, it has an imperative to survive;

Is this a distinction without a difference?

as does every organism extant. Man is no different. The entire biomass is nothing more than one giant food processing machine.

As a family member once quipped to me regarding planet earth: "Everywhere is life, but no food."

It is the ability to conceptualize that sets man apart; not just from nature, but from his fellow man,

It certainly appears so.

and IMO, from God.

You may have bitten off a little too much with this one.

The ability to claim "I", born of self-awareness, creates a barrier between the individual and his environment that it not permeable.

Not sure that last bit is strictly true. Yogis, Buddhist monks, saddhus, and shamans of every stripe appear to have permeated the veil. In fact, I may have also done it, though it does call into some question what, exactly, are all these things of which we speak. I'm not sure anyone knows with any rigor and specificity. To put it in the words of John Denver, "life ain't nothin' but a funny funny riddle".

Thank God I'm a country boy.

Man is figuratively trapped by his ego.

A truth the Hindus, Buddhists, etc., have recognized for a long year.

The ability to create and grasp ideas that are the result of self-awareness is the foundation of man's exceptionalism. But in reality we are monkeys with imaginations.

And yet to me, that "exceptionalism" only exists when men display the spirit of grace, kindness, and generosity that shows proper respect not only to himself and his fellows, but to all life. Very few people manifest this sort of attitude, so far as I have ever been able to see. They are more than willing to rationalize abandonment of their best principles when it is convenient to them. The warrior does not.

[osan]

So you trespassed, stole someone else's property, and then called the corrupt, local thugs to come and beat them up?

The only one doing anything wrong is you.


Dogs are non-human meat. Meat is food. End of story.

Humans are meat.

Meat is food.

End of story.

[nobody's_hero]

AF I like you man, but this thread was 2 years old. Look what you started again, again.