Barnum and Bailey shutting down

[Wooden Indian]

Honest question... does that mean that you think that any animal owner anywhere should be able to do whatever he wants to his animal without any responsibility whatsoever? Completely hypothetical, but if someone owned puppies for the sole purpose of torturing them so that they die a slow painful death… do you believe that is no one else's business, simply because in your view those animals are his "property"?

I know this question wasn't directed to me but I've spent some time thinking about this in the past...

Legislating morality doesn't work because the cons outweigh the pros and MOST people are not "puppy drowners", so passing laws that criminalizes how I treat MY animals is that slippery slope we all know too well while making no real impact on that given behaviour.

Certain crimes are only committed by sick people and animal abuse is one of those. No matter how you criminalize it, it's going to happen, and will only impact good responsible animal owners.

Instead, if I see my brother engaging in that behaviour, I should try to help him with his emotional issues if I so choose, or I can just thank God that he is only .000001% of the population, and move on with my day.

My choice. His choice. Not the government's.

[DamianTV]

Whether it is a cage for an animal or a cage for your mind, our world has turned into a three ring circus. Its just that different types of animals, particularly the human animals, need different types of cages and farms to be productive.

[pcosmar]

They can blame PETA for a final nail if they like,, but they really cannot compete with the circus of the real.

not anymore

[shakey1]

And another little piece of Americana dies.

Not my country anymore.

No country for old men.

Stranger in a strange land.

[lilymc]

Sane humans treat animals with respect and practice good husbandry.

But even insane humans are above animals...(Whether they should be is another debate)

Government however has no place in animal husbandry, slick talkers and tax-ticks enforcing laws and edicts drafted by city-dwellers will come to no good end.

I know this question wasn't directed to me but I've spent some time thinking about this in the past...

Legislating morality doesn't work because the cons outweigh the pros and MOST people are not "puppy drowners", so passing laws that criminalizes how I treat MY animals is that slippery slope we all know too well while making no real impact on that given behaviour.

Certain crimes are only committed by sick people and animal abuse is one of those. No matter how you criminalize it, it's going to happen, and will only impact good responsible animal owners.

Instead, if I see my brother engaging in that behaviour, I should try to help him with his emotional issues if I so choose, or I can just thank God that he is only .000001% of the population, and move on with my day.

My choice. His choice. Not the government's.

Thank you for the replies, you guys… but I should have worded it differently, because that's not why I asked the question. You kind of indirectly answered this, but let me ask the first question again, in different words, just to be very clear.

Morally, can a person do whatever the hell they want with their animal? (Torture it, torment it, purposely starve it to death, or other unspeakable things?) Please answer with a yes or no.

[tod evans]

Thank you for the replies, you guys… but I should have worded it differently, because that's not why I asked the question. You kind of indirectly answered this, but let me ask the first question again, in different words, just to be very clear.

Morally, can a person do whatever the hell they want with their animal? (Torture it, torment it, purposely starve it to death, or other unspeakable things?) Please answer with a yes or no.

Morally No, at least not by my morals...

That's the thing about morals, they're subjective.

[lilymc]

Morally No, at least not by my morals...

That's the thing about morals, they're subjective.

OK, thank you for answering that. I completely disagree that morality is subjective… but that's a debate for another time/thread.

I'll wait for AF to reply before I make the point that I wanted to make. I have to run out the door now anyway, so I will be back later probably.

[Madison320]

Thank you for the replies, you guys… but I should have worded it differently, because that's not why I asked the question. You kind of indirectly answered this, but let me ask the first question again, in different words, just to be very clear.

Morally, can a person do whatever the hell they want with their animal? (Torture it, torment it, purposely starve it to death, or other unspeakable things?) Please answer with a yes or no.

I vote no and I think it should be illegal. I think the severity of the penalty should be proportional to the intelligence of the species being tortured. Torture a human to death you get life in prison. Torture a dog to death you get 5 years. Something like that.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I vote no and I think it should be illegal. I think the severity of the penalty should be proportional to the intelligence of the species being tortured. Torture a human to death you get life in prison. Torture a dog to death you get 5 years. Something like that.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree and I'm going to sound really mean but I'm not. I don't believe in personally being cruel to animals (and I'm not) but you have to use careful thought in determining the difference between rights and property. Animals are not humans and they don't have "rights". Animals are (when possessed) properly classified as property and therefore they are under the care of their owner to do with as he or she sees fit. Some people are dumber than sheit and will not take care of their property. One cannot use "law" to stop someone from abusing their own property. In a truly FREE society, however, a neighbor who is aware of animal abuse could sneak in at night and rescue such animal or even beat the crap out of the piece of sheit guy but you cannot justify using "law" in such a case...

[Madison320]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree and I'm going to sound really mean but I'm not. I don't believe in personally being cruel to animals (and I'm not) but you have to use careful thought in determining the difference between rights and property. Animals are not humans and they don't have "rights". Animals are (when possessed) properly classified as property and therefore they are under the care of their owner to do with as he or she sees fit. Some people are dumber than sheit and will not take care of their property. One cannot use "law" to stop someone from abusing their own property. In a truly FREE society, however, a neighbor who is aware of animal abuse could sneak in at night and rescue such animal or even beat the crap out of the piece of sheit guy but you cannot justify using "law" in such a case...

But since you're an anarchist, there's no formal way to deal with human torture either correct? Therefore a group of neighbors could decide that some guy torturing his dogs should be beaten.

From a rights perspective it seems like there's a flaw somewhere in the logic to classify a pet dog as property the same as a television set.

[Anti Federalist]

I vote no and I think it should be illegal. I think the severity of the penalty should be proportional to the intelligence of the species being tortured. Torture a human to death you get life in prison. Torture a dog to death you get 5 years. Something like that.

I'm sure lily will agree.

Now, where does that leave us vis a vis pork products?

Since pigs are demonstrably smarter than dogs.

[ChristianAnarchist]

But since you're an anarchist, there's no formal way to deal with human torture either correct? Therefore a group of neighbors could decide that some guy torturing his dogs should be beaten.

From a rights perspective it seems like there's a flaw somewhere in the logic to classify a pet dog as property the same as a television set.

Yes, in the absence of "goonerment" you would get together with your neighbors to set up a security force you would pay for or you might have to each do shifts to make it work (or a combination of both). Of course everyone would be in agreement that no one should "rule" over another (or at least that's the whole idea of "no rulers")...

I really don't understand where you are coming from in the "rights perspective" point though. A dog does not qualify for "rights" unless the owner of that dog wishes to bestow them upon the dog (the owner would be the only "authority" in all cases). And yes, the dog is the same as the television set. Ever see someone blow a hole in their television set? Is that wrong??

[Anti Federalist]

OK, thank you for answering that. I completely disagree that morality is subjective… but that's a debate for another time/thread.

I'll wait for AF to reply before I make the point that I wanted to make. I have to run out the door now anyway, so I will be back later probably.

It's not my property, so it's none of my business.

It's not my morality, so it's none of my business.

Any answer other than that opens the door to to the nanny/regulatory state we suffer under now.

My personal views, and what I would tolerate in my home, ranging from this to state sanctioned and condoned buggery and everything in between, is my business.

[Anti Federalist]

And, to tell the truth, I find the whole "animal rights" crusade silly in the extreme.

Very frustrating to know that if a cop somewhere blows away a cuddly puppy, everybody will lose their $#@!.

Let him blow away an innocent person, even an innocent child, and the national response is "meh".

$#@! worrying about a bunch of animal rights...how about focusing on people's rights, so maybe we don't all end up slaves on a global plantation.

[Danke]

I'm sure lily will agree.

Now, where does that leave us vis a vis pork products?

Since pigs are demonstrable smarter than dogs.

where'd you get that silly notion? Can a pig lick his own balls?

[Dr.3D]

Well, there goes sniffing for elephants. My childhood memories are fading.

[lilymc]

It's not my property, so it's none of my business.

It's not my morality, so it's none of my business.

Any answer other than that opens the door to to the nanny/regulatory state we suffer under now.

My personal views, and what I would tolerate in my home, ranging from this to state sanctioned and condoned buggery and everything in between, is my business.

Well, that's a convenient way to shut down discussion. You probably won't want to answer this either, but I'll try asking anyway. If you lived during the time when slavery was legal... would you say the same thing? Would you say "It's none of my business if someone owns an involuntary slave." "It's none of my business if someone tortures and murders their slave." "It is their property. They can do what they want with it."

[lilymc]

From a rights perspective it seems like there's a flaw somewhere in the logic to classify a pet dog as property the same as a television set.

Exactly. Thank you for having insight and for not being afraid to point out the flaws in the status quo.

[tod evans]

Well, that's a convenient way to shut down discussion. You probably won't want to answer this either, but I'll try asking anyway. If you lived during the time when slavery was legal... would you say the same thing? Would you say "It's none of my business if someone owns an involuntary slave." "It's none of my business if someone tortures and murders their slave." "It is their property. They can do what they want with it."

I would.

It's part of minding your own business, a trait severely lacking in humanity today.

If the issue were one that really rankled me to the point that I had to do something about it I would handle it myself.

[tod evans]

Exactly. Thank you for having insight and for not being afraid to point out the flaws in the status quo.

The 'flaws' are in written and well established law...

What specific laws would you repeal to rectify the problem as you see it?

Writing new law isn't an option.

[lilymc]

I would.

It's part of minding your own business, a trait severely lacking in humanity today.

If the issue were one that really rankled me to the point that I had to do something about it I would handle it myself.

So do you believe that involuntary human slaves are property, therefore people have the right to torture and murder their own "property" and everyone else should mind their own business?

[lilymc]

$#@! worrying about a bunch of animal rights...how about focusing on people's rights,

It's possible to do both.

so maybe we don't all end up slaves on a global plantation.

That's exactly why I speak up about this… because if we don't value and defend all life, then ultimately we're shooting ourselves in the foot. That is something that I can clearly see that a few of you don't get.

[lilymc]

Writing new law isn't an option.

I haven't even thought about trying to change laws. I'm just trying to challenge some views here, but if certain people do not want to share their own personal view, then we can't go very far in this discussion.

[tod evans]

So do you believe that involuntary human slaves are property, therefore people have the right to torture and murder their own "property" and everyone else should mind their own business?

That's quite a leap isn't it?

I speak for myself not everyone else and I certainly don't want to tell others how they should behave.

As far as owning "involuntary human slaves"...........I wouldn't for many reasons.

As far as another man owning them in my sphere of influence it's hard to say which would weigh heavier on my conscience, the knowledge that minding my own business is paramount to a civil society or the fact that I have knowledge of what happens in a society when slave owning is permitted.

Notice that the slaves well being NEVER crossed my mind.......

[tod evans]

I haven't even thought about trying to change laws. I'm just trying to challenge some views here, but if certain people do not want to share their own personal view, then we can't go very far in this discussion.

Who's not chiming in to your liking?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Depends on who is doing it and how severe. I heard a tale that this prick down the road poisoned another neighbor's dog. I don't know the owner's age at the time, but maybe retired. Heard another tale this same prick actually killed his own tenant's dog. Don't know the accuracy of all this because all I got was hearsay; however, this man was a nasty son-of-a-bitch for sure.

Now, I know this is different because he did it to someone's animals. Probably not a stretch though to see this guy abusing his own animals. Screw standing by if it's someone like this prick. Some people just need to have the f*ck beat out of them.

[tod evans]

Depends on who is doing it and how severe. I heard a tale that this prick down the road poisoned another neighbor's dog. I don't know the owner's age at the time, but maybe retired. Heard another tale this same prick actually killed his own tenant's dog. Don't know the accuracy of all this because all I got was hearsay; however, this man was a nasty son-of-a-bitch for sure.

Now, I know this is different because he did it to someone's animals. Probably not a stretch though to see this guy abusing his own animals. Screw standing by if it's someone like this prick. Some people just need to have the f*ck beat out of them.

Absolutely!

Do it yourself though, don't involve government....

Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up.

[Madison320]

I really don't understand where you are coming from in the "rights perspective" point though. A dog does not qualify for "rights" unless the owner of that dog wishes to bestow them upon the dog (the owner would be the only "authority" in all cases). And yes, the dog is the same as the television set. Ever see someone blow a hole in their television set? Is that wrong??

You think blowing a hole in a television set is equal to blowing a hole in a dog?

I think part of the problem is that most libertarians (including me) want things to be clean and simple. Because as soon as you get grey areas people use them as an excuse for socialism. But there are still going to be some grey areas. Abortion for example. And I think animal cruelty is another grey area. I'm not saying animals have rights in the normal sense, I don't really know the answer.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Absolutely!

Do it yourself though, don't involve government....

Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up.

I like your zeal!

[Madison320]

Depends on who is doing it and how severe. I heard a tale that this prick down the road poisoned another neighbor's dog. I don't know the owner's age at the time, but maybe retired. Heard another tale this same prick actually killed his own tenant's dog. Don't know the accuracy of all this because all I got was hearsay; however, this man was a nasty son-of-a-bitch for sure.

Now, I know this is different because he did it to someone's animals. Probably not a stretch though to see this guy abusing his own animals. Screw standing by if it's someone like this prick. Some people just need to have the f*ck beat out of them.

But that doesn't really address the main issue of whether it should be illegal to abuse animals. Assuming you're not an anarchist and believe murder should be punished by the state, the question is should any kind of animal abuse be punished by the state?

By the way idiotic groups like PETA have really screwed this up with all their protests of eating chickens and stuff like that.