And you wonder why there are so few women Paul supporters?
Can you verify this? I never thought of RP as a thrill killer & I doubt his financial situation is such that he would hunt out of necessity.Originally Posted by LibertyInNY
Some things are common sense and do not require explanation. Who in their right mind harms animals on purpose. You are trying to make an issue out of something that is a non-issue. No one currently gets away with this if they are caught. Gee, they even banned chicken fighting here in NM recently. I don't think President Paul needs to concern himself with this issue. How about we worry about having enough money to care for our animals. I have never heard anyone say they were in favor of animal cruelty. Get real!
LukeNM
Gen. George Washington during the first American Revolution:
"We can't guarantee victory, but we can deserve it."
You need to get out more. Some people are sick.Who in their right mind harms animals on purpose
"Hi, I'm interested in Ron Paul and I'm concerned about animal rights. Somebody in my district found a feral cat who was drug behind a car for a mile before dying. What would Dr. Paul's attitude on this be?"
And I'm not kidding. This crap happens every day. Some people are sick f%cks...
It doesn't yet, but then remember it also didn't have rights for Blacks, Women, etc.
I think I've heard that before too...seems some Southern states felt that way once...I don't care how you feel or what your personal convictions are. In the real world,
animals do not have rights.
Pets and livestock are property. Under the US Constitution property owners have rights... not the property.
Sorry, but if that one issue would have you turn tail and run then you aren't much of a supporter at all.If RP were to take an Animal Rights stand then he would lose my vote and my support over that one issue. I would make it my personal goal to let every pet or livestock owner know where he stood from the American Kennel Club to the American Cattleman's Association.
Clearly you've never spent any time with animals at all, or you would know clearly that isn't true.No one wants to see animals mistreated but you cannot equate them to people.
Animals do not think... they do not reason... they do not make decisions. They act on instinct and learned behaviors.
Most important though is the proven fact that mistreatment of animals by people relates directly to mistreatment of other people. Children who abuse animals will in the majority of cases abuse people when they become adults. Spousal abuse as well as child abuse have had direct links in those adults committing the act to when they were children and abused animals.
Animal cruelty, which is a very serious issue and coming to the forefront with such scum as Vick being in the press, has become an increasingly important issue for people. I don't believe Ron Paul would ever advocate or support cruelty and probably would turn it over to the states of course, but to just say "it doesn't matter" is ignorant off the majority of Americans feelings on the subject.
There are stronger thinkers and stronger minds who would blatantly disagree with you.
I don't mean to point this out in context, but this sounds exactly like the argument against Slave's rights.
As humans approach a better understanding of the human mind and the animal mind (which surprise, are closely related) language like the type you use would seem remarkably obtuse... We don't know what it means to be human, and we shouldn't let any politicians make that decision for us, Ron Paul included.
I say better we avoid making such statements now, no? Surely there is a better avenue of discussion than claiming absolutely that certain things don't have rights....
It is in the subtraction of rights that tyranny is grown, not in the addition.
http://www.greatapeproject.org/
Last edited by Kade; 01-14-2008 at 12:17 PM.
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
-Bertrand Russell
I received positive rep for extreme sarcasm from a person who thought I was serious ... please look up Poe's Law
Leave this out of politics, but for every animal you don't eat I'm going to eat five.
Atheists for Ron Paul!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Written by George Washington Signed by John Adams
Deal. I seriously had breakfast at IHOP this morning, and it included a combination of Bacon and Sausage that must have contained some beef... and some chicken strips...
That's three different types of animals you have to tackle.. Five of each.
Nice to see other atheists supporting Ron Paul though..
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
-Bertrand Russell
I received positive rep for extreme sarcasm from a person who thought I was serious ... please look up Poe's Law
That is nice, but this isn't about being vegetarian. It is political because, right or wrong, people will demand our law makers to deal with "random dog is found beaten with a baseball bat in back ally".
The question is, assuming the dog has no owner and the jerk who did the beating was known, under President Paul, how will the government react? I'd argue the guy should be arrested and jailed. I hope that he would agree.
I'll also assert that you can make a strong case for government run animal shelters and remain libertarian as well. Nobody will pay to deal with random stray dogs, yet they need to be delt with somehow. The only entity that can handle such things is the government.
If you assert that random dogs should be shot by property owners, well, I disagree with you strongly because I feel that animals *do* have rights and our earth is as much their property as it is ours. Now we get to the interesting part of the debate that truly divides people...
YeahI really enjoy that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve like some other candidates *cough*. I try to tell people that America was founded as a secular nation, George Washington and John Adams basically confirmed it with the Treaty of Tripoli. Dr. Paul is a lot like the forefathers in that view, secular in my opinion.
Atheists for Ron Paul!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Written by George Washington Signed by John Adams
Lets let that be decided at the state level, they can deal with it.
Atheists for Ron Paul!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Written by George Washington Signed by John Adams
It divides people because certain people continue to maintain a belief that they are in fact superior over others... We have a superior race, a superior religion, a superior tribe, a superior country, a superior language....etc..
This is just, "We are a superior species."
I don't like Federal Laws... It is not against the federal law to murder someone. It should stay that way...There should be no Federal Law prohibiting animal cruelty. Every state has a law against Animal Cruelty, except Texas, the bane of my existence. The Federal Government is too far involved... I believe they can and should enact progressive legislation that adds certain rights... who knows what the future holds for artificial intelligence, and from what I've already pointed out, Great Apes deserve some basic freedoms afforded to humans.
http://www.greatapeproject.org/
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
-Bertrand Russell
I received positive rep for extreme sarcasm from a person who thought I was serious ... please look up Poe's Law
That answer won't win votes, sorry. People vote for the person, not "rules".
What would Ron Paul, as a person, suggest to each state after Oregon state police discover a puppy mill full of mal-nurished but oh-so-cute puppy dogs? Are you going to tell me he will address the nation saying "$#@! you, let Oregon decide" or will he say "I strongly hope all the states of our fine nation will refuse to condone acts of horrible mis-treatment and pass state law banning such practice". The answer to *that* is what sells a president.
I'M NOT A NUGGET
So you agree with the idea just not the phrasing. Do you honestly expect him to endorse animal cruelty? Puh-lease. Of course he's going to say let the states decide, but he'll do it in an eloquent fashion, not the brutish phrase "$#@! you, let oregon decide".
Atheists for Ron Paul!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Written by George Washington Signed by John Adams
I'm not saying I agree with the idea of letting states decide.
We assert that because humans have certain inalienable rights, we make murder a federal pound-me-in-the-ass crime. If we believe that animals, too, have inalienable rights, does it follow that crimes against animals become federal crimes? Which then makes me wonder, if you hold "animals have rights similar to humans" and also say "states should dictate animal rights policy", does it follow that what constitutes murder, too, be dictated by the state?
Hmm good point, although I personally see this as a minor issue, you have a point, call me converted.
Atheists for Ron Paul!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Written by George Washington Signed by John Adams
To me, the animal rights is a minor factor in who I vote for as well (unless somebody tells me "as president, $#@! the animals" in any kind of words).
Another scenario I thought of was what happens if Utah enacts the "Puppy Mills for All of 2011". Since it is their states right to enact that law, more power to them (according to the "power to the state" theory). What happens if all the surrounding states enact the "Save Our Puppies Act" and somebody in Utah wants to deliver a puppy from their mill to, say Kansas, which also has "Puppy Mills for All Act" on their books? What if it is so illegal in Nevada that it is punishable by life without parole? If I get pulled over with my RV full of malnourished, but oh-so-cute puppies on the way to my customers in Kansas, what happens to me?
This becomes more of a problem if we let states decide their own drug policy. If the Mormons in Utah let their citizens snort coke but no surrounding state allows you to snort coke, how will the coke snorters get their fix if they cannot import their drugs via the interstate highway system? Especially since all the good coke is in Texas and the local stuff is crap. What if I ship it via UPS and the driver of the UPS truck gets pulled over with my 7 pound block of coke while in a zero-tolerance state? What if the good stuff is only in Cuba, but Cuba says every state but Florida sucks and they refuse to use any ports besides those in Florida? What if Florida has a zero tolerance policy for coke? How do I get my fine Cuban cocaine if I can only import it through docks located in Florida?
This is somewhat already a problem if I buy Vodka from Costco in California and drive it through Oregon where god says Costco cannot sell Vodka because it is sinful (aka, we want a government monopoly on hard liquor for revenue purposes).
What is my point? I dunno. I guess in my mind, simply saying "leave it to the states" in any kind of language doesn't always cut it. Even under a regime where states have 90% of the power, I still want to know what the leader of the country thinks about these things because he or she is what all states will look up to in times of crisis. If our president thinks "States can do whatever they want, but quite frankly God says Liquor is Evil and on Page 22 of the bible it says 'thou shalt not sell alcohol in Costco'", states will take note of that. When I drive into Oregon with my 2 gallon plastic jug of Jamison and get arrested by Oregon State Troopers, they just might turn to the president and the congress for advice on how to handle me. I want to know exactly what the administration thinks about my consumption of fine liquor just like I want to know exactly how they will deal with my 2 acre puppy mill farm.
Last edited by martinocortez; 01-14-2008 at 02:04 PM.
He's not a hunter. From the Tucker article: 'He is a Second Amendment absolutist who doesn't own a gun. "I've only fired one a couple of times in my life. I've never gotten around to killing anything."'
Rights are not an intrinsic quality of any creature. They don't exist physically, and they aren't part of your DNA. Looking at this biologically according to what biology science there is, there is no reason why a human should have "rights" and an animal shouldn't. So what are rights?
They're a social construct that best enables members of a society to interact with one another in an effective, efficient manner that promotes not just the good of the society as a whole, but the good of the individual as well. They can be thought of as social contracts: Don't hurt me, and I won't hurt you. Respect my property, and I'll respect yours. In this manner, members of the society can engage each other voluntarily for mutual benefit. Governments exist to enforce these societal norms.
According to Ayn Rand, "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person's freedom of action in a social context" ("Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness [New York: Penguin, 1964], 130). Rights ensure that the primary life-sustaining value of a human being (that is: his capacity to reason) is not impaired through a limitation of choice via coercion. We need rights because we're value-seeking, volatile beings that engage in social activity.
Animals are not value-seeking, volatile consciousnesses. An animal doesn't hold any conception of what a right is, or should be, nor could we communicate to them that they possessed rights if we decided they should have them. They are incapable of engaging in complex social contracts of that nature. They do not understand "property."
If it were ever proven that any animal had the capacity to understand the concept of what a right *is,* then that animal would no longer deserve the title "animal," and it should be afforded the rights it claims for itself.
I'd like to also address the idea that "It is in the subtraction of rights that tyranny is grown, not in the addition." This is not true. The addition of rights which would contradict pre-existing rights is also a form of tyranny. For instance, if you say that all people have a right to a job, you say that somebody else has to give that job to them, which is in contradiction of their right to liberty and property. Someone has to be the employer, and now you're going to force them to be.
Last edited by Xenophage; 01-14-2008 at 02:24 PM. Reason: adding content
I agree with Ayn Rand on many things... but this entire conversation was focused on a few stupid words written by someone with an apparent wealth of ignorance.
Some animals are aware and can claim for themselves certain rights... for instance, the caging of any of the great apes... I'm not an advocate for Animal Rights per se... I am an advocate for not using stupid language and saying the opposite... Animals don't have the same rights obviously.. .but it doesn't mean they have No rights...
This distinction is generally wrought in the divide between Republican close mindedness and liberal tree hugging...
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
-Bertrand Russell
I received positive rep for extreme sarcasm from a person who thought I was serious ... please look up Poe's Law
Tell you what.
Since the hypothetical me lives in the enlightened State of California, our state funded university just last year (2011) discovered you coke snorting Utah Mormons are wrong - we just discovered that squirrels are solving complex differential equations! We, the State of California do hereby enact the "Cruelty Free Act of 2011" which states that, in lue of better words "all you coke snorting Mormons are idiots, and you can't use our seaports as a way to export your world famous '100% tested on apes, monkeys, dogs and cats shampoo'. In fact, our citizens are so abhorred by your abuse, we no longer allow our seaports to be connected to any business that tests anything on any animal".
Basically, since you Coke snorting utah residents rely on us smart Californians for lots of your software, fast food and other such nice things, you just got screwed out of spite. You Coke snorters tell us Californians to shove it and enact the "You Cannot Fly Over Our Airspace with any kind of Caffeine Product and You Cannot Convey Californian Software over our Fiber Optic Lines Act of 2011".
Now we are both pissed. We need to fly over your fifthly state to deliver our fine wine and we need your fiber to deliver our high-tech 3d Pornography . You need our seaport because most of your pepper spray imports, used to calibrate animal pain thresholds, come from China, who worked out a sweet deal on tarrif free trade with California. In fact, most other states besides California and Utah think china sucks and doesn't do any trade with them (walmart now sells high priced goods made in Deleware only).
What do you, President Paul, say to these two obviously pissed off states? Do you say "You guys are are both idiots" even if they go to a civil war over this? Do you say "Look, Utah, those eggheads in California are right - if squirrels can do differential equations, then squirrels are intelligent and you guys can no longer test on animals"? What if he says "Those socialist pigs in California are kooks, animals have no rights, test all you want!". Does California secede from the nation and if so what does that do to the Chinese trade relations with the remainder of the US? What if the EU agrees with California and stops doing any trade with the remiander of the USA?
This is obviously a silly example, but consider what happens when OPEC stops exporting oil to the entire country because all those bastards in California made Cow Porn legal and now youtube (a California based company) is flooded with Cow Porn? Since the price of oil will rise for all states until OPEC nations are satisfied that *the entire nation* stops their Cow Porn filth, what does President Ron Paul say? Dont forget, California doesn't care because they outlawed all petroleum use last year and aren't Dependant on OPEC in anyway.
Since you have to assume that other nations will treat us as a whole, how do you deal with interstate squabbles like this?
Last edited by martinocortez; 01-14-2008 at 03:05 PM.
I totally agree with you! I am not a vegitarian (I hate veggies) but I want the animals that donate their lives to feeding us to be treated humanely during their lives and during the slaughter process.
I’ve never heard any argument sufficiently made for the existence of “animal rights”; it’s a man-made construction.This is an opinion in the same way someone saying "interest rate cuts are good, they help the stock market" is. A lot of people do think that animals have some rights, in many cases people believe they have God-given rights just as people may have. This is debatable, but you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand and be one of those types of people we constantly deal with as Ron Paul supporters.
That said, I see no reason why the killing of animals could not be done with some sort of decency...that is, don’t hang a pig upside down and cut through its stomach while its still alive, etc etc., there are many examples of such cruelty.
This has to do with the general mentality of people, though, and I’m not sure the government should or could do anything worthwhile (spending-wise or otherwise).
I’m a vegetarian also...but it has nothing to do with the morality of the animal world (which don’t exist).
Yes. But then people are also abhorrently sentimental.And if killing or otherwise abusing a domesticated animal (ie: a dog) is a crime, regardless of ownership, should the same not apply to other animals?
Jesus man.If RP were to take an Animal Rights stand then he would lose my vote and my support over that one issue. I would make it my personal goal to let every pet or livestock owner know where he stood from the American Kennel Club to the American Cattleman's Association.
'The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.' Washington
All the perplexities, confusions, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honour and virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. John Adams
'Can't move 'em with a cold thing like economics.' Arthur Griffith, founder Sinn Fein
what exactly constitutes animal cruelty?
Kicking the $#@! out of a dog until it starts whimpering.
This "ain't" for the law to deal with; it's in the minds of the people.Kicking the $#@! out of a dog until it starts whimpering.
'The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.' Washington
All the perplexities, confusions, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honour and virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. John Adams
'Can't move 'em with a cold thing like economics.' Arthur Griffith, founder Sinn Fein
The ability to solve a complex differential equation does not imply the ability to understand and demand legal rights. So, yeah, this is a horrible example. Re-read my original post.
Some people marry their animals. Are you telling me I can marry a stapler if it is my own property?
Animals have rights. Maybe it's not like the ones we have. You can't go around killing dogs, no matter how many you own. It's inhumane.
This is why I'm against PETA. Some of their members "rescued" dogs from people instead of the dogs going to the pound only to kill those dogs days later. I was appalled by the case's rulings, saying it was within the boundaries of the law to kill those dogs. Their lawyer fees were an upwards to 2 million.
Last edited by Psych0t; 01-17-2008 at 10:25 AM.
l.
Yesterday on NPR they discussed the death of a canine that assisted an officer in some city in America. The dog had 150 officers and canines at his funeral and over 100 other guests. The dog died while he was biting a man, who jumped off of a bridge. The man is being charged with the death of the animal, since the man survived the jump. (Don't taze me bro)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18159616
I think animals do have rights, and often more than humans. Who paid for a 100 officers to be off duty, and their stand-ins. Who paid for the ceremony itself? Sicking dogs on people...I guess the dog can smell whose really guilty. And this story was on the NEWS!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us