Protection of Dogs Under the Law

[Countertrey]

Is it the ability to recognize "self"? All apes are capable of this... but it's also true that there are other species that can recognize "self" in a mirror... elephants, some birds (especially parrots), and possibly some species of dolphin are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. Are they "moral agents"?

I would dispute your claim that we have evidence of self-awareness in apes, dolphins, and other higher-order species on non-human animals. (From what I've read dolphins appear the closest to have a sense of 'self'.) I've read a good amount of the literature on this, and even with many researchers who want to find the evidence there really haven't been any clear examples or demonstrations.

There was a very interesting article in the March issue of National Geographic (it was the cover article; "Inside Animal Minds" with a picture of a Border Collie), that discussed this very topic. If you get a chance, you should definitely check it out, if you haven't already.

It is actually Alex, the African Grey, that I had in mind as I wrote my earlier reply. To have an actual conversation (simple though it may be) with a member of another species must be just thrilling.

Animal Minds, National Geographic, March '08

[PulpExposure]

Most of us who believe that the 10th amendment actually means something just sit in astonishment when we see the Commerce Clause used to justify such insults and intrusions into state and individual rights as the US Department of Education. It's just astounding to me.

But then, that's not about the "Rights" of dogs, is it?

No, it's not. We're piloting the derail train, aren't we?

By the way, I think you're reading this wrong. You do know that states can fully opt out of the No Child Left Behind Program & every other Dept of Education initiative/mandate, right? All they have to do is forgo the federal funding they'd receive along with it. The Feds don't use the Commerce Clause to justify US DoE interference in state education programs; they just use the hook of federal funding.

An example is states refusing the federal funding associated with teaching abstinence programs. 14 states don't want to teach it, so they forgo the millions in funding they'd otherwise receive.

Or hell, you can even opt out of No Child Left Behind...but...

Paige says states that would decide to opt out would lose money earmarked for the implementation of No Child Left Behind, as well as federal funding for other educational programs. Minnesota's potential loss could top $200 million a year.

But states look at that federal funding and dammit, it's just way too tempting.

[Irn-Bru]

There was a very interesting article in the March issue of National Geographic (it was the cover article; "Inside Animal Minds" with a picture of a Border Collie), that discussed this very topic. If you get a chance, you should definitely check it out, if you haven't already.

Yeah, I saw that when it came out. I love this kind of stuff.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

That reasoning's sick. No wonder the Supreme idiots make the rulings they do. The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to smooth trade, not rationalize Federal power which is all that ruling does.

That's precisely the reason for it; to regulate interstate trade, you have to grant someone final arbitration between the states, and that's the role of the federal government (clearly delineated in the Necessary and Proper clause).

Yes, but the Constitution was created to cede certain LIMITED powers to the Federal government. How does someone growing something on their personal farm affect another State? It doesn't, it infringes on the "rights" of the Federal Government. But the Constitution is not there to protect the Federal Government, it's there to establish it and LIMIT it's power to protect OUR rights. The wording you presented was simply a rationalization by the courts to say, it' BELONGS to the Federal government and EXPAND their power.

And as Trey pointed out that logic can be used for such a ridiculously broad range of subjects it's only self interest rationalization to believe that's what the Founding Fathers meant or that the Federal government saying you can't grow something on your farm is reasonable because it's "commerce," so they OWN it and the farmer is infringing on Government's rights! Again, . Think about that, explain to John Adams that the FEDERAL government can tell a Farmer what he can and cannot grow on his farm and you honestly believe that comes from the Constitution. He would laugh at you. And if the founding fathers didn't say it, where did it come from? Word splicing and rationalization is not any rational basis for creating a new power of the Federal government.

Now, of course, you as a businessman may have a better grasp on law than myself, as I'm just a lowly practicing lawyer

Aw, did I huwt your widdle feewings? I'm sowwy.

but are you really so egotistic to believe that you understand Constitutional originalism better than Scalia?

I'm self assured enough to have my own views and to subject them to scrutiny and to change them as more information is presented, which I frequently do. I generally respect Scalia, but I'm not wench enough to subject my views automatically to anyone.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't see how any of this establishes that we cannot protect dogs from torture.

Well you are being vague here. Of course we can protect dogs from torture, in many ways.

OK, I'm being "vague" and you're being "non-specific." How do you propose to protect them?

But can I prosecute someone with criminal charges on behalf of the dog? I wouldn't think so.

I understand your view that to be a "crime" someone with "standing" must be a victim. While I agree with that in relation to most issues, certainly with regards to our own bodies and opposing other victimless crimes, I think there are exceptions.
- Children have only limited standing
- Those who are an imminent threat to someone, like an ex-husband who's a threat to his wife
- Someone who's truly insane and a threat to others
- People who harm a non-specific victim, like dumping toxins in a river regardless of whether they can prove a specific person was murdered or not
- Torturing animals.

And in all those cases, you will find gray. I believe strongly in Ayn Rand's principle everyone has the right to anything they want as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. When you're talking about someone putting drugs in their own body, or if you want to saw off your arm and sell it or anything like that it clearly meets that standard. But I see in no way how preventing torture of dogs infringes on my or anyone else's right to live by the clear libertarian principle so eloquently stated by Ayn Rand. Dogs are animate objects, as you say. And I don't see how my rights or anyone elses are protected by saying either dogs are protected from torture AND bugs by winshields in a court of law as a crime or neither is.

[Irn-Bru]

OK, I'm being "vague" and you're being "non-specific." How do you propose to protect them?

If you had a family member that was harming their pets, would you stand by and not do anything about it? I wouldn't.

Neighborhood associations and local standards that are conditions for living there, standards in pet stores / pet adoption agencies, advocacy groups that bring attention to cases of abuse and use constructive social pressure to bring about change, standards or morality enforced by churches, educators, schools. . .

But can I prosecute someone with criminal charges on behalf of the dog? I wouldn't think so.

I understand your view that to be a "crime" someone with "standing" must be a victim.

Can you define this sentence for me? I am confused at the word "standing," specifically, and especially since it's in scare quotes.

I believe strongly in Ayn Rand's principle everyone has the right to [do] anything they want as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.

While I understand what you're getting at, that isn't a very well-worded statement. And Ayn Rand isn't the best thinker to rely on, as far as principles of social order go. One problem manifests itself below:

But I see in no way how preventing torture of dogs infringes on my or anyone else's right to live by the clear libertarian principle so eloquently stated by Ayn Rand.

If they aren't included in the "everyone" group above then the response should be clear. But what qualifies something to be in the "everyone" listed above? I'm guessing you have some notion of personhood, but up until now you haven't spelled out what the criteria for personhood are.

Dogs are animate objects, as you say. And I don't see how my rights or anyone elses are protected by saying either dogs are protected from torture AND bugs by winshields in a court of law as a crime or neither is.

Can you re-word this argument for me? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[PulpExposure]

[:roll: Aw, did I huwt your widdle feewings? I'm sowwy.

Nope, and you totally missed my point. Your hypocrisy is astounding. In another post, you held your MBA as evidence of your greater knowledge of business, yet, you can't acknowledge the converse; that someone who studied the law and actually practices the law knows more about the law than someone with an MBA. And believe it or not, all law stems from the Constitution, so *gasp* we actually took classes on Constitutional Law.

I'm self assured enough

Some people refer tol their delusions as self-assurance...

[KazooSkinsFan]

[:roll: Aw, did I huwt your widdle feewings? I'm sowwy.

Nope, and you totally missed my point. Your hypocrisy is astounding. In another post, you held your MBA as evidence of your greater knowledge of business, yet, you can't acknowledge the converse; that someone who studied the law and actually practices the law knows more about the law than someone with an MBA. And believe it or not, all law stems from the Constitution, so *gasp* we actually took classes on Constitutional Law.

I'm self assured enough

Some people refer tol their delusions as self-assurance...

OK, that's not what I said and when you said this the first time I said it again. I was not intending my providing you with information to be a slight. When you raised the boo boo to the ego point the first time I said you have EVERY right to an opinion, to disagree with me, whatever. I only meant the additional information was not intended to imply any slight that you didn't know that. Let's try this.

PULP-EXPOSURE. It was NEVER my INTENTION to deny you your OPINION, the right to argue with me or the right to DISAGREE. If I wrote that incorrectly originally and failed when I clarified it the FIRST time you complained about it I'M SORRY.

I am CONSISTENT. I said FACTS about business, I never said you needed to accept my OPINION I was deriving from those facts. For example, it is a FACT that our deficits are no where near "real" records. It is OPINION the conclusions I draw from that. As for the LAW. You are presenting FACTS and I am ACCEPTING them. I am not saying, NO, the Supreme Court DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!! I'm saying I accept your FACTS and arguing the CONCLUSION that growing weed can be restricted under the commerce clause is hooey.

Can we move on now? This frankly isn't very complicated and it's my third attempt. The LSAT is all about LOGIC. Facts, accept expertise as probably right unless one has direct knowledge, OPINION accept expertise as an opinion. Your demand that my saying you should accept my FACTS about business and economics means I should accept your OPINION about legal issues is nonsense. And you can disagree with that, but at least address it as what I said and stop writing whiney posts that my not accepting the opinion of a lawyer is hypocritical when I said I know FACTS about economics as my area of expertise.

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, I'm being "vague" and you're being "non-specific." How do you propose to protect them?

If you had a family member that was harming their pets, would you stand by and not do anything about it? I wouldn't.

Neighborhood associations and local standards that are conditions for living there, standards in pet stores / pet adoption agencies, advocacy groups that bring attention to cases of abuse and use constructive social pressure to bring about change, standards or morality enforced by churches, educators, schools. . .

I totally agree 100% with everything you propose here. It should be done, and community should step up first to take this initiative and to try to protect animals instead of copping out and turning the job over to the State as the one and only owner of the issue. I do not agree that if it doesn't work and someone buys animals and tortures them it should not be a "criminal" act meaning jail.

But can I prosecute someone with criminal charges on behalf of the dog? I wouldn't think so.

I understand your view that to be a "crime" someone with "standing" must be a victim.

Can you define this sentence for me? I am confused at the word "standing," specifically, and especially since it's in scare quotes.

Funny on the "scare" quotes. I just meant to highlight it. I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing. If this is an inaccurate reading of your view, just tell me, just saying this is how I'm putting it together so far.

How it seems is as we cross issues you see the legal system's only valid use as an arbiter between equal moral agents. For example,

- A victim (or their family if they are dead) having the say over punishment, like the death penalty.
- A policeman being held accountable if an accused is not convicted.
- Charging someone for a crime when the victim is not a moral agent (e.g., a dog).

That's the basis for my rebuttal. While I would generally agree with you, I have been giving examples where I do not agree with that perspective. As I said, children are not equal. What rights do they have? There is no clear answer to that question, yet we must protect them. If someone dumps toxins in public rivers I view that as a CRIMINAL act even if you can't trace the effect to a specific victim. I totally agree dogs are not "equal" to humans, but as in other cases I do not agree that means you cannot commit a criminal act on one for the exact reason it is a living, feeling being. I am also not 100% opposed to forcibly committing the insane before they commit a criminal act.

So I inferred you have a requirement that an equal "moral agent" is on both sides of an accusation of a criminal act and you're saying that since a dog isn't they cannot be the cause of someone being accused of a crime.

I believe strongly in Ayn Rand's principle everyone has the right to [do] anything they want as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.

While I understand what you're getting at, that isn't a very well-worded statement. And Ayn Rand isn't the best thinker to rely on, as far as principles of social order go. One problem manifests itself below:

I agree it wasn't really an argument for anything. I only meant that's my perspective on libertarianism, it's what best describes my views. I do not think a dog is a human with full rights, but I do not think it's a table with no right to protection from others, and I do not see how allowing dogs to be tortured other then voluntary means harms anyone's right to live in a free, libertarian society. Again, that's my view, you're right it's not an argument rebutting anything though.

But I see in no way how preventing torture of dogs infringes on my or anyone else's right to live by the clear libertarian principle so eloquently stated by Ayn Rand.

If they aren't included in the "everyone" group above then the response should be clear

Again, I'm not seeing the "all" or "nothing" argument as anything but an opinion I disagree with. You have the right to think that, but it's not inherently true and no more of a logical argument then my Rand reference above.

But what qualifies something to be in the "everyone" listed above? I'm guessing you have some notion of personhood, but up until now you haven't spelled out what the criteria for personhood are.

I think we agree on personhood, what people do with their own bodies, what consenting adults do with theirs, what people do with inanimate objects. We are disagreeing that you see it as "all" or "nothing" and since dogs are not all they are nothing. Neither of us have "proven" their premise is right. It would actually be impossible to do so as it's based on our personal value system and not logic. Once you agree on the values you can use logic. There's a philosophy term for it, I can't come up with it at the moment..

Dogs are animate objects, as you say. And I don't see how my rights or anyone elses are protected by saying either dogs are protected from torture AND bugs by winshields in a court of law as a crime or neither is.

Can you re-word this argument for me? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

All I'm saying is I don't see how protecting dogs with the aboslute of considering torture a crime lessens ANYONE's legitimate rights to live their life as they see fit because I don't recognize the right to torture living creatures as a "right." I think it's moral for others to stop it with force, not just volunteer to the point of putting them in jail and throwing away the key. If it were up to me Vick would be in jail until he's too old to care about torturing dogs and I think a free society would be BETTER and not worse off for that. Again, it's not an argument, just my view.

[Irn-Bru]

I do not agree that if it doesn't work and someone buys animals and tortures them it should not be a "criminal" act meaning jail.

Well I'm open to that idea but it would first have to be clear to me that dogs have rights. I don't see any other way to justify using violence against a person.

I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing.

What if I have Joe's consent? It seems to me that any victim can have agents seek justice on his behalf. . .this is the reason why we can have police, lawyers, etc.

How it seems is as we cross issues you see the legal system's only valid use as an arbiter between equal moral agents. For example,

- A victim (or their family if they are dead) having the say over punishment, like the death penalty.
- A policeman being held accountable if an accused is not convicted.
- Charging someone for a crime when the victim is not a moral agent (e.g., a dog).

I'm not sure what "equal moral agents" means, and it looks sloppy to me so I don't want to concede that. While the first two examples seem fine, I'm not sure why the 3rd one is in there. Who is the victim?

As I said, children are not equal.

Why not? They are human persons, so they have all of the rights that you or I have.

I do not agree that means you cannot commit a criminal act on one for the exact reason it is a living, feeling being.

So in your view we could prosecute people who slaughter cattle, pigs, etc.? They are living, feeling beings, at least as much as dogs, and here are the meat packers ending their lives.

[Deadskins]

As I said, children are not equal.

Why not? They are human persons, so they have all of the rights that you or I have.

To a point. There is the issue of maturity to consider when assessing children's rights.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I do not agree that if it doesn't work and someone buys animals and tortures them it should not be a "criminal" act meaning jail.

Well I'm open to that idea but it would first have to be clear to me that dogs have rights. I don't see any other way to justify using violence against a person

To me it's clear that it's right for society to protect animals from torture up to an including the use of jail and guns, to you it's not. That's fine, no reason we have to agree.

I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing.

What if I have Joe's consent? It seems to me that any victim can have agents seek justice on his behalf. . .this is the reason why we can have police, lawyers, etc.

Not what I meant. YOUR rights were not violated when Joe's house burned down and YOU can't sue on your OR Joe's behalf. His authorizing/hiring someone to represent him is still protecting HIS rights. If you're his agent, you are acting on behalf of his rights.

How it seems is as we cross issues you see the legal system's only valid use as an arbiter between equal moral agents. For example,

- A victim (or their family if they are dead) having the say over punishment, like the death penalty.
- A policeman being held accountable if an accused is not convicted.
- Charging someone for a crime when the victim is not a moral agent (e.g., a dog).

I'm not sure what "equal moral agents" means, and it looks sloppy to me so I don't want to concede that. While the first two examples seem fine, I'm not sure why the 3rd one is in there. Who is the victim?

I know you agree with the first two points, I was repeating your views from other discussions. What I'm saying is my understanding is you view in the case of a crime, it is not between the State and the criminal as our current legal system views it but the State as arbiter of a dispute between criminal and victim. You view the policeman as a "witness" and the government as arbiter between the accusation of the witness and the accused. So for there to be "dog torture" as a crime by the same token the State would be arbiter between the torturerer and the dog, but since the dog is not a moral agent he cannot be a "side." Or in legal terms since he his not a moral agent he has no standing to be a "side."

As I said, that's how I'm interpreting your view, if it's inaccurate that's fine, you can clarify and I would have to use a different argument which I would need to use based on a better understanding of your view. But if it IS an accurate interpretation of your view I was saying that here are a list of things I believe do not fit that model. In general I would agree with your view, but not all the time.

As I said, children are not equal.

Why not? They are human persons, so they have all of the rights that you or I have.

Example. A father picks up a 20 year old and doesn't put him down until he stops crying. A father picks up a 2 year old and doesn't put him down until he stops crying. The first is unlawful detention, the second is good parenting. A 20 year old walks to the door and parents pick them up and put them in their room. A two year old walks to the door and parents pick them up and put them in their room. Of course children don't have full rights. On the other hand a parent beats a 20 year old OR a 2 year old to a pulp. These are extreme examples, but I'm not trying to argue in this discussion where the line should be, just that there is a line and children clearly do NOT have the full legal rights of an adult.

I do not agree that means you cannot commit a criminal act on one for the exact reason it is a living, feeling being.

So in your view we could prosecute people who slaughter cattle, pigs, etc.? They are living, feeling beings, at least as much as dogs, and here are the meat packers ending their lives.

We "could" if we decide that's "torture." I am not arguing we "should." We need to decide what protection animals should be afforded, as we decide what protections children, the insane are afforded, as we decide when and where you can dump toxins regardless of whether there is a direct "victim" as we have to make a whole lot of other judgment calls.

[PulpExposure]

Funny on the "scare" quotes. I just meant to highlight it. I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing. If this is an inaccurate reading of your view, just tell me, just saying this is how I'm putting it together so far.

You do fully understand that even the victim of a criminal act DOES NOT have standing to prosecute the offense? I.e., if you burnt down my house, I wouldn't be able to bring a criminal suit against you, because I don't have that authority. Only society at large has that authority; which is why you see all criminal suits are State of Maryland v. Arsonist, or US v. Arsonist.

I may have standing to sue you for a civil charge associated with the crime of arson...but not for the crime itself.

So in no way would anyone, except the state or federal government, have "standing" to prosecute someone on behalf of the dog for a criminal offense.

[Deadskins]

Funny on the "scare" quotes. I just meant to highlight it. I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing. If this is an inaccurate reading of your view, just tell me, just saying this is how I'm putting it together so far.

You do fully understand that even the victim of a criminal act has standing to prosecute the offense? I.e., if you burnt down my house, I wouldn't be able to bring a criminal suit against you, because I don't have that authority. Only society at large has that authority; which is why you see all criminal suits are State of Maryland v. Arsonist, or US v. Arsonist.

I may have standing to sue you for a civil charge associated with the crime of arson...but not for the crime itself.

So in no way would anyone, except the state or federal government, have "standing" to prosecute someone on behalf of the dog for a criminal offense.

I think you meant "doesn't have."

[Irn-Bru]

To a point. There is the issue of maturity to consider when assessing children's rights.

While I agree this is something to consider, if you are implying that children somehow have fewer/different/greater rights than other human persons I don't see how that would follow from this point.

[PulpExposure]

Funny on the "scare" quotes. I just meant to highlight it. I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing. If this is an inaccurate reading of your view, just tell me, just saying this is how I'm putting it together so far.

You do fully understand that even the victim of a criminal act has standing to prosecute the offense? I.e., if you burnt down my house, I wouldn't be able to bring a criminal suit against you, because I don't have that authority. Only society at large has that authority; which is why you see all criminal suits are State of Maryland v. Arsonist, or US v. Arsonist.

I may have standing to sue you for a civil charge associated with the crime of arson...but not for the crime itself.

So in no way would anyone, except the state or federal government, have "standing" to prosecute someone on behalf of the dog for a criminal offense.

I think you meant "doesn't have."

Great catch. Thanks (much appreciated).

That's what I get for typing during a muted teleconference....

[Deadskins]

To a point. There is the issue of maturity to consider when assessing children's rights.

While I agree this is something to consider, if you are implying that children somehow have fewer/different/greater rights than other human persons I don't see how that would follow from this point.

A person doesn't have the right to vote until they reach the age of majority. What I was saying is that some of a minor's rights are ceded to their parents or legal guardians.

[Irn-Bru]

To me it's clear that it's right for society to protect animals from torture up to an including the use of jail and guns, to you it's not. That's fine, no reason we have to agree.

Well I'm trying to understand your position, because to me it appears arbitrary and fickle. If you look at the videos of slaughterhouses provided by PETA (and the like) you can find many cases of animal treatment that don't appear to differ in kind from what Vick put some of his dogs through. Yet you currently aren't accounting for this, except to say that we could deem that torture in the future if we wanted to.

Not what I meant. YOUR rights were not violated when Joe's house burned down and YOU can't sue on your OR Joe's behalf. His authorizing/hiring someone to represent him is still protecting HIS rights. If you're his agent, you are acting on behalf of his rights.

Right, but I think this supports my point in that you can only act on behalf of a person who has those rights to begin with.

I know you agree with the first two points, I was repeating your views from other discussions. What I'm saying is my understanding is you view in the case of a crime, it is not between the State and the criminal as our current legal system views it but the State as arbiter of a dispute between criminal and victim. You view the policeman as a "witness" and the government as arbiter between the accusation of the witness and the accused.

Well I suppose all of these things could the case but in principle I'm not committed to this particular configuration for administering justice. As it happens, the process described above strikes me as unlikely to produce much justice. . .but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

Example. A father picks up a 20 year old and doesn't put him down until he stops crying. A father picks up a 2 year old and doesn't put him down until he stops crying. The first is unlawful detention, the second is good parenting.

It is lawful (and moral!) to act in good faith on behalf of someone who is incapable of asserting their own rights / judgment. So I don't see how this example is supposed to be a wrench for basic libertarian legal theory.

Example: Someone walks into a hospital room with a lead pipe and begins beating a woman who is comatose. My position rejects the idea that the woman is not a moral agent and thus no crime is being committed; it also rejects the idea that only a policeman has legitimate authority to step in and stop the assaulter; it also rejects the view that the reason I can assist the comatose woman is because comatose people have specialized rights, which happen to include immunity from lead-pipe beatings; etc.

It's far simpler to understand human nature, which is abstract in principle, and apply it to particular situations empirically.

Hence this conclusion:

A 20 year old walks to the door and parents pick them up and put them in their room. A two year old walks to the door and parents pick them up and put them in their room. Of course children don't have full rights.

These are extreme examples, but I'm not trying to argue in this discussion where the line should be, just that there is a line and children clearly do NOT have the full legal rights of an adult.

Is absurd. The parent is acting on behalf of a human person that has not developed her full capacities yet. It's the same reason they can make a child eat vegetables, since they can assume in good faith that the child as an adult would consent to the healthy thing, which is in the best interests of the child.

I don't see how this was supposed to be the back-breaker. IMHO, to think that my position was inflexible to the point where it couldn't account for children was a bit absurd. But whatever, sometimes I am hopelessly incompetent when it comes to communicating ideas.

We "could" if we decide that's "torture." I am not arguing we "should." We need to decide what protection animals should be afforded, as we decide what protections children, the insane are afforded, as we decide when and where you can dump toxins regardless of whether there is a direct "victim" as we have to make a whole lot of other judgment calls.

My, aren't we powerful! We get to decide who deserves what treatment! Candy for kids! Torture for cows, but not dogs! All bow before our great legal framework!

I hope you don't mind if I don't buy into legal positivism. When it comes to justice and rights I think there's a little more to the world than convention and arbitrary judgment.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Funny on the "scare" quotes. I just meant to highlight it. I meant "standing" in a legal sense where for example if Tim burns down Joe's house, Irn-Bru cannot sue on Joe's behalf because you don't have legal standing. If this is an inaccurate reading of your view, just tell me, just saying this is how I'm putting it together so far.

You do fully understand that even the victim of a criminal act DOES NOT have standing to prosecute the offense? I.e., if you burnt down my house, I wouldn't be able to bring a criminal suit against you, because I don't have that authority. Only society at large has that authority; which is why you see all criminal suits are State of Maryland v. Arsonist, or US v. Arsonist.

I may have standing to sue you for a civil charge associated with the crime of arson...but not for the crime itself.

So in no way would anyone, except the state or federal government, have "standing" to prosecute someone on behalf of the dog for a criminal offense.

I do know that. I did say "sue" (meaning civil) not "prosecute" (meaning criminal) but I have to agree I could have stated that more clearly, especially since we were discussing dogs being criminal. Anyway, isn't "standing" a civil term? To your point it wouldn't even apply in a criminal case. Just asking.

BTW, the typo JSPB pointed out didn't throw me, I understood what you meant.

[Irn-Bru]

A person doesn't have the right to vote until they reach the age of majority. What I was saying is that some of a minor's rights are ceded to their parents or legal guardians.

Legally, and as a matter of practical procedure, yes. I'm agreeing with you in the past couple of posts. But I think some people infer from this that children don't have these rights whatsoever until developing certain capacities, which is a mistake in my view.

Then they think there are all kinds of "difficulties" with rights theories because one sentence simply stated can't obviously account for the details of every specific case. . .

[PulpExposure]

I do know that. I did say "sue" (meaning civil) not "prosecute" (meaning criminal) but I have to agree I could have stated that more clearly, especially since we were discussing dogs being criminal.

Right, that's where I was clarifying...

Anyway, isn't "standing" a civil term? To your point it wouldn't even apply in a criminal case. Just asking.

Not necessarily. It's a civil term only because the only person who has "standing" to prosecute in a criminal case is the government. The old school legal thought process is since you damage society by your action (i.e., committing a crime), only society (or society's appointed defender, the government) has standing to request redress for that crime.

BTW, the typo JSPB pointed out didn't throw me, I understood what you meant.

I know, because the rest of the post was fairly a sledgehammer on the issue.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well I'm trying to understand your position, because to me it appears arbitrary and fickle. If you look at the videos of slaughterhouses provided by PETA (and the like) you can find many cases of animal treatment that don't appear to differ in kind from what Vick put some of his dogs through. Yet you currently aren't accounting for this, except to say that we could deem that torture in the future if we wanted to.

You're right Irn-Bru, there IS hypocrisy in my opinion since I eat cows that are murdered.

Wait a sec, I'm a vegetarian, I'm not a hypocrite! You like bringing up the cows. I think you're not used to debating this issue with vegetarians. I keep purposefully avoiding the whole "where" we draw the line argument because I consider it a red herring. I think dogs being tortured should be criminal. I think bugs splattered on your windshield should not, the line is somewhere in the middle. I frankly am OK with outlawing the killing the cows thing, but it's not the point.

We "could" if we decide that's "torture." I am not arguing we "should." We need to decide what protection animals should be afforded, as we decide what protections children, the insane are afforded, as we decide when and where you can dump toxins regardless of whether there is a direct "victim" as we have to make a whole lot of other judgment calls.

My, aren't we powerful! We get to decide who deserves what treatment! Candy for kids! Torture for cows, but not dogs! All bow before our great legal framework!

I hope you don't mind if I don't buy into legal positivism. When it comes to justice and rights I think there's a little more to the world than convention and arbitrary judgment.

Well, yes, we do have to make choices as to how our government is going to work, not seeing that as an insight. I consider it to be "moral" to protect dogs from torture. Whether we allow the slaughter of cows and if so how as well. If you want to put it in religious terms, I think God intentionally made it so we have to deal with gray and this is a great example. It's easy for me to be a vegetarian today, but in the past it would have been close to impossible. God assigned us the task of protecting innocent animals while at the same time through our development made life dependent on eating them.

I do not see the quest of systems that because they eliminate gray and allow torturing dogs to be a positive evolutionary step. Just like I have to deal with not understanding things like liberalism and people who all chose to think alike instead of thinking and being dependent on the most incompetent and corrupt among us, politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats. I have accepted I will eventually die really only understanding a little but of what this is all about and most of that will be wrong. But I will gladly believe doing my part to protect from torture was in the plus column.

[Irn-Bru]

You're right Irn-Bru, there IS hypocrisy in my opinion since I eat cows that are murdered.

Wait a sec, I'm a vegetarian, I'm not a hypocrite! You like bringing up the cows. I think you're not used to debating this issue with vegetarians. I keep purposefully avoiding the whole "where" we draw the line argument because I consider it a red herring. I think dogs being tortured should be criminal. I think bugs splattered on your windshield should not, the line is somewhere in the middle. I frankly am OK with outlawing the killing the cows thing, but it's not the point.

I knew that you are a vegetarian and am pretty sure I wasn't basing my critique on the belief that you chow down on steak every now and again. What I'm saying is simply that if you're going to bring violence against someone, it should be justified. Using the principle you've articulated I don't see how we can exclude the death of quite a few animals, many of which happen in ordinary circumstances.

The lines you are drawing, in terms of what specifically to pursue in practice (i.e., sending Vick to prison but necessarily, for example, someone who strangled or tortured their hamster, or laws to that effect) seem to me to be arbitrary.

Well, yes, we do have to make choices as to how our government is going to work, not seeing that as an insight. I consider it to be "moral" to protect dogs from torture. Whether we allow the slaughter of cows and if so how as well. If you want to put it in religious terms, I think God intentionally made it so we have to deal with gray and this is a great example. It's easy for me to be a vegetarian today, but in the past it would have been close to impossible. God assigned us the task of protecting innocent animals while at the same time through our development made life dependent on eating them.

And I've got no problems with "protecting animals," as I've said repeatedly I'm in favor of it.

I do not see the quest of systems that because they eliminate gray and allow torturing dogs to be a positive evolutionary step. Just like I have to deal with not understanding things like liberalism and people who all chose to think alike instead of thinking and being dependent on the most incompetent and corrupt among us, politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats. I have accepted I will eventually die really only understanding a little but of what this is all about and most of that will be wrong. But I will gladly believe doing my part to protect from torture was in the plus column.

I'm curious, how might you respond to someone who gave you the following argument: "I do not see as a positive evolutionary step the systems that, because they try to uphold atomistic privacy, allow poor people to go without medical care. Just like I have to deal with not understanding things like capitalists and people who all choose to think alike instead of thinking and being dependent on the most incompetent and corrupt among us, politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I have accepted this and will eventually die really only understanding a little but of what this is all about and most of that will be wrong. But I will gladly believe doing my part to ensure that the poor get health care was in the plus column."

[KazooSkinsFan]

Wait a sec, I'm a vegetarian

I knew that you are a vegetarian and am pretty sure I wasn't basing my critique on the belief that you chow down on steak every now and again

I know that too, I was just teasing.

I'm curious, how might you respond to someone who gave you the following argument: "I do not see as a positive evolutionary step the systems that, because they try to uphold atomistic privacy, allow poor people to go without medical care. Just like I have to deal with not understanding things like capitalists and people who all choose to think alike instead of thinking and being dependent on the most incompetent and corrupt among us, politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I have accepted this and will eventually die really only understanding a little but of what this is all about and most of that will be wrong. But I will gladly believe doing my part to ensure that the poor get health care was in the plus column."

I completely got that I was open to that argument when I said it. I very rarely get hit with arguments I wasn't expecting because I actually do think of these perspectives when I make arguments. I'm pretty good at heading off the most stereotypical left arguments for that reason, I follow my arguments with comments that head off what I know would be coming first, a pretty effective strategy. The arguments where I am not clear what is coming back are very frequently yours. Though not this one. A fair question and I thought I'd get it. So, two things:

- While I acknowledge the point, I still don't see how to eliminate gray from the world. We ARE going to have to convince people of our views. Or in my case accept they're not going to and just torment them for fun instead. It cracks me up when they say, "That will NEVER convince us" as if they had open minds and would be swayed by a logical argument. You know who THEY are, the dreaded race. Shudder. I don't particularly see your proposal as an alternative to that unless everyone suddenly becomes as intelligent and intellectually consistent as you are.

- While I avoid religion in political discussions because I think religious views should almost always not be driven through government but through our personal lives, to me the protection of animals is a moral issue. And again like I said I also recognize God made it difficult to live without eating them or stepping on them or driving into them with your windshield. I consider the windshield thing and the dog torture thing to be no-brainers and I believe God INTENTIONALLY set us up to have to deal with the rest of it as gray. But for what I do consider torture, I do not accept your proposal that you can't FORCE someone to stop purposeful cruelty to intelligent animals like dogs.

[Deadskins]

I think dogs being tortured should be criminal. I think bugs splattered on your windshield should not, the line is somewhere in the middle.

Well, bugs on a windshield is not torture, but an accident, similar to hitting a dog that runs out into the street. Where does pulling the wings off a fly fit in on your scale? I'm guessing that this is not a crime in your book (not one in my book either). I'm just trying to get at where the line is drawn for discussion's sake. Are rat traps torture? Do we draw the line somewhere because the animals are likable, or does intelligence set the standard for which animals we protect?