Page 3 of 3

Re: Protection of Dogs Under the Law

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:06 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
JSPB22 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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?

What's your proposal?

Re: Protection of Dogs Under the Law

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:58 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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?

What's your proposal?

I don't really have one. I was interested in the opinions of those that have engaged in this discussion so far. It's definitely a sticky situation. I generally try not to personally kill animals, but I support hunters' rights as long as they eat what they kill, and I eat meat, so I realize that I do contribute to animal's deaths.

Re: Protection of Dogs Under the Law

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:39 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
JSPB22 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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?

What's your proposal?

I don't really have one. I was interested in the opinions of those that have engaged in this discussion so far. It's definitely a sticky situation. I generally try not to personally kill animals, but I support hunters' rights as long as they eat what they kill, and I eat meat, so I realize that I do contribute to animal's deaths.

I don't really have a specific one either. I guess I would default that all is "legal" (or not criminal) except for specific activities, like dog fighting. So rather then defining a "line" I would say those who want to protect "animals" from "torture" should propose the specific activities they wish to outlaw and for the specific animals it would apply to.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:11 pm
by Countertrey
So rather then defining a "line" I would say those who want to protect "animals" from "torture" should propose the specific activities they wish to outlaw and for the specific animals it would apply to.


We can't even agree on what constitutes torture when it pertains to humans...

Now this???

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:14 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Countertrey wrote:
So rather then defining a "line" I would say those who want to protect "animals" from "torture" should propose the specific activities they wish to outlaw and for the specific animals it would apply to.


We can't even agree on what constitutes torture when it pertains to humans...

Now this???

I thought you were arguing that dog torture should be criminal. Did you have a proposal for that where gray is eliminated? Actually I'd be interested in a any proposal on any subject in government that eliminates having to deal with gray other then anarchy. Even then it's only the government dealing with it that's not gray.

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:22 pm
by Countertrey
I thought you were arguing that dog torture should be criminal. Did you have a proposal for that where gray is eliminated? Actually I'd be interested in a any proposal on any subject in government that eliminates having to deal with gray other then anarchy. Even then it's only the government dealing with it that's not gray.


You actually haven't seen that. The law is close to adequate as it is, and certainly covers "torture". All I need is to see the law enforced.

My argument has consistently been that Michael Vick is slime, and deserves every bit of misery he has experienced. He does not deserve another shot at the big time, and the NFL owes him nothing. THAT is essentially my stand. You have also seen me draw attention to the strong correlation between dogfighting and drug trafficing. There are those who remain in denial of that very clear fact, but it is what it is.

I do not believe animals have rights. I do believe that we have an obligation, however, to behave in a humane and responsible manner. I also believe that cruelty to animals is an indicator of pending violent acts towards people. The law must demonstrate a recognition of that very simple and powerful correlation (yes, another one of those).

Those who torment animals are very likely to not make the distinction between animal and human. These are people whom (most often) have no conscience. They don't care one whit about others... only themselves... and pleasuring themselves is their greatest concern. The sure and certain threat of painful consequences can and does act to deter their pleasuring of themselves.

I believe that any act in which people derive pleasure from the suffering of any creature, human or animal, does not meet the standard of humane and responsible treatment. I believe that anyone who so engages surrenders a portion of their humanity.

It is not necessary for you, or me, or anyone else to eliminate gray. Ultimately, any determination requires that someone make a value judgment... which by definition, implies gray. You cannot avoid it.

How about any act deliberately intended to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering is considered abuse, and therefore, unlawful.
Add accelerators for evidence of sadism.
Add accelerators for co-occurence with other felonies.

Yes. There are several value judgments implied. What constitutes unnecessary? What constitutes pain and suffering? At what point does an act go from a mechanical set of actions intended to meet an end, vs the derivation of pleasure from the suffering/fear imposed?

It is, necessarily, gray.

Given that, I am more than willing to make that judgment... you can pretty much bet that I'll be consistent. Just give me an office (and a cattle prod), and I'll get to work. :twisted:

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:04 pm
by PulpExposure
I like your thinking on this topic, CTrey.

Especially:

I do not believe animals have rights. I do believe that we have an obligation, however, to behave in a humane and responsible manner. I also believe that cruelty to animals is an indicator of pending violent acts towards people. The law must demonstrate a recognition of that very simple and powerful correlation (yes, another one of those).