Aint it Great That We Have the Government Protecting Dogs From Cruelty

[Timshel]

What alternative do you propose String?

I propose we acknowledge the reality that animals are not possessed of rights.

 

[uscitizen]

The laws of out land say differently.

 

[Damocles]

The laws of out land say differently.

No, the laws say that we should treat them humanely, they do not instill them with rights.

 

[uscitizen]

No, the laws say that we should treat them humanely, they do not instill them with rights.

Umm that is rights, not human rights but rights.

 

[Damocles]

Umm that is rights, not human rights but rights.

It is not rights. It is regulation on the treatment of your property.

 

[uscitizen]

same end result.

 

[Damocles]

same end result.

Right, ask African Americans if they think that regulation of your use of property is the same as rights.

 

[uscitizen]

Right, ask African Americans if they think that regulation of your use of property is the same as rights.

So you are saying that African Americans are property ?

 

[doniston]

Don't you have a Bingo hall open nearby or something?

No, I preferr to stick it to knuckle-dragers like you.

 

[doniston]

Umm that is rights, not human rights but rights.

Absolutely correct.

 

[doniston]

It is not rights. It is regulation on the treatment of your property.

nonsense, and but of course.

 

[doniston]

Right, ask African Americans if they think that regulation of your use of property is the same as rights.

You are about a hundred years too late for that arguement.

 

[Cypress]

I propose we acknowledge the reality that animals are not possessed of rights.

I don't think it matters. Discussion of rights versus non-rights is just philosophical wankering - mental masturbation.

We're always going to have laws protecting the welfare of domestic animals. No one is ever going to be able to string up a dog on their property and light it on fire, without facing criminal charges. Anyone who wants to claim we have the right to torture and mutilate our domestic animals, is always going to be considered a psychotic kook - someone to be shunned by civilized society.

 

[uscitizen]

Is Damo being disingenious ?

 

[Timshel]

It is not rights. It is regulation on the treatment of your property.

And since the government has no proper authority to regulate the use of your property, so long as the use does not injure the person or property of another....

 

[Timshel]

I don't think it matters. Discussion of rights versus non-rights is just philosophical wankering - mental masturbation.

We're always going to have laws protecting the welfare of domestic animals. No one is ever going to be able to string up a dog on their property and light it on fire, without facing criminal charges. Anyone who wants to claim we have the right to torture and mutilate our domestic animals, is always going to be considered a psychotic kook - someone to be shunned by civilized society.

So your argument is humans have no rights either. If the state decides that the best way to get rid of a difficult population of humans is to euthanize them, well, that's their call.

 

[uscitizen]

And since the government has no proper authority to regulate the use of your property, so long as the use does not injure the person or property of another....

Then that would support my opinion that the animal has rights under law.

 

[Timshel]

What rights do they have? The state is going to euthanize them. They are self owners possessed of rights or not.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Someone play a melody for this tap dance of Strings.

 

[Timshel]

What tap dance? The thread title was only intended to show the hypocrisy of the matter.

Dogs don't have rights. Sorry, I don't like the fact that bastards like Vick do what they do, but then I don't like what the greyhound or horse racing industries do either.