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

twst and spin string.
People do not have rights ? They get euthanized sometimes too.

Me thinks you are trying too hard to mix your idealism with reality.

My avitar de jour is dedicated to you string.
 
Last edited:
Who said I was in favor of the death penalty?

However, that is only after due process in ralation to a crime. You want to haul these dogs into a court?

No, I have little problem mixing idealism with reality. I am pointing that this is the problem of the status quo. For instance, my idealism says inalienable rights of the individual. My realism says and overwhelming majority opinion cannot be thwarted. Therefore, my suggestion (in other threads) for a way to resolve such dilemmas.
 
RStringfield said:
Who said I was in favor of the death penalty?

However, that is only after due process in ralation to a crime. You want to haul these dogs into a court?

No, I have little problem mixing idealism with reality. I am pointing that this is the problem of the status quo. For instance, my idealism says inalienable rights of the individual. My realism says and overwhelming majority opinion cannot be thwarted. Therefore, my suggestion (in other threads) for a way to resolve such dilemmas.
Click to expand...

Who asked if you were in favor of the death penalty. I am dealing in reality not your idealistic fantasy world.
Wake up dancing man.

Umm and yes these dogs have in essence been thru the court system. Perhaps not individually but the precedents and laws have been established.
Not sure if a specific court order was needed in this case or not.

But usually a court order is needed to put down a viscious dog and proof is needed.
 
You are dealing in an idealism of might makes right and conservatism.

What? They have not been granted the due process afforded to those possessed of rights, i.e., humans.
 
RStringfield said:
You are dealing in an idealism of might makes right and conservatism.

What? They have not been granted the due process afforded to those possessed of rights, i.e., humans.
Click to expand...

you are a dancing fool.
:)

Not the same rights but rights.
children do not have the same rights as adults now do they ?
 
uscitizen said:
you are a dancing fool.
:)

Not the same rights but rights.
children do not have the same rights as adults now do they ?
Click to expand...

Okay, not the same rights, but what rights? Rights against cruelty? Yet we legally allow cruelty to them. You know how many greyhounds are killed when they can't measure up? Hunting practices are often cruel. We are cruel to animals we regard as pests.

No, you are the one dancing as you attempt to twist and spin to find something comparable. Children have the same rights as adults, only some of those rights are held in suspesion until they are capable of exercising them. They are potential self owners. Not so with an animal. They will never be regarded as self owners.
 
All I can say is.............

Native Americans kept dogs within the Tribe/Nation as pets and a food source during hard times...however I seriously doubt they tortured them prior to the preparation for food process...end of story!
 
RStringfield said:
Okay, not the same rights, but what rights? Rights against cruelty? Yet we legally allow cruelty to them. You know how many greyhounds are killed when they can't measure up? Hunting practices are often cruel. We are cruel to animals we regard as pests.

No, you are the one dancing as you attempt to twist and spin to find something comparable. Children have the same rights as adults, only some of those rights are held in suspesion until they are capable of exercising them. They are potential self owners. Not so with an animal. They will never be regarded as self owners.
Click to expand...

Spin around some more, this is entertaining.
 
Avoid the arguments some more with non reponsive posts as you dance and spin. Not really entertaining, it is so predictable to be boring.
 
I have already made my quite substantive responses to your brief and unelaborated points. Waiting for you to offer a response.
 
Battleborne said:
Native Americans kept dogs within the Tribe/Nation as pets and a food source during hard times...however I seriously doubt they tortured them prior to the preparation for food process...end of story!
Click to expand...

Huh? By end of story do you mean this is supposed to settle something or it is the end of your story?
 
Battleborne said:
Vick admitted he committed the crime and will do the time...all the rest of this rhetoric is redundant!...Thus end of story!
Click to expand...

Well, at least you seem to know you are a conservative, though not republican (emphasis on the small r), i.e., any republican should oppose the federal prosecution of this case.

It's not end of the story. This morning I read multiple commentaries on the obvious hypocrisy of this prosecution. Either we have a consistent way to deal with and define animal cruelty and the infringement of property rights or we allow the government to arbitrarily decide it. An arbitrary, willy-nilly government, is a breeding ground for state abuse.
 
I am...............

RStringfield said:
Well, at least you seem to know you are a conservative, though not republican (emphasis on the small r), i.e., any republican should oppose the federal prosecution of this case.

It's not end of the story. This morning I read multiple commentaries on the obvious hypocrisy of this prosecution. Either we have a consistent way to deal with and define animal cruelty and the infringement of property rights or we allow the government to arbitrarily decide it. An arbitrary, willy-nilly government, is a breeding ground for state abuse.
Click to expand...

a registered ultra conservative 'American Independent' I lost the 'R' long ago...your comment as above is the reason...sorry free market does not always apply...especially when a market commodity(Vick in this case) breaks the laws of the land...carry on a carrying the water though!
 
uscitizen said:
yeah right, in you mind perhaps
Click to expand...

BS. I have asked you to elaborate on what rights animals have. While guessing that you would argue protection against cruelty, I pointed out to you the problems of inconsistency in that definition. A consistent definition would likely create problems too, e.g., no cruelty to pests.

Further I pointed out why animals can not be compared to children, since they have no potential to be self owners.

You may find my points weak or wrong, but there was nevertheless substance in the post that would allow for you to make a response. That is, if you were not such a retarded ballerina, busy donning your tutu and stumbling about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top