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

Why did you edit that wiki page Damo ? ;)

I am just going to agree to disagree on this Damo, getting too much like dealing with my mother with altzheimers....
 
RStringfield said:
Exactly, but then I don't really see how you can justify the state's arbitrary violation of property rights.
Click to expand...
Because, one can recognize, without trashing a Libertarian position, that maybe they should have some rights. It isn't like that argument hasn't been going on for centuries without regard to the political affiliation of the person.
 
Damocles said:
However, if I beat up or "kill" your car you can sue me, just as you could for the maltreatment of your animal.

Have you made it to the wiki article that explains my position from those who actually fight for animal rights?

Legal scholars argue that they should get rights, not that they have them. They are far more educated on the subject than any of us.
Click to expand...
We weren't talking about lawsuits, we were talking abour rights.

WIKI? I never consult it, I prefer truth that I don't have to question, no wonder you are wrong so much.

You know what a scholar is??? he is a student, -and presumably in the process of learning. not being necessarily astute.
 
Last edited:
doniston said:
We weren't talking about lawsiots, we were tslking abour rights.

WIKI? I never consult it, I prefer truth that I don't have to question, no wonder you are wrong so much.

You know what a scholar is??? he is a student, -and presumably in the process of learning. not being necessarily astute.
Click to expand...
No, it is the professor who is called the scholar in this case, it is clear that you do not even read the post before you answer either.

Anyway, as to Wiki's accuracy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388

In the wake of questions of accuracy, a survey by the science journal Nature finds that science entries in the volunteer-driven, online encyclopedia Wikipedia are "not markedly less accurate" than those found in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature reporter Mark Peplow discusses the survey.
Click to expand...

And lawsuits are a way to address rights. If it is YOUR right that is violated you press the suit. There is a reason nobody has pressed a suit because of the dog's rights, it is because they do not legally exist.

At least read the article, you will find that it is an argument that has gone on for centuries, and that those who work for rights for animals don't even say that they HAVE rights, they say that they NEED to have them.
 
Damocles said:
No, it is the professor who is called the scholar in this case, it is clear that you do not even read the post before you answer either.

Anyway, as to Wiki's accuracy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388



And lawsuits are a way to address rights. If it is YOUR right that is violated you press the suit. There is a reason nobody has pressed a suit because of the dog's rights, it is because they do not legally exist.

At least read the article, you will find that it is an argument that has gone on for centuries, and that those who work for rights for animals don't even say that they HAVE rights, they say that they NEED to have them.
Click to expand...
which "POST" are you referring to that I didn't read? the rest of your post is not about rights, but about lawsuits, Not nearly the same. and definitiely NOT the issue. You ar trying to ad apples and orangesto get blueberries. it don't work.(even if the "Boss" wants it to)
 
doniston said:
which "POST" are you referring to that I didn't read? the rest of your post is not about rights, but about lawsuits, Not nearly the same. and definitiely NOT the issue.
Click to expand...
The one where I quoted the article in question; where I point out that animal rights advocates clearly state that animals do not have rights at this time, but they fight for them to gain rights.
 
Damocles said:
Because, one can recognize, without trashing a Libertarian position, that maybe they should have some rights. It isn't like that argument hasn't been going on for centuries without regard to the political affiliation of the person.
Click to expand...

Whether they should have rights is a legitimate question and, I believe, can be made as you said, without trashing libertarianism. But, not an arbitrary application controlled by government. The current situation is they don't have rights, they are property and the government may choose whatever whim it likes to regulate their use. That implies government can do what ever it wants in regards to regulating any property. At that point ownership is, in effect, transferred to the government.
 
RStringfield said:
Whether they should have rights is a legitimate question and, I believe, can be made as you said, without trashing libertarianism. But, not an arbitrary application controlled by government. The current situation is they don't have rights, they are property and the government may choose whatever whim it likes to regulate their use. That implies government can do what ever it wants in regards to regulating any property. At that point ownership is, in effect, transferred to the government.
Click to expand...
That happened long ago when we became a land-lease, rather than ownership, nation.
 
Damocles said:
The one where I quoted the article in question; where I point out that animal rights advocates clearly state that animals do not have rights at this time, but they fight for them to gain rights.
Click to expand...
I don't care what aminal; rights advocate state,, clearly or otherwise. Animals do have rights, and that fact is borne out everytime there is an animal cruelty case which comes about.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Whether they should have rights is a legitimate question and, I believe, can be made as you said, without trashing libertarianism. But, not an arbitrary application controlled by government. The current situation is they don't have rights, they are property and the government may choose whatever whim it likes to regulate their use. That implies government can do what ever it wants in regards to regulating any property. At that point ownership is, in effect, transferred to the government.
Click to expand...
the government might get away with it, but the private citizen can not.
 
RStringfield said:
Whether they should have rights is a legitimate question and, I believe, can be made as you said, without trashing libertarianism. But, not an arbitrary application controlled by government. The current situation is they don't have rights, they are property and the government may choose whatever whim it likes to regulate their use. That implies government can do what ever it wants in regards to regulating any property. At that point ownership is, in effect, transferred to the government.
Click to expand...
This is afar cry from the issue of this thread.
 
doniston said:
I don't care what aminal; rights advocate state,, clearly or otherwise. Animals do have rights, and that fact is borne out everytime there is an animal cruelty case which comes about.
Click to expand...
Right, you don't care who says it, regardless of how qualified, so long as they don't say what you are saying you will disagree.

Tell me, doniston, do you tell the doctor how to do your surgery before he performs it?

I would figure those activists which work toward animal rights have an expertise that you do not. And I would figure rightly.

Cruelty laws, just as they were when they applied to slaves, are not 'rights' as they pertain to treatment of property, not to the right of the 'victim'.

You can argue that they 'should' have rights, or you consider them 'rights' personally but legally they don't have them, which is why their advocates fight for them to gain rights and have possession of their own lives. So that they are no longer considered property.
 
Damocles said:
That happened long ago when we became a land-lease, rather than ownership, nation.
Click to expand...

True ownership is far more about control than having to pay a tax, rent or service fee. Frankly, I see property taxes as being about the most just form, since a primary function of government is the protection of property rights.
 
Damocles said:
Right, you don't care who says it, regardless of how qualified, so long as they don't say what you are saying you will disagree.

Tell me, doniston, do you tell the doctor how to do your surgery before he performs it?

I would figure those activists which work toward animal rights have an expertise that you do not. And I would figure rightly.

Cruelty laws, just as they were when they applied to slaves, are not 'rights' as they pertain to treatment of property, not to the right of the 'victim'.

You can argue that they 'should' have rights, or you consider them 'rights' personally but legally they don't have them, which is why their advocates fight for them to gain rights and have possession of their own lives. So that they are no longer considered property.
Click to expand...
Look Jackass, I will argue rightnagainst wrong no matter who say otherwise. There is logic involved here that states, not ONLY that they should have additional rights, but that they do in fact have natural rights at this time. I also don't give a crap what you do or do not think. I used to have some respect for you, but your recent actions have proven that that respect was badly misplaced. GOT IT???
 
doniston said:
Look Jackass, I will argue rightnagainst wrong no matter who say otherwise. There is logic involved here that states, not ONLY that they should have additional rights, but that they do in fact have natural rights at this time. I also don't give a crap what you do or do not think. I used to have some respect for you, but your recent actions have proven that that respect was badly misplaced. GOT IT???
Click to expand...
Should. Now that is a different idea... As I said, arguing that they "should" have such rights is different than saying that they do have such legal rights, which is pretense. They are property, chattel, they do not have rights according to law.

As you have stated that you don't care what I think, I have therefore provided a source of legal minds, that teach law at Harvard law and other places, that advocate for legal rights of animals. You clearly don't care what animal rights activists have to say on the subject as well. Or because I was the one that gave the sourcing you have rejected it out of hand.

As for the respect issue, such is your prerogative. It matters not to a discussion on whether animals should be afforded legal rights.

As for natural rights...

A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members.

We are speaking, in the thread of legal rights. Which even the staunchest supporters who advocate for animals to have legal rights admit to the fact that such legal rights don't exist, thus they continue to advocate for animals to receive them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top