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

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are speaking of legal rights. the thread was about animals and their Rights -----not legal rights, just RIGHTS. you are the one who has limited it to "Legal" rights.
 
Last edited:
doniston said:
You are speaking of legal rights. the thread was about animals ant-d their Rights not legal rights RIGHTS. you are the one who has limited it to "Legal" rights.
Click to expand...
Because the thread is about the laws.

It is about the 'government' protecting them, not about natural rights that you assume that they have as opposed to social rights promoted by the government for its members. Animals are not considered by law to be 'members' of the society, they are not afforded rights, they are considered property.
 
Jarod said:
The government can protect animals if the people want the government to!
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. In this case, the original post was basically the irony of the fact that in their "protection" all of these animals will be killed. The originating story pretty much informs us that even the 'natural' right to life is denied to animals by the very government who seeks to protect them using these laws.

As property animals are denied membership in the society and are thus denied even the most basic right, that of life.

This is, of course, not necessarily an argument for them to gain their rights, it is simply an example of what I have been saying throughout the thread. Animals do not have 'rights' in this society.
 
doniston said:
You are speaking of legal rights. the thread was about animals ant-d their Rights not legal rights RIGHTS. you are the one who has limited it to "Legal" rights.
Click to expand...

Diaper Don, it is as if you believe these stupid font tricks of yours, are going to catupult you to the top of the posting tier, and give you some much-needed gravitas, butt, I do not see it working? You are no RJS, please stop these brazen attempts to emulate yours truly, you are only embarrassing yourself?
 
An assertion alone is not an argument, no matter how big you make the font. You have offered assertion with very little in argument.

The bulk of your argument is since there are laws protecting them, they have rights. That implies, trees, rivers and chunks of rock have rights since there are also laws protecting them.

Further, the laws protecting them are uneven and inconsistent.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, they can. In this case, the original post was basically the irony of the fact that in their "protection" all of these animals will be killed. The originating story pretty much informs us that even the 'natural' right to life is denied to animals by the very government who seeks to protect them using these laws.

As property animals are denied membership in the society and are thus denied even the most basic right, that of life.

This is, of course, not necessarily an argument for them to gain their rights, it is simply an example of what I have been saying throughout the thread. Animals do not have 'rights' in this society.
Click to expand...


I do not belive killing dogs is illegal, I belive its legal as long as its done in a way that does not inflict undue pain or suffering to the animal. Killing a dog is not necessarly illegal, doing it in a cruel way is illegal.

I once tried a case where a man killed a pig. The man was charged with crulity to animals, not because he killed it, but because he did not try to do it in a humane way. The guy tried to cut the pigs head off with a butcher knive, the pig died several hours later at a vet due to blood loss.
 
Damocles said:
Because the thread is about the laws.

It is about the 'government' protecting them, not about natural rights that you assume that they have as opposed to social rights promoted by the government for its members. Animals are not considered by law to be 'members' of the society, they are not afforded rights, they are considered property.
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat that garbage before you get tired of it??? They are property, but they have rights.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, they can. In this case, the original post was basically the irony of the fact that in their "protection" all of these animals will be killed. The originating story pretty much informs us that even the 'natural' right to life is denied to animals by the very government who seeks to protect them using these laws.

As property animals are denied membership in the society and are thus denied even the most basic right, that of life.

This is, of course, not necessarily an argument for them to gain their rights, it is simply an example of what I have been saying throughout the thread. Animals do not have 'rights' in this society.
Click to expand...
what are you doing? trying to become a psychobabelist?
 
RJS said:
Diaper Don, it is as if you believe these stupid font tricks of yours, are going to catupult you to the top of the posting tier, and give you some much-needed gravitas, butt, I do not see it working? You are no RJS, please stop these brazen attempts to emulate yours truly, you are only embarrassing yourself?
Click to expand...

.......................You never learn
 
doniston said:
How many times are you going to repeat that garbage before you get tired of it??? They are property, but they have rights.
Click to expand...
As many times as you 'suggest' that the thread is about 'natural rights' when the original posting was clearly about legality. Even in the original post you can see that even 'natural rights' such as the right to life are not afforded to animals by our laws.

And as RStringfield already suggested, protections are not the same thing as rights, unless you suggest that trees have rights, specific rocks, etc. These laws do not suggest that animals are members of the society and afforded rights, they simply regulate your action and afford protections to something that is not given such because of 'rights'.
 
Damocles said:
As many times as you 'suggest' that the thread is about 'natural rights' when the original posting was clearly about legality. Even in the original post you can see that even 'natural rights' such as the right to life are not afforded to animals by our laws.

And as RStringfield already suggested, protections are not the same thing as rights, unless you suggest that trees have rights, specific rocks, etc. These laws do not suggest that animals are members of the society and afforded rights, they simply regulate your action and afford protections to something that is not given such because of 'rights'.
Click to expand...
Read what you want into the thread. that doesn't make you right, but you are the boss, and it's you site.
 
I am okay with the government protecting animals from gratititus curility just as I am okay with the government protecting the enviorment from needless destruction.
 
Jarod said:
I am okay with the government protecting animals from gratititus curility just as I am okay with the government protecting the enviorment from needless destruction.
Click to expand...
But does that afford the environment "rights"?

The discussion is currently about "rights" as opposed to "protections" I say they are two separate things.
 
Damocles said:
But does that afford the environment "rights"?

The discussion is currently about "rights" as opposed to "protections" I say they are two separate things.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, its not a right, unless you stretch to see it as one. It is the government protecting animals. These animals do not petition the government to protect their rights... they are merely protected.
 
Jarod said:
I agree with you, its not a right, unless you stretch to see it as one. It is the government protecting animals. These animals do not petition the government to protect their rights... they are merely protected.
Click to expand...

Neither does an infant petition the govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top