Fois Gras Ban

Beefy said:
The vehicle through which all of this, and our society itself, is possible is a conservative one. Capitalism. That's where all the wealth for all the programs came from.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying the capitalism = conservative argument.

First, american democrats and progressive are capitalists too. Wanna take a stroll through Silicon Valley, or the Austin Texas high-tech corridors with me?

Second, some of the most entrepreneurial, capitalist and egalitarian societies on the planet are considered liberal: Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Germany.
 
Damocles said:
Well, we were planning on marching with signs somewhere in NYC in protest of your cavalier attitude toward the conservative-American community.
Click to expand...

Really, you're going to protest me, personally?

I'll have to buy something to wear, I've never been protested. And by you and Cawacko.
 
Well, I figured we three would go for drinks afterward. I know some pretty cool places...although, I doubt I'll be hanging around you two for long.
 
Darla said:
Well, I figured we three would go for drinks afterward. I know some pretty cool places...although, I doubt I'll be hanging around you two for long.
Click to expand...

We won't ask you to leave when the beautiful women of NYC gravitate towards Damo and I.
 
Well, the Conservative American Coalition Against Flaming On Message boards...

Or: CACAFOM!

Is a growing concern for all Flaming Liberals.
 
Cypress said:
I'm not buying the capitalism = conservative argument.

First, american democrats and progressive are capitalists too. Wanna take a stroll through Silicon Valley, or the Austin Texas high-tech corridors with me?

Second, some of the most entrepreneurial, capitalist and egalitarian societies on the planet are considered liberal: Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Germany.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 
Damocles said:
..
The liberals are banning the product because of the perceived immorality, when Social 'Conservatives' (actually very radical as they would want to change things radically) try the same thing you hear outcry from the left, when the left does it you only hear cheers.
Click to expand...


You didn't seem to have a problem with animal cruelty laws on the basis of a perceived immorality last week:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4606

Damocles said:
No, the borderline would be that there is a victim. While animals are not afforded "rights" they can be clearly victims of inhumane treatment. Hence we have such laws. While the penalties are weaker than those of cruelty to humans, they are afforded some protections under our laws. Even in a libertarian society they likely would be afforded the same. One could even look upon it as preventative, as those who are into animal cruelty often expand their cruelties later.
Click to expand...

The fact is leftist groups have been campaigning for this type of ban for years and it was passed in left-leaning politicians and left-leaning populaces.

Once again. yeah liberals!
 
LadyT said:
You didn't seem to have a problem with animal cruelty laws on the basis of a perceived immorality last week:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4606



The fact is leftist groups have been campaigning for this type of ban for years and it was passed in left-leaning politicians and left-leaning populaces.

Once again. yeah liberals!
Click to expand...
Simply pointing out differences in laws is not supporting it because of morality.

I support felony laws against animal cruelty, not for morality's sake, but because of the escalation issue. Often those who promote/participate in animal cruelty escalate to humans in their lifetime.

In reality, my point wasn't against the morality, while I do have moral issues, but to create stronger law because of escalation issues.

However, I do participate in a party that seems to prmote morality laws, while your party pretends it does not. In this case it would seem that they are hypocrites.
 
LadyT said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml

"The bird liver delicacy foie gras was banned from restaurants Wednesday in a measure approved by the Chicago City Council after members decided it was inhumane to force-feed the birds. "

When I was in France this was a pretty popular food. I never ate it because I thought it was cruel to do that to the birds. The funny thing is that I thought I was special and unique in this, but as it turns out, I'm not really that special or unique. Yeah liberals!!

"More than a dozen countries, mostly in Europe, have banned production of the delicacy on the grounds of cruelty. But "

"California is the only state to ban the force-feeding of birds to produce the gourmet liver product, having passed a measure that would end the practice by 2012. "
Click to expand...

I have never had foie gras? This sounds like something the effeminate leftie men would eat, in their attempts to impress the leftie ladies, who, prefer conservative men, anyway?

I used to eat horsemeat, which tastes a lot like chicken, butt, then I got a horse, and I love my horse. So I stopped eating horsemeat. Whereas, the lefties will try and force me to drive around with a seatbelt, and say I can't drink milk because it gives cows sore teats, butt, then they will force feed a goose just so they can look good in elitist restaurants? A good example being Michael Moore, who has had moore of everything, including goose livers? Who is the hippocrit here?
 
Damocles said:
Simply pointing out differences in laws is not supporting it because of morality.

I support felony laws against animal cruelty, not for morality's sake, but because of the escalation issue. Often those who promote/participate in animal cruelty escalate to humans in their lifetime.

In reality, my point wasn't against the morality, while I do have moral issues, but to create stronger law because of escalation issues.

However, I do participate in a party that seems to prmote morality laws, while your party pretends it does not. In this case it would seem that they are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I'm calling Bull$hit on this. You QTFed Dave when he stated that libertarians that supported Dog fighting were at the bottom of the barrel and that states should make it illegal. Just because you bet in or participate in dog fighting doesn't mean you're going to necessarily act unneccsarily violent toward people. We don't arrest or lock up people for "escalation issues" unless the esclation issue is a crime in and of itself. Are we going to start locking up alcoholics because getting pis$y drunk has clearly been known to lead to violence?
 
LadyT said:
I'm calling Bull$hit on this. You QTFed Dave when he stated that libertarians that supported Dog fighting were at the bottom of the barrel and that states should make it illegal. Just because you bet in or participate in dog fighting doesn't mean you're going to necessarily act unneccsarily violent toward people. We don't arrest or lock up people for "escalation issues" unless the esclation issue is a crime in and of itself. Are we going to start locking up alcoholics because getting pis$y drunk has clearly been known to lead to violence?
Click to expand...
I posted my reasons for supporting laws in that thread regardless of your call.

My position is supported by my posts, yours here attempts to relegate my position to one post in a vacuum and assumes my reasoning regardless of what I stated otherwise.

Pissy drunk may "lead" to violence but it isn't violence, dog fighting is violence that leads to escalation of that violence. Hence catching them now and putting a watch on them is beneficial long-term to society.

I know it is embarrassing to be caught out saying that laws based on morality shouldn't be passed, but they are here and to your excited celebration and cheers.

My position hasn't changed, but I see that if it fits your morality it does change.
 
Damocles said:
I posted my reasons for supporting laws in that thread regardless of your call.

My position is supported by my posts, yours here attempts to relegate my position to one post in a vacuum and assumes my reasoning regardless of what I stated otherwise.

Pissy drunk may "lead" to violence but it isn't violence, dog fighting is violence that leads to escalation of that violence. Hence catching them now and putting a watch on them is beneficial long-term to society.

I know it is embarrassing to be caught out saying that laws based on morality shouldn't be passed, but they are here and to your excited celebration and cheers.

My position hasn't changed, but I see that if it fits your morality it does change.
Click to expand...


What about frying ants under a microscope. that's pretty violent. Are we to assume that type of violence leads to escalation and should there for be illegal?
 
LadyT said:
What about frying ants under a microscope. that's pretty violent. Are we to assume that type of violence leads to escalation and should there for be illegal?
Click to expand...

This is a typical lefty, no offense, since you are a female lib, I will take it easy on you? Butt, you lefties are a little stupit, could it be the perv leftie men are hanging you upside down too much? You make everything illegal, even burning ants? Nobody cares about ants, no moore, please use your head? I get the feeling you are more of a moderate, and you could be talking conservative if the "right" man came along? Ants are barely alive to begin with, and have no brain activity, kind of like the commie, Sean Penn? We do not need a big, bleeding heart, revival complete with singing koombiyah, and hash brownies, to protect ants? Yah yah...LOL
 
LadyT said:
What about frying ants under a microscope. that's pretty violent. Are we to assume that type of violence leads to escalation and should there for be illegal?
Click to expand...
It would be an interesting discussion. However insects don't seem to have the same crossover or escalation. It wouldn't seem necessary as there is no strong pattern to base such a decision on. If I were to use my morality to make the decision I would say "yes" though. However, it isn't the basis on which I believe that laws should be passed.
 
Damocles said:
It would be an interesting discussion. However insects don't seem to have the same crossover or escalation. It wouldn't seem necessary as there is no strong pattern to base such a decision on. If I were to use my morality to make the decision I would say "yes" though. However, it isn't the basis on which I believe that laws should be passed.
Click to expand...

Can you please quite plainly state the basis of which animal rights laws should be passed then?
 
LadyT said:
Can you please quite plainly state the basis of which animal rights laws should be passed then?
Click to expand...
On a clear danger to society over all. Escalation is serious, it is patterned, it is understood. It is simply dangerous to allow those who show patterns of such behavior to be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top