FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I can't.
I can't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Blackflag's proposition that animals are property (just like your floor is property), and that you should be able to treat it how you wish, is not how things are currently legally defined. It's a fallacious philosophical proposition.
ironhead
anarcho-capitalist
I come to the libertarian world from the left, but I'll offer my thoughts on the matter:
Animals are the legal property of their owners. However, they are also living things and there is a difference between animal rights (which I disagree with) and animal welfare laws. Animal welfare laws protect animals from torture or violent exploitation, and I fully support them. Dogs certainly have, at minimum, a basic level of sentience, though obviously not as developed as ours. This should preclude them from abuse, torture, and violent exploitation.
I don't know the specifics about the Vick case, but banning animal fighting is something that I support, just as I support animal welfare laws. Again, remember the distinction between animal welfare laws and animal rights, an altogether different notion. This is most certainly a State/local issue and not one of the Federal Government.
Animals are the legal property of their owners. However, they are also living things and there is a difference between animal rights (which I disagree with) and animal welfare laws. Animal welfare laws protect animals from torture or violent exploitation, and I fully support them. Dogs certainly have, at minimum, a basic level of sentience, though obviously not as developed as ours. This should preclude them from abuse, torture, and violent exploitation.
I don't know the specifics about the Vick case, but banning animal fighting is something that I support, just as I support animal welfare laws. Again, remember the distinction between animal welfare laws and animal rights, an altogether different notion. This is most certainly a State/local issue and not one of the Federal Government.
Thorn
Member
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The level of cognitive function in a dog isn't as much below yours as you'd like to believe, Iron.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The only thing that gives the human race any sort of advantage is the fact that we have a well developed communications system. Take that away and we're cavemen. There has been basically no real evolutionary step that has taken place between us and the men scrounging around, throwing rocks at mammoths 20,000 years ago. It's all been due to our development of communication.
I've sometimes thought about what would happen if we could "teach" animals to communicate with each other. Unfortunately, there just aren't too many animals with the necessary memory for it, and the ones that can (like dolphins) don't have opposable thumbs so they can't create or use tools.
I've sometimes thought about what would happen if we could "teach" animals to communicate with each other. Unfortunately, there just aren't too many animals with the necessary memory for it, and the ones that can (like dolphins) don't have opposable thumbs so they can't create or use tools.
ironhead
anarcho-capitalist
Someone mentioned the rights of children, which are certainly not property - they are in the legal custody of their parents, guardian, etc.
However, from a basic philisophical standpoint, there are important similarities between a person with severe mental retardation and a canine. Both are living, both are self-aware, though to a very limited degree (for the dog). Some people who have MR have only minimal communication skills (even less than young children) - are we to look at them as property? Of course not.
Obviously, there are important distinctions as well, but one can easily see the basic premise behind animal cruelty laws being established because of a canine's self-awareness.
If we take away the humane nature of Natural Rights (along the same lines of an anti-animal welfare laws position), one could extrapolate a similar "might is right" argument against murder and rape laws, which even the most ardent anarchist would be unlikely to support.
However, from a basic philisophical standpoint, there are important similarities between a person with severe mental retardation and a canine. Both are living, both are self-aware, though to a very limited degree (for the dog). Some people who have MR have only minimal communication skills (even less than young children) - are we to look at them as property? Of course not.
Obviously, there are important distinctions as well, but one can easily see the basic premise behind animal cruelty laws being established because of a canine's self-awareness.
If we take away the humane nature of Natural Rights (along the same lines of an anti-animal welfare laws position), one could extrapolate a similar "might is right" argument against murder and rape laws, which even the most ardent anarchist would be unlikely to support.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm not really even certain if humans DO have the most complicated brain system out of any of the animals. It was just a series of coincidences happened to come together to allow us to communicate and use tools.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
True, Ironhead. But although the product of the idea of natural rights has most definitely been a positive development for the human race, that does not necessarily make them true. But you're a deist and I'm an atheist.
ironhead
anarcho-capitalist
Watermark -
If you read my post, I included the obvious point about the difference between human cognition and canine cognition - this is beside the point. A dog's self-awareness can be easily demonstrated. It is clearly distinguishable from a squirrel or a roach. By your logic, if aliens who had significantly large cranial capacities came to Earth, they could legitimately subjugate us based on our inferior intelligence. Sentience, even remedial sentience should be the central question. From there, we can see the rational behind animal welfare laws.
Conversely, the limited nature of canine intelligence also precludes them from the same rights to which humans are entitled. Again, the diffence between rights and legal, anti-cruelty protection is critical.
If you read my post, I included the obvious point about the difference between human cognition and canine cognition - this is beside the point. A dog's self-awareness can be easily demonstrated. It is clearly distinguishable from a squirrel or a roach. By your logic, if aliens who had significantly large cranial capacities came to Earth, they could legitimately subjugate us based on our inferior intelligence. Sentience, even remedial sentience should be the central question. From there, we can see the rational behind animal welfare laws.
Conversely, the limited nature of canine intelligence also precludes them from the same rights to which humans are entitled. Again, the diffence between rights and legal, anti-cruelty protection is critical.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What, Iron? No, I never said any of that. I think it's all very vague. The definition of personhood and right can never be very logical, because it's based on our natural ambigious preferences.
We are certainly the most technologically advanced civilazation on Earth. I was just going into a broad thinking mode about the nature of intelligence everywhere. There may actually be animals out there that have more capability for intelligence than us.
Socrtease
Verified User
So parents who allow their children to box are also victimizing their children? They are cruel to their children? How many dog fights have you been to Damo? I have described a fight in another post. The dogs are not FORCED to fight. They are not abused or mistreated to make them fight. The breed was created to fight. The started out as bull and bear baiting animals and then moved into dog fighting. The were originally a cross between a bull dog and different types of terriers. The breeders wanted the gameness of the terrier with the strength of a bulldog. While I hate to even come across as defending the practice of dog fighting, I have to comment on your completely ill informed and even down right ludicrous statements about the people that fight the breed and how they are death matches and cruel solely in the act of fighting. What Vick did, hanging and drowning and electocuting dogs is sick and twisted and very sociopathic. But MOST fighting dogs are family dogs. They come to the fights in vans and trucks and the back seats of cars. They spend most of the day playing with their owners and their owners kids. Most of them leave in those same backseats and trucks and vans. The United Kennel Club was created by a man who fought pit bulls. in 50's through the 70's and even early 80's UKC dog shows were attended in the day by people who would fight their dogs later that evening.
SOME people have become very detached from their dogs. I think that Vick and those that have large game dog kennels don't see them as dogs but more like live Playstation games. But the truth of the matter is there are people from all walks of life that still engage in dog fighting that do not engage in any other form of criminal or antisocial activity. The game is brutal because of the blood and the scarring and the occasional broken bone. But in the 3 brief years that I was witness to fights I NEVER saw a dog that entered the pit that was not excited to be there. Their tales wagged, their eyes were bright, and they LOVED what they were doing. Even as the fight progressed the dogs were enthusiastic. The did EXACTLY what they have been bred to do for over 100 years.
No amount of cruelty can create that in an animal. Fighting is a brutal and bloody and distasteful practice, but that does not make it ipso facto cruel.
uscitizen
Villified User
Kinda like horse racing, which I used to be involved in. The animals just become a means to the end of winning to many. And may believe like most republicans that the end justifies the means. shooting numbing agent in a horse to get them to run in a claiming race so someone will claim them and be another persons problem, etc...
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I don't condone dogfighting and I've raised, tarined, and shown Bouviers for 30 years .. that being said, I bought a Vick jersey and wear it whenever I walk my dog and I live in Atlanta where I encounter lots of Vick jerseys walking their dogs.
I've never seen PETA or anybody else protesting when a pit bull mauls or kills a child.
Save the whales, fuck the people.
I've never seen PETA or anybody else protesting when a pit bull mauls or kills a child.
Save the whales, fuck the people.
uscitizen
Villified User
So, the goal of boxing matches is to injure the other boxer? Not so, friend. This is a total emotive post based on a love of the breed. The animals are not capable of making an informed decision on their participation in a blood-sport. Boxing is not a blood-sport.
Socrtease
Verified User
Even with headgear on, young boxes subject themselves to irretrievable brain damage everytime they get in the ring. The goal of boxing is to win by either outscoring your opponent OR inflicting enough damage so that he can no longer continue. But even with this being said, I stand by my statements. Dog fighting is a brutal ugly sport, but the dogs are NOT treated cruely.
"Might" but it is not the goal of the sport. The goal of dog fighting is for one to injure the other as much as possible, there is not "scoring", it is judged by which dog cannot continue because they are too damaged. There is a difference between a sparring match and a blood sport. As I said, it is total emotive love of the breed, which I can understand, that makes you remove logic from your argument here.
Just as parents who let their 14 year old into Bull Riding are not actionably working with knowledge that they will be surely harmed, so too are parents who allow their children into football or boxing.
And pretending that the ways that Vick killed these dogs is not brutal is pretense only.
About the only real argument that, I think, can be made from a purely libertarian standpoint against dogfighting is that the dog is being turned into a dangerous animal, outside the pit. A dog is property, but it is animate property, with a certain will of its own. It's not a gun. A gun can't slip through it's cage and go shoot the neighbor. A dog, can escape and go bite the neighbor. I do not feel that cuts it, though.
Other than that, I can see no reason why it should be outlawed, while slaughtering a cow is legal. Even with dogs we are, legally, fairly cruel. We seperate them from their mother/siblings prematurely. We euthanize them if they cannot be given a home. We have programs and even laws designed to promote their sterilization. What is brutal or cruel, is highly subjective.
One thing I don't like about this case is the federal involvement. This should be handled in the states.
Still, I will not rush out to defend Vick for his horrendous act nor will I shed many tears for the "injustice." I would rather he were simply stripped of his NFL career and admiration, which would be likely without the laws.
Also, I have sometimes thought that issues like this should be outlawed (at state and local levels) if a supermajority agrees.
Other than that, I can see no reason why it should be outlawed, while slaughtering a cow is legal. Even with dogs we are, legally, fairly cruel. We seperate them from their mother/siblings prematurely. We euthanize them if they cannot be given a home. We have programs and even laws designed to promote their sterilization. What is brutal or cruel, is highly subjective.
One thing I don't like about this case is the federal involvement. This should be handled in the states.
Still, I will not rush out to defend Vick for his horrendous act nor will I shed many tears for the "injustice." I would rather he were simply stripped of his NFL career and admiration, which would be likely without the laws.
Also, I have sometimes thought that issues like this should be outlawed (at state and local levels) if a supermajority agrees.
Last edited:
Even in slaughtering cattle there are specific laws on how it must be done to make it more humane. One cannot, for instance, slam the cow/bull into the ground until it is dead, or hang it, or electrocute it. Of course, a rancher knows that adreneline makes meat taste differently and would avoid all of these things as well or he would likely end up selling less of his stock in the end.
Animate property are different than, say, a fence post.