Animal rights vs property rights

2010-08-26 15:24:23

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

After watching this story on the 5 o'clock news I wanted to see if anyone could convince me about the merits of animal cruelty laws.

So there are laws in every state regarding what you can and cannot do to animals and what rights the animals has. But aren't these laws completely arbitrary, have absolutely no logical backing, and undermine the rights of human beings mainly property rights?

Libertarian groups always claim that a person should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies and with their property as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings. Now considering a dog, cat, hamster, rabbit, etc. is the property of a human being and it's suffering and death doesn't have any affect on other human beings then what logical defense is there for animal cruelty laws?

Wouldn't animals cruelty laws undermine my right to decide the fate and use of my property? Wouldn't any sort of animal rights further undermine my rights to control my property?

Why should killing a cat, that I own, for sexual gratification be illegal if it doesn't affect the lives of any other human beings? It seems like any sort of animal cruelty laws is just legislating morality.

Now I don't condone killing animals for sexual pleasure or any other sort of 'animal cruelty' but I do realize animal cruelty laws undermine the personal freedom and rights of human beings. I have never and probably will never kill an animal in a sexual act but despite the fact that I find it disgusting I cannot in good conscious deny someone the ability to exercise their property rights.

So can anyone give me some good reasons why property rights should be undermined for the welfare of animals?

2010-08-26 15:30:54

#2

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5544|foggy bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

Tu Stultus Es

2010-08-26 15:36:09

#3

krazed: Admiral of the Bathtub; +619|7064|Great Brown North

if you need to ask why you shouldn't torture living things for pleasure, there's no way to explain it to you

because

eleven bravo wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

2010-08-26 15:37:00

#4

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

Wow, it's like none of you even read the OP.

2010-08-26 15:38:40

#5

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

I hope for your sake many don't...

2010-08-26 15:39:10

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

To play Devil's Advocate, it is true that there are legal ways to essentially torture and kill animals if you're going to eat them afterwards.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-26 15:55:18)

2010-08-26 15:46:39

#7

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7006|Sydney, Australia

The problem is that you are putting a living, breathing animal in the same basket as an inanimate piece of "property"...

Also,

Macbeth wrote:
Why should killing a cat, that I own, for sexual gratification be illegal if it doesn't affect the lives of any other human beings? It seems like any sort of animal cruelty laws is just legislating morality.

Because, generally, sociopaths get off on stuff like that. Then some move on to things like.. people. Might be good to discourage that kind of behaviour..

2010-08-26 15:52:15

#8

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Umm, I don't know what libertarians you've talked to, but... I kind of view pet ownership, or really a relationship with any animal that is dependent on you for its survival, almost in the same light as raising a child. Granted, they aren't equal, but you are responsible for the life nonetheless. I mean by the same token, a child is property until they turn 18 or emancipate themself. Are you advocating child molestation as well?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-08-26 15:54:39

#9

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

mcminty wrote:
The problem is that you are putting a living, breathing animal in the same basket as an inanimate piece of "property"...

Also,
Macbeth wrote:
Why should killing a cat, that I own, for sexual gratification be illegal if it doesn't affect the lives of any other human beings? It seems like any sort of animal cruelty laws is just legislating morality.
Because, generally, sociopaths get off on stuff like that. Then some move on to things like.. people. Might be good to discourage that kind of behaviour..

But it's still property nonetheless.

As for the sociopaths- A. Sociopaths don't learn from their mistakes or learn from punishment. Negative reinforcement doesn't work on a person without emotion. B. You don't make laws in a way to stop people from breaking other laws. If that were the case, we should ban many things that lead to the possibility of breaking other laws. That doesn't make sense.

2010-08-26 15:55:30

#10

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

I think the problem here is that the OP links to a story about euthanizing animals. That muddles the issue here. Euthanization of animals is perfectly legal as long as it's done in a humane way. The woman screwed up by choking one animal to death when the original euthanization method didn't work properly. As you can imagine, choking an animal to death isn't considered a legal form of euthanization.

The rest of the OP discusses a separate issue -- the criminality of animal cruelty. While choking an animal to death is considered animal cruelty, the context of the article is that it was done not out of pleasure but out of what this woman perceived as mercy. In short, the circumstances don't imply malice or sadism.

That being said, animal cruelty laws should ideally recognize the context of a euthanization vs. the deliberate torture of an animal for nothing more than enjoyment. The former is legal; the latter isn't.

Getting back to the OP's discussion, laws against animal cruelty might seem invasive on the part of the government when viewing animals as property, but the importance of having these laws goes beyond moral issues.

The relevance of animal rights in connection with human rights comes into play when you consider the evidence linking animal cruelty to the capacity for cruel behavior toward humans.

http://cats.suite101.com/article.cfm/an … nst_people

The link above is just one of many discussing this connection. Some serial killers actually had a history of animal cruelty before they started committing the crimes they're best known for.

Because of this connection, I think society has it in its best interests to maintain laws against animal cruelty, so as to keep an eye on people that may later choose to do things to their fellow humans.

2010-08-26 15:58:37

#11

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, I don't know what libertarians you've talked to, but... I kind of view pet ownership, or really a relationship with any animal that is dependent on you for its survival, almost in the same light as raising a child. Granted, they aren't equal, but you are responsible for the life nonetheless. I mean by the same token, a child is property until they turn 18 or emancipate themself. Are you advocating child molestation as well?

AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. So no, child molestation is not something I can defend.

You have posted before about how you don't support things that infringe people's rights to do things that only affect them. This is basically part of your personal philosophy...

2010-08-26 16:00:06

#12

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5544|foggy bottom

https://images.stanzapub.com/readers/2008/09/24/dahmerhighschool_1.jpg

Tu Stultus Es

2010-08-26 16:03:48

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Macbeth wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, I don't know what libertarians you've talked to, but... I kind of view pet ownership, or really a relationship with any animal that is dependent on you for its survival, almost in the same light as raising a child. Granted, they aren't equal, but you are responsible for the life nonetheless. I mean by the same token, a child is property until they turn 18 or emancipate themself. Are you advocating child molestation as well?
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. So no, child molestation is not something I can defend.

You have posted before about how you don't support things that infringe people's rights to do things that only affect them. This is basically part of your personal philosophy...

No, it's not. It's not limited to human beings. A pet is not simply an inanimate piece of property (unless we're talking about a pet rock). That whole golden rule stuff certainly pertains to animals that you choose to bring into your home and care for. Fucking your dog in the ass is just about as fucked up as fucking your five year old kid in the ass. Sorry to break it to ya.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-08-26 16:05:06

#14

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

Turquoise wrote:
The link above is just one of many discussing this connection. Some serial killers actually had a history of animal cruelty before they started committing the crimes they're best known for.

Because of this connection, I think society has it in its best interests to maintain laws against animal cruelty, so as to keep an eye on people that may later choose to do things to their fellow humans.

Plenty of people have tortured or killed animals out of curiosity or for fun and have not become serial killers. Also like I said before, it doesn't make sense to ban something because it might lead to a different crime. If that were the case, we should ban fast cars since there is a connection between having a fast car and killing people in a car accident or we should ban alcohol because it might lead to someone getting drunk and attacking someone.

2010-08-26 16:07:54

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Go see a shrink.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-08-26 16:09:08

#16

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5544|foggy bottom

please

Tu Stultus Es

2010-08-26 16:09:38

#17

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

JohnG@lt wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, I don't know what libertarians you've talked to, but... I kind of view pet ownership, or really a relationship with any animal that is dependent on you for its survival, almost in the same light as raising a child. Granted, they aren't equal, but you are responsible for the life nonetheless. I mean by the same token, a child is property until they turn 18 or emancipate themself. Are you advocating child molestation as well?
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. So no, child molestation is not something I can defend.

You have posted before about how you don't support things that infringe people's rights to do things that only affect them. This is basically part of your personal philosophy...
No, it's not. It's not limited to human beings. A pet is not simply an inanimate piece of property (unless we're talking about a pet rock). That whole golden rule stuff certainly pertains to animals that you choose to bring into your home and care for. Fucking your dog in the ass is just about as fucked up as fucking your five year old kid in the ass. Sorry to break it to ya.

Aside from the fact that it sets a bad precedent to extend the rights of people to animals, whether it is animate or not doesn't make a difference. It's still nonhuman property something you should have complete control over.

2010-08-26 16:12:19

#18

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Peta exist so I guess macbeth is the balance to the equation.

2010-08-26 16:13:20

#19

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

jord wrote:
Peta exist so I guess macbeth is the balance to the equation.

PETA kills more animals annually than I can in a lifetime if I tried.

2010-08-26 16:17:36

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
Plenty of people have tortured or killed animals out of curiosity or for fun and have not become serial killers. Also like I said before, it doesn't make sense to ban something because it might lead to a different crime. If that were the case, we should ban fast cars since there is a connection between having a fast car and killing people in a car accident or we should ban alcohol because it might lead to someone getting drunk and attacking someone.

While it is true that "pre-crime" is not generally held as a valid rationale for a law, there are exceptions. For example, not everyone who drives drunk will end up in a wreck or hit a pedestrian. Yet, it's against the law to drink and drive -- to the point that the legally allowed blood alcohol level is far below what actually would cause most people to significantly lose motor skills.

There are other instances as well, like how federal law bans felons from owning guns. Granted, many states will restore a felon's right to own them, especially if the crime involved isn't violent. Still, for the ones who have their gun rights stripped, they may have a history of crime as the basis for this punishment, but the punishment itself is generally aimed at preventing a future crime with a gun.

Animal cruelty laws -- in the wider scope of things -- are somewhat aimed at being a deterrent to violent behavior in general. If you allow a lesser form of violence that involves torturing or killing animals, the argument is that can lead to future, worse violent acts against people.

2010-08-26 16:17:41

#21

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5544|foggy bottom

id say this thread could help supplement your "why dont i have friends" thread you deleted

Tu Stultus Es

2010-08-26 16:25:21

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6991|67.222.138.85

holy FUCK I just typed out this response and then accidentally clicked on the link in Turquoise's sig GODDAMN

A. In order to maintain property rights it is a requirement of any social contract to keep people from killing/abusing each other, as there is no point to personal property if your neighbor can kill you and take your property. This is the overriding social reason.

B. Because social reasons are more difficult to understand and explain, the reasoning became blurred with a moral one. Morals are still a function of social norms, but they aren't justified by some innate natural law. The ends of morals may overlap with social reasons, but the reasoning used to reach the morals in the first place are completely arbitrary. In this case the reasoning used to explain why you can't kill someone else is moral - it is immoral to kill another man. This makes little sense by itself but is paradoxically easier to explain and understand, and is therefore used in place of the real social reason.

C. It is easy to see how the reason as to why physical violence against another man is prohibited does not transfer to animals, because they simply are not human and cannot take part in the social contract. Once the reason as to why physical violence against men is prohibited is moral and not social however, the reasoning as to why the rights transfer to animals is equally clear - the vague reasoning for our lives being somehow sacred surely transfers to animals as well so long as our own lives are not in danger. The cute cuddly ones anyways.

D. Things stay the way they are because there is no justifiable reason for changing it. It may be nonsense, but the only people whose rights are being infringed upon are the sadistic sociopaths. No "normal" person could possibly gain anything from the torturing of an animal. The sadists have a lot other social norms to worry about before they worry about this one.

2010-08-26 16:26:37

#23

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7006|Sydney, Australia

Turqoise - do you study law? You are saying exactly what I want to, but in a much more eloquent way

Eleven - knock it off with the personal attacks..

McB - I don't see this thread really going anywhere if you refuse to reconcile with the fact that pets are (relatively) intelligent animals that can feel pain and suffering, and as such should be treated differently to an inanimate object..

2010-08-26 16:28:16

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

mcminty wrote:
Turqoise - do you study law? You are saying exactly what I want to, but in a much more eloquent way

lol... thanks... No, I just have developed an interest in researching certain laws, since law itself is heavily connected to politics and economics. It's kind of a third area of interest for me...

2010-08-26 16:28:43

#25

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5870

Turquoise wrote:
Animal cruelty laws -- in the wider scope of things -- are somewhat aimed at being a deterrent to violent behavior in general. If you allow a lesser form of violence that involves torturing or killing animals, the argument is that can lead to future, worse violent acts against people.

If you want to deter violent behavior especially behavior that might be aimed at people you could find a bunch of other things that lead to more violent behavior towards people. Everything from violent sports on television to after school boxing training for minors.

BF2S Forums Animal rights vs property rights

eleven bravo wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer