BF2S Forums Animal rights vs property rights

Turquoise wrote:

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.

Public endangerment is against the law. Saying abusing animals leads to murder is beyond a stretch. The set of people who have been arrested for animal abuse may contain most of the set of serial killers, but that is a very small portion of the set. It doesn't make statistical, much less logical sense to ban animal abuse towards the end of preventing killers.

Beyond the correlation/causation nonsense, animal abuse does not impeded on anyone else's rights, drunk driving certainly does. Unnecessary risk.

Turquoise wrote:

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.

Criminals can't vote either. Don't really see how stripping someone of their rights after they have proven themselves a risk to the state has anything to do with preventative laws.

Macbeth wrote:

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.

Well, there are definitely certain interest groups that lobby for the censorship of violence in media.  There have already been links made between violent movies and video games and violent behavior in real life.

I think the main reason why these censorship movements lack momentum is because of things like the boxing training you mentioned.

There are several stronger cases where it has been shown that athletes who engage in exceptionally violent sports like boxing and football can sometimes receive brain damage that results in violent behavior later in life.  Granted, some of this behavior can also be linked to drug use as well.

I think John's point stands when it comes to the "defenseless" factor, and for the most part, torture is not an aspect of most violent but socially approved of activities.

Granted, you could argue the submission aspect of MMA could be construed as torture, but that's a whole other discussion....  lol

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-26 16:37:55)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Public endangerment is against the law. Saying abusing animals leads to murder is beyond a stretch. The set of people who have been arrested for animal abuse may contain most of the set of serial killers, but that is a very small portion of the set. It doesn't make statistical, much less logical sense to ban animal abuse towards the end of preventing killers.

Beyond the correlation/causation nonsense, animal abuse does not impeded on anyone else's rights, drunk driving certainly does. Unnecessary risk.

There's surely more risk to society involved in drunk driving and more evidence of these risks, but I wouldn't call the link between animal cruelty and human cruelty "nonsense."

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Criminals can't vote either. Don't really see how stripping someone of their rights after they have proven themselves a risk to the state has anything to do with preventative laws.

It does though.  The inherent assumption being made is that most felons repeatedly offend.  This is true for certain felons, but it's certainly not so prevalent of a phenomenon to justify assuming this of every felon across the board.

In fact, stripping them of the right to vote has no basis at all on any real threats, unless the crime committed involves tampering with votes.

Shit.  I should have guessed this.... Don't be a warped fuck.

I thought this was about the real issue of property rights vs. animal rights where the endangered species act is preempting personal property rights.  Environmentalists use it as a way to block development and homeowners overnight are felons for killing the animal and not telling anyone it was found on the property.  But noooo... Goddamn macbeth.

Democracy says a majority of people think you're fucked in the head.

It's also hard not to ask if there's some reason the OP wants it to be legal, if that's his angle.

Macbeth wrote:

if it doesn't affect any human beings why should it be illegal?

This is where you can get nabbed by philosophy of societal ethics and the progress of animal rights. Smashing a vase into a wall may be startling and slightly disturbing to anyone who can hear it. Swinging a cat around by the tail and braining it against a tree stump is hardly comparable, and the courts agree.

Animal abuse, aside from the harvesting of livestock, is not compatible with the sensitivities and philosophy of modern western civilization. Is it that you cannot see the purposeful disregard for animal life as a deleterious effect on individual societal psyche, or that you don't think we need law and order to prevent anarchy?

Macbeth wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's also hard not to ask if there's some reason the OP wants it to be legal, if that's his angle.

OP wrote:

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.

That's a bit of an indirect answer. If you question the validity of the law, then there must be some sort of reason why you think it should be repealed (thus, legalized). Animals are seen as being under our ward as autonomous and semi-autonomous beings. A brick is not. These are not the same types of property we're talking about.

If you're just asking without a particular stance one way or the other on a warm topic like this, it just looks like a troll thread.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's also hard not to ask if there's some reason the OP wants it to be legal, if that's his angle.

Its been a bit of a theme for a while.

Macbeth wrote:

If the cat which was brought for a few hundred dollars was stomped out in my bedroom by a woman for my personal pleasure who's business would it be?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=127645

Macbeth wrote:

I fucking hate cats personally allergic to the little bastards. Anyway why exactly could he get 158 years for killing a bunch of cats? I mean the value of the cats life isn't worth much since a cat can't contribute anything to society except hunting mice and such. I could understand destroying people's property [the cats] but 158 years for killing cats seems extreme. Am I the only one who doesn't see the point in putting such high value on the life of an animal that can't even talk?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=125065

Macbeth wrote:

I started walking again. By this point my vodka was finished and I was pretty near drunk. As I went by a park I saw a kitten in the bush. I grabbed it and started walking petting it. I named her Mary after my first love. After about a block the cat tried scratching me. So I through it into a parked car. It hit the car than ran off.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=131289

Macbeth wrote:

Now I don't condone killing animals for sexual pleasure or any other sort of 'animal cruelty'

Bullshit.

lol at this thread.  macbeth just wanted to write "legislating morality"  so he could feel smart

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

But a murder affects at least one person which negates the point of: if it doesn't affect any human beings why should it be illegal?

The murder of an animal affects that animal to. Why are some lives worth more, or less, than others?

You really believe that all lives are equal in the grand scheme of things? A persons value is derived from their net positive impact on others. A jobless basement dweller is rather valueless in comparison to a businessman who started a company from scratch and now employs thousands of people. A wealthy socialite may or may not have more value than a firefighter who risks his life running into buildings and saving the life of others based on their level of philanthropy. It's all about that net positive impact. Striving for mediocrity in life doesn't help anyone.

I could just as easily put forward the argument that someones value is derived from their net positive impact on ME. Thus using your argument torturing or killing any one I perceive to have no positive impact on me should be allowed.

eleven bravo wrote:

lol at this thread.  macbeth just wanted to write "legislating morality"  so he could feel smart

That's a fairly common term, you would know that if you didn't grow up in a household where the primary spoken language was Spanish. Go troll somewhere else.

I lack a strong moral compass and even I think this is just completely wrong and absurd.