This ****er should have got a life ban on pets

[Caesar]

Meh. It's his property, he can do what he wants with it as far as I am concerned.

Animal welfare laws are silly.

 

[ioppolo]

Meh. It's his property, he can do what he wants with it as far as I am concerned.

Animal welfare laws are silly.

What if he set fire to live Dogs and Cats? Or chucked them in ovens to slow roast?

 

[Caesar]

They're his property. As far as I'm concerned he can do what he likes with his own property, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. That is the fundamental principle of property rights.

If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should reconsider whether animals should be treated as property.

 

[Thrawn]

They're his property. As far as I'm concerned he can do what he likes with his own property, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. That is the fundamental principle of property rights.

If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should reconsider whether animals should be treated as property.

Do you even have a heart in that chest cavity of yours, or is it made out of stone?

Caesar, you're looking like a complete douchebag.

 

[Caesar]

As soon as you stop being a bien pensant bleeding heart.

 

[Thrawn]

As soon as you stop being a bien pensant bleeding heart.

 

[Caesar]

The point I'm making has clearly gone way over your head.

Hint: I quite like animals, and am an advocate of treating them well.

 

[Thrawn]

I find it so hard to believe you when you're say he can do whatever he wants to it.

 

[raskolnikov]

Meh. It's his property, he can do what he wants with it as far as I am concerned.

Animal welfare laws are silly.

You're an idiot. Seriously. Just because someone owns a pet it doesn't give them theright to treat them as they like. The same way that being a parent doesn't mean you can treat your child as you like.

Rats are beautiful and intelligent animals and it makes me so angry to see them, or any animal treated like this.

 

[Old M8]

Meh. It's his property, he can do what he wants with it as far as I am concerned.

Animal welfare laws are silly.

So youd be okay if your dog/cat wandered onto my property and sat at my front door (not acting aggressively) just wanting some attention, and I grab it and snap all of its legs and leave it there to die. That would be alright because it was my property and I could do what I want?

 

[Caesar]

I find it so hard to believe you when you're say he can do whatever he wants to it.

We live in a society where animals are property. The use and disposal of property should be at the absolute discretion of its owner, provided it doesn't interfere with other people. That is what property rights are, and property rights are the foundation of our society.

I am perfectly receptive to the idea that animals should not be treated as property. I think there are a lot of excellent arguments in favour of that point of view. On the other hand I have no respect for people like yourself, who are happy to treat animals as property but then get all precious about how other people's property is used when it doesn't impact on them or anyone else.

I am reconciled to the idea that animals are property, and I have certain ethical and moral rules that govern how I treat animals that belong to me. And yes, it upsets me when I see animals treated poorly. But if others do not subscribe to the same rules I do then who am I to interfere? If I accept that animals are property, then placing restrictions on their use of their property merely to satisfy my own sensibilities is quite unreasonable. It would be like a bunch of Christians passing a law to say that I can't smash up my wooden crucifix and use it as firewood.

The cognitive dissonance required to be a welfarist is staggering and I'm constantly surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent people who subscribe to the idea. I can only presume it stems from a lack of reflection and analysis, or a desire to have one's cake and eat it too.

Anyway, this is all old ground we've covered before. I'd refer people to the previous thread, and the book Animals, Property and the Law if they still don't understand where I'm coming from.

Just because someone owns a pet it doesn't give them theright to treat them as they like. The same way that being a parent doesn't mean you can treat your child as you like.

The difference being that children aren't property.

 

[raskolnikov]

Caesar do you also believe that a parent should be able to treat a child any way they like?

 

[Caesar]

Refer above. Children aren't property. They can't be owned.

If you want to give animals the right not to be owned, that's cool. But that's not welfarism.

 

[vealesy]

Caesar do you also believe that a parent should be able to treat a child any way they like?

You almost compared a hunter to a pedo.

Its a bit of a stretch.

 

[TheMcGrathMan]

We live in a society where animals are property.

We also live in a society where animals (specifically, mammals) are considered, legally and scientifically, sentient beings and it is illegal to torture them like the man in the article did.

So stop banging on about how much of the law you know and property rights, because it makes no difference. The rest of what you write is invalid because he broke laws that outweigh property rights (because it's despicable to treat something capable of feeling pain, stress and emotion in the way he did).

 

[TheMcGrathMan]

You almost compared a hunter to a pedo.

Its a bit of a stretch.

No, what you did was a stretch.

Someone who tortures an animal by pouring boiling water on it and then laughs/brags/shows no remorse about it /=/ (the vast majority) shooting an animal in the hope of an instant death and if not an efficient and quick death (and uses the meat)

 

[raskolnikov]

You almost compared a hunter to a pedo.

Its a bit of a stretch.

You almost compared an animal torturer to a hunter. That's a massive stretch.

 

[Caesar]

We also live in a society where animals (specifically, mammals) are considered, legally and scientifically, sentient beings and it is illegal to torture them like the man in the article did.

So stop banging on about how much of the law you know and property rights, because it makes no difference. The rest of what you write is invalid because he broke laws that outweigh property rights (because it's despicable to treat something capable of feeling pain, stress and emotion in the way he did).

I am not disputing that what the man did was illegal. I am just pointing out that, when you think about it, it is a very unreasonable law. It is no different to any other law that seeks to impose a given morality on other people's actions, regardless of whether those actions affect anyone else.

Good laws preserve liberty, not restrict it. The mentality that we should go around banning mistreatment of animals because we think it is morally reprehensible is fundamentally no different to the mentality of people who want to ban abortion or flag burning or women walking around with uncovered faces or homosexual sex for the same reason. The catchcry in those situations is 'it doesn't affect you, so butt out', and so it should be in this case.

Pick a side of the fence. If animals are entitled to liberty then they should be recognised as beings in their own right. It is really that simple, although it comes with lots of inconvenient implications for Fido and the bacon-and-egg breakfast. The whole 'animals are different to normal property, but still property' argument is pretty much identical to the one used to justify slavery a couple of hundred years ago.

 

[vealesy]

You almost compared an animal torturer to a hunter. That's a massive stretch.

But its not a stretch comparing a torturer to a pedo?

Do ****s want to marry animals?

Etc.

Lame argument. Animals are property. Caesar nailed it.

 

[Igloo]

I'm having deja vu with this argument.

 

[BALKAN]

I'm having deja vu with this argument.

Need nicky to abuse Caesar for a bit and it'll be a carbon copy.

 

[Thrawn]

The catchcry in those situations is 'it doesn't affect you, so butt out', and so it should be in this case.

The catchcry is torturing something for pleasure is called sadism. If this act gives a person pleasure then it's likely they will have no moral issues when it comes to doing the same thing to other animals (including humans). Saying this is okay is like saying showing signs that psychopathic behaviour possibly exists is okay. Being psychotic is not okay. If someone is prone to violence, their anger tolerance is low, and tend to kill things to make themselves feel better then that is not good at all.

Would you feel comfortable or safe around a person like this?

 

[Caesar]

Great. When they start doing it to humans, chuck them in gaol. Until then, they're not harming anybody.

 

[H2F]

The whole 'animals are different to normal property, but still property' argument is pretty much identical to the one used to justify slavery a couple of hundred years ago.

Yes Cracker. I can imagine you treating your slaves and animals as the law permits you.

With no heart or compassion.

Do you really need laws to tell you not to torture an animal?

No. You need a heart.

 

[H2F]

Great. When they start doing it to humans, chuck them in gaol. Until then, they're not harming anybody.

If someone hurt my dogs I would hurt them back.