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

[MrCharisma]

I treat it that way emotionally.

But the reality is its just an object.

I love my bike. I get emotional when i scratch or mark it. But its replaceable.

Its not a person.

You get emotional probably because it's an expensive bike and is not easy to replace. If the bike shop down the road from you was giving them out for free you wouldn't get emotional, you would just get a new one.

 

[Caesar]

I doubt the rat cares what your intent is.

 

[Thrawn]

I doubt the rat cares what your intent is.

Neither do infants.

Fully developed adults will know better in such circumstances.

 

[Caesar]

But we don't deem killing children to be okay in some circumstances and not okay in others depending on what the intent of the person doing the killing is.

Think deeper.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

What I want to know is...

Who ******* killed Kenny?

 

[Thrawn]

But we don't deem killing children to be okay in some circumstances and not okay in others depending on what the intent of the person doing the killing is.

Think deeper.

But we don't deem torturing rats with boiling water and a stick to be ok in some circumstances and not okay in others depending on what the intent of the person doing the killing is.

Think deeper.

 

[MrCharisma]

But we don't deem killing children to be okay in some circumstances and not okay in others depending on what the intent of the person doing the killing is.

Think deeper.

War, We know that in every war there's going to be innocent child victims, but the end always justifies the means according to governments and large parts of the population. Do the dead children care what the intent is?

Abortion, depending on your beliefs.

 

[Caesar]

But we don't deem torturing rats with boiling water and a stick to be ok in some circumstances and not okay in others depending on what the intent of the person doing the killing is.

Think deeper.

You're using extreme circumstances to evoke an emotional response, rather than thinking about the situation reasonably and rationally.

At the end of the day, you're perfectly happy to say that an animal's life is completely subject to the whim of humans. It is okay to kill them like this, but not like this. If that's the case, there's no real reason why your whims should outweigh the whims of others - when that animal is their property and not yours. Even if you personally happen to find the way they value an animal's life to be repugnant.

If your concern truly lay with the interests of the animal (rather than your own right-thinking sentimentality) then you'd not be hesitant in advocating those animals be endowed with inalienable rights, not subject to human discretion at all. It matters little to a dead animal whether it was killed for enjoyment or bacon - it is only distressing to you.

 

[vealesy]

Yes, there is justification for killing rats that are pests in your home with the intent of removing them from your home. There is no justification in torturing rats for entertainment.

The justification is all the difference, that's why when someone is killed by someone else for example, we don't just say "well the end result was death, therefore the punishment should be the same as every other case that resulted in death". We have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, self defence, manslaughter etc. which are all based on intent.

Legal terms are not a good justification. Legal terms apply to people.

 

[EasternTiger]

Torture is the most vile act a human being can commit, and should result in perpetrators losing all rights they have as a human being. I think some people are quite glib when the subject comes up. Anyone who doesn't have enough creative impulses in their brain to fill their time productively, and feels the best way to overcome their boredom is to put the kettle on, and then inflict as much pain and suffering as they can on another creature...I dunno.

I mean, when I'm really really bored I play chess titans on the computer. What worth is a human being to society when their chimpanzee brain decides torturing rats with boiling water is a good idea? I know people commit heinous crimes for all sorts of reasons. Insult, revenge, money etc. But to actually decide your gig in life is to take an innocent person or animal, and then cause them as much prolonged and unnecessary agony and misery by whatever means your mind comes up with, for no other reason than personal amusement...people may think I'm overreacting but personally, I wouldn't even waste money locking them up. Straight to execution.

 

[H2F]

Torture is the most vile act a human being can commit, and should result in perpetrators losing all rights they have as a human being. I think some people are quite glib when the subject comes up. Anyone who doesn't have enough creative impulses in their brain to fill their time productively, and feels the best way to overcome their boredom is to put the kettle on, and then inflict as much pain and suffering as they can on another creature...I dunno.

I mean, when I'm really really bored I play chess titans on the computer. What worth is a human being to society when their chimpanzee brain decides torturing rats with boiling water is a good idea? I know people commit heinous crimes for all sorts of reasons. Insult, revenge, money etc. But to actually decide your gig in life is to take an innocent person or animal, and then cause them as much prolonged and unnecessary agony and misery by whatever means your mind comes up with, for no other reason than personal amusement...people may think I'm overreacting but personally, I wouldn't even waste money locking them up. Straight to execution.

No over reaction at all mate ... I couldn't agree more.

I'd shoot them myself ...

 

[Keys]

In this thread I learnt that Spock is actually a real person and he's a moderator on a football forum

 

[Caesar]

I just don't like morality police. A lot of people like Thrawn would be the first to get outraged at stuff like Christian fundies banning gay marriage because they find it repugnant. And rightly so.

That's before you even touch on the damage that welfarism does to the animal rights movement. Similar to the damage that the 'compassionate slavery' advocates did to abolitionism.

 

[MrCharisma]

It matters little to a dead animal whether it was killed for enjoyment or bacon - it is only distressing to you.

It does matter to the animal if it is kept in conditions where it is suffering and then killed slowly and painfully,
compared to if it is kept in pleasant conditions where it is not suffering and then killed quickly without pain. That's why we have laws regarding livestock that strike a balance between the owners need to make a living and the prevention of suffering to the animal.

I don't believe this false dichotomy you've put up - absolute property rights or absolute animal rights. You've made your position clear, you believe animals are absolute property, yet you seem to be using extremist animal rights arguments to back your position ... Slave trade? Oh please. They're two completely contradicting positions. Then you're using this to call people who back animal welfare hypocrites... What the? . It's confusing, you're like a Jew in a kkk costume.

 

[H2F]

In this thread I learnt that Spock is actually a real person and he's a moderator on a football forum

Who barracks for St Kilda, which would be a completely illogical choice of clubs to support.

 

[Caesar]

I don't believe this false dichotomy you've put up - absolute property rights or absolute animal rights. You've made your position clear, you believe animals are absolute property, yet you seem to be using extremist animal rights arguments to back your position ... Slave trade? Oh please. They're two completely contradicting positions. Then you're using this to call people who back animal welfare hypocrites... What the? . It's confusing, you're like a Jew in a kkk costume.

If you don't understand, I recommend you read the book I referenced earlier. It is written by one of the world's leading jurisprudential scholars on animals and property rights. It explains very concisely why what I am talking about is anything but a false dichotomy.

 

[Keys]

If you don't understand, I recommend you read the book I referenced earlier. It is written by one of the world's leading jurisprudential scholars on animals and property rights. It explains very concisely why what I am talking about is anything but a false dichotomy.

There's part of the problem with your argument

Scholars are self important w***ers with nothing important to say that applies in the real world.

And yes that's an irrational view but I don't care

 

[Caesar]

Like I said, the argument of animal welfarism versus animal rights is very similar to the argument of compassionate slavery versus abolitionism in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's touched on that jurisprudential treatment.

If you don't think the philosophical argument over slavery was important or applicable to the real world, I'm not sure what to say.

 

[MrCharisma]

If you don't understand, I recommend you read the book I referenced earlier. It is written by one of the world's leading jurisprudential scholars on animals and property rights. It explains very concisely why what I am talking about is anything but a false dichotomy.

Ok I'll give it a look maybe, but just looking at the blurb it seems that this guy is an extremist animal rights advocate who rejects the use of animals by humans in anyway, and thinks animals should have rights like humans (he is also pictured with two pet dogs on his wiki page). I can see why he is against animal welfare ... Because he wants to live in an Animal Farm type fantasyland and animal welfare is getting in the way of that.

 

[Caesar]

What his beliefs or desires are, is less important than the argument laid out in the book. I agree with very little of his personal philosophy but he he is a top-notch legal mind, and the rationale is compelling and well-stated.

 

[MrCharisma]

Like I said, the argument of animal welfarism versus animal rights is very similar to the argument of compassionate slavery versus abolitionism in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's touched on that jurisprudential treatment.

Oh c'mon! This is straight out of the mouth of an extreme animal rights activist. How can you use it against an animal welfare person from your position as an 'animals are property' person?

 

[Caesar]

Oh c'mon! This is straight out of the mouth of an extreme animal rights activist. How can you use it against an animal welfare person from your position as an 'animals are property' person?

I am not arguing that animals are or are not property.

I am arguing that welfarism is an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. On that, animal rights activists and I agree.

 

[Changaneen]

Hope you guys are vegan.

Do you ever watch River Cottage ?? Guy breeds his own animals, brings them up and feeds them in the most comforting way for that animal. When the time comes, he has them put down as humanely as possible. He reckons the meat is the best, so your point about being a vegan is mute. I realise what your trying to get at, but there is no excuse whatsoever for gratuitous cruelty to animals.

 

[MrCharisma]

I am not arguing that animals are or are not property.

I am arguing that welfarism is an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. On that, animal rights activists and I agree.

Comparing the slave trade and animal welfare is also an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. Especially if you view animals as property, which you have stated that you do.

If you purchase animal products in Australia you are supporting an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. Do you avoid buying animal products, or would that be impractical IRL?

 

[Keys]

What his beliefs or desires are, is less important than the argument laid out in the book. I agree with very little of his personal philosophy but he he is a top-notch legal mind, and the rationale is compelling and well-stated.

You've gone from scholar to legal mind in support of your argument

Dig up stupid!