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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,138
Likes
7,869
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#28
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

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter #29
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.
 

raskolnikov

Premium Gold
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
Posts
26,562
Likes
17,835
Location
Central Queensland
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Lions
#34
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.
 
Last edited:

Old M8

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Posts
1,717
Likes
4,288
AFL Club
Richmond
#35
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

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,138
Likes
7,869
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#36
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 24, 2013
Posts
2,716
Likes
2,106
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#40
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).
 
Joined
May 24, 2013
Posts
2,716
Likes
2,106
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#41
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)
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,138
Likes
7,869
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#43
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.
 

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter #47
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?
 

H2F

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Posts
23,664
Likes
15,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#49
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.
 
Top Bottom