Sinfest

Uncle Bebby · Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 384

right, you hate eating fur, we get that.

that's why god made tube steak.

cruel acts against animals are bad, simply low class.

when I see a dog or a cat beaten, stabbed, and set on fire, they don't deserve it, they are just being dogs and cats.

HamletSr · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject:

Benny, I don't know a gentle way to put this, so I am just going to say it. . .

BEING A KOALA YOU SHOULD NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN THIS HUMAN DISCUSSION BECAUSE YOU ARE BIASED. WHAT IS TUBE STEAK?!?
_________________
-HamletSr

Sojobo · Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2393

HamletSr:

Your post reads like I didn't make my position clear.

I consider it immoral to be cruel to animals. I would never do so, save in self-defense, and I agree with you that people who do are sick fucks.

But to legislate against it is to declare that laws enforcing morality are A-ok, which means there's nothing at all wrong with banning flag burning, gay marriage, or even abortion, so long as it follows majority opinion. I find all such laws, even the ones whose morality I agree with, to be reprehensible.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

maniac_wolfman · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 628

All laws are simply enforced majority moral opinion.

Sojobo · Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2393

No. They really aren't.

Goawaynowplsthx.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

Drui · Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 541 Location: 'Jersey :}

HamletSr · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject:

No, animal cruelty laws recognise the fundamental rights of animals not to be treated with cruelty, and/or the responsibilties of their owners incur by owning them.

Your position is abundantly clear, you do not think that we should have animal cruelty laws. As I said before, this is an extreme position that not very many people share, because they recognise the fundamental right of animals to live lives free from abuse by those that "own" them.

You sir, are obviously no lawyer. From a legal standpoint, the problems with gay marriage and flag burning are NOT equivilent to animal cruelty laws. Exactly what rights are the animal cruelty laws abridging? Freedom of expression? Right to bear arms? Do you think that animal torturers are a protected group under the law?

Do not answer any of those questions. It would be much better if you were to just stop your ill informed and misguided blatherings.
_________________
-HamletSr

Sojobo · Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2393

Krazy Stixx · Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 568

Maybe since dogs can't fully understand the possible risks involved in being a "bite dog", they shouldn't be used in that way.
_________________
"By 3 p.m. I've discounted suicide in favor of killing everyone else in the world instead."
-Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan

maniac_wolfman · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 628

Drui · Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 541 Location: 'Jersey :}

Sojobo · Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2393

Lemontree · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 3297

Skipping over the rest of the topic which you all are debating quite thoroughly and "eloquently"... Here's just a comment on one part.

Murder is both a moral law, and a law of necessity.

Sojobo's got a point about a society needing to enforce punishment against murderers because it aids in a continuance of a species/race/class.

In a war, murder is understood because it is a matter of domination.. It is the last resort in a debate. Kill the opposing view and your point will be made.

But yes, it is also morally wrong to kill a member of your own species because a species ultimate goal is survival. And I'd also like to personally live out my days in peace and happiness without worrying that my time will be cut short by a crazy. *shrug*

HamletSr · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject:

Wow disco jesus, you ARE eloquent
_________________
-HamletSr