US dentist 'regrets' killing lion...

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

***

Quote

The court take kids away from parents.

Kids have rights

Quote

You saying the court can not take animals from their oweres

No, you're saying there's no legal reason to. And again, if you're not going to prosecute someone for torturing animals, what are you going to do to someone who breaks their animal restraining order?

And how will society take care of animal abusers?

You have major comprehension issues

Up thread, I asked for the animal bill of rights that all three branches of the us government recognizes.

Until that exists, legally, animals have no "rights". They only have what individuals and certain groups offer in the way of protection from other humans.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You have major comprehension issues

What you're saying is incomprehensible.

If animals don't have rights, how can you compare the legal protection of children with the legal protection of animals?

If animals don't have rights, how can you legally justify taking them away from their legitimate owners?

Why do you think the government should be able to take away someone's property, if that property does not have the right to be protected?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Until that exists, legally, animals have no "rights". They only have what individuals and certain groups offer in the way of protection from other humans.

I take it you've never read the 9th amendment?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

You prove my point yet again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,257]

rushmc

You prove my point yet again

Don't you get tired of the same old deflection tactics?

Damn near every thread you get stuck in a twisted logical hole you can't climb out of and you just attack whoever it is you're talking to and then afterwards every response is "you're proving my point" or "you're showing what you are" and it hapens over and over again.

Anything to stifle a discussion without having to address your flawed, incomplete, contradictory 'solutions'. Don't you get bored of it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

Quote

Until that exists, legally, animals have no "rights". They only have what individuals and certain groups offer in the way of protection from other humans.

I take it you've never read the 9th amendment?

Yes, have you?

Here is the meat and potatoes of it.

Quote

. . . fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement . . .

So, animals cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Gotcha.

They still do not have a Bill of rights. Without the bill of rights, they have no specific, actual, defined, legal rights.

Pretty cut and dry.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

jakee

***You prove my point yet again

Don't you get tired of the same old deflection tactics?

Damn near every thread you get stuck in a twisted logical hole you can't climb out of and you just attack whoever it is you're talking to and then afterwards every response is "you're proving my point" or "you're showing what you are" and it hapens over and over again.

Anything to stifle a discussion without having to address your flawed, incomplete, contradictory 'solutions'. Don't you get bored of it?

You call my position flawed cause you do not agree with it

YOU missed the point regarding children and animals and in doing so countered your own argument that animals have rights

You say animals have rights

I know they do not

But I can damn well tell you I have seen court cases where a judge issued an order that bans a person from having any animals because of the way he treated the the animals he had

I reply to you as I do because you will not even consider another viewpoint because you have proven over and over you can not understand or tolerated anyone who had an opinion counter to yours

So, I will not waste the same amount of time on you again as I know I have done here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Yes, have you?

Yes.

Quote

. . . fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement . . .

That's not part of the 9th amendment.

What the 9th amendment means is that the argument you've been using a few times lately, that you have to be able to read a right in the Constitution for it to be a right is an argument specifically contradicted by the Constitution itself.

Quote

So, animals cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Gotcha.

No, you don't. I'm not saying the 9th amendment confers rights on animals, I'm only saying it shows your rigid constitutional argument to be bogus.

Quote

They still do not have a Bill of rights. Without the bill of rights, they have no specific, actual, defined, legal rights.

No, absence of enumeration of animal rights within the bill of rights does not mean that the constitution defines an absence of animal rights. It means the constitution does not speak about them one way or the other.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You call my position flawed cause you do not agree with it

I call it flawed because I see internal contradictions with it which you refuse to explain.

Quote

YOU missed the point regarding children and animals and in doing so countered your own argument that animals have rights

What was the point?

Quote

But I can damn well tell you I have seen court cases where a judge issued an order that bans a person from having any animals because of the way he treated the the animals he had

And you have also seen court cases that prosecute people for mistreating animals - because those animals have rights.

But you think animals don't have rights, and you have stated that people should not be prosecuted for mistreating animals.

So, and please listen carefully here, you cannot simultaneously declare that the status quo should be changed, but also use the status quo as support for how your proposal would work.

Yet again I ask - if a person should not be prosecuted for actually torturing an animal, what should happen to him for simply breaching a ban on owning animals becase he's a known animal torturer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Animals do not have rights

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,124]

Are rights only what specifically comes from the government, or are they inherent in the fact of existence?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

Quote

Yes, have you?

Yes.

Quote

. . . fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement . . .

That's not part of the 9th amendment.

What the 9th amendment means is that the argument you've been using a few times lately, that you have to be able to read a right in the Constitution for it to be a right is an argument specifically contradicted by the Constitution itself.

Quote

So, animals cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Gotcha.

No, you don't. I'm not saying the 9th amendment confers rights on animals, I'm only saying it shows your rigid constitutional argument to be bogus.

Quote

They still do not have a Bill of rights. Without the bill of rights, they have no specific, actual, defined, legal rights.

No, absence of enumeration of animal rights within the bill of rights does not mean that the constitution defines an absence of animal rights. It means the constitution does not speak about them one way or the other.

What specific rights do they have? They as in, ALL animals. Mice, rats, lions, rabbits, all animals. Or is it just a Willy nilly montage of whatever strikes the fancy of whomever is complaining at the time?

As I understand it, a right is something applied equally across all boundaries.

What was it that was brought up earlier, equal protection under the law.

It cannot be a right unless it is equally protected under the law.

You feel like it should be different. You feel like there are inalienable rights for animals.

When I can feed a human to a snake, and save the mouse, you may have a point.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

Are rights only what specifically comes from the government, or are they inherent in the fact of existence?

Wendy P.

Legal rights come from the law.

You are speaking to morality, compassion, and feelings of right and wrong.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,257]

rushmc

Animals do not have rights

Quote

But I can damn well tell you I have seen court cases where a judge issued an order that bans a person from having any animals because of the way he treated the the animals he had

And you have also seen court cases that prosecute people for mistreating animals - because those animals have rights.

But you think animals don't have rights, and you have stated that people should not be prosecuted for mistreating animals.

So, and please listen carefully here, you cannot simultaneously declare that the status quo should be changed, but also use the status quo as support for how your proposal would work.

Yet again I ask - if a person should not be prosecuted for actually torturing an animal, what should happen to him for simply breaching a ban on owning animals becase he's a known animal torturer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,402]

>In Oregon? Ok

Yep. And Iowa, and New York, and California, and Florida, and Illinois . . .

The rights of animals vary from state to state.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>In Oregon? Ok

Yep. And Iowa, and New York, and California, and Florida, and Illinois . . .

The rights of animals vary from state to state.

Protections vary

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,402]

>Protections vary

You admitted animals have rights in Oregon due to those laws. Many other states have similar laws protecting the rights of animals.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Protections vary

You admitted animals have rights in Oregon due to those laws. Many other states have similar laws protecting the rights of animals.

Federally, they have no rights.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,402]

>Federally, they have no rights.

===============
FBI Targets Animal Cruelty as a Serious Crime
Sherry Ramsey, The Humane Society of the United States
October 17, 2014 10:37pm ET

A recent decision by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) means animal cruelty crimes will soon be included within the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) - National Incident Based Reporting System — an action that will most certainly advance how law enforcement officials understand and act to prevent these often violent crimes. Equally important, these cases may serve as an early warning to alert the criminal justice system to individuals who pose a future danger to the community.

When this change goes into effect in 2015, federal law will regard animal cruelty as a crime against society and a Group A offense, a category that includes crimes of a serious nature, including arson, burglary, kidnapping and homicide.
================
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
From Wikipedia

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) is a United States federal statute that protects two species of eagle. The bald eagle was chosen as a national emblem of the United States by the Continental Congress of 1782 and was given legal protection by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act was expanded to include the golden eagle in 1962. Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof."

The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to not agitate the bald and golden eagle to the extent of not 1.) Abusing an eagle, 2.) Interfering with its substantial lifestyle, including shelter, breeding, feeding, or 3.) Nest abandonment.
==================

[rushmc 18]

Protections are not rights

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Federally, they have no rights.

===============
FBI Targets Animal Cruelty as a Serious Crime
Sherry Ramsey, The Humane Society of the United States
October 17, 2014 10:37pm ET

A recent decision by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) means animal cruelty crimes will soon be included within the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) - National Incident Based Reporting System — an action that will most certainly advance how law enforcement officials understand and act to prevent these often violent crimes. Equally important, these cases may serve as an early warning to alert the criminal justice system to individuals who pose a future danger to the community.

When this change goes into effect in 2015, federal law will regard animal cruelty as a crime against society and a Group A offense, a category that includes crimes of a serious nature, including arson, burglary, kidnapping and homicide.
================
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
From Wikipedia

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) is a United States federal statute that protects two species of eagle. The bald eagle was chosen as a national emblem of the United States by the Continental Congress of 1782 and was given legal protection by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act was expanded to include the golden eagle in 1962. Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof."

The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to not agitate the bald and golden eagle to the extent of not 1.) Abusing an eagle, 2.) Interfering with its substantial lifestyle, including shelter, breeding, feeding, or 3.) Nest abandonment.
==================

Explain sticky/glue traps for mice and rats.
What rights do milk cows have?
What rights do chickens have?
What rights do Javelinas have?
What about nutrinas?

I guess you are still blinded by the fuzzy feel good kitten and puppy.

Animals have NO rights.

A right is something applied equally across the board. Some animals are allowed certain amounts of protection, depending on the cute and fuzzy factor, or the majestic factor, but the protections are not rights. They never will be rights until Stewart Little and Remy are treated the same as Simba and Nala. When Punxsutawney Phil is no better in the eyes of the law than an alligator in an over populated swamp, then we may approach "rights".

Popular opinion is fickle. Hunting shows on TV, Duck Dynasty, Swamp People, and the like prove to me that there are no animal rights.

I'm not saying we, as sentient beings, don't have a responsibility to protect some of these animals. I'm simply arguing the point that animals have no rights, legally.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Why do all animals have to be classified the same? Humans are animals. Are you arguing that human have no rights because mice have no rights?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Protections are not rights

You are hung on on the semantics. Fine.

If you don't want to call them rights, I don't really give a shit. Call them animal cumquats for all I care. As long as you recognize that animals are, and should be, protected from cruelty and inhumane treatment, then call that protection whatever you want.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

Protections are not rights

You are hung on on the semantics. Fine.

If you don't want to call them rights, I don't really give a shit. Call them animal cumquats for all I care. As long as you recognize that animals are, and should be, protected from cruelty and inhumane treatment, then call that protection whatever you want.

You mean like spring traps, glue traps, poison that makes the animal hemmorage and bleed out internally? That kind of protection?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[CornishChris 5]

For another perspective on the killing of the lion this is worth a listen:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/

It's about a person who paid to kill a rhino. Just to be clear I am totally against this but it is interesting to hear a relatively balanced piece on it, rather than the hysteria.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people