jakee 1,254 #201 October 16, 2015 It's that late night barstool level of reasoning and coherence, yeah. If you explained your position instead of just repeating it then it would sound different, but I doubt there's much chance of that this evening.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #202 October 16, 2015 It's 3pm where rush is. If he started drinking early, good for him. It's Friday. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #203 October 16, 2015 >Sorry. You are wrong The courts, fortunately, disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #204 October 16, 2015 jakeeIt's that late night barstool level of reasoning and coherence, yeah. If you explained your position instead of just repeating it then it would sound different, but I doubt there's much chance of that this evening. I did explain my position Well enough it is pissing you off to a point of PA's I just left work and I do not work at a bar You need to learn to control your anger"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #205 October 16, 2015 billvon>Sorry. You are wrong The courts, fortunately, disagree. No, they do not"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #206 October 16, 2015 >No, they do not The courts protect the rights of animals. If you don't think that's true, again, give it a try. It may not be true, of course, in the world of Breitbart, Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. But here in the real world: ========================== Animals in Oregon got a boost this month, in two Oregon Supreme Court rulings. Aimee Green | The Oregonian August 22, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated August 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals -- whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats -- shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings. The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals. . . . In making its findings -- some of the strongest favoring animal rights to date -- the high court noted how Oregon law is evolving to reflect the sentiments of society in general. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/animals_can_be_victims_just_li.html ========================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #207 October 16, 2015 QuoteI did explain my position And made a bunch of proposals that completely contradict that position. How do you propose banning animal abusers from being close to animals, and what should be done if they break that ban given that animal cruelty shouldn't be prosecuted? And if there are no laws against animal cruelty what do you think society will do to deal with animal abusers? QuoteWell enough it is pissing you off to a point of PA's Not pissed off, just mystified by your approach. If it's not through being drunk I just don't unerstand what you get out of being on this forum if all you're prepared to do s repeat your original statement over and over again whenever any detail of your position is questioned. What's the point?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #208 October 16, 2015 rushmc***>Sorry. You are wrong The courts, fortunately, disagree. No, they do not Yes they do.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #209 October 16, 2015 jakeeQuoteBut I also think society will take care of this if known How? QuoteThat said I do not think they should be allowed to own, have or be near any animals either ***You're proposing a restraining order from animals? How would that work? And what would happen to someone who breached it if you can't prosecute them?The court take kids away from parents. You saying the court can not take animals from their oweres QuoteThis all said does not mean that animals have rights If they did, we could not euthanize them now could we because they would have a right to life. Correct? No, not correct. Again, when people say "animals have rights" they don't mean* "animals have all the same rights as humans". * A very few people do, but they are far from the norm."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #210 October 16, 2015 jakee Quote I did explain my position And made a bunch of proposals that completely contradict that position. How do you propose banning animal abusers from being close to animals, and what should be done if they break that ban given that animal cruelty shouldn't be prosecuted? And if there are no laws against animal cruelty what do you think society will do to deal with animal abusers? Quote Well enough it is pissing you off to a point of PA's Not pissed off, just mystified by your approach. If it's not through being drunk I just don't unerstand what you get out of being on this forum if all you're prepared to do s repeat your original statement over and over again whenever any detail of your position is questioned. What's the point? there is no amount of beer that could prepare anyone to reply to you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #211 October 16, 2015 billvon>No, they do not The courts protect the rights of animals. If you don't think that's true, again, give it a try. It may not be true, of course, in the world of Breitbart, Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. But here in the real world: ========================== Animals in Oregon got a boost this month, in two Oregon Supreme Court rulings. Aimee Green | The Oregonian August 22, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated August 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals -- whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats -- shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings. The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals. . . . In making its findings -- some of the strongest favoring animal rights to date -- the high court noted how Oregon law is evolving to reflect the sentiments of society in general. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/animals_can_be_victims_just_li.html ========================= Two points You cherry picked what you wanted Second, you post the comments of the reporter not the court when you postedQuote some of the strongest favoring animal rights to date I do understand the excitment of those who have beliefs like yours Your side uses this crap all the time to destroy industries The spotted owl lie comes to mind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #212 October 16, 2015 jakeeQuoteI did explain my position And made a bunch of proposals that completely contradict that position. How do you propose banning animal abusers from being close to animals, and what should be done if they break that ban given that animal cruelty shouldn't be prosecuted? And if there are no laws against animal cruelty what do you think society will do to deal with animal abusers? QuoteWell enough it is pissing you off to a point of PA's Not pissed off, just mystified by your approach. If it's not through being drunk I just don't unerstand what you get out of being on this forum if all you're prepared to do s repeat your original statement over and over again whenever any detail of your position is questioned. What's the point? I agree that you have no point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #213 October 16, 2015 DanGSorry, can't watch youtube at work. Can you describe the situation? Yes. It is a snake feeding naturally. Well, sort of, it is a pet snake feeding on either a rat, a rabbit, a cat or a dog, I forgot which video it was. Which one has the rights? The one that was purchased or found by the pet owner, or the food that was purchased to feed the snake?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #214 October 16, 2015 >You cherry picked what you wanted I posted an excerpt and linked to the full article. ("Cherry picking" does not mean "you posted stuff that doesn't support my ideology and I don't want to see it!") >Second, you post the comments of the reporter not the court when you posted The court found that animals did indeed have rights that were violated, and that animals, like humans, should be treated as individual victims rather than "lumped together" like a bunch of material possessions. But if you don't like that reporter here's another one: ================= Oregon Animals Now Have Some Basic Rights Formerly Reserved for Humans Crimes against animals can't be lumped all together—each animal victim has to be recognized individually By Marissa Fessenden smithsonian.com August 25, 2014 This month, two rulings by the Oregon Supreme Court granted animals some rights formerly reserved for humans. Now, people in Oregon guilty of animal abuse or neglect may receive harsher sentences. Also, police can save animals in danger without getting a warrant. In the first case, Arnold Nix was convicted of 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect after police found dozens of emaciated horses and goats as well as several carcasses on his farm. Oregon has a law that prevents lumping multiple counts of crime together, to ensure that each victim is recognized. But during sentencing at his earlier trial, the lower court merged all of Nix’s convictions into one, after his lawyer argued that animals are not victims. The two cases are small steps in the greater movement to extend legal rights to non-human persons. ============================ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oregon-animals-now-have-some-basic-rights-formerly-reserved-humans-180952475 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #215 October 16, 2015 billvon>No, they do not The courts protect the rights of animals. If you don't think that's true, again, give it a try. It may not be true, of course, in the world of Breitbart, Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. But here in the real world: ========================== Animals in Oregon got a boost this month, in two Oregon Supreme Court rulings. Aimee Green | The Oregonian August 22, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated August 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals -- whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats -- shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings. The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals. . . . In making its findings -- some of the strongest favoring animal rights to date -- the high court noted how Oregon law is evolving to reflect the sentiments of society in general. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/animals_can_be_victims_just_li.html ========================= A protection is not a right. The right to bear arms is not a protection to bear arms. A right to free speech does not protect one who yells fire in a public place. The right to anything may occasionally do, and operate in the same manner of a protection. If I buy a cat, a dog, or a squirrel, as food for my Burmese Python, who has the rights? The snake must have the right to eat.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #216 October 16, 2015 QuoteThe two cases are small steps in the greater movement to extend legal rights to non-human persons Which backs up the point that 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #217 October 16, 2015 >A protection is not a right. Correct. A law protects rights. The two are not equal. >The right to bear arms is not a protection to bear arms. Also correct. Laws like CCW laws protect the right to bear arms. Other gun laws protect other people's lives. The law balances those two important rights against each other. >A right to free speech does not protect one who yells fire in a public place. Correct. It restricts that right to protect other's right to life. Similarly, animal laws protect the rights of the animal and trade those rights off against the rights of humans. In most cases, the rights of humans trump the rights of animals - but as recent court cases have proven, not always. >If I buy a cat, a dog, or a squirrel, as food for my Burmese Python, who has the >rights? The snake must have the right to eat. Depends where you live. In some states, you will go to jail for animal cruelty. In that case, the dog's right to life trumps your right to own a Burmese Python for your amusement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #218 October 16, 2015 >Which backs up the point that animals do not have rights The case which extended animal legal rights was in 2014 over a year ago. They now have those rights in Oregon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #219 October 16, 2015 billvon >If I buy a cat, a dog, or a squirrel, as food for my Burmese Python, who has the >rights? The snake must have the right to eat. Depends where you live. In some states, you will go to jail for animal cruelty. In that case, the dog's right to life trumps your right to own a Burmese Python for your amusement. Some places offer different rights to different animal species. As in: It's ok to feed a rat or hamster or similar to a snake, but it's not alright to use a kitten or puppy. Apparently, dogs and cats have more rights than rats and hamsters. A friend is "into" snakes and told me this. I don't have specifics, nor do I have any examples of places that have this sort of stuff in place."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,120 #220 October 16, 2015 We're all humans posting in this thread. Which means that we kind of think we are the center of the universe. So our rights are "God-given," but animals (of which we are one) "have no rights." Or they only have the rights that our courts provide them. Actually, I think that the rights that we consider to be innate are social constructs, based on our collective realization (decision) that social behavior is generally preferable to "strongest always eats." Not always. Many animals have social behavior. Owned dogs and cats generally have an alpha one (our cats certainly do ). But you'll notice that most of the time that doesn't mean that anything goes for the alpha -- after all, they don't eat the others when they're a little hungry. So maybe animals don't care if we "acknowledge" or "give" them their "rights." It's up to us to behave responsibly, by our definition. By acknowledging the innate life in all creatures, along with our equivalent life, maybe we can make good decisions. And maybe we can understand that assertion doesn't make them good. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #221 October 17, 2015 billvon>Which backs up the point that animals do not have rights The case which extended animal legal rights was in 2014 over a year ago. They now have those rights in Oregon. In Oregon? Ok"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #222 October 17, 2015 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?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #223 October 17, 2015 Animals eating other animals is part of nature. I don't understand why people keep snakes as pets, but it shouldn't be illegal. As I 've said before, animals don't have the same rights as people. They both have the right to be treated humanely. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #224 October 17, 2015 DanGAnimals eating other animals is part of nature. I don't understand why people keep snakes as pets, but it shouldn't be illegal. As I 've said before, animals don't have the same rights as people. They both have the right to be treated humanely. NO. We place an obligation on ourselves as a society to do that. Our choice. Us eating animals is a part of nature too."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #225 October 17, 2015 jakee 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"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
