Why aren't pets property?

[Ancient History]

I dunno...your argument's sound, right up to the point where I see kids on leashes...

[Bethyaga]

I dunno...your argument's sound, right up to the point where I see kids on leashes...

What--a leash equals "property"? Don't be a dink. I never have and never would use a leash to keep track of my child, but I quite well understand the mentality behind it. Such a thing is a safety device and nothing more. Don't use a superficial similarity to try to demonstrate equality. Bah.

[Sowhat]

Kids can be considered property in exactly the same way pets can. Hell, childeren are pets. They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller. They are fed, put to bed, never left alone unless locked in the house or somewhere safe that they can't escape from or damage anything, they have to be house trained, don't have much of a say in what they eat, wear or do... they ARE treated the same as pets. The only difference is that when a human gets older they become more intelligent and can survive in this society without being pests. If they didn't grow up, they'd BE pets.

Really young kids don't understand morallity any more than a dog. Like 1 year olds. You can't argue that dogs/pets shouldn't be treated the way we'd like to be treated (you know, not being tortured, etc.) because they don't understand the idea of morality, because neither do small childeren and infants. Neither have a concept of right & wrong, but both feel pain. You don't bash a child simply because they haven't the mental copassity to think "hey, that's mean". You know it'll hurt the kid, so you don't do it. The same goes for pets. Sure, they don't think it's morally wrong of you, but they're still feeling the pain of torture.

[Anguirel]

Why aren't children property?

Children are essentially non-salable property of the legal guardians with a few specific rights granted (I always wondered about how rights could be granted... doesn't that make them privileges?). Those guardians can (and often do) make nearly all decisions for a minor under their care. The children are considered 'humans' under most aspects of the law. The Guardians can transfer their responsibility in a number of ways (though officially I'd imagine that money shouldn't be exchanged during this process except to go along with the child for its care). But... they also aren't full 'humans' under the law until they reach their majority. And not even then for the privilege to consume alcoholic beverages (another law I've never really understood). In general they are not treated a sproperty because they will eventually reach a state in which they will be considered full humans. People also feel some sort of "emotions" or "attachment" or something toward the little buggers as well.

Sidenote: Moo, when faced with the dilemma of hitting a chipmunk or a small kid, you should try to swerve in such a way as to hit both. Change gears to go into reverse if necessary. Hit the chipmunk first (their faster and it'll cause some nice mental trauma for the kid to witness it. For alternative bonus points you can stop to tell the child it was their fault that you had to hit the chipmunk and then just leave them alive.)

[Serious Paul]

I tell you what, show me any animal that Aspires. Show me any animal that has ambition beyond basic survival. Can't? Can you show me a dog society that rivals human society? With culture? Can't do that?

Sowhat in all her wisdom posted:

Kids can be considered property in exactly the same way pets can.

Maybe to you. By Law you are wrong. By any definition considered traditional you are wrong. By any definition acceptable by society you are wrong.

Hell, childeren are pets.

Where? Have you anything to back any of this up? I am sitting behind at least the last fifty years of legislation, you?

They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller.

Are you allowed to wander the streets by yourself? In my town you couldn't, because you are under age. I could use the same logic and pull statements like these out my ass. Here lets try one.

Sowhat is a pampered fifteent year old who requires adult diapers.

See how that works? Niether quote is true is it?

They are fed, put to bed, never left alone unless locked in the house or somewhere safe that they can't escape from or damage anything, they have to be house trained, don't have much of a say in what they eat, wear or do... they ARE treated the same as pets.

Absolute crap.


You neglect to mention they Dream. They hope. They learn. Show me a Cat that could create a Martial Arts Regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still Can't?


In fact y kids have never seen a leash, since I don't leash my pets. I will never leash my kids. My kids damage all sorts of things, it helps them learn. My children have a very big say in what they eat, they won't eat what they don't like. My kids are by no means extraordinary.

The only difference is that when a human gets older they become more intelligent and can survive in this society without being pests.

Too bad your own parents neglected to share any of these attributtes with you. Are you that naive? Thast the only differnece between you and Fido? Wow. Talk about low self esteem.

Is that what you wanted to grow up to be kid? Not a pest? What fucked up trailer park do you stay in?

Really young kids don't understand morallity any more than a dog.

Bullshit.

When my daughter hits my son, she knows it is wrong. She may not be ready for The Prince yet, but she already understands love, and basic rights and wrongs.

You can't argue that dogs/pets shouldn't be treated the way we'd like to be treated (you know, not being tortured, etc.) because they don't understand the idea of morality, because neither do small childeren and infants.

Again Bullshit.


Children start forming their personalities from the womb. A dog is no where near the level intellectually as any child.


the fact that you compare dogs and children as equals makes me wonder about your values. Do people mean that little to you? Are you that with out any moral grounding?

Neither have a concept of right & wrong, but both feel pain.

Like I said, Bullshit.

Sure, they don't think it's morally wrong of you, but they're still feeling the pain of torture.

I could almost agree with you here. Animals may not understand the morality of the beating but the get the point real quick. Proving once again they don't have the brain power to compete with man.

For the record I do not advocate cruelty to animals.

[Ancient History]

Neither do I.
To be specific, I do not advocate trimming your pet like a fucking hedge and then castrating it.

[Gunny]

okay, devil's advocate here.

so, if you won't neuter/spade your pet, are you more than willing to pay for the offspring? take care of them? find them good homes? what about paying for the medical bills for the person's pet that yours knocked up?

how about saftey features? tattooing an ID number on your pet so it can be identified if swept off to the pound? or is that too Third Reich for you? what about having a chip placed under the skin so your beloved pet can be found? or does the animal not mean enough to you to recover, but means enough that you won't clip it or spade it? make up your mind. either you give a shit about your pet or you don't.

okay, so you won't do all these things to your pet because it's 'cruel'. thereby causing any havoc for other pets yours runs across (mating with abandon, etc). do you behave the same way with driving? do you drive with the attitude that everyone should watch out for you? oops! you rear ended someone. well damnit, they shoulda just moved out of your way. it's their fault for not watching where you're going.

I understand some people are more focused on themselves and what goes on in their little bubble with little regard for what happens outside their bubble. but there's also responsibility. if you choose not to spade/neuter/declaw your pet, and your pet knocks up the next door neighbor pet or tears it to ribbons, it's now YOUR responsibility to pay for damages. it's not your pet's fault. it's following its instinct, remember? nature wanted it to do that, remember? and with the cost of vet bills these days (not to mention possible lawsuits), it'll be a lesson you won't soon forget.

/devil's advocate

[Dennis]

Paul: Excessive use of the word "bullshit" doesn't make you right, or make you come across as a very convincing individual.

[Bethyaga]

Paul: Excessive use of the word "bullshit" doesn't make you right, or make you come across as a very convincing individual.

Maybe true, but in this case, he is right.

The contention Paul is arguing against is that children are just as much "property" as are pets. This is simply not true.

What is true is that there are some people so enamored of their pets that they give them treatment and respect equal to or greater than they would give a child. There are also some people who have so little respect for others that they treat children and pets equally shabbily as nothing more than property. These are two ends of a spectrum, and the currently reality in modern countries is that by law and by the behavior of the majority, pets are property and children are not.

Both have some common characteristics in needing others to care for them and make decisions for them, but it is a superficial similarity. Most people wouldn't dream of leaving a young child (not yet potty trained) alone in a small cage for a couple hours while the family goes out for supper. We do that regularly to animals, but would go to jail if we tried it on a child. On the other hand, I think the populous would be outraged if we began demanding mandatory schooling/training for all pets, because we don't prepare our pets for life without our support. The government does not grant extra money to welfare families to help them provide for their dependent pets. You are not duty bound by law to have your child put to sleep after he bites someone. You abuse your children, and they are taken from you and you potentially go to jail. You abuse your pets, and they are taken from you and you get slapped with a minor fine. Your work provided
health insurance covers the kids, but Roscoe is on his own.

No point here is absolute, because you will always find people (sometimes even whole communities) advocating for either extreme, but the point stands.

[Gunny]

Your work provided
health insurance covers the kids, but Roscoe is on his own.

*throws a small fly in Bethy's serum*

just thought I'd chime in that some pet insurance companies will give you a discount if you can prove you have medical insurance. I don't know why, but I guess it's to show them that you have a stable job and can afford to pay for the welfare of the pet(s).

[Dennis]

Paul: Excessive use of the word "bullshit" doesn't make you right, or make you come across as a very convincing individual.

The contention Paul is arguing against is that children are just as much "property" as are pets. This is simply not true.

Yes, I agree, I was just pointing out that he should try to stop intimidating people with strong language and absolutism, and try some refined oratory.

[Ancient History]

There are many time when people would have felt much better and been better thought of if they'd just said "Bullshit."

Like when Budweiser tried that "Clear Beer" idea after the "Crystal Pepsi" thing took off.

[3278]

Paul: Excessive use of the word "bullshit" doesn't make you right, or make you come across as a very convincing individual.

The contention Paul is arguing against is that children are just as much "property" as are pets. This is simply not true.

Yes, I agree, I was just pointing out that he should try to stop intimidating people with strong language and absolutism, and try some refined oratory.

You neglect to mention they Dream. They hope. They learn. Show me a Cat that could create a Martial Arts Regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still Can't?

Perhaps unrefined, but oratory nonetheless, and convincing in its own right. I don't think anyone here - and certainly not you or I - has much right to object to the means by which someone expresses a point, particularly while ignoring the correctness of the point at hand. I don't think it's intimidation at all; it's simply the way one person chooses to make a point.

[Salvation122]

Kids can be considered property in exactly the same way pets can. Hell, childeren are pets. They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller. They are fed, put to bed, never left alone unless locked in the house or somewhere safe that they can't escape from or damage anything, they have to be house trained, don't have much of a say in what they eat, wear or do... they ARE treated the same as pets. The only difference is that when a human gets older they become more intelligent and can survive in this society without being pests. If they didn't grow up, they'd BE pets.

Sowhat, shut the fuck up. You're doing your age bracket a disservice, and it pisses me off.

[Ancient History]

I sense much peevish-ness in you.

[Salvation122]

Idiocy in adults I can tolerate. Somewhat. Usually because I figure they have a good reason to be idiotic, though many many people are disabusing me of this notion. Idiocy in my contemporaries makes /me/ look bad by association, and if there's one thing I hate, it's being classified as another stupid, ignorant, uneducated teenager.

[Serious Paul]

Uhmm. I type like I talk. I would have really said Bullshit everytime I said it.


And I won't lie.

What she said was Bullshit.

[Cash]

Kids can be considered property in exactly the same way pets can. Hell, childeren are pets. They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller. They are fed, put to bed, never left alone unless locked in the house or somewhere safe that they can't escape from or damage anything, they have to be house trained, don't have much of a say in what they eat, wear or do... they ARE treated the same as pets. The only difference is that when a human gets older they become more intelligent and can survive in this society without being pests. If they didn't grow up, they'd BE pets.

Sowhat, shut the fuck up. You're doing your age bracket a disservice, and it pisses me off.

Sit back for a minute and actually think about it. She does have a point. Granted, kids aren't and never will be pets, but the similarities are there.

[Cain]

That makes great sense, but if it is a damages/lawsuit type issue, can we not make provisions that allow that determination to be made on a case by case basis rather than giving all domestic non-livestock animals an elevated legal status? Giving blanket "companion" status to all household pets whether they fit that definition or not seems dangerous to me.

I can't say one way or the other; but granting a blanket status is easier on the legalities. Otherwise, we tie up our courts even more with lawyers quibbling over exactly how much like a family member Fido was. I'd certainly hope that there is room for case-by-case judgement, but the clearer the case is, the less lawyers have to argue.

As for the rest: Kids are not pets, simply because we determine that kids will someday become adults. While some of the same protections may apply, that's because we anthromorphize our pets. Really, the anti-pet-cruelty laws have followed the child abuse laws, not the other way around. That seems to indicate that kids are not the same as pets-- if anything, we're extending child status to include kids.

[Sowhat]

I post two paragraphs without an insult thrown in anyone's direction, and I come back to this. *Sighs*.

I tell you what, show me any animal that Aspires. Show me any animal that has ambition beyond basic survival. Can't? Can you show me a dog society that rivals human society? With culture? Can't do that?

Why would I want to? What's your point?

Sowhat in all her wisdom posted:

Kids can be considered property in exactly the same way pets can.

Maybe to you. By Law you are wrong. By any definition considered traditional you are wrong. By any definition acceptable by society you are wrong.

It hardly matters whether any laws use the word 'pet' reffering to childeren. They are still treated similarly.

Hell, childeren are pets.

Where? Have you anything to back any of this up? I am sitting behind at least the last fifty years of legislation, you?

Yes, you ought to read through the whole post before you reply to the second sentance of it.

They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller.

Are you allowed to wander the streets by yourself? In my town you couldn't, because you are under age

Of course I'm allowed to wander the streets by myself. I'm sixteen. What age am I under exactly? At sixteen I'm old enough to live in a house by myself, be out of school & working to support myself.

I could use the same logic and pull statements like these out my ass. Here lets try one.

Sowhat is a pampered fifteent year old who requires adult diapers.

See how that works? Niether quote is true is it?

Neither of which quotes? That I'm fifteen? Nope. That I require nappies? Nope. However that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

They are fed, put to bed, never left alone unless locked in the house or somewhere safe that they can't escape from or damage anything, they have to be house trained, don't have much of a say in what they eat, wear or do... they ARE treated the same as pets.

Absolute crap.

You neglect to mention they Dream. They hope. They learn. Show me a Cat that could create a Martial Arts Regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still Can't?

How is it crap? Dogs learn too. They don't learn as much as humans, but they still learn. But that's totally irrelevant anyway.

Show me one infant that can create a martial arts regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still can't?

Oh, didums.

In fact y kids have never seen a leash, since I don't leash my pets. I will never leash my kids. My kids damage all sorts of things, it helps them learn. My children have a very big say in what they eat, they won't eat what they don't like. My kids are by no means extraordinary.

You don't leash your kids or your pets. You've kept the same standards for each there. How does that prove anything? Your kids sound older than infants. Of course childeren become less like pets as they get older, and at my age I'm almost free. At an infants age they get no say. At a small child's age they get some say. Did your kids get a choice to be fed milk for a few months (or how ever long it is for) when they were newborns? I doubt it. Did they get a say in their brand of baby food once they were weaned off milk? Again, I doubt it. At that stage they probably had the intelligence of a pet, and therefore didn't get a say in their food.

The only difference is that when a human gets older they become more intelligent and can survive in this society without being pests.

Too bad your own parents neglected to share any of these attributtes with you. Are you that naive? Thast the only differnece between you and Fido? Wow. Talk about low self esteem.

Is that what you wanted to grow up to be kid? Not a pest? What fucked up trailer park do you stay in?

I never said I was naive, YOU did. I don't have a low self esteem. You're right, I have more ambition than to simply not be a pest, but there was an age when I had no more ambition than a dog or a cat. My 'trailer park' is a 3/4 acre bush block worth around $450,000. If you wish to keep any credibility in future, you ought to stop your constant dribble of irrelevant, obviously untrue and moronic statements that keep spurting out.

Really young kids don't understand morallity any more than a dog.

Bullshit.

When my daughter hits my son, she knows it is wrong. She may not be ready for The Prince yet, but she already understands love, and basic rights and wrongs.

Again, your kids don't sound "really young", as I stated the childeren I was reffering to were.

You can't argue that dogs/pets shouldn't be treated the way we'd like to be treated (you know, not being tortured, etc.) because they don't understand the idea of morality, because neither do small childeren and infants.

Again Bullshit.

Children start forming their personalities from the womb. A dog is no where near the level intellectually as any child.

In your very own words, "Bullshit". My dog is much smarter than any newborn I've encountered.

the fact that you compare dogs and children as equals makes me wonder about your values. Do people mean that little to you? Are you that with out any moral grounding?

No, moron. Have you listened to my point at any stage, dipshit? People don't mean 'that little' to me as you put it. Other relatively intelligent animals DO however mean 'that much' to me. Actually, more the "moral grounding" that not accepting torture of ANY animal means 'that much' to me.

Neither have a concept of right & wrong, but both feel pain.

Like I said, Bullshit.

Fine then, show me that a newborn has a concept of 'right & wrong' and that a 5 year old dog does not. If you can't, shut your fucking mouth.

Sure, they don't think it's morally wrong of you, but they're still feeling the pain of torture.

I could almost agree with you here. Animals may not understand the morality of the beating but the get the point real quick. Proving once again they don't have the brain power to compete with man.

Irrelevant, but ok.

Sowhat, shut the fuck up. You're doing your age bracket a disservice, and it pisses me off

Don't be ridiculous. What one person says can never then be assumed to be the viewpoint of everyone else their age. That's simply moronic. Either way, I wouldn't be doing anyone a disservice. I haven't said anything stupid. Why don't you shut the fuck up?

Idiocy in my contemporaries makes /me/ look bad by association, and if there's one thing I hate, it's being classified as another stupid, ignorant, uneducated teenager

No, it doesn't make you look bad. You do that quite well on your own.

And I'm not stupid, ignorant, or completely uneducated.

And I won't lie.

What she said was Bullshit.

What happened to not lying?

[Bethyaga]

Sowhat--none of that changes the fact that in spite of superficial similarities, children and pets are not equivalent. Pets are property. Children are not. The law and public attitude and morality reflect these facts in many many ways, even when the children are very young and have what seems to you to be a similar functioning level to many pets.

[BTW--completely off subject, but bragging about your 1/2 million dollar home does not make you look any smarter--it seems petty. Especially when you contributed nothing to earning it. Paul's trailer home reference was intentional bait and you rose to it. Better to have not dignified it with a response. No one reading it assumed you lived in a trailer park.]

[Sowhat]

What the fuck are you on about? When did I brag? He said something stupid & totally irrelevant, so I corrected him & reminded him of how stupid & irrelevant it was. If he didn't think I lived in a trailer park, then why would he have said that? (This isn't rhetorical).

Pets are property. Children are not.

How so? They get the same rights. They're treated the same. It doesn't matter whether you label one something and one sommething else, if you label kids something else then that label is equivelant to 'property'. Something you own, have responsibility for & must look after.

[Bethyaga]

What the fuck are you on about? When did I brag? He said something stupid & totally irrelevant, so I corrected him & reminded him of how stupid & irrelevant it was. If he didn't think I lived in a trailer park, then why would he have said that? (This isn't rhetorical).

It's the same as referring to the rock you crawled out from under, except it's more immediate, and in your case hit closer to home. Trailer home implies white trash implies uneducated and stupid. He was insulting your intelligence. I, for one, was surprised at the comment when he made it, but I didn't for a moment think that he knew one thing about you or that you actually lived in a trailer home. It was bait and you took it. And whether you like to admit it or not, stating the value of your parents' home very much was bragging--in a subtle way. You understood the implied insult of the trailer home reference and you countered it with the exact value of your home trying to point out exactly how far removed from trailer trash you are. But all of this is not relevant to the point.

Pets are property. Children are not.

How so? They get the same rights.

Obviously, in your anger for Paul, you failed to read my last post before that. They do not have the same rights and to continue asserting they do is foolishness.

They're treated the same.

No they're not. Again, read my post above for some concrete examples of how you're wrong on this.

The only point where I agree with you is that pets and children are both incapable of taking care of themselves in modern society and therefore they need to be cared for. But beyond that, they do not have the same rights, nor are they treated the same.

I can legally leave a pet home alone, but not a child.

I can legally kill my pet if it becomes too bothersome, but not a child.

My children are mandated by law to recieve an education, but not my pets.

If no one is willing or able to care for a child, the state takes over and ensures its well-being. If the same situation arises for a pet, they give it a few weeks and then kill it.

Child abuse lands you in jail. Pet abuse gets you stuck with a $50 fine.

Welfare recipients receive extra money from the government to care for each child. They recieve nothing for pets.

The state provides free health insurance for pregnant moms and newborn babies. They provide dick when your dog gets pregnant.

These above are just the differences based directly in law that I can think of off the top of my head. There are many many more, and they are strongly reflected in the moral and behavioral attitudes of mainstream modern society.

[Serious Paul]

I obviously took this thread a little personally. For that I apologize. I had no right to insult you and bait you the way I did, and would still like to do. So am taking time off from this thread, and believe me this is my second time writing this-I really took it personally.

[Salvation122]

I post two paragraphs without an insult thrown in anyone's direction, and I come back to this. *Sighs*.

This is because you made some incredibly stupid comments.

It hardly matters whether any laws use the word 'pet' reffering to childeren. They are still treated similarly.

I'm sorry? I can sell my infant (which changes the connotation of your argument somewhat; children is too broad for what you mean)? I can raise my kids with the express purpose of breeding and selling their offspring? I can leave them on the street or take them out back and shoot them if they piss me off? No, Sowhat, I can't.

Never, ever have kids.

Yes, you ought to read through the whole post before you reply to the second sentence of it.

Your opinion does not carry the same weight of fifty years of legislation.

They're not allowed to wonder the streets on their own, quite often are lead by a leash or carried or strapped into a stroller.

Are you allowed to wander the streets by yourself? In my town you couldn't, because you are under age.

Of course I'm allowed to wander the streets by myself. I'm sixteen. What age am I under exactly? At sixteen I'm old enough to live in a house by myself, be out of school & working to support myself.

Maybe where you live. Not here. Memphis has a mandatory 11 PM curfew for those under 18, as well as truancy laws. So, no, you couldn't.

You neglect to mention they Dream. They hope. They learn. Show me a Cat that could create a Martial Arts Regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still Can't?

How is it crap? Dogs learn too. They don't learn as much as humans, but they still learn. But that's totally irrelevant anyway.

Show me one infant that can create a martial arts regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still can't?

Yes, but infants have the potential to. Cats do not.

Oh, didums.

You don't leash your kids or your pets. You've kept the same standards for each there. How does that prove anything? Your kids sound older than infants. Of course childeren become less like pets as they get older, and at my age I'm almost free. At an infants age they get no say. At a small child's age they get some say. Did your kids get a choice to be fed milk for a few months (or how ever long it is for) when they were newborns? I doubt it. Did they get a say in their brand of baby food once they were weaned off milk? Again, I doubt it. At that stage they probably had the intelligence of a pet, and therefore didn't get a say in their food.

You're comparing an immature human to a mature animal. That's a pretty fucking significant difference.

If you wish to keep any credibility in future, you ought to stop your constant dribble of irrelevant, obviously untrue and moronic statements that keep spurting out.

As should you. Paul will always have more credibility in this topic than you, because he has children and you do not.

Again, your kids don't sound "really young", as I stated the childeren I was reffering to were.

You were unclear. If you mean "infants," say "infants." To me, three years is "really young," at which point your argument is bullshit.

In your very own words, "Bullshit". My dog is much smarter than any newborn I've encountered.

How old is your dog? Not an infant, is it? Than this is a spurious analogy.

No, moron. Have you listened to my point at any stage, dipshit? People don't mean 'that little' to me as you put it. Other relatively intelligent animals DO however mean 'that much' to me. Actually, more the "moral grounding" that not accepting torture of ANY animal means 'that much' to me.

Apparently not, since you tolerate the torture of animals when it makes your life more comfortable.

Sowhat, shut the fuck up. You're doing your age bracket a disservice, and it pisses me off

Don't be ridiculous. What one person says can never then be assumed to be the viewpoint of everyone else their age. That's simply moronic.

You don't get out much, do you?

Either way, I wouldn't be doing anyone a disservice. I haven't said anything stupid.

That's highly debatable.

Why don't you shut the fuck up?

Because I haven't said anything quite as moronic as you have.

Idiocy in my contemporaries makes /me/ look bad by association, and if there's one thing I hate, it's being classified as another stupid, ignorant, uneducated teenager

No, it doesn't make you look bad. You do that quite well on your own.

Not really. Believe me when I say that I have /very/ many times proved my point with adults. People who have actually talked to me tend not to think I'm another stupid, ignorant, uneducated teenager - it's a first impression/generalization thing. But it still irks me.

And I'm not stupid, ignorant, or completely uneducated.

I do not believe you to be ignorant or completely uneducated.

[Gunny]

*leaves Pink Cookies for Paul when he gets back*

Of course I'm allowed to wander the streets by myself. I'm sixteen. What age am I under exactly? At sixteen I'm old enough to live in a house by myself, be out of school & working to support myself.

Maybe where you live. Not here. Memphis has a mandatory 11 PM curfew for those under 18, as well as truancy laws. So, no, you couldn't.

nor in Texas. I believe the curfew is the same as it is in Memphis, but I believe it's state-wide.

How is it crap? Dogs learn too. They don't learn as much as humans, but they still learn. But that's totally irrelevant anyway.

Show me one infant that can create a martial arts regimine. Or one that could write Platos the Republic. Still can't?

Yes, but infants have the potential to. Cats do not.

another of my monkey wrenches... don't mind me. Cats that paint I love this site.

Don't be ridiculous. What one person says can never then be assumed to be the viewpoint of everyone else their age. That's simply moronic.

You don't get out much, do you?.

sorry Sowhat, I have to agree with Sal on this one. it's guilt by association. our parents and their parents (maybe even us one day) all feel that teenagers are stupid and have an superiority/indestructable complex and it follows down through the ages. if you and your community really feel this way, I wish I had grown up there. it would have saved me a lot of anxiety and stress growing up.

Why don't you shut the fuck up?

Because I haven't said anything quite as moronic as you have.

okay, and it's comments like this that fuel the above statement. it's the "Am not! Are so! *push* You are! No, you are, but what am I!? *shove*" that keeps the guilt by association around. c'mon ya'll, at least wait until you're in your 20s to show that kind of immaturity. by then, you'll have earned the right to be that way.

[Sowhat]

But all of this is not relevant to the point.

That was the point I was making. That it was irrelevant & stupid.

Kids & dogs are treated the same to a very large degree. The law allows you to be harsher to your pet than your child, but in general they both get treated the same. As you said, you CAN'T abuse your child or your dog by law. It's just as illegal to do either, except for people care more about the child than the dog so the penalty for breaking the law is harsher. Of course there are some differences. Infants don't need to go to school either. As I said, the older the kid gets, the more it's treated like a human adult and the less it's treated like a pet.

This is because you made some incredibly stupid comments.

No, I didn't.

I'm sorry? I can sell my infant (which changes the connotation of your argument somewhat; children is too broad for what you mean)? I can raise my kids with the express purpose of breeding and selling their offspring? I can leave them on the street or take them out back and shoot them if they piss me off? No, Sowhat, I can't.

Never, ever have kids.

No, you CAN'T leave kids OR dogs on the street, or take kids OR dogs out the back and shoot them if they piss you off. You can't do it to pets either, so what relevance does it have to comparing kids and pets?

No you can't sell kids, but I'm reffering to how kids/pets are treated when in the place they will live in (after the pet is sold).

And why shouldn't I have kids? Again, if you've read what I've been saying you'll see that I WONT breed an animal to sell its offspring, and I WONT sell my own childeren either. I'm against cruelty to both, not FOR cruelty to both. Remember that.

Your opinion does not carry the same weight of fifty years of legislation.

Why? There are some very stupid laws that have been in place for a long time.

Memphis has a mandatory 11 PM curfew for those under 18, as well as truancy laws. So, no, you couldn't.

.
Hm. So you mean kids where you live are treated even more like pets than here? Fuck, your town sucks, you ought to challenge that law.

Yes, but infants have the potential to. Cats do not.

And again, we're talking about KIDS not what kids will become.

Paul will always have more credibility in this topic than you, because he has children and you do not.

.
That's not true. I don't have childeren, but I am one, and was a young child much more recently than he was.

You were unclear. If you mean "infants," say "infants." To me, three years is "really young," at which point your argument is bullshit.

Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious that three year olds understood right & wrong, and that I was reffering to the age where they don't.

In your very own words, "Bullshit". My dog is much smarter than any newborn I've encountered.

How old is your dog? Not an infant, is it? Than this is a spurious analogy.

No, my dog isn't an infant. But we are comparing pets (of any age) with humans (of a young age). That is the point of this discussion.

you tolerate the torture of animals when it makes your life more comfortable.

Do I? Please refresh my memory, I don't remember doing that.

That's highly debatable.

Then debate it with something that's not complete bullshit.

I haven't said anything quite as moronic as you have.

That's highly debatable. Wait, no, it isn't. You certainly have.

And I'm not stupid, ignorant, or completely uneducated.

I do not believe you to be ignorant or completely uneducated.

I'm not stupid.

I obviously took this thread a little personally. For that I apologize. I had no right to insult you and bait you the way I did, and would still like to do. So am taking time off from this thread, and believe me this is my second time writing this-I really took it personally.

Okies. So long as you see that I didn't slag off anyone until you slagged me.

[Bethyaga]

Okies. So long as you see that I didn't slag off anyone until you slagged me.

Two wrongs, dear heart.

[Bethyaga]

Kids & dogs are treated the same to a very large degree.

Not really, but I see why you think so.

The law allows you to be harsher to your pet than your child, but in general they both get treated the same.

Exactly.

As you said, you CAN'T abuse your child or your dog by law. It's just as illegal to do either, except for people care more about the child than the dog so the penalty for breaking the law is harsher.

No. It's not "just as illegal." Not by a far piece. I can treat a dog much much worse than I can any human and it is legal. (Thus the phrase, "I wouldn't wish it on a dog.") Only the grossest offenses against animals are noted in most jurisdictions, and even then, for something like beating my dog daily until it died slowly of starvation while covered in untreated festering sores still amounts to a few days in jail and $300 in fines--at the absolute worst. And more likely the sentence is much less. That kind of cruelty to a child warrants a decade in jail at a minimum, and probably much longer in most states. That is not in any way similar and certainly not "just as illegal." One is murder or manslaughter, and the other is a serious misdemeanor.

Cite me some specific examples of how infants and pets are treated equally by the law and then we can start debating. Otherwise, you're just blowing rhetoric against hard facts and examples.

[Salvation122]

No, you CAN'T leave kids OR dogs on the street, or take kids OR dogs out the back and shoot them if they piss you off.

Yes, I can abandon my dog or shoot it. Perfectly legal.

Memphis has a mandatory 11 PM curfew for those under 18, as well as truancy laws. So, no, you couldn't.

.
Hm. So you mean kids where you live are treated even more like pets than here? Fuck, your town sucks, you ought to challenge that law.

What does a kid have to do that he can't be doing in a private residence at 11? I mean, they tend to let it slide for concerts and stuff, but for the most part there's simply no /need/ to be out driving around at 11. You can't go to clubs or barhopping; what's the point?

Yes, but infants have the potential to. Cats do not.

And again, we're talking about KIDS not what kids will become.

The problem is that you can't seperate the two. An infant is still a human.

Paul will always have more credibility in this topic than you, because he has children and you do not.

.
That's not true. I don't have childeren, but I am one, and was a young child much more recently than he was.

You remember being an infant?

you tolerate the torture of animals when it makes your life more comfortable.

Do I? Please refresh my memory, I don't remember doing that.

I'm against the killing of most things, yet many things die every day because I chose to eat meat, to not look to see if I'm treading on ants, to drive cars that fill the air with toxins and eventually kill everything. Shit happens. I kill things. I don't think it's right. But I do it anyway.

That's highly debatable.

Then debate it with something that's not complete bullshit.

I very rarely debate with complete bullshit. Your view has holes. Lots of them. I pointed some out. If you don't like that, then get a worldview with less holes, or be willing to acknowledge that the holes are there and put up with the crap people give you for them.

[Jestyr]

Bear in mind that Australian laws may well be different from American laws on the issue.

As a sample, this page discusses South Australia's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

article 13 sums up the main definition:

1. A person who ill treats an animal is guilty of an offence.
2. Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a person ill treats an animal if that person -
a. deliberately or unreasonably causes the animal unnecessary pain;
b. being the owner of the animal -
i. fails to provide it with appropriate, and adequate, food, water, shelter or exercise;
ii. fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate any pain suffered by the animal (whether by reason of age, illness or injury);
iii. abandons the animal;
iv. neglects the animal so as to cause it pain;
c. releases the animal from captivity for the purpose of it then being hunted or killed by another animal;
d. causes the animal to be killed or injured by another animal;
e. organizes, participates in, or is present at, an event at which the animal is encouraged to fight with another animal;
f. having injured an animal (not being an animal of which that person is the owner) fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate any pain suffered by the animal;
g. kills the animal is a manner that causes the animal unnecessary pain; or
h. unless the animal is unconscious kills the animal by a method that does not cause death to occur as rapidly as possible; or
i. ill treats the animal in any other manner prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of the section.

That's a sample of Australian legislation on the issue, although it's not from either of the states where Sowhat or I live.

[Salvation122]

So I can't abandon it, but I can still shoot it in the head. My position is not noticibly weakened.

[Jestyr]

What does a kid have to do that he can't be doing in a private residence at 11? I mean, they tend to let it slide for concerts and stuff, but for the most part there's simply no /need/ to be out driving around at 11. You can't go to clubs or barhopping; what's the point?

Shopping? Going to a convenience store? Walking to a friend's house?

I'm against the killing of most things, yet many things die every day because I chose to eat meat, to not look to see if I'm treading on ants, to drive cars that fill the air with toxins and eventually kill everything. Shit happens. I kill things. I don't think it's right. But I do it anyway.

That doesn't refer to /torture/. Hyperbole doesn't improve credibility.

[Salvation122]

Shopping? Going to a convenience store?

The vast majority of stores here are closed by 11 unless there's some huge sale.

Again, this is hardly something that's heavily enforced. The truancy side of it is, but not the after-eleven stuff. I used to close at work and be driving home at one or so, and I only got pulled over for curfew once in the course of a year, and they let me go as soon as they saw I was in my work uniform.

As for hyperbole - well, I didn't look up the earlier post before I replied the first time. However, I'm not really sure that driving a metal spike through a cow's brain case because I want to eat a nice New York Strip is really that much better - and there are those who would say that the living conditions of most commercial cattle are equivalent to "torture."

[Gunny]

Tennessee Code
TITLE 39 CRIMINAL OFFENSES
CHAPTER 14 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
Part 2-- Animals

39-14-202 Cruelty to animals.

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly:

(1) Tortures, maims or grossly overworks an animal;

(2) Fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care or shelter for an animal in the person's custody;

(3) Abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody;

(4) Transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; or

(5) Inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain, by any method, including blistering compounds, to the legs or hooves of horses in order to make them sore for any purpose including, but not limited to, competition in horse shows and similar events.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person was engaged in accepted veterinary practices, medical treatment by the owner or with the owner's consent, or bona fide experimentation for scientific research.

(c) Whenever any person is taken into custody by any officer for violation of subdivision (a)(4), the officer may take charge of the vehicle or conveyance, and its contents, used by the person to transport the animal. The officer shall deposit these items in a safe place for custody. Any necessary expense incurred for taking charge of and sustaining the same shall be a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can lawfully be recovered; or the expenses, or any part thereof, remaining unpaid may be recovered by the person incurring the same of the owners of the animal in an action therefor.

(d) In addition to the penalty imposed in subsection (f), the court making the sentencing determination for a person convicted under this section shall order the person convicted to surrender custody and forfeit the animal or animals whose treatment was the basis of the conviction. Custody shall be given to a humane society incorporated under the laws of this state. The court may prohibit the person convicted from having custody of other animals for any period of time the court determines to be reasonable, or impose any other reasonable restrictions on the person's custody of animals as necessary for the protection of the animals.

(e)(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the owner of a farm animal or someone acting with the consent of the owner of such animal from engaging in usual and customary practices which are accepted by colleges of agriculture or veterinary medicine with respect to such animal.

(2) It is an offense for a person other than an officer, agent or member of a society described in s 39-14-210 to knowingly interfere with the performance of any such agricultural practices permitted by subdivision (e)(1).

(3) An offense under subdivision (e)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor.

(f) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Tennessee Animal Protection laws

-HB 792 Non-Livestock Animal Humane Death Act
Purpose: This bill would require all non-livestock animals to be euthanized only by lethal injection by licensed veterinarians, veterinarian medical technicians, or employees of private agencies and shelters who have completed a course on euthanasia.

-HB 1716 Increases Penalty for Animal Cruelty
Purpose: This bill makes aggravated cruelty to animal a Class E felony. In addition, the court may also prevent the person from having custody of other animals for any period of time and shall require the dependent to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling, and the defendant must pay for it.

-SB 194 Non-Livestock Animal Humane Death Act
Purpose: This bill would require all non-livestock animals to be euthanized only by lethal injection by licensed veterinarians, veterinarian medical technicians, or employees of private agencies and shelters who have completed a course on euthanasia.

-SB 1810 Increases Penalty for Animal Cruelty
Purpose: This bill makes aggravated cruelty to animal a Class E felony. In addition, the court may also prevent the person from having custody of other animals for any period of time and shall require the dependent to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling, and the defendant must pay for it.
*Note: Legislature adjourned prior to passage of this bill*

[Gunny]

never let it be said that I've never researched anything that's being talked about in SST.

[Sowhat]

Yes, I can abandon my dog or shoot it. Perfectly legal.

You are being sarcastic or something aren't you? Or is your town more fucked than I thought?

What does a kid have to do that he can't be doing in a private residence at 11? I mean, they tend to let it slide for concerts and stuff, but for the most part there's simply no /need/ to be out driving around at 11. You can't go to clubs or barhopping; what's the point?

Walking. I hear walking is good excersize and gets you places. Parties. Getting back from places late, especially on long trips. Shopping, and yes, me & my friends do shop after 11, usually at supermarkets. Yes kids do go to clubs, even though I myself don't. Older kids could be practicing driving whilst the roads aren't busy, as well as getting experience in the dark. Jobs. Shooting films & taking photos. There are many reasons to be out late. If I go out somewhere for a night, I'm not usually back before 11.

And again, we're talking about KIDS not what kids will become.

The problem is that you can't seperate the two. An infant is still a human.

Yes, you can separate them. An infant is very distinctively not the same as an adult, regardless of the fact that they're both the same species.

You remember being an infant?

No, I don't remember anything until I was 1. But I do remember how I was treated from the age of 1 onwards. And I also know how infants are treated, it's obvious.

you tolerate the torture of animals when it makes your life more comfortable.

Do I? Please refresh my memory, I don't remember doing that.

I'm against the killing of most things, yet many things die every day because I chose to eat meat, to not look to see if I'm treading on ants, to drive cars that fill the air with toxins and eventually kill everything. Shit happens. I kill things. I don't think it's right. But I do it anyway.

Go should go back & read what I wrote thoroughly, because I did say that though I still kill animals for food and step on things, I wont allow torture of animals. There's a big difference. I've seen bulls on farms that are sent off to the slaughterhouse. Their living conditions are fine. I don't know as it's the same on all farms, but it is for all of those which I have seen. One of my friends parents owned a chicken farm thing, and their conditions were fine. Again, their farm was all I can base this on, but I haven't seen any different and assume that it's the same at other farms.

[Ancient History]

I sense I started something with that question, many posts ago.

[Gunny]

really? *hands AnHi a chocolate wutchuck* what was your question?

[Ancient History]

"Are children considered property?"

[Daki]

Until they are considered 18? Pretty much.

EDIT - I wanted to refine what I said above to avoid misconceptions...

Until a child is seen as an adult by the government (in the US it is 18), they are the responsability of the parent. The parent must care for them, feed them, raise them, and do their best to make sure nothing bad happens to them. Property is the wrong word to use... Saying children are a responsability in the same way you are responsible for the properties you have.

And to touch on what Sowhat said early on...

Saying pets and children are the same... why was that seen an insult to children instead of a compliment to pets? I will tell you right now, I treat my pets as if they were children and I will call them as much. They are as much a part of the family as any child I might have. That is not true for all people obviously... some people will always see a pet as just a pet. But there are some, like Gunny and myself, who will always see their pets as children.

[Salvation122]

Apparently the cop at my school is a moron.

[Ancient History]

That's a fairly accurate blanket statement for many schools.

[Salvation122]

Indeed it is; this one, however, tends to be somewhat more intelligent than the other school cops I've dealt with. (I've got this theory that cops get assigned to schools because they do a crap job on the street. Black is maybe the one school cop I've dealt with that isn't a complete asshole.)

[Toryu]

Apparently the cop at my school is a moron.

Whoa, do I understand this correctly? All/Many/Some American High Schools have a policeman officially assigned to it to keep watch?

[Jestyr]

The mind boggles. I thought it was scary enough that the USA had police on their university campuses.

[Eva]

What exactly is scary about that? I would agree that the /need/ for a police officer is scary, but once that's been established, putting one there only seems sensible.

[Ancient History]

It's really not bad, just a high-school version of Campus Police with the power of law behind them.

There was one in every high school I went to.

[3278]

They've never had one at a school I attended, so it's obviously not /too/ common. I've been to a lot of high schools over the years, and never went to one with its own officer.

[WillyGilligan]

Worked with a guy from East Chicago who's school had a detention center. Not the room for detention kids, but an actual annex of the local precinct where they could put offenders to wait for pickup.