Why aren't pets property?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:20 am

So I asked the question several times, and no one other than Bethyaga really responded.

So I ask again:

Are Pets property? Why aren't they? Why are they?

Opinions, thoughts, commentary?

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:25 am

Only if they want to be.

Is that a cop out? It feels like a cop out.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 12:31 am

Can you buy them? Can you sell them? Is it legal to do both in the nation that you live?

If you answered "yes" to all three of these, then they're property.

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:21 am

But it isn't legal to break them, is it? (I don't see livestock as being pets)

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:24 am

No more so than any other piece of property, you can dispose of pets as long as you follow your local legislation-in many areas there simply isn't any of that.

Abusing your cat is no more illegal than abusing good taste in many areas.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 1:48 am

By legal definitions, pets are property in virtually all of the U.S. In West Hollywood, they are not strictly property--they have been reclassified by law as "companions" or some other euphemistic bullshit.

The better question is should they be property? And further, should animals have any rights beyond being simply property? Because in many parts of the U.S. animal cruelty is a crime. You can be fined for starving your animal or for neglecting it or any number of other ways of hurting it. Is that how it should be?

I'll start with the easy part--your actions regarding your animals should be legislated when they impact the health and safety of others. I.e.--you need to get your pet vaccinated; you need to keep it from biting the neighborhood kids; etc. That's just common sense.

But what about other things? Should animals (property) be protected from physical abuse? Should they be protected from other forms of neglect and cruelty? If I want to raise my baby cows in tiny boxes in the dark so that they are deprived of all movement and sensation from birth, can I do that if it provides tasty tender cuts of beef? Can I raise my hogs in crowded dirty confinement areas so that they grow fast and make me a lot of profit on a tiny piece of land? Can I strap spurs to my rooster and send him in to fight other animals and possibly be permanently crippled or killed just for fun and maybe a little gambling profit (assuming gambling is legal)? Can I tie my hunting dog up in the yard through the 100 degree summers and -20 degree winters with little shelter and only untie her twice a year when I go hunting just because that's how often I need her? Can I drop live mice in with my snake, and is it wrong for me and my friend's to point and laugh at the poor mouse's terror? Can I put a social bird like a parrot into a small cage in the back room of my house with no company and give him little attention for years so that he bites anyone who gets near and starts to pull out his own feathers? Can I put scotch tape on my cat's forehead just to watch her back up in frantic circle around the room? Can I beat baby seals with a club and take their fur? Can I drown kittens in my sink just because I like the way they flail and struggle before they die? Can I smash rats with a cinder block on a NY City street and call it performance art?

I don't know. I'm personally against animal cruelty, but I'm also for the rights of people to do with their own property as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

I would dislike anyone who I knew was cruel to animals, but I don't feel comfortable telling them that they can't do what they like with their animals. Cock-fighting is a good example: I think it's barbaric and stupid and mean, but I really can't come up with any good reason why it should be illegal. I think boxing is barbaric and stupid and mean, but people are free to get themselves beat up if that's what they want.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 2:06 am

I think Pets are property, however there should be animal cruelty laws. I don't think it's wrong to kill a cow for food, but the death should be quick and clean. It would be wrong to torture said cow to death.

I view animals somewhat like children. Just like a child, you make all the descisions for your pets health. You neuter them, declaw them, remove eyes is neccesary. You do this for the same reason you do it for children -- animals are incapable of making the choice for themselves.

All creatures deserve to live the life they were given free from unnecesary pain. Yes pain is a natural part of life, as is the fight for survival, but there is no reason to add pain w/o good reason. You entertainment or laziness is not good reason.

I think it's barbaric and stupid and mean, but I really can't come up with any good reason why it should be illegal. I think boxing is barbaric and stupid and mean, but people are free to get themselves beat up if that's what they want.

Yes, but those men and women have made a choice. If we locked them up in cages, treated them cruely until they were feral animals, and then watched them fight for our amusement.... That would be wrong. Just like Cock fights, dog fights and basilisk fights.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 2:22 am

MooCow wrote:All creatures deserve to live the life they were given free from unnecesary pain. Yes pain is a natural part of life, as is the fight for survival, but there is no reason to add pain w/o good reason. You entertainment or laziness is not good reason.

And to tell the truth, Cow, I largely agree with you on this. But what is and isn't a good reason?

Feeding humans? Probably a good reason.
Clothing humans? Also probably good, but is it really necessary when there are so many viable and cheaper alternatives?
Saving human lives? Good reason.
Advancing human knowledge? I say good reason, but others disagree.
To make lots and lots of money?

And if it's okay to kill animals for food, is it okay to make them suffer harder living conditions on their way to slaughter in order to increase profit margin? Look at the massive confinement operations in this country--is that an acceptable level of suffering in order to feed humans efficiently and cheaply? Or should we be kind to the livestock and designate minimum amounts of space per head and ensure some range time for all animals to minimize their dicomfort and suffering? Sure, it would make animal protein more expensive--especially for those on limited means, but isn't it worth it to keep the cows and pigs and chickens for having to suffer cramped quarters?

I really don't think there's any easy lines here.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 2:31 am

Sure, it would make animal protein more expensive--especially for those on limited means, but isn't it worth it to keep the cows and pigs and chickens for having to suffer cramped quarters?

I really don't think there's any easy lines here.

You're right.... they aren't. But I tend to live in a black and white world. I can do this because I'm not a policy maker. I like that, it makes my life easier.

So regarding poor people not being able to afford meat: don't care, not poor.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 3:16 am

Many classes of property have special laws in some regions governing what you may and may not do with them. Animals are just one of them, and are perhaps noteworthy in that their regulations don't always have to do with public health or safety (at least in the case of pets, as opposed to livestock). However, I just don't think it's that strange.

Many plots of real estate are restricted in what can be built on them. If they contain a natural resource such as oil, they're often restricted in whether or not that can be harvested, or required to only sell it to the government. Cars are required to have maintenance performed on them regularly to maintain certain standards. Electronic products that use radio frequencies are restricted in what frequencies they can use. The music industry now maintains that your purchase of an album is only a license to play it in a limited number of contexts, which narrows with each successful lobbying attempt on Capitol Hill. We're so used to not being able to use our own property as we see fit, I don't see why animal cruelty legislation should stand out.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 5:47 am

The Traveler wrote:Many plots of real estate are restricted in what can be built on them. If they contain a natural resource such as oil, they're often restricted in whether or not that can be harvested, or required to only sell it to the government. Cars are required to have maintenance performed on them regularly to maintain certain standards. Electronic products that use radio frequencies are restricted in what frequencies they can use. The music industry now maintains that your purchase of an album is only a license to play it in a limited number of contexts, which narrows with each successful lobbying attempt on Capitol Hill. We're so used to not being able to use our own property as we see fit, I don't see why animal cruelty legislation should stand out.

Because every other example you provided involves public interest, limited/shared resources, and/or the rights of others involved. In each case, there is an obvious human interest being served. Animal cruelty legislation however does not fall into that category. In that respect, it stands out among property legislation, because it is strictly legislated morality.

Therefore, a better defense of animal cruelty legislation would probably be to compare it other legislation based solely on morality (prositution, gambling, misogyny).

Once again, I am very opposed to needless cruelty to animals, and I'll admit, that some level of legislation seems appropriate, but I have trouble justifying it. In the same way, I am a strong believer in monogamy and am glad for legislation that enforces it, but I have a hard time justifying it other than it is the expessed preference of the majority.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 6:47 pm

I don't see pets as property, but that's me, and I can see how people would view them in that respect. However I do want to see animal cruelty laws on the books after seeing how some people have treated their pets, and seen what happens as a result.

One example, the assholes next door had a dog, I think it may have been a pit bull mix, not sure, but it was a big animal. They didn't feed it as much as they should have, they visibly abused the dog (the event that stands out in my mind the most is the day they tied the dog up in a tree by the muzzle and the howls of pain that came out of the dog). Then they let it roam. By that time it had become an extremely viscious animal and it went after everyone, including the kids of the idiot owners.

There's also alot of stray cats in my area, they came about from idiot owners who moved, didn't want to be bothered to keep the cats and let them loose. And since they never bothered to neuter the cats, the strays have had kittens. Whenever we see kittens, we try to have the aspca round up the mother and the kittens, but that isn't always possible. Unfortunately with the strays they tend to be more of a nuisance than an actual hazard, but I have heard of some kids getting scratched because they did go to pet/pick up one of the cats.

As for the animal fighting, I have to agree with Moo, the boxers have a choice, they could have gone some other route than boxing. With animal fights, the animals are so badly abused that they don't know how to be anything other than mean so they will fight. And that to me is digusting and wrong. I don't know how people can look at the animals they've hurt and not see the pain and anguish they've caused.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:02 pm

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain, then?

And is it okay to cause animals some pain/discomfort if it benefits humans?

And if so, where do you draw the line? How heavily should human interest weigh against animal interest?

Reika, the examples you cite obviously do need to be addressed, because the dog is not properly restrained and poses a danger to others (but if properly restrained, does it matter if they were cruel to it or not). And the cats can arguably pose a health risk to the community (but is releasing an animal that can fend for itself into the wild really cruel?) But if there is no danger to others, is it still wrong? Why?

Let's get away from cute companion animals for a minute:

Is cock-fighting wrong? Why?

Is veal wrong? Why?

How much weight do you give when it comes to human benefit vs. animal suffering?

My answer is that animals get very little weight at all. I agree that unnecessary pain and suffering should be avoided. I agree that pure entertainment does not seem like reason enough to cause pain in animals. But if there's even a little measurable benefit for human beings, then animal rights go right out the window. Veal? Don't care. Hog confinement yards? Don't care. Medical research on monkeys and rats and cute little rabbits? Go for it. Gassing puppies to an agonizing death to better understand the possible effects of chemical weapons? No argument from me.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:13 pm

How much weight do you give when it comes to human benefit vs. animal suffering?

I give animal suffering quite a bit of weight. Is veal wrong? Sure. Never had it, so it's easy for me to say lets do away with it.

You say as long as there is human benefit. Does that make murder ok? I mean, if I kill you for your wallet there has been human benefit.

To me, Humans are no better then Animals. In some cases, they are worse. I will gladly swerve to miss hitting a chipmunk even if it means hitting a small child. The only mitigating factor in that is that I can be held for vehiclular homicide. The child however gets no greater consideration then the animal. The fact is, humans are just another animal.

The only reason I am against killing people for their shoes, is because I would prefer people not kill me for my shoes. But killing an animal for it's flesh is not murder. It's a natural form of survival. But Veal is not a natural form of survival.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 9:05 pm

<vc=Earthquake>I hate snakes! I hate pets of any kind!!!</vc>

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:12 pm

MooCow wrote:I give animal suffering quite a bit of weight. Is veal wrong? Sure. Never had it, so it's easy for me to say lets do away with it.

*Bah*

This is the second time I've seen you do this where you justify a moral decision based on its convenience to your lifestyle. You either have infinitely subtle sarcasm or just a lazy-man's sense of morality. I'm not saying personal convenience isn't a valid base for a system of ethics, but it certainly is a namby-pamby way of dealing with the world.

You say as long as there is human benefit. Does that make murder ok? I mean, if I kill you for your wallet there has been human benefit.

That's only a logical extension of my thoughts if I feel that animals and humans are equivalent, and I clearly do not. Humans are superior to animals, and their needs needs supercede those of animals.

To me, Humans are no better then Animals.

So to you, killing a person for meat is morally equivalent to killing a deer, and the only thing that stops you is the laws and consequences imposed by others.

I will gladly swerve to miss hitting a chipmunk even if it means hitting a small child.

So you are opposed to using animals for medical research? Or is that okay, because it may provide benefit to you personally down the line?

But Veal is not a natural form of survival.

Why not? There are many animals whose natural form of predation involves letting their prey die slow and agonizing deaths before they are ready for consumption.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:31 pm

So to you, killing a person for meat is morally equivalent to killing a deer, and the only thing that stops you is the laws and consequences imposed by others.

Well morally yes. However, I support the laws because I wish this not to happen to me. IE, I do not support Anarchy. I support a ban on murder, because I myself wish not to be murdered.

Also, scientific studies have shown Canabalism is not healthy. All the same bad things that prey on me, prey on other humans. so by ingesting human flesh I greatly increase the risk of getting some nasty little bug that will do me in.

So you are opposed to using animals for medical research? Or is that okay, because it may provide benefit to you personally down the line?

Why would I be? I'm opposed to testing cosmetics on animals, but medical research is fine. I would also support using small children (ok, I'm lying). However, I do think we should use prisoners as medical test subjects.

Why not? There are many animals whose natural form of predation involves letting their prey die slow and agonizing deaths before they are ready for consumption.

Good point. Guess I'll go have Veal for dinner.

This is the second time I've seen you do this where you justify a moral decision based on its convenience to your lifestyle. You either have infinitely subtle sarcasm or just a lazy-man's sense of morality. I'm not saying personal convenience isn't a valid base for a system of ethics, but it certainly is a namby-pamby way of dealing with the world.

Well I do that alot. There are alot of things that I think are bad, but that I won't do anything about. I'm like that Fat Cop sitting on the bench eating a donut and yelling "Hey you, stop that" at the guy raping some chick.

Unless something impacts me directly, I really don't see a need to get involved. And well Veal doesn't impact me. Contrary to popular belief, I am not actually a cow.

However, I do have pets, and if little billy down the street hurt my cats I *would* like some legal means of dealing with it. Otherwise I would have to go hurt little billy in the same fashion.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:37 pm

MooCow wrote:However, I do have pets, and if little billy down the street hurt my cats I *would* like some legal means of dealing with it. Otherwise I would have to go hurt little billy in the same fashion.

Don't need animal cruelty laws for that though. If he damages your property (i.e. your cat), you have legal recourse for dealing with that.

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:38 pm

Humans are superior to animals

Only because we invented the means of classification. Dogs, for example, can out smell us. Dolphins are radically better swimmers. We're just one prong on the evolutionary bush who happened to put all the animals (including ourselves) into categories. Humans are only superior to animals because we humans say so. We are superior in how our brain functions. This has in turn allowed us to compensate for the deficiencies we posses as humans. We are not, on the base level, superior.

Bethy, I only disagree with this point. I'm not going to defend or refute any other. Just bring up another question/side with two little words.

Endangered Species.

Where do they fall in the realm of this debate? If all animals are considered pets, our taking over of an endagered species habitat, thereby killing that animal, is still justified in that we as humans are bettered. More space for us, better place to live. Our superiority gives us the right to completely destroy those animals? Bethy, I don't buy it.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:44 pm

Eliahad wrote:Where do they fall in the realm of this debate? If all animals are considered pets, our taking over of an endagered species habitat, thereby killing that animal, is still justified in that we as humans are bettered. More space for us, better place to live. Our superiority gives us the right to completely destroy those animals? Bethy, I don't buy it.

No. Human society is not bettered by the loss of a species. The space and utility gained does not outweigh the knowledge, beauty, future potential, etc lost by destroying a species. Destroying a species potentially eliminates all sorts of possibilities for knowledge and betterment. Protecting endangered species is a smart move on the part of humanity.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:59 pm

Don't need animal cruelty laws for that though. If he damages your property (i.e. your cat), you have legal recourse for dealing with that.

Only up to the value of the item. Which on a technical level, is what... maybe a few hundred? No, I want little billy to go to jail. I want little billy to feel pain. I want some kid in Juvenile hall to make little billy his bitch.

Only because we invented the means of classification. Dogs, for example, can out smell us. Dolphins are radically better swimmers. We're just one prong on the evolutionary bush who happened to put all the animals (including ourselves) into categories. Humans are only superior to animals because we humans say so. We are superior in how our brain functions. This has in turn allowed us to compensate for the deficiencies we posses as humans. We are not, on the base level, superior.

I agree with this. Dolphins aren't intelligent because they don't meet are deffinition of intelligence. What's our deffinition of intelligence? Ourselves. Well now... isn't that conveniant.

Let me see if I can better lay out my feelings on this (Probably not). From a objective point of view, Humans are no better then Animals. However, being a Human, I tend to side with that species over others. I'm against murder, but killing an animal for food is not murder. However, if you wander out into a field and shoot a cow just for the heck of it... well that's murder.

I support animal testing because I don't see any other way. On the same note, I support human testing of prisoners, because I don't see any other way. I support laws against animal cruelty, because I think their is already enough pain in the world. Yes, animal testing causes pain, but in the long run will lead to less pain in the world. The same can not be said of cock fighting or veal. If your life is really made that much better by food you probably should talk to a psychologist.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:46 am

MooCow wrote:If your life is really made that much better by food you probably should talk to a psychologist.

But veal is just the obvious element of it. I personally really really like veal, but I prefer free-range veal for exactly the reason of promoting less cruelty and pain in the world. But again, look at the situation of virtually all of the food animals in this country. The large scale egg, chicken, hog and beef producing facilities all encourage to some degree cramped quarters, limited sensory stimulation, poor noise and air quality, etc. A lot of these operations are pretty bad even by the veal standard. But this is where most of our meat comes from, and this is why we can afford to feed the world. This is how we live in a country where the majority of poor people can be overweight. Almost all the meat you eat comes from situations like this. You have the ability to buy more "animal-friendly" and "cruelty-free" products, but only by doubling or tripling your food budget. You continue to consume the mass-produced stuff, because it is convenient to you and leaves you more cash for nicer stuff. Or at least, that's why I do it. That level of animal suffering is acceptable to me because it makes my life more convenient.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:52 am

You continue to consume the mass-produced stuff, because it is convenient to you and leaves you more cash for nicer stuff. Or at least, that's why I do it. That level of animal suffering is acceptable to me because it makes my life more convenient.

Oh! Well now we're talking cash. All bets are off when it comes to cash. I'd sell my own mother for cash. In fact I just got off the phone with my parents. I was trying to convince them they should die soon so I can use the inheritance to buy a house.

Yes, feel free to beat your dog if I somehow benefit monetarily from it.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:00 am

MooCow wrote:
Yes, feel free to beat your dog if I somehow benefit monetarily from it.
HA!

Apparently, you didn't read the other thread. I already killed my dog for eating my stuff. It came down to the dog or money. The dog lost.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:02 am

Which other thread? There's dog beating and I wasn't invited? I'm not happy.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:10 am

MooCow wrote:Which other thread? There's dog beating and I wasn't invited? I'm not happy.

Oh, just the Declawed thread. But Paul wasn't getting his questions answered, so he opened this one.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:46 am

I think animal cruelty due to expedience (raising animals for slaughter, lab research, etc.) should still be regulated. Hell, we would probably be better off if we stopped the animal warehouses and factory trawlers - they aren't really that much more efficient, they just took jobs away from small-time farmers and fishermen. They wouldn't be workable if we didn't allow them to abuse animals and ecosystems in unconsciable ways. It's yet another example of big business using its influence to get the laws rewritten for their own benefit. I believe laboratory experiments are needed sometimes, but there should still be laws against cruelty and frivolous but cruel experiments (smashing that monkey's head repeatedly to test concussions, putting blinding chemicals into rabbits' eyes, etc.).

As far as animal abuse due to cruelty or neglect, there is no excuse for it. It's another example of people who want their precious "freedoms" without the responsibility that goes with it. Hell, I don't think current laws go nearly far enough. I don't think it's a matter of purely morality, either. From a selfish point of view, you don't want to allow other people to indulge in behaviours that desensitize them to pain and suffering. Answer me honestly - if you knew that a 16-year old girl beat and starved her dog and liked smashing hamsters with a brick, would you want her babysitting your 4-year old daughter?

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:27 am

Glyph wrote:As far as animal abuse due to cruelty or neglect, there is no excuse for it. It's another example of people who want their precious "freedoms" without the responsibility that goes with it.

Absolutely agreed.

Hell, I don't think current laws go nearly far enough.

Yeah they do.

I don't think it's a matter of purely morality, either. From a selfish point of view, you don't want to allow other people to indulge in behaviours that desensitize them to pain and suffering. Answer me honestly - if you knew that a 16-year old girl beat and starved her dog and liked smashing hamsters with a brick, would you want her babysitting your 4-year old daughter?

HA! Excellent! Thank you. There's the justification I've been looking for. Violence begets violence. Hate begets hate. Love encourages love. Thank you, Glyph.

I think animal cruelty due to expedience (raising animals for slaughter, lab research, etc.) should still be regulated.

Okay.

Hell, we would probably be better off if we stopped the animal warehouses and factory trawlers - they aren't really that much more efficient,

How do you figure? Do you have reliable sources on that? Because the simple fact that these operations can market their product so much more cheaply than the "traditional" farmer is pretty strong testament to their efficiency. Seriously, modern breeding and genetics, combined with large scale confinement operations, efficient feed, etc has gotten us to the point where a hog goes from birth to 300+ pounds and ready for market in a matter of a few months--less than half of what it used to take and with maybe a quarter to a third of the total feed investment. Holy crap! Large scale production operations are far more efficient than mom-and-pop jobs. That's the whole point behind Wal-Mart.

they just took jobs away from small-time farmers and fishermen.

Propaganda. Loss of jobs in other areas of the industry is a side effect of efficiency, not it's goal.

They wouldn't be workable if we didn't allow them to abuse animals and ecosystems in unconsciable ways.

Unconsciable? It's unconscionable and immoral to keep hogs in a crowded facility? They aren't suffering--they just don't have the range and depth of experience of hogs in a less restrictive environment. The world would be a better place if we allow these hogs enjoy life more before we turn them into Baco-Bits?

Bah!

It's yet another example of big business using its influence to get the laws rewritten for their own benefit.

Propagandist rhetoric. I don't know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods, family farms and "way of life" are freakin huge. The laws here protect family farms and make it very very difficult for "big business" to get large operations going in this state. Nebraska law prohibits corporations consisting of non-related members from owning pretty much any large type of agriculture operation in the state. Beyond that, many Nebraska communities have outright banned confinement operations simply because they stink so damn bad. They have incredibly restrictive environmental standards to meet, because without them, a confinement operation can quickly destroy the soil and water of an area. No sir--the law is not at all friendly to these large-scale operations, and not because of any idea of "cruelty", but because they are polluters and they compete with established interests.

I believe laboratory experiments are needed sometimes, but there should still be laws against cruelty and frivolous but cruel experiments (smashing that monkey's head repeatedly to test concussions, putting blinding chemicals into rabbits' eyes, etc.).

These are more obviously grotesque in the suffering they cause and they certainly invoke sympathy more easily than chickens in a crowded coop, but there's nothing frivolous about them. If it's for cosmetics testing (the ultimate animal cruelty bogeyman), sure that's frivolous, but understanding concussions, gunshot wounds, chemical injuries, etc has tremendous potential in preventing injury, healing the wounded, and tracking down criminals (among other things).

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:32 am

Bethyaga wrote: But what about other things? Should animals (property) be protected from physical abuse?... (Blah blah blah)

I don't know. I'm personally against animal cruelty, but I'm also for the rights of people to do with their own property as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

All those things you mentioned DID infringe on the rights of others. They infringed on the rights of the animals. Causing suffering for a human is no worse than causing suffering for another animal. No one should think they're worth more than any other animal. That's just ignorant. If you want to eat an animal for food then fine, do it. So long as they don't feel any pain in the death. But if it's legal to murder an animal for food then it should also be legal to murder a human for food, so long as they don't go through any pain. It's just as fair.

So then why wouldn't I usually eat humans?

Because humans have some benifit to me other than being eaten. Just like people don't eat horses. They've been used for transport & working farms (even though now a days they're not used as often). Otherwise I'm sure they would be hunted. I don't eat humans because they have the ability to kill me too, so most of us have made a big "I wont kill you & you wont kill me" pact for their own safety. I don't want people murdering me for food. They're also worthwhile as companions (like dogs are), and so I don't have to grow all of my own food & build my own house, etc. And yes, the disease thing is a problem. There was this tribe somewhere where when someone died, the others would eat their brains. But considering most people died of a brain rotting disease, everyone contracted it after eating the dead person's brains. Or how Mad Cow disease spread everywhere.

It's not more morally wrong to kill humans for food than other animals, but we get more benefit from eating other animals.

But what animal we kill isn't really the issue, so long as we do it in a fashion that doesn't hurt them. If you don't want someone tourturing you, then don't do it to others, whether they be human or something else.

I think testing should be done on humans. If it's a drug for humans that will only benefit humans in the end, then why the hell should they test it on rats? Test it on humans who'll at least get something out of it in the end (money).

What's this big thing about veal? I eat veal, but I thought veal just meant the cow was young. Does it mean 'slowly tourtured cows'? I've seriously never heard it to mean anything other than young beef, so please fill me in here.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:39 am

Just like people don't eat horses.

I could be wrong here, but I thought that horse was found in European countries. I seem to recall my sister telling me that when she was in Luxemburg for an internship, the local Chi Chi's had horse meat on the menu.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:44 am

I've never seen it before, but that's possibly because they're less useful to us now that we have machinery.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:58 am

Sowhat, your entire post is nothing but rationalization. You start from the premise that humans are equal to animals and then spend the rest of the post weaving huge rationalizations to explain why you (and almost everyone else) act like humans are superior. "Oh it's not that we're better--it's just that it's expedient (blah blah blah) or that for preservation of (whatever)."

Bullshit. Is there no real morality in your world? "Of course there's morality, killing anything is wrong." Yet you kill to get meat. "Oh, it's fine for survival." But not of people? "No, I explained..."

Christ this is tiring.

You know what... by the argument that humans are no better than animals, there is no morality at all. Morality only exists because people invented it. The cats that toy with their prey and torture it before devouring it don't worry about morality. Their "cruelty" sharpens their skills and makes them more efficient--more evolutionarily superior. You don't judge them. The spider wasp that paralyzes the spider and lays eggs in it doesn't worry about the "cruelty" of letting the spider live in agony for weeks until the day the baby wasps hatch and devour the thing alive. That's just the most effective way for it to provide for its young and ensure its genes survive to a new generation. There is death and cruelty all over in the natural world, and the only morality that exists is survival of the fittest.

But man is different. We invented morality. We are the only beings that exercise compassion and cruelty for reasons other than evolutionary imperative.** We gave meaning to them. Humans who can be ruthless and cruel and barbaric can survive better in a majority of situations. Just like in animals, it is an evolutionary advantage. Only humans have come up with the idea that survival traits may be wrong or immoral.

If you argue that humans are morally equivalent to other animals in the world, then I don't understand how you can apply different moral standards to them. On the other hand, if you do want to apply a different set of moral values to the actions of man vs. animals, then you admit that by our intelligence and understanding, we are of a different nature than all other animals.

[[As for the veal, the word veal does in fact just mean meat from calves. Period. But back in the dark ages (like the 80s) the most common method of producing veal came from calves who were raised from birth in small boxes in the dark so that they couldn't exercise. It was believed that the lack of movement produced tenderer, juicier meat. Similarly, sunlight was thought to spoil this quality of the meat as well. Fighting the evil veal producers was quite the cause celeb in its day--much like battling the evil seal hunters or the evil cosmetics companies. Oh wait--but that was all before your time too.

**And yes, I understand that there are many who argue that such human qualities ARE the product of evolutionary imperative. I just don't agree. I also understand that some argue that apes and dolphins may have a grasp on these more esoteric qualities as well. They may be right, but it's a matter of degree.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:14 am

Bethyaga wrote:Sowhat, your entire post is nothing but rationalization. You start from the premise that humans are equal to animals and then spend the rest of the post weaving huge rationalizations to explain why you (and almost everyone else) act like humans are superior. "Oh it's not that we're better--it's just that it's expedient (blah blah blah) or that for preservation of (whatever)."

Bullshit. Is there no real morality in your world? "Of course there's morality, killing anything is wrong." Yet you kill to get meat. "Oh, it's fine for survival." But not of people? "No, I explained..."

You're completely correct. 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. As a human, I'm selfish and would preffer to continue living a life that's harmful to other animals than killing myself or letting myself starve. It's true. I don't try to justify that I cause things to die, but I DO think it's important that when my every day life doesn't need to harm animals, I don't go out of my way to harm them. If it's meat for food, then kill them in an instant. If it's a pet, look after it.

But back in the dark ages (like the 80s)...

So they don't do it anymore?

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:20 am

Sowhat wrote:
But back in the dark ages (like the 80s)...
So they don't do it anymore?

Well, most of them quit for a long time. They might have started up again, but nobody cares enough to make an issue of it. Same thing with "dolphin-safe" tuna. Ten years ago, it was all in fashion to boycott tuna companies because their trawl nets were catching (and subsequently killing) the hapless dolphins. Many companies went out of their way to use special new process and devise special nets etc and many had "dolphin-safe" printed right on their labels. And then the cause-heads moved on to something new, and the fishers could be back to killing dolphins again for all anyone cares.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:38 pm

If you argue that humans are morally equivalent to other animals in the world, then I don't understand how you can apply different moral standards to them. On the other hand, if you do want to apply a different set of moral values to the actions of man vs. animals, then you admit that by our intelligence and understanding, we are of a different nature than all other animals.

Yes, but that is a two edged sword. If we have a higher understanding, you can start argueing that we should know better. Now we all have to become vegetarians. Good going....

Same thing with "dolphin-safe" tuna

You know.... I never understood that. What about the tuna?!?!

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:39 pm

Well, see, humans don't think Tuna is as intelligent as Dolphins, so it's okay to kill Tuna and not Dolphins. Oh dolphins are far more attractive than tuna as well, and they do tricks for humans in Sea World, so that means it's also okay to eat tuna and not harm dolphins. When's the last time you saw a tuna do a trick?

Well, I guess it happened to be last tuesday when I had a good section of its muscle on a plate, grilled, in a nice garlic butter sauce.

Humans are fucked in the head, but I love them anyway.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:48 pm

Okay I have to, firstly, start by thanking Bethyaga and everyone who has posted here. I appreciae your participation. I'd also like to say that Bethyaga has for the most part stated my own position on this much better than I ever could. So Bravo Bethyaga.

Now then I want to touch on some things I have read here.

Bethyaga asked:

The better question is should they be property? And further, should animals have any rights beyond being simply property?

My own particular answer to this is Yes, and no.

Pets are property, they have been so for thousands of years, since Man first domesticated dogs. They will likely always be this way, for reasons I will cover later in this post.

And while I agree with Bethyaga that cruelty to animals is bad form, I also agree that there are things that are innately cruel that will always be acceptable to society at large. I am also cautious about inacting legislation for the sole purpose of "protecting" animals.

Okay now I got a huge hate on for this, so I apologize in advance if i go too far.

MooCow stated:
To me, Humans are no better then Animals. In some cases, they are worse. I will gladly swerve to miss hitting a chipmunk even if it means hitting a small child. The only mitigating factor in that is that I can be held for vehiclular homicide. The child however gets no greater consideration then the animal. The fact is, humans are just another animal.

What the FUCK?

Okay first. Animals are not better nor are they the same as Humans. If they were we wouldn't be the greatest predators on this planet.

Sure maybe a Bear is stronger than any one man. Maybe Cats have better balance. Maybe Wolves smell better. But how come Man is the one hunting them to extinction? Why not the reverse? Because Man ASPIRES. Man has AMBITION. Man is the biggest baddest mutherfucker on the block.

There isn't a god dmaned creature on this planet we can't hunt to extinction, genetically alter or fucking eat if we want to. NONE. Show me a dog that can match the Atom Bomb. Show me a camel that can write like Pinter, or Kevin Smith. Show me a whale that loves.

Animals can emulate human beings. They can evne take on some of our traits, because WE defined those traits, because WE wanted to see those similar traits in our companion animals.

I have to say this Moo, the fact that you would even post what you did about children being a second consideration to some fucking chipmunk is just sickening. I can't lie, I lost a lot of respect for you when you posted that.

But onward ho....

Bethyaga, my hero said:

Morality only exists because people invented it.

Morality only exists because people invented it.

Animal Cruelty is another word we invented, by the way.

Eli you rock. "Get on the truck..."

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:19 am

I have to say this Moo, the fact that you would even post what you did about children being a second consideration to some fucking chipmunk is just sickening. I can't lie, I lost a lot of respect for you when you posted that.

Why? It's child. It's not my child, why should I care? I believe that all life is equally worthy. Why should humans be more important then any other animal? Yes we are the best predator on the planet, big deal. That does not make us more important (except by Might makes Right). Now the fact that I am human, makes me lean towards Humans. But objectively there is nothing about humans that makes them better.

I also didn't say that the child is a secondary consideration. I said it gets no greater consideration then the chipmunk. I suppose if I had children, my opinion might be different. As I stated before, I'm against murder because I don't want to be murdered myself. Likewise, if I had children, I might be more inclined to give a rats ass about them. But I don't, so I don't.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:05 am

MooCow wrote:As I stated before, I'm against murder because I don't want to be murdered myself. Likewise, if I had children, I might be more inclined to give a rats ass about them. But I don't, so I don't.

Then if I recall correctly from my Developmental Psychology classes (Yeah I took it twice--what's it to ya?) that means you have the moral development of a nine-year-old. You understand what is "right" and what is "wrong", but ultimately you are motivated only by self-interest and the only reason you choose "right" more often than "wrong" is fear of being caught and punished. Essentially, it is the minimal level of moral development that allows one to be a functional and productive member of adult society.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:04 am

Then if I recall correctly from my Developmental Psychology classes (Yeah I took it twice--what's it to ya?) that means you have the moral development of a nine-year-old.

Only if you think Kohlberg wasn't a dipshit. But since he was, and his ideas about moral development are silly, then Moo can remain happy about himself.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:22 am

Only if you think Kohlberg wasn't a dipshit. But since he was, and his ideas about moral development are silly, then Moo can remain happy about himself.

YEA!!!

Ok... back to semi logical/sane arguments that don't involve running small children over....

Okay first. Animals are not better nor are they the same as Humans. If they were we wouldn't be the greatest predators on this planet.

The ability to Kill doesn't make one better. By this argument, members of the military are more evolved then civilians. Not they they are less evolved, but I guarantee you alot of them can't write like Kevin Smith. (or maybe they can, depending on what you think of his writing

)

Sure maybe a Bear is stronger than any one man. Maybe Cats have better balance. Maybe Wolves smell better. But how come Man is the one hunting them to extinction? Why not the reverse? Because Man ASPIRES . Man has AMBITION. Man is the biggest baddest mutherfucker on the block.

There isn't a god dmaned creature on this planet we can't hunt to extinction, genetically alter or fucking eat if we want to. NONE. Show me a dog that can match the Atom Bomb. Show me a camel that can write like Pinter, or Kevin Smith. Show me a whale that loves.

Animals can emulate human beings. They can evne take on some of our traits, because WE defined those traits, because WE wanted to see those similar traits in our companion animals.

Ahhh..... so Animals are less then us because we have defined them to be so? Well that's an argument that doesn't work. Just because I say Blue is Pink doesn't make it so.

You say that Dolphins don't love. Can you prove this? You say a Dolphin doesn't have ambition. Can you prove this? Maybe it's ambition is to be the best damned dolphin it can be. It's ambition is to eat fish, fuck, kill the occasional shark, and not die of a stress related heart attack when it's relatively 40. Seems like a damn fine plan to me.

According to you Animals don't act like us, so we must be better. What the hell kind of logic is that? Yeah, Animals don't murder. They don't create weapons of mass destruction. They don't enslave other sentient creatures. Animals don't rape the planet because they want a gold ring.

The problem here is that you (and myself as well) are incapable of arguing this issue objectively. To do so would require defining what it means to be sentient, and we can't do that objectively. We have a slight conflict of interest....

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:51 pm

Paul wrote:There isn't a god dmaned creature on this planet we can't hunt to extinction, genetically alter or fucking eat if we want to. NONE. Show me a dog that can match the Atom Bomb. Show me a camel that can write like Pinter, or Kevin Smith. Show me a whale that loves.

How far does this extend, Paul? There are tribes of people that still hunt with pointy sticks. They can't match their sticks to your atom bomb. Does that give you the right to own them?

I suppose my opinion is that in the strictest sense of the word animals are property, since you can buy and sell them - thanks, Traveler - but that we should treat them like children; make sure that no unnecessary harm befalls them.

...

I find this incredibly hard to found with solid arguments. I feel that harming an animal is wrong, though I also feel that raising animals with the express purpose of eventually harming and eating them isn't. I feel that pets are property, but I also feel that they shouldn't be treated that way.

This is a harder subject than I thought.

On a related note: Goose liver paté. Frog legs. Lobster. I don't eat that because I think it's unecessarily cruel. That's a choice I've made for myself, and if others want to eat just that, then they are more than welcome to.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:58 pm

Dennis wrote:I find this incredibly hard to found with solid arguments. I feel that harming an animal is wrong, though I also feel that raising animals with the express purpose of eventually harming and eating them isn't. I feel that pets are property, but I also feel that they shouldn't be treated that way.

This is a harder subject than I thought.

This is exactly the problem I'm having. It's easier to argue the extremes of either "survival of the fittest for all" or "equal rights for all living things", and yet pretty much everybody who's posted here has an operating belief system that falls well in the middle of these extremes. And justifying a middle position with any solid arguments is very hard.

That's why I was pleased with Glyph's point about needless violence and cruelty only promoting more of the same. I am a firm believer in love. For the good of society, it is best if the violence and cruelty are kept to a reasonable minimum. Make the slaughter of food animals as humane as possible, etc.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:37 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/10/pets. ... index.html

Ok, I believe that my pets are loving companions and not property, but still. Somethings can go too far...

Several Colorado lawmakers are supporting legislation to elevate the status of cats and dogs from property to companions.

The measure would allow people in Colorado to sue veterinarians and animal abusers and seek damages for "loss of companionship," up to $100,000.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who owns a springer spaniel named Hannah, would not say if he would sign such a bill into law if it passes. But he added: "Hannah is very much in favor" of the bill.

Maybe he should let Hannah run the state. I wonder if Grey Davis (Cali gov) has a pet. The state couldn't be doing much worse...

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:47 pm

Ok, let's try looking at it this way.

A pet may be property, but the emotional connections associated with them elevate most pets to the status of family members.

Banning cruelty to pets serves two purposes. First of all, it reduces the feral animal population, and assures us that the animals we do have are the healthiest possible. This in turn means they're less likely to transmit diseases, or attack humans.

Second, it recognizes that pets are more significant to us than other animals. Anyone who's lost a family cat or dog will go through much the same kinds of grief as if they lost a family member.

A google search on the subject of pets and seniors will reveal dozens of links between pet ownership and increased human lifespan. One of the sources I encountered even suggested that the benefit of a pet is greater than that of human companionship.

Elevating pets from "property" to "companion" is merely recognizing that fact. A pet provides many benefits to its owner. Simple Darwinian logic suggests we had best reciprocate.

No matter how you look at it-- morally, where the pet is a loving and loved member of your family; or logically, where the pet provides significant health benefits-- a household pet is worth a great deal more than its monetary value. While this country may be litigation-happy, vets who carelessly cause the loss of a pet has caused much more harm than the simple loss of property-- they have caused people to lose an important part of their health care, and a member of their family.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:54 am

Cain wrote:No matter how you look at it-- morally, where the pet is a loving and loved member of your family; or logically, where the pet provides significant health benefits-- a household pet is worth a great deal more than its monetary value. While this country may be litigation-happy, vets who carelessly cause the loss of a pet has caused much more harm than the simple loss of property-- they have caused people to lose an important part of their health care, and a member of their family.

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.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:24 am

Why aren't children property?

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:38 am

Ancient History wrote:Why aren't children property?

Because they are human beings.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:43 am

Historically, that's no excuse.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:58 am

Ancient History wrote:Historically, that's no excuse.

But we're not talking about history. We're talking about now. You asked a question, and I provided the correct answer. Children are not considered property, because the modern world does not consider human beings property.

Tada!