Page 2 of 3 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Aug 2009, 11:20 am

Actually the term "law" describes a set of rules that the general public can agree to and enforce (most common definition).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2009, 11:25 am

phil777 wrote:
Ruveyn, it's called "unwarranted use of force". The man clearly had no useful motives for doing this other than his own.

You don't know that. Do you read minds?

What you are saying is that YOU disapprove. Is that a justification for using force? Do you use force against everyone or anything of which you disapprove or do you pick and choose. And who appointed you the guardian of righteousness? Did you die recently, ascend to heaven and sit at the Right Hand of the Father?

ruveyn



Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,625
Location: Europe

22 Aug 2009, 12:34 pm

phil777 wrote:
Actually the term "law" describes a set of rules that the general public can agree to and enforce (most common definition).


Good point that is one idea of what law is, I think that the Swedes are right to have a law against the mistreatment of animals but I think that they should make it more strict to improve the legal protection of animals.


_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien: I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Aug 2009, 12:56 pm

As per Ruveyn, the difference between us and animals should be the consciousness of self brought about by our bigger brains. Consciousness of self (or even self-awareness to a lesser degree, since they are related but not identical) means that you can picture what someone is doing to someone else, but to your own person, and are thus able to judge it accordingly.

I've never been cheated by a girl, but i know i wouldn't like it happening to me. The same applies when you witness violence, you can see the suffering, the agony of the other, their cry for help, and i'm quite sure almost no one would enjoy going through that, which is why we make laws and rules to prohibit such behaviour from befalling our own person. Which at the same time, protects others by doing so.



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

22 Aug 2009, 3:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:

1. I consider human life higher than that of a non-human animal or plant.
So do most people. Most humans, by the way, can distinguish, in a moral sense, between a biological life form which is sentient, has nerve endings, self determination, and a will to live (ie, an animal) and a plant, so I don't understand your conflation of the two in the above sentence. It's unscientific, and illogical.

Regardless, most people believe that human life is "higher" (perhaps a better term would be "more important") than an animal.

However, when a cat gets nailed to a door for no reason other than "somebody felt like it", you can't say, "it doesn't matter, a cat is not as important as a human."

If the only way to improve the quality of a human's life, or to save a human's life, was to nail a cat to a door, you might have some point to make. However, there is clearly no point to make here, no human's life was in the balance in this equation. So I'm not sure what your point is.


Quote:
2. I do not abuse non-human animals (except in self defense). I gain nothing from inflicting gratuitous pain upon an animal, so I don't do it. But that is my preference and inclination. Why should the force of law be used to impose that modality? Law is for protecting humans and their property.
You are an individual with a very peculiar view of morality, as it applies to animals. For millenia there have been laws in human society for the protection of animals... mainly in the Eastern religions, and the Judaic Christian tradition. If three thousand years ago a King of Israel would become incandescent that a man's pet sheep had been needlessly killed, if that King's son could write, "a righteous man regards the life of his beast," if people living in the harshest conditions in the Sinai desert had animal protection laws... and way over in India Buddha was bringing in protective covering for animals...

What makes you think that you're right, and every other law giver in history is wrong?

There is a far longer tradition than you know of regarding the life of your beast.
ruveyn[/quote]



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2009, 4:25 pm

mgran wrote:
If three thousand years ago a King of Israel would become incandescent that a man's pet sheep had been needlessly killed, if that King's son could write, "a righteous man regards the life of his beast," if people living in the harshest conditions in the Sinai desert had animal protection laws... and way over in India Buddha was bringing in protective covering for animals...


When Nathan told the story of the poor man and his sheep to King David, David got peeved because the rich man cheated the poor man out of his property. If you are going to quote Bible Stories, at least get them straight. Of course Nathan was referring to David's adulterous affair with Bat'sheva, Uria's wife and the scurrilous way David got rid of Uriah.

ruveyn



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

23 Aug 2009, 2:36 am

You obviously know your Scripture, which should make this conversation easier.

What about the proverb, "a righteous man regards the life of his beast"? Or the welfare laws, partly for the protection of human health, partly for the protection of animals, that people adhered to in the harshest conditions? Also, it is obvious from Nathan's description that the poor man loved his sheep... read it again. Yes, he was cheated and robbed, but the description of how he cared for that sheep (like a daughter) makes it clear that care for animals was something that Nathan knew would appeal to David. David was a shepherd, remember, if he had a purely utilitarian view of animals he would have been annoyed the poor man was robbed, but Nathan wouldn't have laboured the point that the poor man loved his sheep, because David would have thought, "what a wally that man is... it's only a sheep!"

Basically, you've fallen prey to a philosophical error which arose from Descartes misplaced belief that animals were just machines, with no sentience. Common sense, for millenia, has suggested otherwise, and modern science proves otherwise.

If a creature is sentient, it deserves some level of protection. The ancients knew it, so do most people. A righteous man regards the life of his beast. This man broke the law. Therefore, he should pay the consequences.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Aug 2009, 7:02 am

mgran wrote:

Basically, you've fallen prey to a philosophical error which arose from Descartes misplaced belief that animals were just machines, with no sentience. Common sense, for millenia, has suggested otherwise, and modern science proves otherwise.



man is a machine, too. A wet machine.

And yes both man and some animals have sentience.

So what?

The function of government is to protect human life and property, not to hug trees and get all choked up over Bambi and Dumbo.

ruveyn



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

23 Aug 2009, 7:16 am

Who are you to define the purpose of the Law? In an earlier post you accuse someone of thinking that they sit "at the right hand of the Father." Do you not see that in setting yourself against the vast majority of human thought on this issue, you are vaingloriously setting yourself up as an expert, the sole source of authority on what defines morality?

Be consistent ... if you're going to accuse others of hubris, don't fall prey to it yourself.



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

23 Aug 2009, 7:17 am

Who are you to define the purpose of the Law? In an earlier post you accuse someone of thinking that they sit "at the right hand of the Father." Do you not see that in setting yourself against the vast majority of human thought on this issue, you are vaingloriously setting yourself up as an expert, the sole source of authority on what defines morality?

Be consistent ... if you're going to accuse others of hubris, don't fall prey to it yourself.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Aug 2009, 8:52 am

mgran wrote:
Who are you to define the purpose of the Law? In an earlier post you accuse someone of thinking that they sit "at the right hand of the Father." Do you not see that in setting yourself against the vast majority of


I pay for the Law with my taxes. I have a say. And what I say in quite in line with the Declaration of Independence. The American (and to some extent, the English) view of government was an institution to ensure the peace within society. Read Thomas Hobbes.

Government is not there to make us Good. Government is there to prevent people cutting the throats of other people in broad daylight. And governments are not instituted among Men to be nice to animals with big brown eyes. Kindness to animals is a sentiment, not a function of government backed by force.

ruveyn



CRD
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 704

23 Aug 2009, 10:09 am

Sorry the rest of us have a say in our government as well , and most people would be appalled at someone nailing a cat to a door or cutting the ears and tail of a dog to get their jollies. If you bothered to read the above posts you'd see that alot of those people who perform those sorts of acts grown in to killing humans. Also he damaged the door that was part of a police station so wouldn't that fit in to your narrow veiw of the law?



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

23 Aug 2009, 10:27 am

ruveyn... you don't pay taxes in Sweden, do you?



Jellybean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,795
Location: Bedford UK

23 Aug 2009, 12:30 pm

I don't know about the US but in England, we do actually have many animal protection laws which are enforced by not only the police but the RSPCA (royal society for the protection of cruelty to animals) which, as the royal states, is governed by the queen. It is also illegal to harm a swan in this country because they technically belong to the queen. One day I too will pay taxes, and I will be happy to know that just a small percentage is going to protect our animals.


_________________
I have HFA, ADHD, OCD & Tourette syndrome. I love animals, especially my bunnies and hamster. I skate in a roller derby team (but I'll try not to bite ;) )


Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,625
Location: Europe

23 Aug 2009, 2:51 pm

Well we could consider the law to regulate things by dealing with a series of crimes against different people.

I would argue that a large number of different victims exist in the case of a person who nails a cat to a police station door.

The cat is a victim
The cat's owner is a victim (their property is being damaged)
The owner of the police station (the tax payer) is a victim as the door is damaged
The general public are victims as this is an act which horrifies them
The law enforcement system is a victim as this act openly mocks it

I can not think of any more victims or wronged parties, but I am sure that some more might exist.

I would suggest that in this case that the legal representatives of the cat should have first bite at the cherry. As cats are not normally considered mentally competent to bring an action regarding the killing of one of the own kind, I think that a legally skilled human should bring a criminal action on behave of the dead cat.

But if a group of cats appeared at the court house and were able to complain in Swedish about how they felt outraged by the treatment of one of their number then I think that the cats should be allowed to have the option of bringing the criminal case.


_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien: I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Aug 2009, 6:19 pm

[quote="Woodpecker"

The cat is a victim
The cat's owner is a victim (their property is being damaged)
The owner of the police station (the tax payer) is a victim as the door is damaged
The general public are victims as this is an act which horrifies them
The law enforcement system is a victim as this act openly mocks it

[/quote]

governments do not exist to protect animals from cruel treatment. Governments exist to protect human lives and human property. So the fact the cat is a victim is irrelevant. And the public need not watch. They can just look in another direction.

If the cat belong to the person who nailed it to the door, then it is not a property crime or misdemenor. It is tresspass if the door to which the cat was nailed did not belong to the nailer.

Also, a cat has no rights.

ruveyn