Man Arrested for Animal Abuse

Post Reply New Topic

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[/quote]

Animal abuse is considered a crime in a great many places; life is not property... it deserves respect, more than is shown it by most of the world, in my opinion.

And... governments exist to protect human lives and human property - in your opinion. Such is not shared by all, Ruveyn.


M.

Canada has animal cruelty laws too.

As a cat person, I think this guy should be punished.I have a greater bond with cats and alot in common with them than I do people.I have more empathy and compassion for this cat than I do some humans in this world.


RIP little kitty..I hope you are happy and safe up in kitty heaven

1. Sexual Congress with a person of the same gender is also considered a crime in a great many places. Do you think that is just?

2. Yes indeed. Governments tend to do far more than they should and not enough of what they should.

The notion that a government exists to protect the rights and property of those who ordain it is not just my opinion. It is a principle that goes back to Hobbes and to the philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Locke, Adam Smith, Bentham and Mills. This is why republics and constitutional monarchies are prevalent in the English speaking world.

Tell me, clyde. Do you think a government should order every aspect of people's lives? If the government can tell you to be nice to cats and dogs, can the government not tell you what to eat and wear?

ruveyn

It would come to me that being nice to cats and dogs would be "common sense". Whereas choosing one's clothing would be a personal choice. Yet i'll point out the case of Iran regarding clothing, just to play devil's advocate.

Oh and Ruveyn, Locke was also the same person who said that the government couldn't force you to rescue a person in need. Now let's test your humanity. Even without a government to tell you so, would you rescue said person? ( and yes that includes any harm you could come across while doing so)

I might risk myself for one of my family, but not for a stranger. And I would not lift a finger to help an enemy. For a stranger who I judged to be neutral, I would put in a call to 911 for help. I do not believe we have any duty to do good. We have only a negative duty not to do evil.

ruveyn

Let me suggest another aspect to the animal cruelty issue. Cruelty to animals often correlates with cruelty to humans. To take an extreme example, serial killers almost always have a history of cruelty to animals prior to their first human kill. Several psychiatric disorders include cruelty to animals in their definitions, including Oppositional Defiant Disorder (per the DSM-IV TR).

So if one role of government is to protect its citizens from each other (per Hobbes, et al.), then acting to find and punish/treat those people who commit acts of cruelty to animals could be seen as a benefit to human society.

To put this in more concrete terms, how would you all feel about having a neighbor who finds stray or homeless animals and then tortures or kills them? Would you feel safe with such a person as a neighbor? Or would you prefer that the person be evaluated and treated as medically appropriate?

I would suggest that we can judge a society by the way that it deals with those who are vulnerable. I would argue that by protecting the animals that we help to create an environment where the welfare of the disabled and weak is not just brushed to one side.

This is interesting. You propose that cruelty to animals is a kind of early warning of cruelty to humans. You might have something there. This position, at least, puts protection of human interests first. I am not sure I agree with your proposal, but neither can I dismiss it out of hand.

ruveyhn

A nobler thing topic

The measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable, therby setting a good example.

Government's role is not to be good? I think out of good comes justice, a more abstract and difficult concept than literal laws and codes, from which justice grew. Society needs both to grow and be a better place for its citizens, and other sentient beings.

Still evolving. And I think we have a duty to take care of those who need our protection. Maybe this is sentimental, but it is a far more responsible role. In the larger sense it is a bystander issue: If I am only for myself, what are the larger implications? If I see someone or some animal being mistreated, do I look the other way? The shoe could be on the other foot.

I will intervene if I see anything untoward. I have studied genocides in history for 42 years and i have learned empathy, responsibility and decency from this knowledge. Idealism? Yes.

People like you are the reason people with Aspergers get stereotyped as sociopathic killers.

I think it is unreasonable to insult ruveyn for what he wrote. While Sslaxx might not like ruveyn, it is not right to be insulting. Insulting, flaming and being nasty is against the wrong planet rules. I would say that the wrong planet has very few rules, but those rules which do exist are for a good reason and help us make the best of WP.

I think that a lot of people (NTs and others) will turn a blind eye to serious crimes, many people do not want to report crimes to the police or give evidence in court as they are fearful or do not want to get involved.

I once knew a policeman who said that the quickest way to get rid of a crowd was to say "did anyone see anything ?"

Nonsense. Who am I threatening?

Not doing something is one thing. Doing something is another.

No one is duty bound to put his life at risk for another.

ruveyn

I disagree with ruveyn's veiws in this thread but I don't belive that calling him the reason for sterotypes of that sort is at all called for.

Actually, although I disagree with everything else I've seen Ruveyn write, I really have to commend his honesty on this one. Most people like to imagine that if it came down to it they'd be heroic and put themselves out for someone else. And yet, statistically, most people do just the opposite. Meaning that most people have a wrong idea of what they're really like. Most people think they're heroes, yet most of us are anything but.

Ruveyn is honest enough to know that he'd not risk himself for a stranger, and that sort of honesty is refreshing. Which means I'm more inclined to believe that he really would risk his life for a family member or friend, given that he seems to honestly know himself.

I like that.