Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: 'Excercise?'

Let me put it this way: Pure reason in thought is a great ideal; however, and this is the biggest problem I always had with Rand, pure reason tends to make one a cold-hearted bitch. I believe that there is some degree of objective morality. That morality tells me that putting a couple of dogs, driven nuts by mistreatment, in a ring to kill each other for the amusement of some sick bastards is wrong, and anyone who disagrees should have their eyeballs mutilated with icepicks.Indeed. Gato should listen to the title track of Rush's Hemispheres and check the lyrics out.

I have. Love Rush. I always interpreted it to mean reason's application into the individual life, however, versus politics. Politics should ALWAYS be governed by reason, considering that you're regulating the actions of others.I both agree and disagree with you, because though you're right, it can also be taken way too fucking far.

How's that?Barlow already talked about cold-hearted governments...basically that.

Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: 'Excercise?'

Let me put it this way: Pure reason in thought is a great ideal; however, and this is the biggest problem I always had with Rand, pure reason tends to make one a cold-hearted bitch. I believe that there is some degree of objective morality. That morality tells me that putting a couple of dogs, driven nuts by mistreatment, in a ring to kill each other for the amusement of some sick bastards is wrong, and anyone who disagrees should have their eyeballs mutilated with icepicks.Indeed. Gato should listen to the title track of Rush's Hemispheres and check the lyrics out.

I have. Love Rush. I always interpreted it to mean reason's application into the individual life, however, versus politics. Politics should ALWAYS be governed by reason, considering that you're regulating the actions of others.I both agree and disagree with you, because though you're right, it can also be taken way too fucking far.

How's that?Barlow already talked about cold-hearted governments...basically that.

You mean, a government that doesn't offer federal welfare to the sickly, elderly, and disadvantaged?

Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: 'Excercise?'

Let me put it this way: Pure reason in thought is a great ideal; however, and this is the biggest problem I always had with Rand, pure reason tends to make one a cold-hearted bitch. I believe that there is some degree of objective morality. That morality tells me that putting a couple of dogs, driven nuts by mistreatment, in a ring to kill each other for the amusement of some sick bastards is wrong, and anyone who disagrees should have their eyeballs mutilated with icepicks.Indeed. Gato should listen to the title track of Rush's Hemispheres and check the lyrics out.

I have. Love Rush. I always interpreted it to mean reason's application into the individual life, however, versus politics. Politics should ALWAYS be governed by reason, considering that you're regulating the actions of others.I both agree and disagree with you, because though you're right, it can also be taken way too fucking far.

How's that?Barlow already talked about cold-hearted governments...basically that.

You mean, a government that doesn't offer federal welfare to the sickly, elderly, and disadvantaged?As good an example as any, sure.

Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Kalupakki wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: 'Excercise?'

Let me put it this way: Pure reason in thought is a great ideal; however, and this is the biggest problem I always had with Rand, pure reason tends to make one a cold-hearted bitch. I believe that there is some degree of objective morality. That morality tells me that putting a couple of dogs, driven nuts by mistreatment, in a ring to kill each other for the amusement of some sick bastards is wrong, and anyone who disagrees should have their eyeballs mutilated with icepicks.Indeed. Gato should listen to the title track of Rush's Hemispheres and check the lyrics out.

I have. Love Rush. I always interpreted it to mean reason's application into the individual life, however, versus politics. Politics should ALWAYS be governed by reason, considering that you're regulating the actions of others.I both agree and disagree with you, because though you're right, it can also be taken way too fucking far.

How's that?Barlow already talked about cold-hearted governments...basically that.

You mean, a government that doesn't offer federal welfare to the sickly, elderly, and disadvantaged?As good an example as any, sure.

Something like that is for the people to vote on. You can't just impose it on them against their consent.

ttmaniac wrote: so have your discussion someplace else.

No.

ttmaniac wrote: Make me fuck off...get me banned and ya won't read it anymore....clockwork ass candy...the movie your name brings to mind sucks worse than you so YOU can fuck off limey!I don't know of any Americans that use the words "Sod Off" or "Limey"

Animals are entitled to rights, and protection from cruelty in specific. Any creature that has the ability to feel extreme amounts of pain deserves the right not to be put through torture or abuse. This obvious fact should be undeniable. Any animal with the ability to suffer greatly deserves sanctuary from extremely cruel and treacherous actions.

Any creature that has the mind to and takes the action to protect and care for it's own offspring shows the qualities deserving of respect and protection from cruelty. The fact that animals think and act on feeding, bathing, raising, and defending their offspring from danger is proof of them being lives full of mind and emotion enough worth rights, respect, and protection from the foulest of human intentions.

Aside from the rights of the animal itself, events such as dog fighting should be illegal for the protection and the betterment of ourselves. The abuse and violence of the dog fighting world creates monsters out of most of these dogs, wich in turn creates a threat to the public. All too often have these abused fighting dogs(pitbulls in particular) gottin loose and ravaged, and in many cases killed people walking down a street. Not always, but normally the victims are children. If these dogs had been treated like pets rather than as monsters, thousands of lives could have been spared over the years.

Animal cruelty isn't only a danger to animals, but it is a danger to people. This makes animal rights even more or a righteous cause.

NWH, you and I have more in common than I realized. We both scare the shit out of people when they realize we're intelligent.

Gatocamera wrote: OF COURSE it is sick, but you can't just impose your arbitrary emotional whims upon a society by law.
At least let the states make laws against it. But leave federal government out of the picture.
I think generally animal cruelty cases are in fact matters of state law, rather than federal law. I can't ever remember hearing of an animal cruelty case tried in federal court, can you?

Ninja can't impose his own emotional whims upon a society by law (thank god), but the elected representatives of the people of that society can. And if more than 50% of us think a dog's right to be spared from cruelty are more significant than an owner's rights to inflict cruelty -- and if nevertheless more than 50% of us love hamburgers more than we hate slaughterhouses -- then so be it, and god bless the vox populi.

zgodt wrote: Gatocamera wrote: OF COURSE it is sick, but you can't just impose your arbitrary emotional whims upon a society by law.
At least let the states make laws against it. But leave federal government out of the picture.
I think generally animal cruelty cases are in fact matters of state law, rather than federal law. I can't ever remember hearing of an animal cruelty case tried in federal court, can you?

Ninja can't impose his own emotional whims upon a society by law (thank god), but the elected representatives of the people of that society can. And if more than 50% of us think a dog's right to be spared from cruelty are more significant than an owner's rights to inflict cruelty -- and if nevertheless more than 50% of us love hamburgers more than we hate slaughterhouses -- then so be it, and god bless the vox populi.

I think there were a few cases, but I could be wrong. I'll look it up.

Meh. Democracy is good, but it shouldn't be completely unrestricted. Minority rights, as I recall, wouldn't be neccesary if a minority weren't being oppressed by a majority.

Gatocamera wrote: Cows feel pain as well. What right have we to slaughter them, if they have a 'right' to not be tortured? Murder is ok, but not torture? And again with zoos. By your arguments, we shouldn't be able to detain them against their will, either.


The overabundance in wich our society slaughters the cows, and the inhumane ways in wich they are treated at slaughter houses is atrocious. Somthing needs to be done to better this situation, because it is appaling to see how the cows are treated and to see how overindulgent we are as a people. When it comes to freely fattening ourselves up and disrespecting life by eating food as if it's just a hobby rather than respect and conserve what we have, the state that we are in is sad and needs to be bettered.

However, it IS human to eat meat. It is a natural part of who we are. Just as tigers and wolves hunt to eat, it is natural that a human would. However, tigers and wolves don't torture their prey. Tigers and wolves don't abuse their prey for the fun of it, they simply kill to survive. In an ideal society, we would hunt our food to survive, rather than package and process animals that were abused and kept in unsanitary and horribly unconfortable surroundings before inevitable slaughter.

And as for the zoo thing, I see both good and bad. It is sad to see animals caged and locked up like this, but many zoos and programs within are used for the betterment of the future of the animal as a species. For example, many zoos have mating programs to preserve and build the future of indangered animal species. Also, zoos are a good way of introducing children to animals at a young age in order to teach them to grow up to have an appreciation and respect of animals. It's a way of taking a few to help the majority. It is sad, but does have a purpose for helping people to understand animals

Gatocamera wrote:
Dogs becoming monsters and attacking people... this would be the responsibility of the owner, and the owner would be held accountable for the dog's actions.



It's the owners responsibility by law(and a damn good law mind you) to not abuse and misuse animals in order to see that if they do get loose, they won't be monstrous killing machines.

Gatocamera wrote:
You have no logical basis upon which to construct the notion of 'animal rights' without also supporting an immediate release of all animals from capitivity and making animal slaughter for meat consumption illegal.



I couldn't completely support the release of all animals from zoos, because animals brought up and raised in captivity are greatly statiscally known to not be able to adjust, and will probably die of starvation in the wild. However, I could support not bringing any NEW animals into captivity, unless it's on the grounds of rebuilding an indangered species.

As for the banning of animal slaughter, well i am all for making the conditions as much better for the animals as possible. I wish we could go back to being a hunter gatherer kind of society, but I know that's not going to happen. We ARE meat eaters, and we will continue to eat meat. I NEVER said animals are superior or evan equal to humans, but the FACT still remains that they deserve to NOT be tortured and deserve a sanitary environment. These things can and should be done for animals, but that dosn't mean humans have to stop eating meat.

Animals can be treated with respect and sheltered from abuse whilst humans remain eaters of meat. It's not hard to understand. I'm not saying we can't be humans, what I'm saying is that we must be humane.

Gatocamera wrote: OF COURSE it is sick, but you can't just impose your arbitrary emotional whims upon a society by law.
At least let the states make laws against it. But leave federal government out of the picture.

If it is DEFFINATELY sick, as you just said it was, than it should DEFFINATELY not be condoned. Some things are purely and simply straight up wrong, and they should never be stould for. This is one of them, and I don't even know why it is being debated. There are some things that I would hope all rational, sane humans as a race agree and understand are obviously wrong and inexcusable, and these things(when heartless physical abuse is involved) should never be allowed.

Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: NWH, you and I have more in common than I realized. We both scare the shit out of people when they realize we're intelligent. I'll go ahead and take that as a compliment.

NinjaWithHooves! wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: NWH, you and I have more in common than I realized. We both scare the shit out of people when they realize we're intelligent. I'll go ahead and take that as a compliment.

It is. As I've never seen you be anything but a huge troll, your post reminded me of this incident.

Chef Shad McBiscuitBarlow wrote: NinjaWithHooves! wrote: Asshole McBiscuitBarlow wrote: NWH, you and I have more in common than I realized. We both scare the shit out of people when they realize we're intelligent. I'll go ahead and take that as a compliment.

It is. As I've never seen you be anything but a huge troll, your post reminded me of this incident.