John Wilkes Booth

i'm pointing out the discrepancy between a law protecting humans from harm via other humans which actually serves a useful purpose (promoting civil behavior and cohesion within society) vs a law meant to make people feel good. somehow the cat has better legal protection than a human in this one case yet in almost every other case is treated as a piece of property with no right to govern itself.


once again we're talking about rights and what qualifies an entity for said rights. it's fine to say animals should have rights but the fact is they don't in most of our interactions with them. we only afford certain domesticated pets 'rights' to arbitrarily protect the feelings of their owners and other animal lovers. We aren't serious about giving them rights/autonomy and thus it is hard to take any discussion of their 'rights' seriously imo.



'you're saying nothing here. batlord seemed to get my point, so don't pretend there isn't one. if you choose not to address it that's on you. roll another joint and return to your routine.

John Wilkes Booth

either am i and i will openly admit it as well. but i think there is something to asking these questions. it moves the zeitgeist forward. the general consensus gradually changes and as a result the people who really run **** are forced to change strategy.

GuD

You're making this out to only be about the people and missing the point- it's not just to protect how we feel about the cat being kicked it's about how the cat feels about being kicked. Gee, what a concept... Extending our species' gift of empathy passed ourselves... whodduhthunkit


And once again I'm saying all animals should have the same rights. If you're only saying this of people who saw the video and then proceed to eat meat or whatever then sure. But my entire premise this whole time has been that we need to treat all animals with respect, not just the ones traditionally raised to be eaten. I've made that pretty clear multiple times.

What? This: "We aren't serious about giving them rights/autonomy and thus it is hard to take any discussion of their 'rights' seriously imo."?
If so I refer you to my previous paragraph and would appreciate not being lumped in with those who "aren't serious". And if that last sentence is some sort of quip you can shove it. My indulgences don't exclude me from being able to have a discussion like this nor do they discredit my arguments.

John Wilkes Booth

fair enough.i tend to take the point of view that laws are supposed to be for the benefit of society. do you agree? if so let me ask you this... do you believe society will really benefit from this kind of law? and if so, then how?




but the point being made in the video and the point i was reiterating is about the societal hypocrisy concerning how we treat animals. it is all well and good that you are a full fledged animal lover with an internally consistent set of ethics but the majority of people don't abide by your rules. so your purity doesn't actually solve this problem, though it is commendable.



sorry but your hostile tone required me to take a shot at you. don't take this **** so serious.

GuD

I consider animals a part of society and so having laws that protect them obviously benefits them. I feel as though humans as a species tend to have this mentality that the world is only about them and thus forget that we share the planet with quite a few other critters as well. In regards to how humans might benefit- my experience is that empathizing and making the effort to understand another living creature's perspective is stimulating in a sort of intellectual way. If society suddenly decided to empathize with and respect an animal's rights I'd imagine they'd have an easier time doing the same for other people. One can dream... but to be honest I ain't bettin' on it.


I agree, most people are very hypocritical about animals. I see that as an opportunity to plea my case more than I do a reason to be cynical.


Lol, alright I can see that's fair.

John Wilkes Booth

i guess that is where we part ways. i don't see animals as part of society because being part of society means active participation and responsibility. animals are incapable of fulfilling these tasks and thus it is useless to try to include them as active members of our society.

GuD

I elaborated on my post a bit, not sure if you got those last parts before responding. Either way, animals' inability to participate in society isn't a justification for how they are treated. And does your opinion extend to people? If a person is not participating and being responsible in society are they then unworthy of rights? If so, are homeless people essentially walking punching bags? Granted, plenty of people who don't fit your bill are capable of fitting it and choose not to. But there are some who legitimately can't- the severely mentally disabled, for example.

John Wilkes Booth

i'm not sure you know what i mean by actively participating.

for instance it makes sense to protect people from abuse because it promotes social cohesion. homeless people aren't exempt from this. if they abuse someone they are accountable and if they are abused their abuser is accountable. this is what i mean by participation. participants are afforded protection/rights in exchange for their not violating the rights of others. if they are severely mentally handicapped in a way that makes them unable to meet these requirements then they are likely to be committed to an institution, which is essentially stripping them of many of the rights normal members of society enjoy. animals aren't a part of this because no action by an animal can be taken as a serious transgression to society. they can't abide by any of our restrictions voluntarily so there is really no benefit in trying to afford them rights or protections, other than to protect the conscious of other humans.

GuD

The animals benefit from having rights. Are you saying you're opposed to that because they can't participate in society? We have laws that protect the environment, some of which I'm sure don't have any impact on what constitutes as society in your opinion. But it's kinda cool to live in a world that still has rain forests, dontchya think?

John Wilkes Booth

that's fair enough.. my thing is when a law is actually counter productive towards society for the sake of being nice to animals then i think it's a bit ridiculous. for example.. cat kicker goes to jail for a year. what does this accomplish? deterrence? unlikely. this is the kind of mindless teenage crime that won't respond to such efforts. justice? maybe in name but once again justice is being heavy handed in this one particular case due to a fetish people have for cute animals. keeping a threat away from society? hardly. on top of this it's well known that sending people to jail very often turns them into more hardened criminals than they were when they got sent in. this doesn't mean never send anyone to jail. it means be smart about it. if the person is a serious criminal threat then maybe they need to go to jail. if they kick a cat then maybe they need some therapy or something... i dunno, but jail certainly isn't going to fix them. it's just vicarious revenge. and it leaves us worse off than where we started. why would we behave this way?