Political Crossfire Forums

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Animals are property just like anything else, I don't see how they could possibly be different from you owning your truck.
You have a right to manage property the way you see fit, so the animal owners should be able to butcher any of their animals, whether it be a cow, chicken, dog or cat.

Now, I know what the animal rights activists are going to say, so I have one question. Given that it was ignored before I am assuming it was a yes. But I'll ask again for kicks.

If someone injured or killed your animal(s) would you sue them for property damage and/or loss?

Eternal · Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 2055 Location: Somewhere

What about a child's pet dog? Imagine if you suffered a home invasion, and the criminals tied your family up and forced your young daughter to watch them torture her pet dog? Do you think she'd feel the same way afterwoods if it was one of her dolls they tortured?

Animals are different. They are living, breathing creatures and are our relationship with them is complex. Why is it do you suppose that many nations have animals on the coats of arms? If their relationship to us is so insignificant why put them on such significant symbols?

Whether your blind ideology of libertarianism allows it or not, their does exist a primal love/hate relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We both admire and fear other animals and that relationship is universal. The same cannot be said for a truck.

Cheers, Eternal

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

I would be far more disturbed to watch someone burn my money than my animal. That's my prefrence. You have yours. But when it comes down to it, like money, animals do not have rights. They are just things, devoid of reason and morals and consequently of the same moral significance as a rock, and, like rocks, are bought and sold. Now they may have emotional significance to you, but my Guinness has emotional significance for me. But again, this is my prefrence. You have yours.

DarkMerlin · Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: I would be far more disturbed to watch someone burn my money than my animal. That's my prefrence. You have yours. But when it comes down to it, like money, animals do not have rights. They are just things, devoid of reason and morals and consequently of the same moral significance as a rock, and, like rocks, are bought and sold. Now they may have emotional significance to you, but my Guinness has emotional significance for me. But again, this is my prefrence. You have yours.

John, I've said it before, but while your ideology may desire it to be so, "reason" is not a binary quality, that you either have or you don't. It is a spectrum, and while other animals aren't as high up on that spectrum as most human beings, to say that they are "devoid of reason" is simply not supported by the facts. In the end, the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative, not qualitative. I've posted links discussing this idea before, so you can dig them up.

JLChrista · Joined: 05 Jul 2005 Posts: 74

Yep, I catch heck all the time because, though I love my dog and the ones before him, his job is to buy me time if we are ever invaded. His job is to buy me time and/or die trying and I won't be jumping in to save him, I'll be running for the gun to save my kids, my friends, and/or myself depending on who is present at the time. I'll love him right up till his death, but he has a job and though so far none of my dogs have had to protect in such a situation; it would/will be his job to die trying.

My parents had a friend that got herself really badly hurt trying to protect her beagle from some burglars. The dog was barking and nipping at their feet and they started kicking it, she screamed and threw herself on the dog to save it (it did die anyway from injuries already incurred by the kicking) and she ended up in the hospital for weeks with mid-body damage from being kicked. I was pretty young, but even then my first thought was "What! you tried to save the dog? Why? You should have been getting the heck out of the house while he bought you time to do so."

Property, yes. Purpose, yes. Till then I'll love him lots.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

One either can reason or one cannot. I cannot see how it could be any different.

DarkMerlin · Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: One either can reason or one cannot. I cannot see how it could be any different.

Saying it doesn't make it true. Just because you "can't see" doesn't mean the facts support your position.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21646 Location: Minnesota

DarkMerlin wrote: John Galt wrote: One either can reason or one cannot. I cannot see how it could be any different.

Saying it doesn't make it true. Just because you "can't see" doesn't mean the facts support your position.

Well, your position makes no sense. Even if there was a scale, which there is not, there is still theability to parse everything into reasoning and unreasoning. And so it will be humans on one side and everything else on the other (which includes humanoid extremely mentally retarded people (think Terry Shaivo) who are not reasoning beings and are therefore devoid of rights).

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

Wolverine, to answer you question, if someone harmed or killed my pet cats* I would seek revenge the same way I would do so had they harmed a family member or friend.

Money could buy me another cat. But somehow it just would never be the same.

Society teaches us that Animals belong to us, but in a philosophical sense I don't believe we can ever own another being. Animals are beings but with perhaps a lesser developed consciousness.

* I'm not what some would call a 'cat person' but I've come to form a bond with them over time, the same way you one does with family members.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Wolverine wrote: Animals are property just like anything else, I don't see how they could possibly be different from you owning your truck.
You have a right to manage property the way you see fit, so the animal owners should be able to butcher any of their animals, whether it be a cow, chicken, dog or cat.

Now, I know what the animal rights activists are going to say, so I have one question. Given that it was ignored before I am assuming it was a yes. But I'll ask again for kicks.

If someone injured or killed your animal(s) would you sue them for property damage and/or loss?

Pets are property, and they are something more than just property.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

DarkMerlin wrote: John Galt wrote: I would be far more disturbed to watch someone burn my money than my animal. That's my prefrence. You have yours. But when it comes down to it, like money, animals do not have rights. They are just things, devoid of reason and morals and consequently of the same moral significance as a rock, and, like rocks, are bought and sold. Now they may have emotional significance to you, but my Guinness has emotional significance for me. But again, this is my prefrence. You have yours.

John, I've said it before, but while your ideology may desire it to be so, "reason" is not a binary quality, that you either have or you don't. It is a spectrum, and while other animals aren't as high up on that spectrum as most human beings, to say that they are "devoid of reason" is simply not supported by the facts. In the end, the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative, not qualitative. I've posted links discussing this idea before, so you can dig them up.

Some of the differences are just quantitative, others are qualitative. the main qualitative difference is a sense of self. Chimps (and possibly parrots and dolphins) are the only creatures besides humans with this cognitive ability.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

perdidochas wrote:

Some of the differences are just quantitative, others are qualitative. the main qualitative difference is a sense of self. Chimps (and possibly parrots and dolphins) are the only creatures besides humans with this cognitive ability.

Proof plz.

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Some of the differences are just quantitative, others are qualitative. the main qualitative difference is a sense of self. Chimps (and possibly parrots and dolphins) are the only creatures besides humans with this cognitive ability.

Proof plz.

Yeah, it doesn't sit right with me either. Proof please.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Infinite911911 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Some of the differences are just quantitative, others are qualitative. the main qualitative difference is a sense of self. Chimps (and possibly parrots and dolphins) are the only creatures besides humans with this cognitive ability.

Proof plz.

I think I exaggerated with the parrots.

geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm

[url=http://www.earthtrust.org/delphis.html]

www.earthtrust.org/delphis.html[/url]

George W Bush · Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Are animals property?

Wolverine wrote: Animals are property just like anything else, I don't see how they could possibly be different from you owning your truck.
You have a right to manage property the way you see fit, so the animal owners should be able to butcher any of their animals, whether it be a cow, chicken, dog or cat.

Now, I know what the animal rights activists are going to say, so I have one question. Given that it was ignored before I am assuming it was a yes. But I'll ask again for kicks.

If someone injured or killed your animal(s) would you sue them for property damage and/or loss?

If it was intentional, i would have to do something irrational like kill them or their family.
The point is, that just beacause animals are "property" doesnt mean everyone shares the same magnitude of value for property.
you may put more emphasis on your truck, than another person putting more emphasis on their magazine collection.
Like i said before, i view my animals as an extension of family so I will react as if someone killed a member of my family. Go ahead and test me.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Eternal wrote: What about a child's pet dog? Imagine if you suffered a home invasion, and the criminals tied your family up and forced your young daughter to watch them torture her pet dog? Do you think she'd feel the same way afterwoods if it was one of her dolls they tortured?

Animals are different. They are living, breathing creatures and are our relationship with them is complex. Why is it do you suppose that many nations have animals on the coats of arms? If their relationship to us is so insignificant why put them on such significant symbols?

Whether your blind ideology of libertarianism allows it or not, their does exist a primal love/hate relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. We both admire and fear other animals and that relationship is universal. The same cannot be said for a truck.

Cheers, Eternal
I agree with you and perdidochas. Animals are property, but they are something more.

More point being, I have read the animals rights activists say that animals are not property, and that you should not be allowed to do what you want with them. But, it would be rather hypocritical if they pressed property loss/damage charges if thier pet was hurt or killed.

Ch33kY
Quote: Wolverine, to answer you question, if someone harmed or killed my pet cats* I would seek revenge the same way I would do so had they harmed a family member or friend.

Money could buy me another cat. But somehow it just would never be the same.

Society teaches us that Animals belong to us, but in a philosophical sense I don't believe we can ever own another being. Animals are beings but with perhaps a lesser developed consciousness.

* I'm not what some would call a 'cat person' but I've come to form a bond with them over time, the same way you one does with family members.
Well, if don;t think you have a right to kill someone if they killed your cat. That is what the court system is for.

You can't philosophicaly not own an animal, and still feel the need to press charges if that animal is hurt or killed.
You can't sue for something that is not yours.

George W Bush
Quote: If it was intentional, i would have to do something irrational like kill them or their family.
The point is, that just beacause animals are "property" doesnt mean everyone shares the same magnitude of value for property.
you may put more emphasis on your truck, than another person putting more emphasis on their magazine collection.
Like i said before, i view my animals as an extension of family so I will react as if someone killed a member of my family. Go ahead and test me.
You can look forward to a long stay in a 8'x10' prison cell if you killed someone for killing Fido.
A human life (for the most part, excluding tyrants and such) is more important than an animals, there is no way you would ever be able to justify shooting someone for shooting your pet after the fact.

BastionOfSanity · Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: Are animals property?

Wolverine wrote: Animals are property just like anything else,
So, you're advocating slavery of homo sapiens there, I see.
Quote:
I don't see how they could possibly be different from you owning your truck.
Is your truck alive? Can your truck think or feel?
Quote:
You have a right to manage property the way you see fit, so the animal owners should be able to butcher any of their animals, whether it be a cow, chicken, dog or cat.

The Libertarian Party: We embrace torture and brutal murder.

Quote:
Now, I know what the animal rights activists are going to say,
YOU HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS?!?!
Quote: so I have one question. Given that it was ignored before I am assuming it was a yes. But I'll ask again for kicks.

If someone injured or killed your animal(s) would you sue them for property damage and/or loss?

No. I would probably burn down their house, unless they had a good reason to injure or kill my animal(s).

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10232

Property lends itself to "ownership". If pets are not your property, someone stealing that non-property (since there's no ownership) would be fine.

The hundreds and hundreds of cattle and horse thieves in the Old West died for nothing then - them Cattle weren't the property of anyone!

I don't think so... pets are bought and the responsibility of ownership is created. Certainly if that pet was killed or tortured, one's attachment to that pet would not be the same as an inanimate object. However, the pet is still the owners property.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Property lends itself to "ownership". If pets are not your property, someone stealing that non-property (since there's no ownership) would be fine.

The hundreds and hundreds of cattle and horse thieves in the Old West died for nothing then - them Cattle weren't the property of anyone!

I don't think so... pets are bought and the responsibility of ownership is created. Certainly if that pet was killed or tortured, one's attachment to that pet would not be the same as an inanimate object. However, the pet is still the owners property.

I think that's the consensus on here.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

BastionOfSanity wrote:
So, you're advocating slavery of homo sapiens there, I see.
And you just made that up.

Quote: Is your truck alive? Can your truck think or feel?
Nope, but it is property.

Quote: The Libertarian Party: We embrace torture and brutal murder.
Not really, last I checked you can't murder an animal.

Quote: No. I would probably burn down their house, unless they had a good reason to injure or kill my animal(s).
Lookin' forward to the 8'x10' cell?