Is not cruelty?

1. 61

   JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years ago

   Keeping pet is fun! However, do we think it is against the freedom of the animal itself? Is it OK to snatch any one's liberty?
   
       Jyoti kothari

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible says we're the masters of the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, and all the creeping things that creep on the earth...or something like that. 
      
      Animals have no fundamental rights.  They are property...chattel to use the legally proper term.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Another rough fr*ckin day in the mean old city, Nickny?   
         
         Man...

         replyreport
   2. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Just think if we gave all the animals their freedom, I'd have to give up steak.  That would be very bad...charred mammals flesh....so good.

      replyreport
2. 0

   C. C. Riterposted 15 years ago

   Well, this is a controversial subject. But look at it this way, what price liberty. How would you like to live in the wild? It's tough out there. If you aren't a predator then you are prey. And even if you are a predator you go hungry more often than not. One can get injured bringing down a prey animal too and there is no mercy in the wild. The weak fall prey to the strong and an injured animal will be eaten by something if not by the infection coursing through it's blood. The most successful predator is the Falcon, and it still uses up a lot of energy to find food.
   On the other hand, I don't believe that one should capture any wild life to raise as a 'Pet'. Leave them be. My animals are all born in captivity and loved by my family and well taken care of, physically and medically speaking. My Parrots were all hatched right here in America.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You left me scared to go camping. [laugh face]

      replyreport
3. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Nick-
   That would just inconvenience you tooooo much wouldn't it?  lol  I like my filet mignon myself... Gonna very well bet you've never seen an animal slaughtered, tho.
   
   (Some reason that you want to be the last person here posting?)
   
   
   A decent answer (yawn) would be that most pets are animals that have been domesticated long ago.  They live in harmony and symbiosis with us for reasons that benefit the animal as well as us.  So it isn't about a lack of freedom, necessarily.
   
   As we are (supposedly) the the thinking, higher order species, however, animal abuse or neglect is, yes, a criminal act.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is a criminal act in SOME jurisdictions, but it's a "malum prohibitum", not "malum in se."

      replyreport
4. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   In Iowa City, IA, several stupid @sses were prosecuted for bashing 10-12 cats heads in on a random spree of joy (made me sick).  Another was prosecuted for willingly running over a female possums and their babies for fun...
   
   Then there is the well known fact that murderers are likely to have abused or killed animals in their past or childhood--looked at as evidence in violent behavior.
   
   This is ALL completely different than the keeping and killing of animals for food and is looked at completely differently in most societies.
   
   So, counselor? 
   
   And what about cultures that do hold certain animals to be sacred--oh, say, a foreign national living in NYC?  Have they no protection, lol?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      A man may dispose of his private property as he pleases.  Far be from me to judge a person's use of his property....his "right to choose" or his "right to privacy" as it were.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         This is cruel. The human race is mighty and use its might as right. Poor animals are unable to protest!!!
         Should we not stop this cruelty against animals? Should we not rethink again?
         Jyoti Kothari

         replyreport
5. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Somehow I don't think that quite works.
   
   Especially if  NO property is involved or if  the animal involved is another's property.
   
   The cases I mention are real cases and the perpetrators were prosecuted.
   
   Hmmmmm.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I'm only referring to cases where the "perpetrators" own the animals.  The animals are their chattel at common law.  If it is not their property than the actual (or constructive) owners of the animal have a common law action in trespass to chattel or conversion against the "perpetrators."  If the animal has no owner--i.e. a wild animal--then a person that excercises control over that animal (unless he be trespassing on the land of another) effectively owns the animal, and is free to dispose of it as he please.  What he does, is between him and his conscience.  It is NOT a matter of public concern.  These criminal prosecutions are ridiculous and the laws should be repealed.  Yet another example of gov't intruding on our Liberty...and yet somehow mutilating fetuses is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment...go figure.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         There is a huge difference between "exercising control" and depravity.  Period.  And of course there is a public concern there.
         
         And the right women need to have control over their lives and bodies, plus the debate over conception as the beginning of human life is an entirely different argument.
         
         This is an 'argument' about apples, oranges...and then figs... way out in left field.

         replyreport
6. 0

   pgrundyposted 15 years ago

   Dogs and cats don't survive well in the wild, they depend on people even when they don't live in a household with people.
   
   Every once in awhile someone around here gets caught keeping a wolf. It's illegal. Even though starlings have become a nuisance it is illegal to keep one of those too. Most people don't know this, but starlings can talk like parrots and parakeets. They are related to mynahs, so they can mimic the human voice, but they don't do it in th wild, only if you capture them.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You highlight some VERY problematic issues with our legal system--the criminalization of every activity and the chisaling away of our Liberties--not to mention the SQUANDERING of scare public resources for enforcement.
      
      We ALREADY have common law remedies for people who keep wolves:  1.  Nuisance and 2.  Strict Liability for the keeping of wild animals.  These are civil remedies--i.e. between one injured individual and another--not the community and some malfactor.  We don't need criminals laws like the ones you described--law enforcement officials and the criminal justice system have a hard enough time protecting us against REAL crimes.  Now they have to be distracted by stupities like the keeping of birds and wild dogs because of the howling of activists who are more concerned about protecting lawn-destroying birds than the public against violent, hardened criminals.  It's outrageous!  I should add that the above-mentioned civil remedies are much MORE advantageous to individuals since they can collect monetary damages (potentially millions!) from the malfactor, whereas victims of crime get no compensatory, incidental or punitive damages and very often they watch the perpetrator walk due to some technicality.  It's EASIER, as a matter of judicial procedure, to find someone liable in a civil action than to find someone guilty of a crime.  Furthermore in civil actions the parties pay for their own legal fees and court costs--not the taxpayers! 
      
      These animals laws are an abomination.  One day they will be repealed, God willing!

      replyreport
7. 60

   bwpotmanposted 15 years ago

   Actually you should come to the UK where we now have the Animal Welfare Bill... and not before time. If you keep animals you should have a moral and legal responsibility to look after them. I can neither condone or understand an attitude that places animals, living sentient beings on the same level as a sofa or a doorknob.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It's an attitude that has existed for thousands of years and was codified by the common law of your once glorious nation.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Yes, but that same common law allowed women no property rights in the days of Jane Austen as well, but darn!  Looks like I own stuff, so I guess there is this tendency to move on while still holding on to what is pure in human history and universal thought.
   
   It might be harder philosophically, but you can't be scar't!!
   
   (Really sorry, couldn't resist!) 

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Lita, you actually highlighted the beauty of common law, which is its ability to slowly adapt to the times through hundreds of cases and real, street-level situations as opposed to statutes imposed upon us from on high by short-sighted and interest-leaden legislatures.  My real concern is hyper-regulation and the often unthinking imposition of laws for the sake of "change" to we-know-not-what.  My argument against animal rights laws doesn't primarily have to do with animals or history, if you read my more extended comment above; nevertheless, we all too often ignore or discard much of value for the sake of being "progressive" when in fact there is really regression.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Well, yes, exactly.  The thing is, those laws can be changed not just to suit 'progressive' interests, Nick, but 'conservative' interests (or might I say reactionary here in AZ, ie, the power our Sheriff Arpaio has been given over prisoners and the excessive fining/jailing for even minor infractions, and the blue hair's 'victim's' rights advocacy--perceived here as conservative issues) as well.  Making it (at least for me) another case of just 'regulatory' stupidity or just human stupidity.
   
   And I admit, I would not want to deal with the law on any real life basis, for from what I have witnessed, it is a mess. Luckily, as a writer, I can just make broad theoretical observations when I notice tendencies or perceived tendencies, lol..

   replyreport
10. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    I like Judge Judy.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       lol, knol,
       
       Pithy, very pithy.  And kinda funny...

       replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    I like for the logic and psychology. She is great.

    replyreport
12. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    This is true.  I think it takes a lot of confidence and knowledge of psychology to make judgments regarding other people--in short, wisdom.
    
    Me, I'd rather avoid mistakes or grave errors all together and try and make a difference by writing or some other form of influence!

    replyreport
13. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    But isn't by making judgements how one learns, the thing being not whether one is right or wrong, but what one learns from the commitment.

    replyreport
14. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Perhaps, knol, perhaps.  I'd just rather apply that kind of learning towards, say, a painting or a discussion, rather than a judgment on whether this man lives or dies, or goes to jail, etc., and be dead wrong (Oh, what have I learned?).
    
    I've seen in life, grave errors applied in the name of justice all done within the order of law.
    
    So, as much as I try to give Nickny here a hard time, ie, lol, I think perhaps a conservative lawyer (as long as he's not painting big graffiti Republican Causes out and about) is probably not a bad thing. 
    
    I just like to argue!

    replyreport
15. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "I just like to argue!" As do I just for fun.

    replyreport
16. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    I noticed! 

    replyreport
17. 68

    Anamika Sposted 15 years ago

    You can see that most people treat pets better than human beings. At the same time it is sad to see some perverts mistreat them too. But if you ask me i would say Pets should have their freedom or not depends on whether they would be safe that way. For example, normally Parrots wings are cut when they are sold. Even if they manage to escape from the cage the chances of them surviving are remote.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       "Pets should have their freedom."  What moral, ethical, or legal authority do you ground this proposition in?

       replyreport
       1. 71

          sunforgedposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          You are assuming that their is an authority ...the morals,ethics and laws of man are rarely authoritative or based in anything but self preservation
          
          A simple truth...that which is meant to fly..should fly, the amusement of one mammal regardless of the prevailing laws, religious beliefs or common conscience can not justify interference.
          
          Perhaps you wont go to jail, your pastor,priest, rabbi or imam may not judge you harshly...whatever bound book you hold that whispers the secrets of the universe to you may not prohibit it, and your neighbors wont gossip..nonetheless it is wrong to remove freedom from any life form
          
          You can claim consuming another life for sustenance is necessary and natural...but any argument that the selfish desires to hear or see a bird in a cage and to take their ability to fly is in anyway justified comes from a simple and unobservant mind
          
          and the previous statement that the bible gives man rights or ownership is arguable (dominion of the earth could just as easily be seen as a protective stewardship) ...but I liked the bible better when it was the epic of gilgamesh anyway -

          replyreport
18. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    I would very much like to see the match just above occur sometime, lol!

    replyreport
19. 56

    Dame Scribeposted 15 years ago

    I find the gov't making more and more laws and by-laws stepping on personal rights .. I figure it's because they have no life? lol .. jk...I love my dogs n hate tying them up...but neither do we like fences (cultural thing) but ..I let my dogs run amok for a few hours each day .. I respect their need to feel freedom n me dogs jus run n stop to slobber on me before running off ...they return knowing they got be tied up ...but...the gov't has the police and army if the people dont listen

    replyreport
20. 86

    Shil1978posted 15 years ago

    One of my hubs touched upon this issue briefly and I hold the same views now. In case of certain animals/birds, it can be described as cruelty. Birds as pets has been something that I've never personally liked or approved of. Caging birds certainly is cruel. You aren't helping the bird in any way by caging it.

    replyreport