To clarify, Unregistered Bull, you actually hate people who advocate legislation aimed at minimising the worst instances of animal suffering such as crate training or neglect which directly impacts the animal’s health (eg. leaving a pet in a hot car)?
You would hate those who propose legislation whose “unnecessary cruelty” justification you appear to agree with? (Note that this is not necessarily the same group who might advocate a hunting, fishing or meat-production ban. Note also that I eat meat, and don’t mind you playing games in the woods one bit.)
UB, can you provide a concrete example of how someone is attempting to destroy your way of life? I’m really trying to understand your motivation for your extreme overreactions, but you’re not making it easy.
Not hunting, not trapping, not practicing your religion, not enjoying your traditional sports, not medical testing. These are things that AR people want. It’s not about not giving adequate food or shelter OR other types of real neglect. It’s not about unneccessary cruelty. It’s about destroying people.
I have hunted. I have fished. I support trapping as a means of wildlife population control. I eat affordable meat. I live where raising animals for food contributes to the econmomy. I have lived places where feedlots, hog farms. and slaughterhouses are large employers. I enjoy rodeo. I enjoy safe medicine and medical procedures that were tested on animals. I know that Lefthand will lie and say that HSUS loves all these things as he has done in Great Debates. But they don’t. And their goal is to do away with these things.
I used to buy into the AR propaganda alot. I’m really a softy when it comes dogs. I hated castrating my show pigs when in 4-H. But back in the 90’s they were successful attempts to ban Mexican rodeo (some events were banned) in my state. This struck me as terrible success for bigots (because that was what it was). I can’t stand for that. And when the bigots come after me, selfishly, I take it even worse.
Ah, so to merely propose legislation aimed at curbing “real neglect and unnecessary suffering” is not “Animal Rights”? “Animal Rights” is proposing bans on hunting, testing and meat production? (Just so I know exactly who the Klansmen are here, you understand).
It’s rehtorical. I’ve had dogs ride in the back of the truck, and they all liked it. I took my brothers’ Sheltie recently she loved it too. What’s your question about the bullshit in Fast Food Nation?
Do you think, for example, that deliberately tripping bulls and horses while they’re running should be allowed, or is it unnecessary cruelty which should not?
Unneccessary to who? What’s cruel? What’s neglect? If it’s something that bunnyhugging dumbass from the EU feels is unnecessary or real neglect, then it probably isn’t. That’s why it’s best for the government not to even be invloved in the nonsense.
It seems to me that you’re excluding the reasonable middle position. Believing that animals have rights does not mean that you buy into every radical position of the animal rights movement. You want to hunt, you have as much right to do that as tha lion hunts the gazelle. But you don’t have the right to impose needless suffering or pain to the prey. You want to fish, go right ahead. I eat meat, too. But I expect that the animals be slaughtered as humanely as possible. Lab testing in animals is important and necessary, but within limits. If you have to give rats cancer in order to cure cancer in humans, great. But I believe that there are lab tests done that are neither useful nor compassionate. I have no problem with most rodeo events. I believe all of this while believing that animals have basic rights.
Furthermore, even if I felt that it was cruel or neglectful, forcing others to not do things that are commercially, scientifically, or culturally necessary would be wrong. Because it affects human welfare and human freedom.
Well, I’m just going on what you’ve already said: you appear to think that things like crate training are cruel. So I’m a little confused why you feel such animosity towards those who suggest that these instances of cruelty ought not to be allowed.
Living as we do in a democracy, what ought and ought not be allowed is determined by a vote. “Rights” are general principles which might help formulate those laws, but we can democratically decide which laws are enacted without them when all is said and done. What I wish to understand from you is whether you think I ought to be allowed to, say, torture, or roast in a car, or crate train, or deliberately trip up an animal (given that we can ban these things without banning your burgers or games in the woods).
None of this stops you from supporting legislation that attacks people solely because of what they do on a cultural basis or threatens livelihoods. And it all is a first step to the more radical notions. You’ve fallen for a trap. Lots of people do it. I hear hunters whine how trapping is cruel and trappers whine about how hunting with dogs is cruel. Gun hunters complain about bow hunters. The notion of cruelty or rights on a legislative level is too dangerous to accept. Because the end goal of the big pushers of AR is to come after the majority of animal uses.
On a personal level: My version of torture would be wrong. Your version might not even be seen as torture. Leaving an animal in the car with windows rolled up on hot day is improper behaviour. Tripping up an animal as means of a sporting event like rodeo or working domestic livestock is not wrong in the least.
Your from the UK. From Wales, I believe. You’ve had disasterous AR legislation in that country that has attacked cultural practices and practical practices that don’t harm humans in the least. How many of those do agree with? Were you anti-fox hunting? Did you support the ban of leg hold trapping? What do you think should be done for the currently legal snaring for predators?
This sounds as ridiculously flawed as the extremist position within the gun lobby that outlawing bazookas is the first step in a campaign to confiscate handguns. If you see that every legislative action is the first step in a malevalent slippery slope, then it looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t have a problem with criminalizing animal uses that can be deemed cruel by a majority of people IF AND ONLY IF those practices don’t have a base in culture, tradition, religion, sport, or practical commerce or medicine.
Yes, which I agreed with (although I consider that there is far more grave and widespread suffering in the meat-production industry which should have been tackled first). Here, I’m trying to determine Unregistered Bull’s position and its logical consequences.
Improper behaviour which ought not be allowed, yes?
I, like you, think some behaviour relating to animals is improper or cruel, whatever you’d like to call it, and should be outlawed. We might disagree on exactly what behaviour counts. Yes, I considered leg-holds (strongly) and hunting with hounds (marginally) improper and unnecessarily cruel: snares I’ll ignore while meat production is still legal itself. The point is that, though we might place our threshold at different levels, we both agree that there should be some threshold, however vague or arbitrary, which prevents outright torture or hazardous neglect and is enforceable by law. Agreed?
Items like bazookas have been increasingly regulated since 1934. A ton of general firearms regulation came in 1968. No more such items have went into production for civillian consumption since 1986. More gun bans came in 1989 and 1993. We know that the movers and shakers of the anti-gun movement, legislatively, started small with larger goals in my mind. Until the Republican take over and the sunset of the 1993 Ban. They were having a good run. They still are doing fairly well in the Blue states like NY, NJ, and CA.