DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**avaicavum** · 08-03-2012, 01:23 AM

First off, I'm not a dog beater or anything.

But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope, and is dangerous for mankind, in my estimation. To have "animal rights" there has to be some "animal police" that enforces their rule. This is the stuff Cass Sunstein dreams about.

Freedom can be downright grisly, which is partly why it isn't tremendously difficult for TPTB to scare people away from it.

For good or ill, Man has dominion over the animals of the earth.

Long story short, it's a terrible shame for a man to hurt his own dog.... But the problem is: who has a higher claim on that animal than its owner?
I also feel like it is a bad idea to walk around with your shoes untied, but no one should be able to make YOUR choices but YOU.

I don't think you are for animal cruelty because of your stance, just so we are straight. I am no animal rights nut, I am not for animal rights and I see where the slope goes. If it was up to PETA or the HSUS we wouldn't be able to eat or even own an animal. However, I do think animal welfare is something that should be of concern. No animal should be tortured (and there are many forms of that IMHO). This is a very emotional subject for me which makes it very hard to distinguish between what someone should be able to do or not do with their own animal. My personal view is that a dog and a cow are different, I wouldn't eat my dog but I would eat my cow, I wouldn't torture either. Where is the line I guess?

SJ, I see what you are saying and would hope for that, I can even see it. Unfortunately, in today's society, if it were to become legal I see the torture of animals but it would still be illegal for me to shoot the SOB forcing the dog to do it.

08-03-2012, 01:23 AM	#16
avaicavum Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	First off, I'm not a dog beater or anything. But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope, and is dangerous for mankind, in my estimation. To have "animal rights" there has to be some "animal police" that enforces their rule. This is the stuff Cass Sunstein dreams about. Freedom can be downright grisly, which is partly why it isn't tremendously difficult for TPTB to scare people away from it. For good or ill, Man has dominion over the animals of the earth. Long story short, it's a terrible shame for a man to hurt his own dog.... But the problem is: who has a higher claim on that animal than its owner? I also feel like it is a bad idea to walk around with your shoes untied, but no one should be able to make YOUR choices but YOU. I don't think you are for animal cruelty because of your stance, just so we are straight. I am no animal rights nut, I am not for animal rights and I see where the slope goes. If it was up to PETA or the HSUS we wouldn't be able to eat or even own an animal. However, I do think animal welfare is something that should be of concern. No animal should be tortured (and there are many forms of that IMHO). This is a very emotional subject for me which makes it very hard to distinguish between what someone should be able to do or not do with their own animal. My personal view is that a dog and a cow are different, I wouldn't eat my dog but I would eat my cow, I wouldn't torture either. Where is the line I guess? SJ, I see what you are saying and would hope for that, I can even see it. Unfortunately, in today's society, if it were to become legal I see the torture of animals but it would still be illegal for me to shoot the SOB forcing the dog to do it.
	Quote