From: Samael (Samael@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Tue Jan 12 1999 - 07:34:13 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Donaghe <tdonaghe@yahoo.com>
>---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> From: Terry Donaghe <tdonaghe@yahoo.com>
>> >---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> >> So you would be allowed to torture cows if you owned them?
>> >Sure, why not? If we OWN property then we can do anything with it
>> >that we wish.
>>
>> The problem being that lots of people feel that people torturing
>animals is
>> in some way the same as torturing people.
>Why not? Again, as I've said, not too many people are going to
>torture animals in the first place. If you decide to create laws
>against it, you're just cheapening everyone's property by telling them
>what they can and can't do with it. If you (or society or whatever)
>learns that Joe is torturing his turtle and ferrets, then you know
>that Joe is a weirdo and you won't deal with him and he'll suffer
>economically for his deeds. Whose standard decides how to define
>torture? Some people will define it simply as "owning" an animal.
>Other's will define it as slaughtering for eating, other's will define
>it as you and I might as causing needless suffering. Whose standard?
>Whose code? Whose morals?
Whoever is applying the decision. If I see someone torturing an animal for
no good reason, I will treat them in the sameway as I would treat someone
torturing a child for no reason, or torturing a person for no reason.
There are numerous people who believe that animals have, at the very least,
limited rights - in the same way that children have limited rights. That
they occupy the planet too and while human's take precedence (in most
peoples opinions), they do not take ultimate precedence.
Samael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:47 MST