[exnavychick]

And that kind of logic is how people like James Mayhew slide in under the radar, until they start killing off fellow humans. If his crime is prosecuted for being the henious act that it is, all to the good. He should also be psychologically evaluated while in prison, to determine the extent of his likely pathologies, and therefore his risk to society in general. After he serves his time, he ought to be followed up with by a shrink if he has a serious mental problem, as a condition of his four-year parole. As a previous poster stated, the fear of punishment is usually the only thing that keeps people like that under control. Sadly, even that doesn't always work.


Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.
___________________________________________________________

This gives me a glimmer of why you take the position you do.

[ScottM1968]

Again, if animals have rights and are not property, we must treat all animals as if they have these extra rights.

We cannot therefore kill animals for fun (hunting), food (farming), or safety (protection).

This argument was used somewhat successfully by animal rights activists a decade ago. By agreeing to their basic premise, we screw ourselves for any rational argument made from the flawed premise that animals can have people-like status.

They seem that way to us (and I have had many pets). But we cannot allow it them to be "personified into law".

Or we will be made vegetarians in the not too distant future.