[ScottM1968]

I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

I have also stated that people are not property, as animals are.

We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

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

Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property.

My argument is the only rational answer.

[steve-b]

I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

OK, so we've confirmed that in your world, the two killers in Msg#77 would get precisely the same punishment. Check.

[steve-b]

We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

Manslaughter is also among "people", and thus logically equivalent if the distinction between "somebody who isn't likely to ever do it again" and "somebody who chooses to be a thug" is rejected.

Really, I would have thought that DU, not FR, was in need of this sort of Moral Philosophy 101 lesson.

[najida]

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

That is up to the individual who has a pet or an animal in their life to decide. To many, MANY people, they have great value in more ways than can be counted...and not all monetary.

My argument is the only rational answer.

Darlin', if they ain't a liberal statement, I don't know what is! :)

[Americanwolfsbrother]

Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst. Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property. My argument is the only rational answer.

Your post confirms who's a DUmmy and who is not. Lord help anyone who deals with you on a daily basis.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

My argument is the ONLY rational answer.

[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.

[Americanwolf]

You line that you argument is the only rational answer indicates that you do not play well with others... What gives your rational trump over everyone else's.

You make the comment that the people here cannot deal with reality. That is pretty arrogant also. What gives you the corner on knowing everything and being right all the time.

Ok how about this. I come to your house. I see you dog in the yard. I feel that it is going to attack me just laying there sleeping. I beat it. Now you come out and start yelling at me for attacking you property.. I am now in fear for my life from a human and I beat you to death.... i am going to be charge for both crimes... That is reality!

Why because the court can see a pattern there. This is no different that what our friend did expect that he was mad at the dog for peeing on his floor. What happens if he had a Kid and it did the same thing... Myself and the rest of society are not willing to take that chance.

If you want a reality where unchecked violence is accept as a norm and is not challenged by everyday citizens..Try Russia they let you beat your dogs and family over there...

That is reality too...... Just because you have your view of what you think reality does not mean yours is rational.

[Melas]

Yes, animals are property. However, we have laws that say you cannot treat this property cruelly. Deal with it. It's the law, and don't hold your breath waiting for any of us to enable the likes of you to change it.

My argument is the only rational answer.

A little megalomania going on here? Do you hear organ music when you type?

[jimt]

My argument is the only rational answer.

I don't know if I'll buy that - we've had animal cruelty laws for a long time. But 18 months ?! Ridiculous.

Note, however, some Freepers got really mad at me when I objected to being called my dog's "parent" instead of "owner".

I don't believe in animal cruelty but some folks take that way too far.