Replies

Animals can only be considered property. That is the only valid thought to have.

WOW! Now that is very liberal! VERY....~~~ sigh~~~
To borrow from you, sweet cheeks, how sad to see such on FR ;)

You may not recall the big animal rights protests of the late 80's and early 90's, but they logically made the same argument all of you are making. But they rightfully made it against any killing of animals.

I am a geezerette, so I remember Sherman's March to the Sea.
What people are against on this tread are saying (for the b'zillionth time...so pay attention)
They are against the intentional suffering of animals. NO ONE HERE as said that they don't want any animals killed. We just know that those who torture animals for fun, are dangerous, mentally ill, and do it to PEOPLE at a later date.

I have skinned, gutted, scaled, plucked and cleaned many a supper. But everyone one of those critters wasn't the end result of a twisted minds day at play.

It they had been, the owner of said twisted mind would have been skinned, gutted, scaled and plucked.

You see, their perspective is perfectly consistent. When you buy it in part, you buy it in whole because our juries can see the logical progression.

No darlin' you are the one that doesn't get it.
(Lean closer sweetie, I think your hearing is defective)
Pleasure derived from killing/torturing said animal is what we are condemning.

The "animals have rights" line of thought will force vegetarianism upon us all. Which is precisely what PETA wants.

Oh please! You sound like Daddy who swore desegregation would end the white race by 1972. He also thought a black model on the cover of Glamour in 1969 was clear evidence that communists had taken over New York (OK, so he was half right)

No one will become vegetarian against their will. As a society progresses, we become more humane and aware of needless suffering. Practices considered OK a 100 years ago are now viewed as 'inhumane' (Bear baiting, check reigns (sp) etc).
We also become extremely aware of the strong correlation between those who get off on torturing an animal and the progression onto human victims.

Our laws must be as consistent as possible. If not, they are exploited and stretched to cover circumstance well-beyond what was meant or desired.

I know people here eat meat and therefore want animals killed. But the reasoning given by yourself and others has no limit. Your pest is another pet. Your steak is another's dead relative (think India).

That we are still eating meat is not a testament to the laws keeping us free to eat meat as it is that they've not been pressed far enough.

Case in point: Throughout time, homosexuals have not been allowed legal marriage. However, there was nothing prohibiting it save for common sense. So now we have a situation that has a life of its own and people are demanding an amendment to stop it all.

You must follow your argument to its logical limit. And you must have a logical way to combat another's position. Keeping animals as property is the only way to assure a gay-marriage-like problem won't occur with some nutball judge in the future. It will be a slow progression, but it is already happening with thoughts such as with those on this thread.

The Bible states that the intentional killing of one's animal requires monetary payment. Why can that not be enough?

We're also overlooking another key point to all this. All we have is the article, which doesn't expound on the guy's history. This 5 year sentence suspended after 18 months could also be about a history of abusing animals and/or people. A first offense of this sort of thing typically brings less of a sentence, and no jail time at all.

I am a meat eater, but I cannot overlook abuse and torture of any form of life. Whether it's out of anger or pleasure, it's not cool. I am not going to abuse a deer for months before I kill it in a violent temper. I am going to kill it as quickly as possible so it doesn't have to suffer long or needlessly. I am not going to punch it in the head and break bones until it dies hours or days later.

That is not what being human is about. We, as stewards of the Earth, have a responsibility to it to take care of the gifts our Creator gave us. It's not about property vs rights, its about respect. This man has no respect for what he was given. I'm no treehugger, and I drive a gas guzzlin' SUV, but some things should just be held in a higher regard. I would break my own hands before I would beat my German Shepherd or my Dachshund for something as rediculous as piddling on the carpet. If one of them went after one of my kids unprovoked, they'd be on the next train to the vet's office to have the trusty "needle" in the arm.

This really needs some perspective on both sides. Freepers are better than this kind of bickering.