It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Bill to Bar Eating Cats, Dogs Stirs Debate

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
JAK

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Ok, good morning all.

First off, and only quickly, this:


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There have been a few people on this thread acting like they dictate the laws in America, saying crap like "If you want to eat dog live somewhere else" likely they're white christian males with a messianic complex...

Is becoming increasingly tedious. I have already seen it on three topics this morning and I have only been on ATS for about 20 minutes.

If I may, I would like to suggest that people address topics from a valid standpoint and do not try appealing to the lowest common denominator, or go write your opinions for a daily tabloid.

Secondly, meat is meat is it not? Just because man has built up an affinity with certain animals over time is it then correct to enforce one's cultural born views upon another? Does it really come down to which culture is running the country at present and if so, is this correct? It has been said that;
    A) Democracy is just legitamized mob rule
and
    B) Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. -Winston Churchill.


Does this question come down to the infingement of personal freedoms? Does it come down to respect for the culture in which you live? Is it possible to satiate both simultaneously?

Should those who wish to commit such actions be prepared to accept a consequence, a backlash parhaps, from those who make up the majority of the surrounding culture?

I do feel personally that there are 'liberals' especially in my own country, that have done more through their outrageous sycophantic rules to advance the cause of the far right than such groups themselves could ever hope to achieve. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have heard it with my own ears and it pains me because I have personally fought against this ideology. What makes such decisions more unpalatable to many is the knowledge that such tolerance would not be shown their beliefs in countries in which the popular lifestyle is that which they are striving to accommodate.

If I was to commit an act which so many considered distasteful in such a society then, legislation or no, I would undoubtedly be persecuted the the populace. Should I go screaming to the authorities I strongly doubt any sympathy would be forthcoming.

So culturally the position should perhaps be one of common sense and taking responsibility for ones own actions.

Now perhaps we might move on to other ground. After countless years of domestication, western culture has granted certain creatures affections that others are not blessed with. There are those who develop such affections for other animals. I know personally of a specific case in London, during the blitz, where a family came into possession of a chicken months prior to Christmas and decided to raise it for the festive dinner. Come the time the children kicked up a stink at the prospective death of their family member. A situation which the parents were quietly relieved at.

There we can see such affection usually preserved usually for the more common pet such as a cat or dog extended to a creature that is farmed especially for it's meat, and perhaps a meat which is eaten by those protesting the eating of these more domesticated animals. So is it correct to assume that the only real difference between such creatures is a percieved cultural one? And if that is the case can we not, if we view the question logically, see that if the use of animals for food is acceptable then there should be no distinction save perhaps those you choose as your own personal pets.

This leads to a further point which I think is a logiocal step but I feel that the vast majority will scream at with outrage so I shall stop here.


Jack




posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Caz
Democratic societies agree to come to a consensus before passing laws. There was no consensus in this case. Animal rights groups got upset and their lobby was successful.

Did I stammer? You're talking about societal taboos and acceptance by the neighbors, and I'm talking about law, crime and punishment. The community can shun me for eating dog, they can even hate me, they can use voodoo, the evil eye, prayers, whatever, but passing a law prohibiting me from eating dog infringes too much on personal freedom.

The line in the sand should be drawn at victimless crimes. Legislation of taste is arrogant and ineffective, this has been proven time and time again. Since animals don't have citizenry, unless they are protected as someone's property, they are fair game. Pardon the pun.

Also, the citizens of Honolulu will decide this issue. As far as I know the only federal laws governing the consumption of non traditional meat focus on the care, and butchering methods of the animals involved, even then it's mostly state legislation. There are regulations on what sort of meat you can sell, but not on what kind of food you can eat. Most cities have laws against keeping animals for slaughter, I personally think those laws need to be changed, but then again, I think a lot of laws need to get wiped off the books entirely.

JAK
You're right, it's not just white christian males that think they know what's best for everyone. I should have acknowledged the possibility that the people in question, who want to make what I eat their concern, are of another demographic. Here's the root of my assumption; religious people tend to think there should be laws enforcing their own subjective beliefs on others (divine mandate and all that), Christians make up 80% of America, logic and religion do NOT go hand in hand, logic is necessary in the crafting of fair laws and in the operation of a nation/state.

You were right to call me on it though, I should have qualified my statement by saying something like "there's an 80% probability that if these posters are in America they are Christian and therefore not thinking with their head, but rather blindly flailing about in the world motivated by an all consuming fear of death."
I'm intolerant of intolerance, I guess that means I'm intolerant. hmmm... Should I tolerate myself?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Wyrde says,


You're talking about societal taboos and acceptance by the neighbors, and I'm talking about law, crime and punishment. The community can shun me for eating dog, they can even hate me, they can use voodoo, the evil eye, prayers, whatever, but passing a law prohibiting me from eating dog infringes too much on personal freedom.
Societal taboos and acceptance (or rejection) by the people translate directly over into legislation which then becomes your laws and part of the legal system....these societal "morals" held by the culture are the cause of the resulting laws....the laws then reinforce the cultural "morals".

Personal freedoms take a back seat when it comes to being a citizen...what ever happened to UNITED WE STAND? This power "by the people, for the people" is granted to us thru our constitution and the laws resulting from it. Being a citizen is NOT mandatory, you can renounce yours anytime you wish,
but
dont try and "blame" those that choose to participate in the culture "as is" by giving up some small personal liberty in the pursuit of a "greater whole/good". This is also a part of "socialization" which is a normal part of any culture....its how cultures distinguish (dare i say discriminate) one from another. this is an issue of cultural identity and selfish personal reasons are not good enough to sell out our overall heritage.

In essence what im hearing is, "because i want to eat dogs, the rest of the citizens loose their right to establish cultural boundaries on me for doing so, using democratic means to reach this conclusion.
Dont fool your self, your just not that important. Thats is the jist of my point. Your personal wish list doenst preclude the use of democracy here, nor does it eliminate my right as a citizen to dictate to my elected representatives in government what laws i want them to enact/reject.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
You are mistaken Caz, what I'm doing is defending my right to eat/drink/smoke/wear/say what I please, and by proxy I'm defending YOUR right to eat/drink/smoke/wear/say what you please. Like I've said before, community standards are well and good, but they should not be allowed to overrule common sense. I'm not more important than anyone else, and neither are you. We are all equally important, that's why the greater good is important. You're arguing that eating cats and dogs is contrary to the greater good. How?

Edited to add this: So eating a dog is selling out the cultural heritage of America? Explain that to me, considering the founders of this country ate anything they could get their hands on. Lobster (sea roach) is acceptible, but dog is right out? Where is the logic in your arbitrary proclamations?

[edit on 23-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
See this type of stupid # is why all animal rights laws should be repealed.


Do you know how stupid it is to read a sentance like that on a site that says to deny ignorance.

I bet you either shave your face with shick or gillette right?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS


Do you know how stupid it is to read a sentance like that on a site that says to deny ignorance.

I bet you either shave your face with shick or gillette right?


What the hell do my shaving habits have to do with anything?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Wyrde says,



You're arguing that eating cats and dogs is contrary to the greater good. How?
NO, what i am arguing is that the issue (a personal liberty to eat cats/dogs), does NOT circumvent or superceed the rights of other citizens, using democratic means, to determine that this or ANY behaivior is or is not to be adopted into the cultural "morals".

In fact im saying that the cultural rights are more important than the personal liberty...i say this because otherwise, what form of governance aside from democracy are we using as the framework for this society?

We are not every man for themselves (tho you seem to advocate this) we are supposed to be united, and cultures forever have used rules, laws, social morals etc to show define themselves, to show who they are, and what it means to be French, Chinese, or American. Cultures do this for themselves in part to pass along some continuity from one generation to the next, as well as to distingush themselves from other cultures.

personally i dont care that a person eats a non pet animal or not,
but
im NOT willing to sell out democratic principals, or the rights of the citizens here or in any country to create their cultural identity using democracy as the tool to come to the most equitable decision for the most people as we can.
Dont try and paint over the rights of the many in order to reap a right for a personal preferance. thats not govenrance, thats individualism not social responsabillity.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Caz
The authority of a democratic government to legislate the actions of its citizens is limited to preventing one citizens taste from infringing on anothers inalienable rights. You still haven't convinced me that eating dogs is hurting anyone, and if it's not hurting anyone, it doesn't belong in the courts.

Fireworks legislation: Good - discourages people from blowing off their fingers or damaging the property of another citizen.

Murder legislation: Good - discourages people from infringing on someone elses right to life.

Rape legislation: Good - discourages people from infringing on someone elses right to happiness.

Diet legislation: Bad - serves only to placate the moral sensibilities of a segment of the population, discourages open mindedness and cultural acceptance, denies food to hungry people.

I'm fine with others having their opinions, and they're welcome to voice them in the public forum, but if it doesn't make sense, why do it? These laws don't 'help' anyone, they do hurt some people though. Laws are meant to combat peoples problems, not create new ones.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
WyrdeOne claims,


The authority of a democratic government to legislate the actions of its citizens is limited to preventing one citizens taste from infringing on anothers inalienable rights. You still haven't convinced me that eating dogs is hurting anyone, and if it's not hurting anyone, it doesn't belong in the courts.
and


TextLaws are meant to combat peoples problems, not create new ones.
If you believe this, you have a long life of being disappointed because this is NOT even close to the truth.

A society doesnt need a reason more than "the majority of us dont think this is a good idea"...nothing more in order to adopt or reject any idea into its cultural "morals" You dont have to justify a law as causing someone harm, indeed the definition of when harms occurs and to whom could be questioned as well. There are plenty of laws in place for "victimless crimes" as you called them...big deal.

Here is the definition of LAW
from dictionary.com
according to
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
A piece of enacted legislation.

The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law.
Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law.

An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law... stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody).
Informal. A police officer. Often used with the.

The science and study of law; jurisprudence.
Knowledge of law.
The profession of an attorney.
Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law.
Law
The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible.
The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.
A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.

A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship.
A way of life: the law of the jungle.

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
Mathematics. A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.


notice nowhere in there does it say what you imply, that the law is there for ANY reason other than to "regulate the condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system.
Basically rules dont have to be nice, and they are usually devicive.
again SO WHAT?

These are the principals that societies use to define civilization....
what other form of governance do you suggest we use here?

I am NOT willing to throw the constitution out and adopt some as yet unnamed form of governance because some minority group wants to change the cultural norm....if the culture thru time and democratic means later determines eating dogs is ok, fine, but you cant say the culture in question is "bad" because they use their rights to decline to accept this into their consciouness.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by CazMedia]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

Originally posted by 00PS


Do you know how stupid it is to read a sentance like that on a site that says to deny ignorance.

I bet you either shave your face with shick or gillette right?


What the hell do my shaving habits have to do with anything?


Well the fact that they shave bunny rabbits down to their skin until they are bleeding to see how far their razors go is number one. Then their is the animal testing of their gel and moisturizing products. You made a pretty stupid remark when you said we should repeal all animal rights laws. I got a warn for my remark but It doesn't matter. I stick by my guns. If you really think we should repeal all animal rights laws then there has to be a problem going on upstairs...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
WHy is that testing wrong? Would you prefer to test those products on humans?
Animal testing is done to ensure a product is safe enough for humans to use. Would you rather see bleeding bunny or cut your throat while shaving?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
well some companies use fruit instead of animals. Do you know why? Because the unethical treatment of animals in laboratory testing is disgusting and immoral and large companies pressure governments to keep it legal in some countries. I think you are talking out of your butt. Go look at some photos of what animal testing really looks like and then talk back to me in that attitude again. I can't believe you are really ignorant to the fact that their should be animal rights just as their should be human rights because people out there exist that like to torture and murder whatever the cause.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I have seen the pictures, and my response is, so what.
If animal testing provides more realistic results use it. If a company chooses to use fruit good for them, If not good for them. There are humans who are being tortured for people by fun, next to that I could care less about inhumane treatment of animals.
So they drop perfume into a rabits eyes, so what?
its a frickin rabbit
It aint your cousin brother or daughter, it aint your wife or your son.
its a beast
Get over it and worry about real problems in the world, don't waste my time with this animal rights crap.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Caz
I am never disappointed by the world, it is incredible no matter what, most entertaining.

The spirit of the law is to resolve grievances. Man devised law as a neutral arbiter between parties, a voice of REASON. Individuals who have a grievance with other individuals take their claims up in civil court. If the State has a grievance with an individual, the case goes to criminal court. I'm giving you this little law primer since you're obviously not familiar with the American Justice System, because if you worked in the service of Lady Justice, or studied her contours, you would know first hand what a big unwieldy bitch she's become.

The state was designed to protect citizens from each other and from other states, and so the criteria that determine the boundaries of criminal law must focus on the protection of citizens. If no citizens are threatened, the state has no reason to intervene/legislate, the burden of proof is different in criminal courts because criminals in this country are denied many of the benefits of their citizenship. Civil courts can only hand down damage awards, they can't even enforce them, though they can refer cases to criminal court under certain circumstances.

If the offended society members want to sue the individuals eating dogs, under current law they're more than welcome to try in civil court. I guarantee the court transcript would be hilarious. The judge would laugh them out, because there was no harm done (unless the pet was stolen). Where are the damages? What is being compensated for? The plaintiff has nothing to complain about!

This case wouldn't have a chance in civil court, but if they criminalize the eating of dogs, and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual consumed a dog, that individual who breaks the law can be: sent to jail, fined, deported, denied voting rights, in many states denied the right to breed over the course of their sentence, denied the income from employment, forced to live in cramped conditions, raped, beaten, maced, mutilated, infected with disease, induced into further criminal behavior, misplaced, disappeared, forgotten and a hundred other horrors - for eating..a dog. If you think that's the way a REASONable society conducts itself, you're a company man to the end and I'll respect your dedication, but not your principles.

That's not what the law is for (but that's what it's being used for - don't confuse REASON with the current madness). If the animal rights activists, or you, or anybody else, has a problem with an individual, I suggest you talk to them about it first, try to REASON with them. It doesn't really affect you in any way when they eat a dog, so I think it would be a waste of your time to take the trip and wait around just to give them alternate recipes, but hey, if it's that important to you, who am I to judge?


Originally posted by CazMedia
A society doesnt need a reason more than "the majority of us dont think this is a good idea"...nothing more in order to adopt or reject any idea into its cultural "morals"


Umm...so if one African tribe decides to cut off the legs of another African tribe because it's not a good idea to be so tall, and the cultural morals of the attackers are offended by the stature of their fellow human beings? Hitler was offended by my people you know, so much so he decided to criminalize my culture. That led to the holocaust. Morals are hollow justifications for violence. Law is a beautiful creation of man that holds REASON above emotion. Don't confuse the two, despite their current entanglement.


Originally posted by CazMedia
There are plenty of laws in place for "victimless crimes" as you called them...big deal.


It is a big deal, it's a really big deal. The fact that you don't think it is means you're not using REASON. If there is no victim, there is no restitution, no recompense. If there is no victim, there can be no attacker/defendant/accused. This sort of legislation is everything that's wrong with the legal system. I hope you'll understand what I'm saying and try to look at the law from a paradigm of efficiency. If it doesn't do any good why do it all?


Originally posted by CazMedia
Basically rules dont have to be nice, and they are usually devicive.
again SO WHAT?


Nice doesn't enter into it. Good laws are not divisive. Bad laws are divisive. The law is a common agreement among learned, thoughtful, considerate citizens within the boundaries of REASON. Laws should be written by professors, not politicians. I think that's where the implimentation went wrong.


Originally posted by CazMediaI am NOT willing to throw the constitution out and adopt some as yet unnamed form of governance because some minority group wants to change the cultural norm....if the culture thru time and democratic means later determines eating dogs is ok, fine, but you cant say the culture in question is "bad" because they use their rights to decline to accept this into their consciouness.


I never said to throw out the constitution, please, please stop putting words in my mouth. It's a waste of time in recorded mediums, all it does it force me to keep saying this, over, and over, and over. The cultural norm is not law, the cultural norm is public opinion. Public opinion can be against homosexuality, drug use, prostitution, religion, hair color, rock music, skateboarding, genital piercing, salacious clothing, monkeys, you name it! That doesn't mean it's REASONable to legislate those things. It's only REASONable to legislate things that have an adverse effect on citizens, things that injure life, liberty, or property.

You're decision to decline to accept dog eating into your consciousness is your own. My consciousness is wide open, and accepts the fact that some people act differently, think differently, speak differently, and eat differently than I do. Their behavior is completely acceptable to me, no matter what it is, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.

The reason why the legislation is not acceptable, is because it hurts someone. Am I being unclear, or are you being unREASONable?

Am I trying to make a point? I don't know. Could it have something to do with REASON?

Edited for this:
mwm
There is no reason to use animals for testing, the results are innacurate and unreliable. It would be much better to reform the justice system in this country to insure only truly dangerous people were locked up, and then use them for test subjects. It's not specifically that I care about the rabbits, though they do feel intense pain, it's that I don't care so much about the people who shave.
They could just as easily test the razors on rabbit pelts, with the same results, after the rabbit was slaughtered and sold as stew meat, I have no problem with that. I think that's a logical solution, don't you?

[edit on 23-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 23-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
its logical if that company chooses to do it, not if they re forced to do it.
Yes rabbits feel intense pain so what? yes its brutal and barbaric so what?
Animals are not citizens or people they have no rights unless we choose to give them rights, and since the only way to do so is to believe an animal has the same worth as a human I am aginst it.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
mwm
You don't have to give animals rights, you just have to promote a culture that finds workable alternative to cruel practices. If money is the goal for corporate entities, but values are used to judge individuals, problems will always arise because there is a fundamental break between prescribed values and actual values in the culture. Generally I've found the best way to deal with capitalist wrongdoing, is to provide an alternative path to profit that bypasses your particular beef. Kill the bunny for meat then shave its skin, then there is no cruelty, increased profits from sale of the meat, and everybody can sleep happy, scientists included.

What I mean is; if shaving the bunny isn't necessary to make money, why shave the bunny?

mm..,mm.., good. That is some sweet syrupy syntax for ya'.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
heres the thing wyrdeone. I would agree with you that an efficent corp has a duty to avoid waste, however am aginst people arguing for animal rights on the grounds that "they deserve it"
Now persoanlly I dont think testing razors in that way is the most effecient way but as I am neither an officer or shareholder its none of my business.

There may be legitimate reasons they do the things they do. The fact is dead hide does not respond the same way live hide does. That may be the reason,if not, if they are being cruel withot a good reason then it is up to thier shareholder (the ones they are responsible to) to do something not the gov, not PETA.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Well since this is all about tolerance why can't i eat rat meat in front of Hindus and swine in front of Muslims. Why do they always have to get so offended, its my right dammit.


I wonder what they would do if i was eating the meat of my choice in their nations.


Heres a good idea to save tax payer money. We feed all the strays to the homeless, then when they are big and fat we harvest the homeless and feed them to starving 3rd world people.
After all meat is meat.

Seriously though, i don't need to eat every little critter on the earth. Why? Because i don't need to.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The fewer animals everybody else eats, the more for me!

mwm
You're right, I'm sure there is a reason, and I'm not telling those companies they have to do things my way or else, that's fascism. I want people to be more efficient, but they don't care, and so they don't listen. Like I said, I couldn't care less about the bunny, they die every day, and would regardless whether man was around or not. Companies should be punished in a BIG way for hurting people, but animals simply can't be given the same rights without angering a good portion of the populace.

Rememeber that guy in Manhattan who got jail time for killing a rat in his rooftop garden? Some other old lady saw it, was traumatized, and called the ASPCA or somebody. That case really irritated me, because the decision basically told me animals are more important than average citizens. Animals are clearly not more important than corporations though, so what gives? I think corporations should be held to the same standards as individuals. The playing field needs to be levelled one way or another. It's simply not right to be so hypocritical within the confines of something called a JUSTICE system. It's ludicrous.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join