US dentist 'regrets' killing lion...

[gowlerk 2,255]

Marc is correct. Animals do not have rights. Rights are given to person by organizations composed of persons. We do not give rights to non persons. Rather we limit the rights of people to mistreat animals, and we give people the responsibility to obey laws regarding how animals are treated. Although we often fail miserably in enforcing those limits.

It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights. Not even your beloved pet dog. If I kill her I commit a property crime against you. But not a crime against the dog. I get tired of people who get all incensed about the rights of animals. I also get incensed about people who mistreat them.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

Rights are given to person by organizations composed of persons. We do not give rights to non persons.

A) Says who?
B) Why not?

Quote

It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights.

It's not in human terms. It's in animal terms.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,085]

>It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights. Not even
>your beloved pet dog. If I kill her I commit a property crime against you. But not
>a crime against the dog.

Incorrect; there are several crimes against animals. You can go to jail for killing a whale, an eagle or a manatee - even if no one "owns" it. It has nothing to do with property crimes.

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

Rights are given to person by organizations composed of persons. We do not give rights to non persons.

i get what you're trying to convey in the overall post, but the quoted bit above will derail you from the get go, even with people that most likely agree with you had you stated it cleaner

too bad, you are likely aligned with most people when it gets to tangible discussion, but these same people will hack on you because of the presentation flaws (I guess I'm guilty with this post, my bad)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

Rights are given to person by organizations composed of persons.

Maybe in Canada you believe your rights were given to you by the Queen. In America we believe that our rights were given to us by our Creator, and are inalienable. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the rights that we have ceded to the government.

Unforrtunately, many supposedly patriotic Americans don't understand that.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights. Not even
>your beloved pet dog. If I kill her I commit a property crime against you. But not
>a crime against the dog.

Incorrect; there are several crimes against animals. You can go to jail for killing a whale, an eagle or a manatee - even if no one "owns" it. It has nothing to do with property crimes.

semantics non-starter IMHO. laws are a societal construct, so crimes are against the order of society. I'd say the same thing about theivery or even assaults against humans though.

In court you hear - "United State vs John Doe"
never - "Jack Smith vs John Doe" let alone "Rover vs John Doe"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Unforrtunately, many supposedly patriotic Americans don't understand that.

Unforrtunately, many supposedly thoughtful Speaker's Corner poster don't understand it either and continue to equate rights with law. Or just do it on purpose to provide forum for mockery and insults.

yes - I recognize the irony of that last bit

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

too bad, you are likely aligned with most people when it gets to tangible discussion,

Which thread have you been reading? I make it 50/50 at best.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,085]

> laws are a societal construct, so crimes are against the order of society. I'd
>say the same thing about theivery or even assaults against humans though.

Agreed. We pass laws to protect the rights of (insert favorite term for entity worthy of rights here.) Crimes are violations of those laws, and are not _directly_ related to rights.

>In court you hear - "United States vs John Doe"

Right. That's true even if John Doe kills Jane Doe. That doesn't mean Jane Doe is a non-person, just that a federal prosecutor is prosecuting the case.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

semantics non-starter IMHO. laws are a societal construct, so crimes are against the order of society. I'd say the same thing about theivery or even assaults against humans though.

So if someone stole your car you'd be pissed off on behalf of society?

Quote

In court you hear - "United State vs John Doe"

The state assumes the responsibility of prosecuting and punishing the offender, that doesn't mean they assume the brunt of the offense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Unforrtunately, many supposedly thoughtful Speaker's Corner poster don't understand it either and continue to equate rights with law.

Criminal laws are an enumeration of the consequences for violating someone else's rights. Rights exists whether there are laws protecting them or not. At least that is the basic judicial philosophy laid out in the Constitution.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

Maybe in Canada you believe your rights were given to you by the Queen. In America we believe that our rights were given to us by our Creator, and are inalienable. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the rights that we have ceded to the government.

Couch it however you want, in practice it's the exact same thing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Couch it however you want, in practice it's the exact same thing.

Well, yes and no. If the philoshy underlying a country is that the Queen decides who has what rights, you really don't have any legal recourse if she decides left handed people no longer have any rights. You could go to court over it, but the courts would have to side with the Queen. In the US system, you can go to court and convince the judges that left handed people have the same rights as everyone else, and they should side with you.

Of course, there have been many instances in the US where people's rights were denied in practice, but eventually courts tend to recognize rights, regardless of who is in charge at the moment.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights. Not even
>your beloved pet dog. If I kill her I commit a property crime against you. But not
>a crime against the dog.

Incorrect; there are several crimes against animals. You can go to jail for killing a whale, an eagle or a manatee - even if no one "owns" it. It has nothing to do with property crimes.

There are laws against killing certain animals. Those laws protect those specific animals.

So if you kill or injure these animals there is a fine, and possible jail time.

And when these specific animals come off the endangered species list, that fine and punishment is decreased, or eliminated.

Are you saying that the population is the determining factor of an animal having the right to live?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

If the philoshy underlying a country is that the Queen decides who has what rights, you really don't have any legal recourse if she decides left handed people no longer have any rights. You could go to court over it, but the courts would have to side with the Queen.

OK, but if you're talking about Canada (or any other Commonwealth state) then it doesn't remotely work like that and you know it. (And if you don't know it then goddamn son, you need to get out more!)

In a country that does work like that, well, you're in a dictatorship and have some more immediate concerns than what 'philosophy' your nation was founded on.

Quote

In the US system, you can go to court and convince the judges that left handed people have the same rights as everyone else, and they should side with you.

Of course, there have been many instances in the US where people's rights were denied in practice, but eventually courts tend to recognize rights, regardless of who is in charge at the moment.

And if the US government successfully goes through the (admittedly long and drawn out) process of changing your constitutional rights who will the court side with then?

Which means that, like I said, in practice there is no difference

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

OK, but if you're talking about Canada (or any other Commonwealth state) then it doesn't remotely work like that and you know it. (And if you don't know it then goddamn son, you need to get out more!)

I know it doesn't work like that. I was commenting on gowlerk's idea that rights are granted to people by other people. That's not true. Rights are recognized by other people, but not granted. If I'm captured by terrorists, I still have all the same rights as I did the moment before I was captured. They may not recognize those rights, but I still have them.

Quote

And if the US government successfully goes through the (admittedly long and drawn out) process of changing your constitutional rights who will the court side with then?

It really depends on what they change. If they passed a constitutionl amendment that said left handed people no longer had the right to free speech, I guess the courts would side with the new Constitution. Such an Amendment would be different from the rest of the document. Our Constitution does not limit people's rights, it enumerates certain rights that are expressly protected. The only Amendment I can think of that limited people's rights was Phohibition, which was eventually removed.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

I know it doesn't work like that. I was commenting on gowlerk's idea that rights are granted to people by other people.

No, you were replying to my comment that, in practice, it's exactly the same thing.

Quote

That's not true. Rights are recognized by other people, but not granted. If I'm captured by terrorists, I still have all the same rights as I did the moment before I was captured. They may not recognize those rights, but I still have them.

Sure, but that still means that in practice the US is no different to anywhere else. The rights that you have in practice are the ones decided on by other people.

Quote

Our Constitution does not limit people's rights, it enumerates certain rights that are expressly protected. The only Amendment I can think of that limited people's rights was Phohibition, which was eventually removed.

A perfect illustration. The Constitution can directly limit people's rights and it can be changed to annull a previous amendment, which could of course mean the removal of an enumerated right.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Are you saying that the population is the determining factor of an animal having the right to live?

It can be a factor among others.

As people have repeatedly said, animals do not have the same rights as people. By pointing out that animals have different rights, you aren't contradicting anything anyone else has said.

Why is this piece of the argument so difficult for you to understand?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

No, you were replying to my comment that, in practice, it's exactly the same thing.

My original statement was to gowlerk. The jibe about the Queen was just a jibe. It was intended to be funny. My thoughts on the derivation of rights is, however, serious and important.

Quote

Sure, but that still means that in practice the US is no different to anywhere else. The rights that you have in practice are the ones decided on by other people.

I realize there is a disconnect between the rights I have, and the rights that may be currently recognized by the government. The UN has a Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Just because many governments don't recognize those rights, it doesn't mean that people don't have them by dint of being human. And, to turtle and rush: no, human rights are not the same as animal rights.

Quote

A perfect illustration. The Constitution can directly limit people's rights and it can be changed to annull a previous amendment, which could of course mean the removal of an enumerated right.

It can directly limit people's rights, and has been used to do so in the past. You are correct. That doesn't change the fact that any rights not expressly limited by the Constitution still belong to the people.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,085]

>And when these specific animals come off the endangered species list, that
>fine and punishment is decreased, or eliminated.

Animals are protected for reasons above and beyond being an endangered species. The bald eagle isn't even threatened - but if you kill one you still go to jail.

>Are you saying that the population is the determining factor of an animal having
>the right to live?

No. It is merely one factor.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

My original statement was to gowlerk. The jibe about the Queen was just a jibe. It was intended to be funny. My thoughts on the derivation of rights is, however, serious and important.

So you didn't really mean anything in the whole paragraph about philosophy, and the bit where you said "and no" was also a jibe, since what you really meant was just "yes"?

Quote

I realize there is a disconnect between the rights I have, and the rights that may be currently recognized by the government. The UN has a Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Just because many governments don't recognize those rights, it doesn't mean that people don't have them by dint of being human.

But again, in practice, it doesn't matter.

Quote

It can directly limit people's rights, and has been used to do so in the past. You are correct. That doesn't change the fact that any rights not expressly limited by the Constitution still belong to the people.

But you just said no rights are expressly limited by the Constitution. And in the US you certainly don't have all rights, do you? You don't have all the ones in the UDHR, and you had fewer of them when it was drafted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

You're refusing to make the distiction between "the rights a person can currently exercise" and "the rights a person inherently has."

Yes, you are absolutely correct. In practice, it doesn't really matter. I cede that point.

The point I won't cede is that inherent rights are granted by the group of people currently in charge. If we take that view, then we have no basis for challenging ISIS. They can say non-Muslims don't have the right to live, and we have to agree with them. I'm arguing that peple don't lose their inherent rights just because a government limits those rights.

But again, in practice to the man on the street, it usually doesn't matter. In the broader context of human societies, it matters quite a bit.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

The point I won't cede is that inherent rights are granted by the group of people currently in charge. If we take that view, then we have no basis for challenging ISIS. They can say non-Muslims don't have the right to live, and we have to agree with them. I'm arguing that peple don't lose their inherent rights just because a government limits those rights.

Oh sure, I agree with that.

I just take issue with the suggestion that the USA is ahead of the game somehow just because the DoI has a pretty little bit of preamble

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Oh sure, I agree with that.

I just take issue with the suggestion that the USA is ahead of the game somehow just because the DoI has a pretty little bit of preamble

The USA certainly isn't perfect, but our Preamble is pretty good. I don't think we're ahead of the game in practice, but I think we have the potential to be if we truly embraced some of the ideas expressed in our founding documents (with corrections).

- Dan G

[gowlerk 2,255]

billvon

>It is a non starter in human terms to insist that animals have rights. Not even
>your beloved pet dog. If I kill her I commit a property crime against you. But not
>a crime against the dog.

Incorrect; there are several crimes against animals. You can go to jail for killing a whale, an eagle or a manatee - even if no one "owns" it. It has nothing to do with property crimes.

That is called poaching, and it is a crime against the State. The animals are considered the property of the State, owned by all of the people. Animals have no rights and no standing at all. WE have social obligations, animals do not. An entity can not have rights without responsibilities. Animals have neither. They can and do torture each other in the most gruesome ways, with no consequences.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.