Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Viking]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

What about on deployment? Are you allowed to kill Arabs on Shabbat?

Of course. War ain't violation of Shabbat.

But making a phonecall is? WTF?

[Weijun]

Why should the law treat animals as anything other than chattel property?

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

Animals feel pain: so what?  That does not make them moral agents, unless you make assumptions about morality that only a religious system can provide.  I don't care if it is Catholicism, Marxism, or Environmentalism, these are all religious groups trying to impose their values on society.

Yes, there are animal welfare laws.  However, they are no less religious in intent than sodomy laws or a myriad of assorted blue laws.

[The Brain]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

[Weijun]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

[Razgovory]

I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.

[The Brain]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

[Viking]

I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.

Causing harm isn't inhumane, causing unnecessary harm is inhumane.

[Martinus]

I'm now in Amsterdam. Should I participate in: pogrom?

[Weijun]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

[Martinus]

Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?

[Razgovory]

I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.

Causing harm isn't inhumane, causing unnecessary harm is inhumane.

I'm causing harm unnecessarily when fishing.  If I want to eat a fish, I can easily buy one (no idea if they are stunned before they are butchered.  Probably not), but instead I do it an extremely inefficiently way by using a hook and bait.  Sometimes, I use a bait fish.  I do this all for my own enjoyment.  Most of the time, after I catch a fish I let it go.  Catch and release.  Now, I ask you, is this inhumane?

Do you ever go fishing?

A source you used earlier, the RSPCA is interested in pain caused to fish, at least according to this Times article.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1045717.ece

[The Brain]

You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.

Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions.  Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences."  Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights?  How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533?

Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?

Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.

I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.

[Viking]

I'm causing harm unnecessarily when fishing.  If I want to eat a fish, I can easily buy one (no idea if they are stunned before they are butchered.  Probably not), but instead I do it an extremely inefficiently way by using a hook and bait.  Sometimes, I use a bait fish.  I do this all for my own enjoyment.  Most of the time, after I catch a fish I let it go.  Catch and release.  Now, I ask you, is this inhumane?

Do you ever go fishing?

A source you used earlier, the RSPCA is interested in pain caused to fish, at least according to this Times article.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1045717.ece

You don't know much about icelanders do you?

Killing and causing pain is not the issue for me, it's the unnecessary inflicting of pain. The animal is entitled to be treated in such a manner that it's death is as painless and quick as possible.

[Razgovory]

You still didn't answer my question.  I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment.  Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?

[Viking]

You still didn't answer my question.  I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment.  Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?

If you do it for the purpose of harming the fish then I think it is unacceptable.