Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[dps]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

I don't see how you've refuted his point.  Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them.  But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc.  They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold.  I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.

[Weijun]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

I don't see how you've refuted his point.  Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them.  But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc.  They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold.  I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.

Well put.  Thanks.

I would not classify all value systems as religions.  In the Western sense of the word, a religion has:

• A moral system
• A ritual system
• An explanation of the unknown/unknowable

Environmentalism, Marxism, and even Confucianism(!) have the first two, but are weak on the third (although some environmentalists attribute more to nature than science can prove).  If you prefer the term "quasi-religion" to describe these systems, then I am fine with that.  Simply calling it a value system, however, really understates how all-encompassing it is.  The climate change folks put the Baptists to shame with their message of sin and redemption.

[Martinus]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.

P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.

[Slargos]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

I don't see how you've refuted his point.  Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them.  But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc.  They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold.  I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.

Implying of course that it's wrong to impose your values on others, spoken like a true libertard.

However, this also means that it was wrong to impose your values on Nazi Germany.

Truth is, the highest calling in life is imposing your values on others on the presumption that your values are superior to everyone elses. You must not think much of your values if you don't believe they are worth disseminating.

[Martinus]

Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.

This is an oversimplification. It's like saying civil rights movement was a product of Western economies not having to rely on slave labour anymore.

Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.

[Martinus]

Implying of course that it's wrong to impose your values on others, spoken like a true libertard.

However, this also means that it was wrong to impose your values on Nazi Germany.

Truth is, the highest calling in life is imposing your values on others on the presumption that your values are superior to everyone elses. You must not think much of your values if you don't believe they are worth disseminating.

This is true, although this is not a sufficient justification, at least on a rational level (otherwise, it would simply be the matter of strength not reason). His idiocy comes from trying to argue that animal cruelty crimes are "victimless crimes".

[Martinus]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

I don't see how you've refuted his point.  Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them.  But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc.  They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold.  I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.

That's the point. Religions are not subject to rational scrutiny (or indeed, any scrutiny), whereas other value systems, if based on reason, are. Every single law is based on a value system - anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. The difference is that in a rational value system (such as the utilitarian system, for example), you have a toolset to resolve conflicts between individual values and to assess whether individual laws are consistent with the system (e.g. religious freedom vs. animal cruelty preventing). In systems based on religion you just have an old bearded guy in a dress.

[Slargos]

All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.

Troll? 

[Martinus]

All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.

Troll? 

The pro-Jew conditioning is so strong it makes Americans/Canadians side with Muslims AND animal-torturers against the civilized West. Perhaps they really do control the media over there.

[Weijun]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.

P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.

I don't buy it.  Someone who tortures small animals may well be on track to being a serial killer.  However, that does not imply that one who clubs baby seals for a living fits the profile of Ted Bundy.

Dorsey4Heisman?

[Weijun]

All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.

Troll? 

Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though).  I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler.  However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.

[Slargos]

All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.

Troll? 

Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though).  I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler.  However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.

Congratulations, that is perhaps the stupidest utterance on Languish yet.

[Weijun]

All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.

Troll? 

Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though).  I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler.  However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.

Congratulations, that is perhaps the stupidest utterance on Languish yet.

I am to please.

[The Brain]

I don't see how all preferences are religious in nature. And if they are then it doesn't matter that they are.

But I don't think we'll get further down that track.

[Razgovory]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.

P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.

Brilliant logic there, Marty.  You just made an argument for why we should make homosexuality illegal.