---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Donaghe <email@example.com>
> >---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >> So you would be allowed to torture cows if you owned them?
> >> (Not that I'm saying that _you_ would want to, but in principle).
> >Sure, why not? If we OWN property then we can do anything with it
> >that we wish. Either the cow is my property and I can do as I wish,
> >or you (government, mob rule, whatever) give me a list of what I can
> >and can't do with the cow - then it's no longer my property.
> The problem being that lots of people feel that people torturing
> in some way the same as torturing people. In fact, unless you in
> see people as not being animals, then it is the same. Admittedly, a
> that sets itself up as either owners or owned must be definition see
> as 'just plain better', but I have to admit that I'd rather not live
> society where people could torture animals in their own home if they
> like it.
Why not? Again, as I've said, not too many people are going to torture animals in the first place. If you decide to create laws against it, you're just cheapening everyone's property by telling them what they can and can't do with it. If you (or society or whatever) learns that Joe is torturing his turtle and ferrets, then you know that Joe is a weirdo and you won't deal with him and he'll suffer economically for his deeds. Whose standard decides how to define torture? Some people will define it simply as "owning" an animal. Other's will define it as slaughtering for eating, other's will define it as you and I might as causing needless suffering. Whose standard? Whose code? Whose morals?
Terry Donaghe: firstname.lastname@example.org
My Homepage: <http://www.donaghe.com/terry.htm> - Recently Updated!!
Also: <http://www.donaghe.com> - See the REAL dancing baby
Visit The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm> Prepare yourself for the next age of mankind!