From: Terry Donaghe <email@example.com>
>---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> From: Terry Donaghe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >---Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> >> So you would be allowed to torture cows if you owned them?
>> >Sure, why not? If we OWN property then we can do anything with it
>> >that we wish.
>> The problem being that lots of people feel that people torturing
>> in some way the same as torturing people.
>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?
Whoever is applying the decision. If I see someone torturing an animal for no good reason, I will treat them in the sameway as I would treat someone torturing a child for no reason, or torturing a person for no reason.
There are numerous people who believe that animals have, at the very least, limited rights - in the same way that children have limited rights. That they occupy the planet too and while human's take precedence (in most peoples opinions), they do not take ultimate precedence.