Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
The anti-gun lobby are clearly not Darwinists; they preach that you are more likely to kill yourself or your family if the state lets you have a gun. Why not just keep quiet and let the problem disappear?
Harvey, “Why the hell is it ‘felony animal cruelty’ to shoot a dog in the head?”
As with so many criminal reports, we don’t know the full details. Even if there’s nothing more, I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act, even though my criteria for good reasons would usually be much slighter than in the case of humans.
“I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act”
Guy – how about not wishing to pay for it’s upkeep? An animal should just be a chattel in the legal sense, it’s absurd to give them rights or to demand that a human look after it against his will.
I can see what you’re implying, though, that any human who kills animals for the sheer pleasure of it isn’t particularly honourable.
“[…]it’s absurd to give them rights[…]” Yes it is, just as human rights are absurd for the most part.
“[…] or to demand that a human look after it against his will.” Rather depends. I’d say we have a moral duty not cause avoidable suffering without better reason than mere convenience. I’d look after a lost and helpless animal just as I’d look after a lost and helpless child–in either case not out of choice but sympathy. It is possible being unwilling to look after an animal for any length of time, I would decide to have the animal humanely destroyed, but only if I was unable to find it an alternative home after some effort.
I don’t think sentient beings have rights, but I do think they are more than mere chattels.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
Isn’t it nice to see the equality of freedom, in that the right to bear arms is applied heedless of colour, religion, gender or species….
…er…
EG
The punchline is, the dog shot in self-defense! Good thing he lived in the US and not the UK, eh?
Wotta country.
(insert preemptive horrible pun about “the right to arm bears”) 😉
Remove the right to own guns, and only puppies will have guns.
The anti-gun lobby are clearly not Darwinists; they preach that you are more likely to kill yourself or your family if the state lets you have a gun. Why not just keep quiet and let the problem disappear?
Well, how does “dog shoots man” fit in?
I don’t know, but I am sure that the Guardian will draw some patronising, collectivist lesson from it.
Why the hell is it ‘felony animal cruelty’ to shoot a dog in the head?
I can’t personally think of a cleaner and more painless way for a person without access to vetinary drugs and skills to execute the animal.
Any ideas?
Will this bring the NRA and PETA into the same camp?
Harvey, “Why the hell is it ‘felony animal cruelty’ to shoot a dog in the head?”
As with so many criminal reports, we don’t know the full details. Even if there’s nothing more, I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act, even though my criteria for good reasons would usually be much slighter than in the case of humans.
“I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act”
Guy – how about not wishing to pay for it’s upkeep? An animal should just be a chattel in the legal sense, it’s absurd to give them rights or to demand that a human look after it against his will.
I can see what you’re implying, though, that any human who kills animals for the sheer pleasure of it isn’t particularly honourable.
“[…]it’s absurd to give them rights[…]” Yes it is, just as human rights are absurd for the most part.
“[…] or to demand that a human look after it against his will.” Rather depends. I’d say we have a moral duty not cause avoidable suffering without better reason than mere convenience. I’d look after a lost and helpless animal just as I’d look after a lost and helpless child–in either case not out of choice but sympathy. It is possible being unwilling to look after an animal for any length of time, I would decide to have the animal humanely destroyed, but only if I was unable to find it an alternative home after some effort.
I don’t think sentient beings have rights, but I do think they are more than mere chattels.