Pets are getting more protection in the USA

vincegamer

Active member
Here\'s an interesting first in the legal protection of animals:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/01/dog.order.ap/index.html
 

Ebonbuddha

Active member
Why was he beaten. Was the dog one of those yap dogs? You know. They just keep yapping and yapping for no reason. There are times that you want to beat them. lol
 

treide

New member
Definitely a step in the right direction. I am horrified by some of the cases of animal cruelty and neglect that are featured on Animal Planet.

Just to open a can of worms, what about opinions on laboratory animals and experimentation?
 

wiccanpony

Official Freak Bar Witch
to go by the story......the bastard was staying with the owner of the dog. Yappy dog or not, he was a guest, if this guy doesn’t have any self control, what is he going to beat on next.....children, women? :cussing:


I\'ll pass on the \"can of worms\"
 

mistamick

New member
God that\'s terrible. Are they only just starting those kind of things in America. Although I don\'t know if they even have them here.
 

StarFyre

Active member
well...

I beleive animal testing should be stopped.

Makes ups, etc...if people want to use it...test it on themselves.

I am perfectly fine with watching people getting infected or suffering cause they want some product, so we decide to test it on themselves or their kids or something *shrug*.

Logically, that makes more sense. You want it, you pay for it. if you are willing to try it without testing it on someone first, so be it.

Sanjay
 

Torn blue sky

New member
The Insulin statement was gold \"I need my life tof fight for the lives of animals\" ...Then goes on to say, you can\'t sop us theres too many of us.
So why\'s your life so important? Hmmmm...
The bit about \"Oh my god, you blind bastard! Torturing that poor dog!\", had me in stitches too.
Nice one Kep. There are boundries, but theres a lot of madness growing from militant protesters!
 

MPJ

New member
I\'ll vote for putting a stop to animal testing only if we can start testing on dangerous criminals, perverts, etc.. and people who beat pets. Till then, sorry animals but better tested on you than me.
 

vincegamer

Active member
some good points and lots of inflamatory rhetoric.

They kept calling that guy (who compared himself to MLKing and Jesus) a convicted criminal but they never said what he was convicted of.
Heck, if you fought a traffic ticket and lost you could be called a convicted criminal.
If he ever participated in a violent protest then his comparison should be deeply offensive (though even Jesus engaged in violent protest). If he was convicted of tresspassing in a form of passive civil disobedience then good for him.

Trouble is, most members of PETA have no idea what they have joined. PETA is a good whipping boy because its ideas are extreme, but the basic idea of ethical treatment of animals is a good one.
 

supervike

Super Moderator
Originally posted by vincegamer
Trouble is, most members of PETA have no idea what they have joined. PETA is a good whipping boy because its ideas are extreme, but the basic idea of ethical treatment of animals is a good one.

This is exactly right.

Its funny though, because I almost guarantee that if you asked on of the ALF members is firebombing an abortion clinic would be a \'legitimate\' tactic, they would scream about someone shoving religious doctorine down their throats.

Everytime I hear about these people I immediately picture Brad Pitt in \"12 Monkeys\"....He pretty much sums up the intellect....
 

Swordwind

New member
Mon-key! MON-KEY!!!! ahem...

Originally posted by MPJ
I\'ll vote for putting a stop to animal testing only if we can start testing on dangerous criminals, perverts, etc.. and people who beat pets.

Seconded. Two birds, one stone.
 

treide

New member
I\'ll vote for putting a stop to animal testing only if we can start testing on dangerous criminals, perverts, etc..

Uh-oh. I had best watch out - my wife has called me a pervert on more than one occasion.:D

I at one time also thought that criminals would be perfect candidates for drug testing and other medical experiments. They infringed upon the rights of others, so they lose some of their rights in return, right? The problem is where you draw the line. What types of criminals are \"OK\" to experiment upon. A hypothetical example: a repeat offender is jailed for violent sexual assault. He was chronically sexually abused as a child. Is it appropriate to do medical experiments on someone like this? My opinion is no. If you look at the number of prison inmates suffering from mental health problems, you are basically dealing with a vulnerable population. Yes, they may be dangerous, but that doesn\'t mean they should be tortured/assaulted/subjected to experimentation.

Sorry about getting off the animal topic, but the quote got me thinking about other things.
 

vincegamer

Active member
Another example of an extreme being bad for a cause.

I personally believe that a person should have a right to end his/her own life if there is no chance of recovery from a painful and debilitating fatal illness.
Unfortunately the most vocal advocate for such a scheme, Dr. Kervorkian, was a complete madman.
 

wiccanpony

Official Freak Bar Witch
Originally posted by vincegamer
Another example of an extreme being bad for a cause.

I personally believe that a person should have a right to end his/her own life if there is no chance of recovery from a painful and debilitating fatal illness.
Unfortunately the most vocal advocate for such a scheme, Dr. Kervorkian, was a complete madman.

I\'ll stand with you there Vince...my moms passing was not good or easy and she was forced to go through it.:(
 

treide

New member
Wow! This thread has hit some really heavy topics.

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of euthanasia. Somehow the prevailing opinion has been \"preserve life at all costs\", while quality of life has taken a backseat. Case in point - the Schiavo debacle (everyone needs advanced directives)!

Certainly an individual with an incurable, debilitating illness should be able to make a decision about their ongoing care, even if that ongoing care involves allowing the individual to die with dignity and without pain.
 

demonherald

New member
agree with euthanasia in some instances...I know I don\'t want to be laid as good as dead causing endless anguish for my loved ones as they wait out the inevitable. Let the grieving period take care of the hearts and minds of those close to me at least it\'s definite and life can rebuild from there but months of waiting and pputting everything on hold...naah thanks..

Putting animal abusers in a bear pit ...cool other such punishments could be putting a child abuser in a room with the family of said abused child.
A drink driver who kills,, on a speedway track of drunk drivers road testing there ability to stop.

the news article is a good thing..I recently saw someting on Discovery whee an animal abuser was banned from keeping pets of any kind but a paedophile allowed to have kids ?????

There really is some sad crazy s:cussing:t goes on out there...And all we can do is wait for people who\'s heads are so far up their own arse they can see their speen to decide what should be done...

Red Tape is a bitch
 

Swordwind

New member
If you go to a dogs home to pick up a stray dog they send a inspector round to make sure your suitable.

If you have a baby...
 
Back To Top
Top