Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?

FirstAscent casts Deflect

It's SUPER effective

Call it what you want. There is no intention of deflection. I just want to know.

[1714136630]

1714136630

[1714136630]

1714136630

[1714136630]

1714136630

[1714136630]

1714136630

[1714136630]

1714136630

[Hawker]

Nope.  If you are going to be cruel to the dog, you will have it taken off you.  You don't have a right to gratuitously torture animals.

Define torture.

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

[FirstAscent]

Nope.  If you are going to be cruel to the dog, you will have it taken off you.  You don't have a right to gratuitously torture animals.

Define animal torture.

Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.

[FredericBastiat]

Move to Syria then - a violent minority runs the place, they kill all who protest and you'd love it.

Personally I think the castration and killing of opponents is distasteful but if that is your ideal, get on the plane to Damascus asap.

No they aren't minorities. There are a majority of violent individuals operating as gangs in small groups. Not the same.

Never said violence was ideal, just easier to deal with when it occurs in smaller numbers.

[Hawker]

Move to Syria then - a violent minority runs the place, they kill all who protest and you'd love it.

Personally I think the castration and killing of opponents is distasteful but if that is your ideal, get on the plane to Damascus asap.

No they aren't minorities. There are a majority of violent individuals operating as gangs in small groups. Not the same.

Never said violence was ideal, just easier to deal with when it occurs in smaller numbers.

The Syrian regime is based on a group that are a religious group called Alevi and constitute 15% of the population.  If that isn't a minority, then what is?

[FredericBastiat]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

[FredericBastiat]

Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

[FirstAscent]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

[FirstAscent]

Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

Seriously?

[Hawker]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

But you are human and you don't have the right to torture dogs.  Your right to own a dog was given to you by society subject to your not torturing it.  Parliament is the voice of the people and people do care about cruelty to animals so parliament will either care or its members will be sacked.

[Hawker]

Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do.  Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.

[FredericBastiat]

Animal torture is different from dining table torture. Cut the legs of your dining table if you want to make it shorter. Nobody cares. If you want to cut the legs of your dog to make him shorter, people will care. I'm surprised others need to point out the extreme differences between owing a dining table and owning a dog.

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

Seriously?

Damn serious.

[FredericBastiat]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

[Hawker]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

TImes change and morals change too.  Unless you believe moral laws are written in the stars, its best keep up to date.

[FredericBastiat]

But you are human and you don't have the right to torture dogs.  Your right to own a dog was given to you by society subject to your not torturing it.  Parliament is the voice of the people and people do care about cruelty to animals so parliament will either care or its members will be sacked.

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” --Thomas Paine

I could care less about the voice of the people or parliament. I care about the principles, concepts and logic of law, specifically those originating with the NAP and expounding from there. Break those laws and I'm not listening to you.

[FirstAscent]

Why bother?  There are plenty Acts of Parliament that do that.  

Why should parliament care about what I do with my dog anymore than they do with my kitchen table?

Remember it's just an animal, it's not human. Big difference.

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

Actually, no. I refer to John Quincy Adams.

[FredericBastiat]

You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do.  Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.

Exactly my point: you don't have a right to tell people what the should do with their person or things.

Torture of animals is repugnant. Duh. I wouldn't do it. If I were to sell a dog to another individual, I would sell the dog with the caveat that they not torture it; and if they broke contract, they must pay a fine and return the animal.

Idiot... Think it thru. Use your imagination, trust me, it's refreshing. Try it sometime. I promise it won't hurt.

[FredericBastiat]

You're really behind the times. Even in the 18th century, forward thinkers would be in disagreement with you.

You mean the same ones that believed and practiced slavery?

Actually, no. I refer to John Quincy Adams.

Supply a reference quote.

[FirstAscent]

You don't have the right to tell people what they "should" do.  Torture of animals is repugnant - if that's what you are doing then you forfeit your right to have an animal.

Exactly my point: you don't have a right to tell people what the should do with their person or things.

Torture of animals is repugnant. Duh. I wouldn't do it. If I were to sell a dog to another individual, I would sell the dog with the caveat that they not torture it; and if they broke contract, they must pay a fine and return the animal.

Backpedaling, are you? Are you against regulations which would prevent others from keeping slaves on their own property?

Oh, and your earlier comments about animals having no rights is repugnant. Especially in light of how you feel about slavery.

[FirstAscent]

Supply a reference quote.

How funny! You think the truth of the matter does not exist unless I do the research for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams#Anti-Slavery_Petitions

http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm