Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death.  And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant.  And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.  

What about you?  Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg568807#msg568807

Before that, you said this:

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

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.

[Hawker]

Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death. And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant.  And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.  

What about you?  Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg568807#msg568807

The post you link says that you don't see any basis to restrict torturing animals.  Which means you are OK with it.  

...snip...

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

In your libertarian paradise, torturing animals would be a private matter and those who oppose it would have no right to intervene. 

Can you not see that is a non-starter in terms of modern humanity?

[FirstAscent]

We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

Nobody's trying to fool you Fred.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O1FTPVl9UEEC&pg=PA132&dq=john+quincy+adams+horse+dog&hl=en&ei=t7OUTrHaPKr3sQLRrbTvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Epic fail again. That was a metaphor. He never implied that dogs or horses had rights. If anything, it was a off-handed remark intended to mock a stupid argument posed by a critic of slavery whose conclusion and logic was patently false. That being, the US government would be overthrown, and the liberty of the American people would be destroyed if slaves could petition the government for redress.

Same kind of crap I've been reading here about making slavery and animal rights equivalent. As if.

Congresscritters give me pause. Nothing ever changes, same ol' ignorance then, slightly different flavor.

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

[FredericBastiat]

Before that, you said this:

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

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.

I said I don't advocate torture. I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.  I haven't backpedaled. If you don't like animal torture, then start a humane society and educate people.

If you want to sell animals that you don't want tortured, then do a vetting of the soon-to-be-owner, or contract with them to specifically treat your animal a specific way prior to sale.

[FredericBastiat]

The post you link says that you don't see any basis to restrict torturing animals.  Which means you are OK with it.  

...snip...

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

In your libertarian paradise, torturing animals would be a private matter and those who oppose it would have no right to intervene. 

Can you not see that is a non-starter in terms of modern humanity?

Nope.

[BitterTea]

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings.

[FirstAscent]

I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.

Why?

[FirstAscent]

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings.

I will concede that there is room for interpretation. If you wish to interpret it as you wish, I cannot stop you.

[Hawker]

Before that, you said this:

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

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.

I said I don't advocate torture. I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.  I haven't backpedaled. If you don't like animal torture, then start a humane society and educate people.

If you want to sell animals that you don't want tortured, then do a vetting of the soon-to-be-owner, or contract with them to specifically treat your animal a specific way prior to sale.

You don't have the right to dictate that.  We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do.  If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.

[FredericBastiat]

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound.

Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues, not making a case for animal rights.

[FirstAscent]

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound.

Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues not making a case for animal rights.

The more verbose transcript is more than I care to manually type in. I provided you a summary, and even conceded that there is room for interpretation. Interpret it as you wish. However, you must concede the possibility that Adams' views are not synonymous with yours.

[BitterTea]

You don't have the right to dictate that.  We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do.

So we don't have the right to dictate what you should do, because the current system lets you dictate what everyone does. Got it.

If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.

You already did, and His name is State.

[FredericBastiat]

The more verbose transcript is more than I care to manually type in. I provided you a summary, and even conceded that there is room for interpretation. Interpret it as you wish. However, you must concede the possibility that Adams' views are not synonymous with yours.

I disagree. I think my views align with his in nearly the same way. I probably would have made a similar remark if one of my colleagues had attempted to promote slavery using some underhanded "slight-of-hand" strawman subtlety. Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too. I wish they would, humanity sucks sometimes. Not to far fetched really.

[FredericBastiat]

You don't have the right to dictate that.  We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do.  If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.

Wait a sec. You're saying I can't contract with another person? Wow. Weird. I can't dictate what anybody can do with their things -true- and then you tell me I can't do what I want with my things, hence dictate. Who's dictating to whom here? I advocate contract. It promotes consent, then, in almost the same sentence, you try to take that away. I just don't get you sometimes.

Flip, flop, flip, flop.

[FirstAscent]

Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too.

They both will squeal if you push them far enough. Is that not enough to make it obvious that cruelty is unacceptable, and that they deserve some rights?

[FredericBastiat]

Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too.

They both will squeal if you push them far enough. Is that not enough to make it obvious that cruelty is unacceptable, and that they deserve some rights?

Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.

Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.

Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.

Is my life of less value than my animal (my property) you're trying to protect from me?

[FirstAscent]

Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.

Bummer that life is more complex than property rights.

Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.

If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?

[BitterTea]

If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?

Deflection hat trick!

Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?

P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?

[FirstAscent]

If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?

Deflection hat trick!

Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?

P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?

In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point.

So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning?

[BitterTea]

R

If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?

Deflection hat trick!

Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?

P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?

In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point.

So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning?

It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?

I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.