# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  My Neighbors Just Ate their Dog (Seriously). What is the libertarian stance on this?

## pacodever

So I live in Guam for another week and woke up this morning to a horrible sound coming from my Chuukese neighbors' yard.  Went outside to check it out and saw that one of our neighbors had strung their dog up by some cable so that it was hanging from the tree and choking to death.  I yelled at him to quit and get the dog down.  Which he started to do but I didn't think the dog was going to make it so I ran inside to get a knife to cut it down.  By the time I returned he was carrying the dog (still moving and making horrible sounds to the other side of the house).  I climbed over the wall and grabbed their other puppy and took it back to my house.  By this time other dog was no where to be seen and had quit making sounds and the neighbor had driven off.

I called the police (I know  but there is not a humane society or pet-abuse enforcement agency out here) and filed a complaint.  This was the last remaining dog of the original three that neighbors had gotten about a year ago who mysteriously disappeared as well.  After waiting an hour and filing a police report, the police officer basically said they weren't going to do anything and that I could file a complaint, but they were still not going to do anything even then.  The head of the household came back and talked with the police and I was told to return the puppy because it belonged to him, and the other dog strung up on the tree belonged to his brother who was doing the hanging.

Dog eating is common and accepted on the island of Chuuk.  But this not Chuuk.  Guam has horrible animal protection laws and even worse enforcement and apparently even the lawmakers and enforcement are unsure of the legality of eating your own dog.

What is the libertarian stance on eating your own dog on your own property?   Even if you accept the cultural differences of eating dog, isn't hanging the dog from a tree and beating it to death with a stick (the Chuukese custom) animal cruelty?  Cows are put down more humanely than that.

Is there anything else I should have done?  Can't help but think that I should have just grabbed both dogs and got them to the animal shelter, but it sounds like legally I would have been in the wrong and I would have to worry about protecting my wife and newborn from reprisal as well as dealing with any legal repercussions while trying to get the hell out of here.  Not something I had ever thought about or was ready to deal early Saturday morning.

As I am writing this, they are having a dog barbecue and my wife and I are eagerly packing to leave the island and get back to the states next week.

----------


## onlyrp

dogs don't have rights, end of story.

----------


## LibertyEagle

It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.

Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.
> 
> Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.


+1

----------


## donnay

They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.

----------


## onlyrp

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


agreed

----------


## eduardo89

> They eat dog in Korea and* Mexico too.*  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.



Whaaaaaaaaaaat? I honestly have never seen that and I don't think I've ever met someone who would do that. Then again, we have some weeeeeeeird ass Indian tribes back in Mexico, so who knows. Any "civilized" Mexican would find it disgusting.

----------


## specsaregood

i'd eat a dog, life is all about eating new and exciting things.

----------


## Voluntary Man

With all due respect, mind your own business.

----------


## lilymc

That made me want to vomit.

----------


## donnay

> Whaaaaaaaaaaat? I honestly have never seen that and I don't think I've ever met someone who would do that. Then again, we have some weeeeeeeird ass Indian tribes back in Mexico, so who knows. Any "civilized" Mexican would find it disgusting.


It was in Tijuana.  My friends who were missionaries had just came back from the Orient, to take a break and moved to San Diego, California. Every other Sunday, after church, they take a ride to this little hole in the wall restaurant in Tijuana.  The wife loved, what she thought was chipped beef in a cream sauce....they had been going there for a few months.  Their son came to visit so they took him to their favorite little hole in the wall.  Helen raved about her dish, that she always gets. Their son spoke Spanish and asked the waiter for the recipe, he hesitated, and then told their son the special meat it was Perro.  Needless to say, my friends never went back--this was in the 80's. True Story.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Doesn't sound like a humane slaughtering process at all, dog meat notwithstanding.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


Yup.

I imagine the sight of freshly gutted deer hanging from a backyard tree would be equally revolting to many.

----------


## Indy Vidual

Hey Humans, leave those kids alone!

----------


## jmhudak17

I could see a libertarian society where animals that had more intelligence had some rights.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hey Humans, leave those kids alone!


LoL - Adorable pups.

But, are these guys any less "adorable"?

----------


## BenIsForRon

There is no black and white.  IMO, if the dog was killed quickly, then it's all good. 

I would put humans on a level above the other animals (given many more rights beyond (inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain), though I have no solid reasoning to support that.

----------


## Nastynate

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


 Completely right. When you bite into a huge ham and bacon sandwich in front of a Muslim I'm sure it would want to make him want to vomit. A lot of places in Africa eat bugs and monkey brains. Thailand has a delicacy of an egg where theres a fully formed chick inside but hasn't hatched yet and they eat that. You'd be surprised at what people eat, you'd also be surprised at how good those things can be also. For me atleast I could never eat a dog, I love them too much and I almost think of them as part of my family, be sort of like cannibalism for me.

----------


## Lishy

That's freaking nasty!

But I would mind my own business and pretend not to know.

----------


## pacodever

I can get around the cultural differences on what is considered food if we were on Chuuk, but there was nothing quick or humane about the "slaughter."  From initially hearing the sounds to seeing it had to be at least 45 seconds.   But it doesn't make any sense for it to be ok to abuse an animal just because I am about to eat it but illegal to abuse that same animal in other cases.

And I was just minding my own business in my own house until I heard some horrible animal sounds outside coming from the direction of their house but still possibly on my property or caught on the fencing between until I went outside and saw that $#@!.

There is a little bit of history too with the neighbors.  We've had to stop their kids from coming over and taunting our own dog (which we were relieved to finally get off the island yesterday), and throwing rocks at another neighbor's cow while it was tangled up.  They also regularly kick and beat their dogs (all puppies because we have yet to see a dog make it to 1 year old there) with sticks all in plain view so its not like we are being nosy.  We have tried to tell their children that they should treat animals nicely since they can't defend themselves when they came over to watch us put up X-mas lights.  The adults are usually nowhere to be found.

The joy with which one of the kids does this $#@! and watches his uncle (the one killing the dog) is sociopath, future rapist/murderer stuff.  Seriously chilling to my wife and I.  And of course my concerns that if we did call the police, we would just be ignored and create a tense situation with the neighbors was confirmed.  But just couldn't stand by and let it happen.  At least we'll be out of here Tuesday...

----------


## Anti Federalist

I think you did the best you could do, and I'm imagining you are pretty defenseless there as well, meaning private firearms are prohibited.




> I can get around the cultural differences on what is considered food if we were on Chuuk, but there was nothing quick or humane about the "slaughter."  From initially hearing the sounds to seeing it had to be at least 45 seconds.   But it doesn't make any sense for it to be ok to abuse an animal just because I am about to eat it but illegal to abuse that same animal in other cases.
> 
> And I was just minding my own business in my own house until I heard some horrible animal sounds outside coming from the direction of their house but still possibly on my property or caught on the fencing between until I went outside and saw that $#@!.
> 
> There is a little bit of history too with the neighbors.  We've had to stop their kids from coming over and taunting our own dog (which we were relieved to finally get off the island yesterday), and throwing rocks at another neighbor's cow while it was tangled up.  They also regularly kick and beat their dogs (all puppies because we have yet to see a dog make it to 1 year old there) with sticks all in plain view so its not like we are being nosy.  We have tried to tell their children that they should treat animals nicely since they can't defend themselves when they came over to watch us put up X-mas lights.  The adults are usually nowhere to be found.
> 
> The joy with which one of the kids does this $#@! and watches his uncle (the one killing the dog) is sociopath, future rapist/murderer stuff.  Seriously chilling to my wife and I.  And of course my concerns that if we did call the police, we would just be ignored and create a tense situation with the neighbors was confirmed.  But just couldn't stand by and let it happen.  At least we'll be out of here Tuesday...

----------


## mczerone

> It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.
> 
> Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.


Sorry, but why not use some social pressure instead of a local tyranny?

Tell your neighbor that this is unacceptable to you, and even though it is his property you will not deal with him if he continues. Put up local ads telling your other neighbors about what you've witnessed. Try to inform dog dealers so that they won't sell dogs to him.

There are millions of ways to get him to stop without pulling the power of the gun on him - either a federal, state, local, or personal gun.

Peaceful means may not work, but you should exhaust them. Only then should you ask yourself "is aggression justified". If it is, you don't need the state to do it for you.

----------


## pauliticalfan

Thanks for ruining my night.

This $#@! is horrible and ridiculous. If you call yourself pro-life that means you respect ALL life. To do otherwise is completely hypocritical. When it comes to the life issue, I see hypocrisy everywhere and it's disgusting. So-called pro-life Republicans are for the death penalty, warfare, and animal abuse. The Constitutions protects in principle against acts of violence. You should have saved those dogs.

----------


## pauliticalfan

> I can get around the cultural differences on what is considered food if we were on Chuuk, but there was nothing quick or humane about the "slaughter."  From initially hearing the sounds to seeing it had to be at least 45 seconds.   But it doesn't make any sense for it to be ok to abuse an animal just because I am about to eat it but illegal to abuse that same animal in other cases.
> 
> And I was just minding my own business in my own house until I heard some horrible animal sounds outside coming from the direction of their house but still possibly on my property or caught on the fencing between until I went outside and saw that $#@!.
> 
> There is a little bit of history too with the neighbors.  We've had to stop their kids from coming over and taunting our own dog (which we were relieved to finally get off the island yesterday), and throwing rocks at another neighbor's cow while it was tangled up.  They also regularly kick and beat their dogs (all puppies because we have yet to see a dog make it to 1 year old there) with sticks all in plain view so its not like we are being nosy.  We have tried to tell their children that they should treat animals nicely since they can't defend themselves when they came over to watch us put up X-mas lights.  The adults are usually nowhere to be found.
> 
> The joy with which one of the kids does this $#@! and watches his uncle (the one killing the dog) is sociopath, future rapist/murderer stuff.  Seriously chilling to my wife and I.  And of course my concerns that if we did call the police, we would just be ignored and create a tense situation with the neighbors was confirmed.  But just couldn't stand by and let it happen.  At least we'll be out of here Tuesday...


$#@! your neighbors. Scum of the earth, horrible parents. Call the cops before you leave.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thanks for ruining my night.
> 
> This $#@! is horrible and ridiculous. If you call yourself pro-life that means you respect ALL life. To do otherwise is completely hypocritical. When it comes to the life issue, I see hypocrisy everywhere and it's disgusting. So-called pro-life Republicans are for the death penalty, warfare, and animal abuse. The Constitutions protects in principle against acts of violence. You should have saved those dogs.


So, to remain consistent, a vegan lifestyle is necessary?

----------


## Lishy

I wouldn't mess with them if they're crazy. Mind your own business and they cannot make a victim out of you.

----------


## pacodever

> Tell your neighbor that this is unacceptable to you, and even though it is his property you will not deal with him if he continues. Put up local ads telling your other neighbors about what you've witnessed. Try to inform dog dealers so that they won't sell dogs to him.


That is basically what I lectured to him before the police had me handover the puppy.  Called my landlord right away too since she will not be able to rent our place next to known dog-eaters, especially to US military like us.  She is already in contact with the owner of their property.  Probably not good for the neighborhood reputation either.  We let all the neighbors know as well so they could at least keep an eye on their own pets and for future abuse.  Maybe that will put the pressure on them.

I'll also be "returning" their trash that has blown over into our yard over the past year Tuesday evening.

----------


## pacodever

> I think you did the best you could do, and I'm imagining you are pretty defenseless there as well, meaning private firearms are prohibited.


We tried.  Actually I gave the 686 to the wife in the house with the baby who actually came out and covered me from behind the truck in the driveway unbeknownst to me.  That's a great wife. But with the newborn, priorities have definitely shifted and physical confrontation wasn't the way to go.

But believe me, getting the firearm id is a pain out here.

----------


## BamaAla

The answer? There are a few: 
1. Don't eat with your neighbors
2. Never sell your neighbors a dog...or any other animal for that matter
3. If you are so compelled, tell everyone that you see in the neighborhood (and beyond) that your neighbors are disgusting dog kilers
4. Warn the local animal shelters and breeders

I find their actions deplorable, but I'm not of the opinion that animals have rights, so their property is theirs to do with as they see fit. That doesn't mean you have no recourse though; the above actions would probably have some effect. If that is not acceptable to you, you could always just open up a can and deal with the consequences; that's always there.

----------


## otherone

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


There are quite a few folks who eat their god every weekend.

----------


## otherone

> dogs don't have rights, end of story.


No Victim No Crime.
Prevention of offense to one's sensibilities is no justification for the state.

----------


## Captain Shays

Needs garlic

----------


## tbone717

Just an observation after reading through this thread.  While most of the answers were consistent with libertarian ideological principles, you do need to realize how this comes across to the average person learning about libertarianism for the first time.  When libertarians justify something that is abhorrent to the average American with ideology, it makes us look like a bunch of nut cases.  Someone reading this would come away with the thinking "those libertarians think it is OK to eat dog".

One of the challenges we face if we desire to grow as a movement, is to be able to explain our positions and ideology in a manner that the average person wouldn't find off putting.

----------


## Yieu

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


Yes, I do not see much difference between eating a dog or a sheep (but as a Hindu, you would know how I feel about cows vs. any other animal).

I wouldn't eat either, but who am I to judge others for how they eat, even if I disagree with it?

----------


## awake

Unless you want to issue property rights to animals, the animal rests under the property right of the human owner. Property rights for animals would render all animals inviolate; humans would instantly become murders and slave holders. Courts would have to interpret the animals wish to prosecute its aggressors. In other words it would automatically prosecute each and every one. It would be absurdity personified.

As disturbing as this story is, one is only left to use social shame to dissuade similar actions. If he ate the neighbors dog, this would be a property right violation and could be prosecuted fully.

----------


## otherone

> One of the challenges we face if we desire to grow as a movement, is to be able to explain our positions and ideology in a manner that the average person wouldn't find off putting.


Someone seems to be lobbying for appointment as Official RPF Spokesman (or Censor).  What makes you believe the 'Average Person' reads this forum?

----------


## Demigod

If there is no law prohibiting him to slaughter animals on personal property  or in urban areas ( if you live in a city ) there is nothing you can do about it.

You eat pork he eats dogs.If anyone here has ever witnessed what a pig does when it is slaughtered would find what the dog "normal".

----------


## WilliamC

Eating dog  is one thing, but inhumane slaughter in public (hey, you could hear and see what was going on from your property) is another.

You should not have to listen to nor see your neighbors slaughtering animals just as you shouldn't have neighbors who have sex or relieve their bowels in public.

And if they are inhumane to animals they are far more likely to be inhumane towards other humans who are weaker than they.

But laws regulating this should be local, not national.

----------


## Yieu

> Unless you want to issue property rights to animals, the animal rests under the property right of the human owner. Property rights for animals would render all animals inviolate; humans would instantly become murders and slave holders. Courts would have to interpret the animals wish to prosecute its aggressors. In other words it would automatically prosecute each and every one. It would be absurdity personified.
> 
> As disturbing as this story is, one is only left to use social shame to dissuade similar actions. If he ate the neighbors dog, this would be a property right violation and could be prosecuted fully.


I believe that some God-granted rights extend to all living beings.  For example, the right to life is granted merely by being alive, regardless of species.  This is _not_ a "legal" right, which are fictions of humans for the purpose of organizing society, and are not God-granted.  And only humans can violate rights, not other animals, so an animal's right to life is only lost when a human takes their life.  But at no point is a court system involved because it is all under God's law, not man's law.

But I suppose that is irrelevant if looking at it from a human law perspective, as human law is not involved.

----------


## Demigod

> Eating dog  is one thing, but inhumane slaughter in public (hey, you could hear and see what was going on from your property) is another.
> 
> You should not have to listen to nor see your neighbors slaughtering animals just as you shouldn't have neighbors who have sex or relieve their bowels in public.
> 
> And if they are inhumane to animals they are far more likely to be inhumane towards other humans who are weaker than they.
> 
> But laws regulating this should be local, not national.


If there is no law prohibiting him to slaughter animals on his personal property there is nothing you can do.And as he said this was a one time situation it is not like he is killing dogs every day.If he lives in a rural community slaughtering animals is more or less normal.

Yes he should at least ask the neighbors if they agreed but that is another thing completely.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Thanks for ruining my night.
> 
> This $#@! is horrible and ridiculous. If you call yourself pro-life that means you respect ALL life. To do otherwise is completely hypocritical. When it comes to the life issue, I see hypocrisy everywhere and it's disgusting. So-called pro-life Republicans are for the death penalty, warfare, and animal abuse. The Constitutions protects in principle against acts of violence. You should have saved those dogs.


Unfortunately respecting ALL life is not as easy as you think and you might be guilty of that hypocrisy yourself. If you eat red meat, you're not respecting the life of a cow...if you eat bacon, you're not respecting the life of a pig. If you kill a mosquito, cockroach, ant etc. you're not respecting their life.

----------


## otherone

> I believe that some God-granted rights extend to all living beings.


The fundamental, universal law of Life is that Life EATS Life.  Sorry, but top of the food chain grants privileges.

----------


## tbone717

> Someone seems to be lobbying for appointment as Official RPF Spokesman (or Censor).  What makes you believe the 'Average Person' reads this forum?


From the main page of the site: In the past 24 hours, 14714 Users have visited the forum. 1470 members and 13244 guests.

----------


## Yieu

> The fundamental, universal law of Life is that Life EATS Life.  Sorry, but top of the food chain grants privileges.


I already answered that concern.  




> And only humans can violate rights, not other animals, so an animal's right to life is only lost when a human takes their life.


When an animal kills another animal, it is not a "violation of their right to life", it was just a killing because God has a stricter set of rules for humans than He does for animals, due to humans' overall greater capacity for intelligence, reasoning, and morality in general.

But keep in mind this is all talking about concepts which have nothing to do with human or mundane concepts of law.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> So, to remain consistent, a vegan lifestyle is necessary?


Hey, vegetables are. people, too!

----------


## tod evans

As an ol' country boy who has slaughtered his own meat since the late '60's the "cute" pictures of baby food don't sway me.

However I have never eaten a dog.......maybe inadvertently a cat or two at the local Chinese establishment...

Like has been said over and over in this thread "animals ain't people".

Threads like AF posts about cops killing dogs might affect public opinion enough to eventually allow some relief under property law? I personally think this would be a good thing! 

As far as a neighbor doing what they choose to their animal including slaughtering it for food, I don't have a legal leg to stand on.

----------


## Yieu

> Hey, vegetables are. people, too!


Funny man.  But plants do have souls, like animals, so you bring up a good point.  It is still bad to kill plants.  There is an exception, but I won't get into that here at this time.

----------


## truelies

> So I live in Guam for another week and woke up this morning to a horrible sound coming from my Chuukese neighbors' yard.  Went outside to check it out and saw that one of our neighbors had strung their dog up by some cable so that it was hanging from the tree and choking to death.  I yelled at him to quit and get the dog down.  Which he started to do but I didn't think the dog was going to make it so I ran inside to get a knife to cut it down.  By the time I returned he was carrying the dog (still moving and making horrible sounds to the other side of the house).  I climbed over the wall and grabbed their other puppy and took it back to my house.  By this time other dog was no where to be seen and had quit making sounds and the neighbor had driven off.
> 
> I called the police (I know  but there is not a humane society or pet-abuse enforcement agency out here) and filed a complaint.  This was the last remaining dog of the original three that neighbors had gotten about a year ago who mysteriously disappeared as well.  After waiting an hour and filing a police report, the police officer basically said they weren't going to do anything and that I could file a complaint, but they were still not going to do anything even then.  The head of the household came back and talked with the police and I was told to return the puppy because it belonged to him, and the other dog strung up on the tree belonged to his brother who was doing the hanging.
> 
> Dog eating is common and accepted on the island of Chuuk.  But this not Chuuk.  Guam has horrible animal protection laws and even worse enforcement and apparently even the lawmakers and enforcement are unsure of the legality of eating your own dog.
> 
> What is the libertarian stance on eating your own dog on your own property?   Even if you accept the cultural differences of eating dog, isn't hanging the dog from a tree and beating it to death with a stick (the Chuukese custom) animal cruelty?  Cows are put down more humanely than that.
> 
> Is there anything else I should have done?  Can't help but think that I should have just grabbed both dogs and got them to the animal shelter, but it sounds like legally I would have been in the wrong and I would have to worry about protecting my wife and newborn from reprisal as well as dealing with any legal repercussions while trying to get the hell out of here.  Not something I had ever thought about or was ready to deal early Saturday morning.
> ...



This incident is a perfect illustration of the utter modern day  insanity of diversity/mixing cultures in the same geograhic area. Such is an open and unavoidable invitation to violence.

----------


## nf7mate

I agree with most of the commenters on this thread. It may be disgusting, but people have the right to be moderately disgusting. 

I have caught, cooked, eaten scorpions though.

----------


## Sullivan*

If it were me, and I had an idea before this happened, I would have reached out to the neighbor and pleaded with them that if they were going to do it, at least do it away from view of my own family.  We can respect other people's culture and traditions, but they can reciprocate and act like good neighbors should and respect ours as well.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> Funny man.  But plants do have souls, like animals, so you bring up a good point.  It is still bad to kill plants.  There is an exception, but I won't get into that here at this time.


My own thoughts on the matter are that the taking of any life should have a good purpose and should be respectful. This is what I try to pass on to my own children. The way some people disregard other species or forms of life is no different to me than someone who would rip the wings off of a butterfly, just for kicks, or chop down a cherry tree, just to play with a new axe. To my way of thinking, such a person is taking steps down the serial killer's path (too harsh?).

I definitely have a problem with the inhumane slaughter of any animal, whether we're talking pork chop, steak, deer jerky, or the Hong Kong Meow Buffet. However, beyond social pressure (and sometimes even then) society is opening a big can of fish food (worms) by tampering with the property rights and social norms of others.

Maybe, this is all just anthropomorphizing, but my philosophy is this: teach your children to respect (not worship) lesser forms of life (sorry, treehuggers, but I do consider humans the highest form of life), and perhaps they'll be more respectful of the higher forms (and won't sodomize livestock or shoot unarmed "perps").

----------


## airborne373

Our society is so messed up. Most people care more about dogs and the grass they pee on than their fellow human beings. 

I say use salt & pepper...it makes dog taste better.

----------


## azxd

Accept that cultural differences exist, that people are people, and not animals to be domesticated and CONTROLLED, and you'll be getting close to my position about this.

----------


## MelissaWV

Man.  You guys probably would have called the cops on my grandma.  When I was little she would hold conversations with me, sitting on a low bench and with her hands splayed near her feet.  While we were talking about whatever, a chicken might wander close by.  That was pretty much a fatal mistake.  It was grab, twist, swing, smack, and then tie up the feet and ask me to go hang it from the laundry pole in the yard for a bit to drain and finish twitching.

Fresh chicken is delicious.

I can't imagine dog is particularly good, but I would not eat there.  Your moral indignation is likely noted, but the idea that if someone kills a dog (rather than killing a chicken or a pig or a cow or a turkey or a deer) when they are young, they will probably become a serial killer... some of you are bonkers.

As for the assertion that the average person is going to be turned off by this discussion, consider that there are a lot of people in this nation who do hunt for food or sport, and who feel pretty strongly that they don't need some PETA PITA running after them screeching that they are awful people.

----------


## Madison320

> I could see a libertarian society where animals that had more intelligence had some rights.


I agree.

----------


## TiagoBarbosa

Thats sick, in my view.
But then again, im a animal rights defender, so...

I accept that some animals die in order to feed the human, but a dog is a domestic animal, they will defend you with all their heart, they are really the man best friend, and you kill it like that? Sorry, but i would probably give a roundhouse kick to that subject.

----------


## WilliamC

> If there is no law prohibiting him to slaughter animals on his personal property there is nothing you can do.And as he said this was a one time situation it is not like he is killing dogs every day.If he lives in a rural community slaughtering animals is more or less normal.
> 
> Yes he should at least ask the neighbors if they agreed but that is another thing completely.


I do support local zoning laws, so slaughtering animals for food would depend on whether or not your local government regulated it.

Just like I stated, I don't support laws against consenting adults having sex, but that doesn't mean I would see nothing wrong in having sex in your front yard where the neighbors can see.

If he could hear and see the process from his own house then he may have grounds for complaint.

But I note this occurred in Guam and I don't pretend to know what the laws are there, I'm basing my arguments on what is appropriate for the USA.

Heck I live in a rural area and am thinking about raising some rabbits for meat, but I'd sure as hell shoot them in the back of the head and/or slit their throats and make sure they were dead before I started butchering them.

Anyone who supports torturing animals is sick.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thats sick, in my view.
> But then again, im a animal rights defender, so...
> 
> I accept that some animals die in order to feed the human, but a dog is a domestic animal, they will defend you with all their heart, they are really the man best friend, and you kill it like that? Sorry, but i would probably give a roundhouse kick to that subject.


Pigs are also domestic animals in a lot of cases, as are geese (who are often also used as guard animals).  Likewise, there are many dogs that will never be "domesticated" to any great degree.  In essence, you're justifying only killing animals you don't find smart or cute.

----------


## driller80545

Don't we commonly feed our dogs horse meat? (Canned dog food) I would eat a dog if I was hungry. I expect that a dog would eat me if he was hungry too. Its all fertilizer in the end anyway. lol

----------


## Victor Grey

That sounds like a Horrible way to process an animal.

I take a stance on animal rights from a different angle. The way I see it, I support humane treatment of animals because it reflects on people toward humans themselves.

Yes that sounds presumptuous, I understand. What I am saying however, is a person who'll kick around a pet or torture their livestock, is probably a little warped inside. Or they have a certain, "ignorance" in my view about them. That is a concerning characteristic to me.

I wouldn't step in the way of someone from eating a dog. that is their right. However for that to happen in a western culture, in what seems to be some random arbitrary manner? That too is concerning. 

I'd feel comfortable asking them what they're doing and evaluating the person. They could just, you know, want to try dog. 
Or could be a portion of their own culture. That is respectable. 
Or... they could be crazy. Now I'm not a nosy person, but if my neighbor strings up a dog, man. 
Heh, that is an unusual occurrence. Please just admit that, you know I'm right. Not ever day you see that.

Probably going to strike a conversation on that. Taking note of any wide-eye blank stares, if you know what I mean.




> If there is no law prohibiting him to slaughter animals on personal property  or in urban areas ( if you live in a city ) there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> You eat pork he eats dogs.If anyone here has ever witnessed what a pig does when it is slaughtered would find what the dog "normal".


I have, I've took part in it. You lift it, you shoot it. It dies. Then you immediately drain it from the neck.

I've never understood the thinking behind not ending it and letting it drain. It works just as perfectly well as the "sticking" it thing. 
The other method works, it's not for me though I guess.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Man.  You guys probably would have called the cops on my grandma.  When I was little she would hold conversations with me, sitting on a low bench and with her hands splayed near her feet.  While we were talking about whatever, a chicken might wander close by.  That was pretty much a fatal mistake.  It was grab, twist, swing, smack, and then tie up the feet and ask me to go hang it from the laundry pole in the yard for a bit to drain and finish twitching.
> 
> Fresh chicken is delicious.
> 
> I can't imagine dog is particularly good, but I would not eat there.  Your moral indignation is likely noted, but the idea that if someone kills a dog (rather than killing a chicken or a pig or a cow or a turkey or a deer) when they are young, they will probably become a serial killer... some of you are bonkers.
> 
> As for the assertion that the average person is going to be turned off by this discussion, consider that there are a lot of people in this nation who do hunt for food or sport, and who feel pretty strongly that they don't need some PETA PITA running after them screeching that they are awful people.


To me, this is entirely different, Melissa.  

I have no problem with people eating animals for food.  But, I would hope they would kill them humanely.  Snapping a chicken's neck is about the most humane way to end a chicken's life.

That said, I also have no problem with a local community having an ordinance against eating certain animals that the people in that community have designated as pets.  But, I will admit that animal cruelty has always been a very tough issue for me.  I always have to remind myself that to bring government into it, is how this whole big government thing starts...

----------


## NoOneButPaul

I have no problem with it, its just because its dog that a lot of people do. 

Had it been an animal we haven't domesticated everyone here would be all for a person, on their property, killing an animal for food.

Freedom requires tolerance...

----------


## Victor Grey

> Freedom requires tolerance...


+1

----------


## trey4sports

anybody else have to read animal rights by peter singer? Makes for an intersting discussion.

in the end though, what makes them so much different from us? The fact that we are a more highly evolved species?

----------


## MelissaWV

> anybody else have to read animal rights by peter singer? Makes for an intersting discussion.
> 
> in the end though, what makes them so much different from us? The fact that we are a more highly evolved species?


If that is your belief --- that all animals are equal --- then I hope you are at least consistent.  No swatting of insects, ridding your home of rodents if they infest, wearing leather, using hairbrushes made at least in part with the hair of dead animals, no meat, very little or no dairy (the conditions under which that is gathered probably makes the animals wish for death), certainly no eggs, obviously no seafood, no plants that have not been very strictly grown and examined (I am quite sure you are eating small bugs more often than you think), no gelatin, or red velvet cake, no antibacterial soaps or lotions, no bleach, no cleaners that might wipe out colonies of bacteria...

It seems like a rough life, but otherwise, it would almost seem as if you are making your own calls on which creatures deserve to die.

Incidentally, I do think the main issue here is how the dog was being killed, and not why.  That the OP made it about imposing his idea that killing dogs is wrong, likely weakened his cause.  I would have purchased the dog from the neighbor, told the landlord, and promptly moved away.  Even if I gave the dog away a week later to a good family, I would have legally purchased it and gotten it away from someone who was going to eat it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> They eat dog in Korea and Mexico too.  People in India think we are nuts because we eat cow. Many Muslims think eating a pig is vile and disgusting.  The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


Eating a pig is pretty disgusting.  They're full of parasites and other toxic materials, but it's the poor man's beef, so yeah, to each his own.

----------


## awake

I forgot the most important power: buy the dog to prevent it if all possible.

----------


## WilliamC

Not to make light of or compare the two (well, ok I am actually doing both of those, but it's what popped into my head when I read the title "My Neighbors Ate Their Dog!") I am reminded of this scene from the Stephen King movie Needful Things.

starting at 18 seconds going to 25 seconds in this short trailer

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yup.
> 
> I imagine the sight of freshly gutted deer hanging from a backyard tree would be equally revolting to many.


Exactly.  I love venison, so I don't judge anyone else for which animals they eat, but I personally believe some are especially vile and disgusting to ingest because of health concerns.  It has nothing to do with the morality of killing specific kinds of animals.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I could see a libertarian society where animals that had more intelligence had some rights.


That sounds like a society backsliding into totalitarianism.  You can't keep a libertarian society very long when your whole basis for rights is intelligence.

----------


## phill4paul

> Eating a pig is pretty disgusting.  They're full of parasites and other toxic materials, but it's the poor man's beef, so yeah, to each his own.


  Sacrilege! Heh, to each their own. More for me!

----------


## rpwi

Well a lot of humane societies kill dogs.  If they didn't, we would have overpopulated roaming packs of wild dogs in the cities or dogs that starved in cages because nobody wants to pay to feed, shelter and clean them.

Think what is important is the manner in which an animal with a sophisticated nervous system is killed.  It should be quick and humane...as these animals share a lot of our DNA it is reasonable to assume they would share a lot of our same pain.  Most libertarians don't find it odd that we have local laws preventing one person from torturing another...so why would it be unreasonable to outlaw a person from torturing an animal that that is dissimilar from humans by only a small percentage of their DNA?  

I don't buy the argument that there is a 'gods special gene' that humans have that chimps and other close relatives of us don't have.

----------


## phill4paul

DO NOT search for "BBQ" - "Dog" - Image. Eyes cannot unsee.............

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hey, vegetables are. people, too!


No, but some people are vegetables.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Funny man.  But plants do have souls, like animals, so you bring up a good point.  It is still bad to kill plants.  There is an exception, but I won't get into that here at this time.


IMHO, I disagree that plants have souls.  However, I also disagree that humans have souls.  The idea of the soul is a flawed, pagan concept that has survived in the minds of men only.  Humans are special.  It has nothing to do with a "soul".

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ... isn't hanging the dog from a tree and beating it to death with a stick (the Chuukese custom) animal cruelty?





> Any "civilized" Mexican would find it disgusting.


Hmmm. I sense the origins of the Pinata somewhere here...

----------


## rpwi

> IMHO, I disagree that plants have souls.  However, I also disagree that humans have souls.  The idea of the soul is a flawed, pagan concept that has survived in the minds of men only.  Humans are special.  It has nothing to do with a "soul".


What about our near cousins? **** rudolfensis? **** erectus?  Neanderthals?  Are they special?  Tricky issue...

----------


## BlackTerrel

Are we basing what is ok to eat based on who is cuter?  How is eating a cow or chicken any better?

----------


## archangel689

I don't presume to know what a dog or wolf is thinking. But if you want my serious answer, when a creature becomes capable of Human Action, then I will recognize it.

The thing that dogs are missing is the ability to conceptualize property rights and self-ownership of others.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Cows are put down more humanely than that.


Don't fool yourself.

----------


## BuddyRey

My yardstick for determining who (or what) has rights is assessing that person or animal's capacity for recognizing the rights of others.  This isn't an exact science of course, because some dogs seem to exhibit this capacity almost as well as most humans, and others have little if any conception of rights beyond who can jostle or bite his way to the food bowl first.

One thing many libertarians say that I will take issue with is that "dogs are property."  Your dog is no more your "property" than your child is.  You fulfill a *guardianship* role over pets and children, but at the end of the day, that dog (like that child) is still a sentient being deserving of some measure of respect.

----------


## bluesc

I often have more sympathy for dogs than humans.

Still, I'm happy to eat cows and chickens.

----------


## Brian Coulter

> LoL - Adorable pups.
> 
> But, are these guys any less "adorable"?



Too damn cute.  Which reminds me, I'm hungry and there's leftover pulled pork in the fridge.

----------


## WilliamC

> No, but some people are vegetables.


Yea, my kids went through a Veggie Tales stage too.

No harm in it, it's for the kids

----------


## pauliticalfan

> Freedom requires tolerance...


Of murderous/acts of violence though? Should we have tolerance of big government and other things we know is fundamentally wrong?

To think that there shouldn't at least be local laws against hanging a dog in your yard for the whole neighborhood to see is absurd.

Also, this is the 21st century. We have so many other sources of protein available, we would be absolutely fine without eating meat. The only reason most still do is because the corporations of KFC, McDonald's, and Tyson's chicken would lose a $#@! load of money if everyone woke up tomorrow and decided to stop eating animals. So they spend billions of dollars a year on advertising convincing you that you must eat meat, hopefully their meat, but any meat is okay because it means their $$$ is kept alive.

----------


## pauliticalfan

> I often have more sympathy for dogs than humans.
> 
> Still, I'm happy to eat cows and chickens.


Do you at least know where your food comes from? As in, have you ever seen factory farms and/or witnessed them being slaughtered?

99% of people don't even know where their food comes from. I feel like if they did, they might at least have a different mindset about it. They might still eat meat, but at least they'd stop being so damn snarky and cracking jokes like = "oh I love animals...with salt and pepper HAHAHA". $#@! like that disrespectful, but honestly I know it's also a coping mechanism for ignorance/subconscious discomfort with something they know might be "wrong" but don't want to admit.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Do you at least know where your food comes from? As in, have you ever seen factory farms and/or witnessed them being slaughtered?
> 
> 99% of people don't even know where their food comes from. I feel like if they did, they might at least have a different mindset about it. They might still eat meat, but at least they'd stop being so damn snarky and cracking jokes like = "oh I love animals...with salt and pepper HAHAHA". $#@! like that disrespectful, but honestly I know it's also a coping mechanism for ignorance/subconscious discomfort with something they know might be "wrong" but don't want to admit.


I know where my food comes from, and I'm still not a vegan.  Go figure.  I've eaten a great variety of protein, and this idea of living without meat by substituting other stuff is just not going to fly with me personally.  I do agree that people should know more about their food, and should definitely have a turn or two at butchering their own meat to some extent, but I'm not going to force it.

----------


## bluesc

> Do you at least know where your food comes from? As in, have you ever seen factory farms and/or witnessed them being slaughtered?
> 
> 99% of people don't even know where their food comes from. I feel like if they did, they might at least have a different mindset about it. They might still eat meat, but at least they'd stop being so damn snarky and cracking jokes "oh I love animals...with salt and pepper HAHAHA". Not only is $#@! like that disrespectful, but it's also a coping mechanism for ignorance/subconscious discomfort with eating another life.


Ignorance is bliss.

Although if we were sent back a few thousand years, I don't imagine it would take long before the vegetarians were hunting food alongside me.

Modern convenience allows me to eat without slaughtering or witnessing it and allows vegetarians to lecture me from their moral high ground.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just an observation after reading through this thread.  While most of the answers were consistent with libertarian ideological principles, you do need to realize how this comes across to the average person learning about libertarianism for the first time.  When libertarians justify something that is abhorrent to the average American with ideology, it makes us look like a bunch of nut cases.  Someone reading this would come away with the thinking "those libertarians think it is OK to eat dog".
> 
> One of the challenges we face if we desire to grow as a movement, is to be able to explain our positions and ideology in a manner that the average person wouldn't find off putting.


Leaving aside the issue of inhumane slaughter, which certainly seems to be the case here, how difficult can it be?

You own the animal, how is slaughtering it for food any different than slaughtering a lamb or goat or a chicken or a steer?

*We* are not the ones who are nuts.

A whole generation of soft, disconnected Americans who have no idea where their food comes from, no idea where their energy comes from, no idea where their consumer goods come from, they are the crazy ones, as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't fool yourself.


This is one of the many reasons I dislike big Agra.  At least small-to-medium sized farming operations tend to give their animals a decent life until it is time for that life to end.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Like has been said over and over in this thread "animals ain't people".
> 
> Threads like AF posts about cops killing dogs might affect public opinion enough to eventually allow some relief under property law? I personally think this would be a good thing!


Glad you brought that point up.

*One* of the reasons that I post the cop kills dog stories, is because of the disconnect from humanity some people display.

Example: I would hound some warhawk relatives of mine with pictures of blown up and incinerated Iraqi and Afghan children, to no effect and a barrage of icy cold comments that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck.

These same people, one Uncle in law in particular, went apoplectic however when those Marines threw that puppy off the cliff.

----------


## awake

> Leaving aside the issue of inhumane slaughter, which certainly seems to be the case here, how difficult can it be?
> 
> You own the animal, how is slaughtering it for food any different than slaughtering a lamb or goat or a chicken or a steer?
> 
> *We* are not the ones who are nuts.
> 
> A whole generation of soft, disconnected Americans who have no idea where their food comes from, no idea where their energy comes from, no idea where their consumer goods come from, they are the crazy ones, as far as I'm concerned.


This actually plays out into a general ignorance of how the market sustains human and animal life on Earth. I get that people love certain animals and eat others, but for people to advocate for equal rights for animals, and Earth itself, ultimately manifests into human extinction if carried out to its logical end.

Question: who arrests the wolf for eating the rabbit? Do we arrest the rabbit for devouring the carrot? Murders everywhere. What some people in this thread are advocating is that the man who ate this dog be stopped by government from doing so...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> DO NOT search for "BBQ" - "Dog" - Image. Eyes cannot unsee.............


Shut Up! SHUT UP!! *SHUT UP!!!*

Yarrrgh...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Do you at least know where your food comes from? As in, have you ever seen factory farms and/or witnessed them being slaughtered?
> 
> 99% of people don't even know where their food comes from. I feel like if they did, they might at least have a different mindset about it. They might still eat meat, but at least they'd stop being so damn snarky and cracking jokes like = "oh I love animals...with salt and pepper HAHAHA". $#@! like that disrespectful, but honestly I know it's also a coping mechanism for ignorance/subconscious discomfort with something they know might be "wrong" but don't want to admit.


I know *exactly* where my meat comes from, some of it I slaughter myself. (I've found the rabbi's prayer for bounty to be respectful before I kill a chicken)

Every bit of it (the meat that is) is locally raised and locally butchered, many times with me either watching over the operation or helping out.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This actually plays out into a general ignorance of how the market sustains human and animal life on Earth. I get that people love certain animals and eat others, but for people to advocate for equal rights for animals, and Earth itself, ultimately manifests into human extinction if carried out to its logical end.
> 
> Question: who arrests the wolf for eating the rabbit? Do we arrest the rabbit for devouring the carrot? Murders everywhere. What some people in this thread are advocating is that the man who ate this dog be stopped by government from doing so...


Exactly.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> i'd eat a dog, life is all about eating new and exciting things.


I don't want to be stranded with you.

----------


## specsaregood

> *One* of the reasons that I post the cop kills dog stories, is because of the disconnect from humanity some people display.
> Example: I would hound some warhawk relatives of mine with pictures of blown up and incinerated Iraqi and Afghan children, to no effect and a barrage of icy cold comments that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
> These same people, one Uncle in law in particular, went apoplectic however when those Marines threw that puppy off the cliff.


IIRC, what you just described is a common characteristic of sociopaths.

----------


## specsaregood

> I don't want to be stranded with you.


You got that right.  If I had been on the plane crash in the andes mountain range; i'd be the among the first to suggest we start roasting our deceased teammates.

edit; then again i might be the ideal type of person to have with you.  i was a 4-h kid, i raised rabbits for food or pets, i had to clean chicken coops for my grandpa and he showed me how to slaughter a chicken at 3 years old.

----------


## Madison320

> That sounds like a society backsliding into totalitarianism.  You can't keep a libertarian society very long when your whole basis for rights is intelligence.


Come on, man. A few animal cruelty laws ain't the problem.

----------


## RonRules

> The French eat frogs.  Different strokes for different folks.


Frogs are great!  That's where the saying "Tastes like chicken" comes from.

----------


## onlyrp

> Frogs are great!  That's where the saying "Tastes like chicken" comes from.


pretty much all white meat tastes like chicken.

----------


## MelissaWV

> pretty much all white meat tastes like chicken.


I really do not find this to be the case at all.  Turkey and chicken do not taste alike, nor does pork taste like chicken.

----------


## specsaregood

> I really do not find this to be the case at all.  Turkey and chicken do not taste alike, nor does pork taste like chicken.


i'm guessing that whomever came up with that saying either is a smoker with diminished tasting ability or fries the crap out of everything they eat.

----------


## onlyrp

I'm trying to understand this, why is it "disgusting" to eat certain animals? Is it because you're used to seeing them in the dirty environment? or because we feel friendly towards them?

----------


## onlyrp

> I really do not find this to be the case at all.  Turkey and chicken do not taste alike, nor does pork taste like chicken.


I actually thought turkey and pork were red....

----------


## MelissaWV

> i'm guessing that whomever came up with that saying either is a smoker with diminished tasting ability or fries the crap out of everything they eat.


I have had some turkey and chicken that tasted like nothing.  That was mostly "brand" meat, like Tyson, Purdue, etc..  It's possible that is part of the problem.  The turkeys around here are wild for the most part, or raised in humane conditions, and have a really great flavor all their own.  The chickens are also really fresh, and the taste of a genuine, fresh chicken roasted to perfection is a thing of beauty.

I have been testing people lately by asking them to describe what a chicken egg looks like when they crack one open.  I was predictably disappointed.  Most described cloudy whites and pale yellow yolks.  The white should generally be pretty clear, and the yolk on a really good egg is not yellow at all, let alone pale and sickly.  It is a bold and delicious orange.



People have no grasp on what they eat

----------


## MelissaWV

> I actually thought turkey and pork were red....


... No.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sacrilege! Heh, to each their own. More for me!


Good luck with worms.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> anybody else have to read animal rights by peter singer? Makes for an intersting discussion.
> 
> in the end though, what makes them so much different from us? The fact that we are a more highly evolved species?


No, the fact that God made us special.  We are not animals.

----------


## WilliamC

> No, the fact that God made us special.  We are not animals.


I am an animal and proud of it.

Better than a vegetable yes?

Or worse yet a mineral

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well a lot of humane societies kill dogs.  If they didn't, we would have overpopulated roaming packs of wild dogs in the cities or dogs that starved in cages because nobody wants to pay to feed, shelter and clean them.
> 
> Think what is important is the manner in which an animal with a sophisticated nervous system is killed.  It should be quick and humane...as these animals share a lot of our DNA it is reasonable to assume they would share a lot of our same pain.  Most libertarians don't find it odd that we have local laws preventing one person from torturing another...so why would it be unreasonable to outlaw a person from torturing an animal that that is dissimilar from humans by only a small percentage of their DNA?  
> 
> I don't buy the argument that there is a 'gods special gene' that humans have that chimps and other close relatives of us don't have.


It has nothing to do with "special genes."  We are special because we are made different.  We are made of the same material, but only man was made aware of himself.  A small percentage difference of DNA makes millions of nucleotides of difference, so be careful what you say and make sure you have perspective on it.  The popular argument that we are just "a small percentage different" from ANY animal is pure bunk.  We are way different from anything on the planet, despite having similar DNA.  It is how the DNA is arranged that makes all the difference.  To say a small percentage equals similarity is incredibly naive and simplistic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What about our near cousins? **** rudolfensis? **** erectus?  Neanderthals?  Are they special?  Tricky issue...


Not everyone follows the public school indoctrination view of evolution.  To answer your question, yes, they are special because they were completely human.  They just took a few oustanding characteristics of some normal humans and exaggerated them to fit some evolutionary scale that was already pre-ordained in their minds.  Ever heard of confirmation bias?

----------


## WilliamC

> It has nothing to do with "special genes."  We are special because we are made different.  We are made of the same material, but only man was made aware of himself.  A small percentage difference of DNA makes millions of nucleotides of difference, so be careful what you say and make sure you have perspective on it.  The popular argument that we are just "a small percentage different" from ANY animal is pure bunk.  We are way different from anything on the planet, despite having similar DNA.  It is how the DNA is arranged that makes all the difference.  To say a small percentage equals similarity is incredibly naive and simplistic.


It's in the expression, not the sequence.

Can you say cis-acting elements? Enhancers? Promoters? Epigenetic control of chromosomal condensation? Cytoskeletal architecture? mRNA processing and editing? Ribosomal assembly and translation initiation? Ubiquitination and protein turnover?

It aint all about a few percent DNA, it's everything else.

I won't presume to tell you who you are, it's not really my call.

But as for me? I'm....

----------


## eduardo89

> 


That tshirt is wrong, new genetic testic suggest we share only 86% (or even less) of our DNA with chimps.

----------


## WilliamC

> That tshirt is wrong, new genetic testic suggest we share only 86% (or even less) of our DNA with chimps.


Not me, I do my own testing

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Come on, man. A few animal cruelty laws ain't the problem.


That's not the problem.  The problem is the basis for rights.  Animal cruelty laws are still unjust laws and I do not support them.  To each his own.  I value humans because they are divinely inspired.  

Everyone here needs to realize when they argue from their own viewpoint, they are doing so subjectively.  If you try to get everyone to follow your specific view of how to logically treat animals, you can never prove yourself to have the most righteous or most logical plan.  It would all depend on how much one person values life in general.  If you truly want to use a measure of intellect or some similar characteristic, you are putting humans on the same measuring stick as animals and that makes us no more valuable because it depends on a person's view of life in general.  You may not think so, but how can you logically argue without moral authority that you are right and they are wrong for believing this?  You can't use internal logic to create external moral standards that apply to everyone.  

Sometimes it just frustrates me that so many libertarians can act like nature provides ready-made morality.  It doesn't.  There is no such thing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am an animal and proud of it.
> 
> Better than a vegetable yes?
> 
> Or worse yet a mineral


That's funny.  Why are you proud to be an animal?  What outstanding characteristics does this simple view give you, specifically?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's in the expression, not the sequence.
> 
> Can you say cis-acting elements? Enhancers? Promoters? Epigenetic control of chromosomal condensation? Cytoskeletal architecture? mRNA processing and editing? Ribosomal assembly and translation initiation? Ubiquitination and protein turnover?
> 
> It aint all about a few percent DNA, it's everything else.
> 
> I won't presume to tell you who you are, it's not really my call.
> 
> But as for me? I'm....


If you really know much about genetics, then you would realize the absurdity of claiming you are "98% chimp."  That's not how it works.

----------


## phill4paul

> Good luck with worms.


  165 internal temperature = no worms (live ones anyway). But, like I said. More for me.....

----------


## WilliamC

> That's not the problem.  The problem is the basis for rights.  Animal cruelty laws are still unjust laws and I do not support them.  To each his own.  I value humans because they are divinely inspired.  
> 
> Everyone here needs to realize when they argue from their own viewpoint, they are doing so subjectively.  If you try to get everyone to follow your specific view of how to logically treat animals, you can never prove yourself to have the most righteous or most logical plan.  It would all depend on how much one person values life in general.  If you truly want to use a measure of intellect or some similar characteristic, you are putting humans on the same measuring stick as animals and that makes us no more valuable because it depends on a person's view of life in general.  You may not think so, but how can you logically argue without moral authority that you are right and they are wrong for believing this?  You can't use internal logic to create external moral standards that apply to everyone.  
> 
> Sometimes it just frustrates me that so many libertarians can act like nature provides ready-made morality.  It doesn't.  There is no such thing.


On the contrary, everyone uses internal logic to reach moral standards, they just start with different premises.

Unless all those who kill in the name of religion and god are lying about what they believe and what they are doing?

I don't care about your premises or your conclusions so long as you aren't trying to use government to force them on me, and I'll refrain from the same towards any who agree with me on this.

But I wonder why some of ya'll are so darn anti-science, yet only a vanishingly small number of those are willing to abandon the technology that science provides.

Well, some very very small minority of scientists do go out of their way to antagonize, but I neither apologize for nor defend what they do, they have the same free-will as you and I and if they want to make fools of themselves arguing with religious folks about their faith that's their business. 

Just keep government out of science and religion and education and we won't have to fight about it, yes?

----------


## WilliamC

> If you really know much about genetics, then you would realize the absurdity of claiming you are "98% chimp."  That's not how it works.


Really? I suppose your knowledge of genetics is based on...what, the bible?

Please elaborate, this should be fun.

----------


## WilliamC

> That's funny.  Why are you proud to be an animal?  What outstanding characteristics does this simple view give you, specifically?


Advanced neurosensory systems and mobility come to mind.

----------


## otherone

> Really? I suppose your knowledge of genetics is based on...what, the bible?


You're barking up the wrong tree, Mr.C.  To creationists, on one side: man; and on the other: dumb brutes.  To them, man is as similar to a chimp as he is to a sea anemone, or a baked potato.

----------


## iGGz

[[]]

----------


## phill4paul

> Maybe we've all eaten dog at one point...


  Thanks to pcosmar for turning me on to this song...lolz.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> On the contrary, everyone uses internal logic to reach moral standards, they just start with different premises.
> 
> Unless all those who kill in the name of religion and god are lying about what they believe and what they are doing?
> 
> I don't care about your premises or your conclusions so long as you aren't trying to use government to force them on me, and I'll refrain from the same towards any who agree with me on this.
> 
> But I wonder why some of ya'll are so darn anti-science, yet only a vanishingly small number of those are willing to abandon the technology that science provides.
> 
> Well, some very very small minority of scientists do go out of their way to antagonize, but I neither apologize for nor defend what they do, they have the same free-will as you and I and if they want to make fools of themselves arguing with religious folks about their faith that's their business. 
> ...


Those who kill in the name of religion have forgotten any semblance to the authority of God.  If they still had it, they would be able to read plainly that they are wrong in using their own internal assumptions to justify killing.  You should know that what people do in the name of religion does not equal advocacy of said acts by that religion.  

Everyone uses internal logic, but logic does not differentiate between right and wrong.  You must derive morality from an absolute moral authority.  It is inescapably true that, if people are only accountable to themselves and other humans, there can be no absolute laws binding on all human beings equally.  If subjectivism is really the way you want to go, then you will never reach an ultimately right conclusion.  What's more, this kind of thinking about morality is the justification used for all mass killings.  Everything is relative and there are no absolutes because we are all just animals and some animals are better than others.  That means some humans are better and more worthy than other.  If that is really the basis for rights, then it is completely logical and morally fine to oppress people who seem inferior because, after all, who can tell you your internal logic for justifying it is wrong?

Absolutely yes on the last line.  Keep the government out of science and religion.  Right now, it is clearly involved in both.  If it were not involved in the public indoctrination program and heavily pushing evolution onto kids currently, the theory of evolution wouldn't be nearly as widely accepted.  It also wouldn't be outlandish to question it.  People who so vigorously defend it are just victims of the propaganda.  They belittle those who doubt because it has been drilled into their heads by the public school system that evolution is a "proven fact."  It is far from proven, and it is anything but fact.  Secular views of rights and morality also wouldn't be nearly as widespread as they are now if the government weren't involved in our public schools.  Being a libertarian, you should know what government does when it gains control over the means of education.  It should bother you greatly that the state is reinforcing your secular worldview in the minds of our young American children because it should make you wonder, 1) why the state has a vested interest in secularizing our kids, and 2) how would your worldview be accepted by the public if it were not taught in these public indoctrination camps?

----------


## specsaregood

> 165 internal temperature = no worms (live ones anyway). But, like I said. More for me.....


Wait! What am I seeing here?  Is that pouring pancake batter over bacon?!  geezus, I know what I'm having for brunch!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Really? I suppose your knowledge of genetics is based on...what, the bible?
> 
> Please elaborate, this should be fun.


This should be common sense.  You can't quantify a comparison based on the percentage of similar genes because expression makes everything different.  We share half our DNA with bananas, does that make us half banana?  The very idea is absurd.  You just can't go around claiming percentages are the be-all-end-all of genetic comparisons and give us a right to make such absolutist statements such as "I am such and such a percentage of such and such an animal."   The fact is, even a very small percentage, less than one percent, equals millions of nucleutides of difference when a change of 3 nucleotides can be fatal.  I'm not telling you what to believe.  I'm telling you such broad generalizations of mathematical concepts in relation to genetics is an absurd way of thinking about it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Advanced neurosensory systems and mobility come to mind.


Is this a quality of all animals?  I said, why does it make you proud to be an animal, not to be a human with the characteristics you just mentioned.  Advanced neurosensory systems over what, a plant?  You must be so proud...

----------


## phill4paul

> Wait! What am I seeing hear?  Is that pouring pancake batter over bacon?!  geezus, I know what I'm having for brunch!


  Kinda makes the _chance_ of getting T.spiralis pale in comparison doesn't it?  MMMmmmmmmm.

----------


## Seraphim

I wouldn't do that to a dog unless I was starving and my life depended on it. The dog is there property and it was EATEN - mind your damn business.

If they were just torturing it for their own sadistic pleasure, I'd be prone to step in...but to eat it...I disagree with the act, but I'd mind my damn business.

If you think they slaughtered it in a $#@!ty/rookie manner - teach them "cleaner" slaughter techniques - otherwise STFU.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Advanced neurosensory systems and mobility come to mind.


I really want to hear the answer to my question because I think we are onto something.  What is it about animals in general that makes you proud to be one?  What is it about being an animal that makes you special?  Special compared to what and in the eyes of whom?  Other animals with the same characteristics as animals?  Plants?  What?

----------


## WilliamC

> Those who kill in the name of religion have forgotten any semblance to the authority of God.  If they still had it, they would be able to read plainly that they are wrong in using their own internal assumptions to justify killing.  You should know that what people do in the name of religion does not equal advocacy of said acts by that religion.  
> 
> Everyone uses internal logic, but logic does not differentiate between right and wrong.  You must derive morality from an absolute moral authority.  It is inescapably true that, if people are only accountable to themselves and other humans, there can be no absolute laws binding on all human beings equally.  If subjectivism is really the way you want to go, then you will never reach an ultimately right conclusion.  What's more, this kind of thinking about morality is the justification used for all mass killings.  Everything is relative and there are no absolutes because we are all just animals and some animals are better than others.  That means some humans are better and more worthy than other.  If that is really the basis for rights, then it is completely logical and morally fine to oppress people who seem inferior because, after all, who can tell you your internal logic for justifying it is wrong?


I do. Just as you do for yours no matter what the reason. And there is nothing inside of me that has any desire for mass killings, and I am willing to believe that religious people who invoke their religious beliefs to justify mass killing are not always lying. 

I could be wrong, maybe true religious people don't lie, I wouldn't know since I'm not one of them.

Now if there were some objective standard it would save a lot of heartache, but I don't see that in the real world myself, or at least not enough to make me believe in god.

But I don't claim there isn't one either, I just don't know. I make up my own rules as I go just like everyone else seems to.




> Absolutely yes on the last line.  Keep the government out of science and religion.  Right now, it is clearly involved in both.  If it were not involved in the public indoctrination program and heavily pushing evolution onto kids currently, the theory of evolution wouldn't be nearly as widely accepted.  It also wouldn't be outlandish to question it.  People who so vigorously defend it are just victims of the propaganda.  They belittle those who doubt because it has been drilled into their heads by the public school system that evolution is a "proven fact."  It is far from proven, and it is anything but fact.  Secular views of rights and morality also wouldn't be nearly as widespread as they are now if the government weren't involved in our public schools.  Being a libertarian, you should know what government does when it gains control over the means of education.  It should bother you greatly that the state is reinforcing your secular worldview in the minds of our young American children because it should make you wonder, 1) why the state has a vested interest in secularizing our kids, and 2) how would your worldview be accepted by the public if it were not taught in these public indoctrination camps?


I really don't even remember much of my time in public schools and what little I do remember was being alternatively appalled and amused at how stupid most people were. My education comes from my own efforts, and the thousands upon thousands of free textbooks available through piratebay 

Again, I'm not out to antagonize anyone, and if I sometimes get a bit irate it's not personal but because I really do want to live in a world where I can find someone to talk about things that interest me, and they certainly don't exist much in this one. I don't go to churches and try to spread science, so it's strange to me that there do exist those who think their religious beliefs actually qualify them to comment on technical aspects of science. If someone wants to chose not to believe in science that's one thing, but to have to try and refute it from the outside just seems a waste of time to me.

Why are Christian Scientists wrong for believing in prayer over medical treatment? Seems if they were on to something they'd all be healthy and well, but that's obviously not the case. At least most folks lack of belief in science doesn't lead them to forgo the technological benefits it provides.

----------


## WilliamC

> I really want to hear the answer to my question because I think we are onto something.  What is it about animals in general that makes you proud to be one?  What is it about being an animal that makes you special?  Special compared to what and in the eyes of whom?  Other animals with the same characteristics as animals?  Plants?  What?


Well again advanced neurosensory capacities and mobility are two biggies.

Seriously.

The capacity for curiosity and learning are pretty important too.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But I don't claim there isn't one either, I just don't know. I make up my own rules as I go just like everyone else seems to.


This is very telling.  Mass murderers make up their own rules as they go along, too.  Who are you to tell them that what they are doing is morally wrong?  You can say it violates logical principles, but that doesn't make it wrong.  




> I really don't even remember much of my time in public schools and what little I do remember was being alternatively appalled and amused at how stupid most people were. My education comes from my own efforts, and the thousands upon thousands of free textbooks available through piratebay 
> 
> Again, I'm not out to antagonize anyone, and if I sometimes get a bit irate it's not personal but because I really do want to live in a world where I can find someone to talk about things that interest me, and they certainly don't exist much in this one. I don't go to churches and try to spread science, so it's strange to me that there do exist those who think their religious beliefs actually qualify them to comment on technical aspects of science. If someone wants to chose not to believe in science that's one thing, but to have to try and refute it from the outside just seems a waste of time to me.


I have never known anyone to use religion to give them authority on science.  They may explain science through their worldview, but that's the same thing you do.  Yours is a secular view, theirs is based on a higher moral authority, that's it.  In the end, though, they usually trust science in the same way you do.  They objectively confirm results and THEN interpret those results based on their worldview, which is really the only way you can interpret them.  You can't have a neutral interpretation.  It's always powered by something.  




> Why are Christian Scientists wrong for believing in prayer over medical treatment? Seems if they were on to something they'd all be healthy and well, but that's obviously not the case. At least most folks lack of belief in science doesn't lead them to forgo the technological benefits it provides.


I really can't judge here because you are using generalizations.  I don't know who you are talking about when you say "Christian Scientists."  Prayer does stimulate certain autonomic responses in the body that can be useful in healing, but I would agree it's not the whole equation, and I haven't know anyone to make this claim like you seem to think all Christians do, regardless of who they are.  It only matters that they are "Christian", and if they are "Christian", they must think the way you described.  Am I getting this right?

Also, I went through high school with much the same mentality, but I like to think I grew out of it.  I appreciate your honesty, however.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well again advanced neurosensory capacities and mobility are two biggies.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> The capacity for curiosity and learning are pretty important too.


You didn't answer my question.  What part of that makes you feel pride as an animal?  Usually, when someone feels pride, they feel like they are different somehow.  How do you feel pride if your fellow animals demonstrate the same characteristics?  Do you feel pride for being better than a plant?

----------


## azxd

> We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig... cow after cow... village after village... army after army...
> 
> We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "f**k" on their airplanes because it's obscene!


The Horror

----------


## azxd

> This is very telling.  Mass murderers make up their own rules as they go along, too.  Who are you to tell them that what they are doing is morally wrong?  You can say it violates logical principles, but that doesn't make it wrong.


This is the reason some people support Paul ... No rules, unless they favor the individual who agrees with them 

This movement is full of on the edge anarchists, IMO.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is the reason some people support Paul ... No rules, unless they favor the individual who agrees with them 
> 
> This movement is full of on the edge anarchists, IMO.


Well, yes, but it would violate the principles that so many anarchists and Paul supporters in general believe in.  If we are no better than serial killers and would just prefer to not let them do what they feel is right, then we are initiating unjust aggression on them.  I mean, it's fine if you think morality is subjective, I just want you to realize that you are no better than anyone else if you really believe this.  It completely justifies the use of government force.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just that we would prefer that society be made up of people like us.  Sound familiar?  Hitler thought the same thing.  It's not that we don't want authoritarian government, it's just that we want authoritarian government to display our moral principles.  In your worldview, everyone is right.  It's just that we would prefer our subjective moral standards be enforced and others not enforced.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> It has nothing to do with "special genes."  We are special because we are made different.  We are made of the same material, but only man was made aware of himself.  A small percentage difference of DNA makes millions of nucleotides of difference, so be careful what you say and make sure you have perspective on it.  The popular argument that we are just "a small percentage different" from ANY animal is pure bunk.  We are way different from anything on the planet, despite having similar DNA.  It is how the DNA is arranged that makes all the difference.  To say a small percentage equals similarity is incredibly naive and simplistic.


We are not way different than a Bonobo chimpanze (our closet living relative). They have distinct personalities, heightened emotions... happiness, sadness, even known to commit suicide... They have sex for pleasure and for conflict resolution, this was once thought a human only trait. They have the intelligence of a approximately a four year old or higher.

Bonobo's are very aware of themselves... there are many good documentary on the Bonobo chimp which are different than regular chimpanze.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We are not way different than a Bonobo chimpanze (our closet living relative). They have distinct personalities, heightened emotions... happiness, sadness, even known to commit suicide... They have sex for pleasure and for conflict resolution, this was once thought a human only trait. They have the intelligence of a approximately a four year old or higher.
> 
> Bonobo's are very aware of themselves... there are many good documentary on the Bonobo chimp which are different than regular chimpanze.


All guilty of using confirmation bias.  For instance, why do they quantify a bonobo's intelligence in terms of human years?  Maybe chimp intelligence is nothing like human intelligence.  Saying that something was "once thought a human only trait" does not mean anything.  It just means our understanding has developed, not that the bonobo has developed.  They can have all these things and still be a bonobo chimp.  This is a far cry from evidence that we and the bonobo chimp have a common ancestor.  You are purposefully using human traits to qantify a chimp's intelligence and characteristics because you have a specific goal in mind: justifying an evolutionary like between the two.  This is called confirmation bias.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## phill4paul

> Thanks for the idea.  The wife said I could make them again in the future.


  Ha! Awesomeness! If my gf hadn't decided on eggs benedict with real Canadian ham I would have had it this morning myself.

----------


## bluesc

Why do people ruin good bacon?

----------


## azxd

> Well, yes, but it would violate the principles that so many anarchists and Paul supporters in general believe in.  If we are no better than serial killers and would just prefer to not let them do what they feel is right, then we are initiating unjust aggression on them.  I mean, it's fine if you think morality is subjective, I just want you to realize that you are no better than anyone else if you really believe this.  It completely justifies the use of government force.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It's just that we would prefer that society be made up of people like us.  Sound familiar?  Hitler thought the same thing.  It's not that we don't want authoritarian government, it's just that we want authoritarian government to display our moral principles.  In your worldview, everyone is right.  It's just that *we would prefer our subjective moral standards be enforced and others not enforced.*


And there-in lies the rub and justification for my words.

LAWS are created by man, and man is capable of error.

And within this we find many who will not leave others alone, and instead choose to stick their noses into the affairs of others while using the rule of LAW to *force their "moral standards" upon others.

*

----------


## azxd

> All guilty of using confirmation bias.  For instance, why do they quantify a bonobo's intelligence in terms of human years?  Maybe chimp intelligence is nothing like human intelligence.  Saying that something was "once thought a human only trait" does not mean anything.  It just means our understanding has developed, not that the bonobo has developed.  They can have all these things and still be a bonobo chimp.  This is a far cry from evidence that we and the bonobo chimp have a common ancestor.  You are purposefully using human traits to qantify a chimp's intelligence and characteristics because you have a specific goal in mind: justifying an evolutionary like between the two.  This is called confirmation bias.


Piltdown Man comes to mind ... We can justify what we wish to agree with, and find fault in what we disagree with, but neither resolution will fit the needs of everyone.

----------


## otherone

> Also, I went through high school with much the same mentality, but I like to think I grew out of it.


_Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it._
-Thomas Carlyle

Insults are not argument.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> _Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it._
> -Thomas Carlyle
> 
> Insults are not argument.


Not an insult, nor is it sarcastic.  I was being completely, genuinely serious.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> All guilty of using confirmation bias.  For instance, why do they quantify a bonobo's intelligence in terms of human years?  Maybe chimp intelligence is nothing like human intelligence.  Saying that something was "once thought a human only trait" does not mean anything.  It just means our understanding has developed, not that the bonobo has developed.  They can have all these things and still be a bonobo chimp.  This is a far cry from evidence that we and the bonobo chimp have a common ancestor.  You are purposefully using human traits to qantify a chimp's intelligence and characteristics because you have a specific goal in mind: justifying an evolutionary like between the two.  This is called confirmation bias.


How else do you describe intelligence? Our only frame of reference is the human mind. 

The fact that Bonobo's and Homosapiens have sex for pleasure is important... and this is just the tip of the iceburg with human-like traits. Don't get me wrong though, there is a chance that it could be just a coincidence, but it seems very unlikely to me.

If you think you can discount everything I just said by saying "confirmation bias" you are wrong. Because I looked at this issue objectively, seeking the truth, always to the best of my ability. I will be the first to admit that evolutionary theory is not 100%, especially a lot of the homonid discoveries, it seems like many of the skulls are similiar when they classify them as different species.

Watch the documentary on the Bonobos if you have an open mind about it, because seeing is believing... and then theres faith...

----------


## onlyrp

> Why do people ruin good bacon?


wrapping is not ruining, brother.

----------


## rockerrockstar

I feel sorry for the dogs.  That neighbor is crazy.  I would be worried what the guy may do if you challenge him.  You may just want to move ASAP.  Hope you move to a safer place for humans and pets.

----------


## Stupified

I would be pretty mad if my supper got stolen by a neighbor...




In my opinion it's always good practice to kill animals as humanely as you possibly can, simply because there is no reason to cause suffering other than the desire to be cruel. Only cruel people hurt animals unnecessarily. However, I have no problem with anyone killing and eating a dog (or cat, or any other animal) and I think some people need become more accepting of other cultures.

----------


## Dsylexic

since ron paulites are all for quoting gandhi when it seems necessary,let me add this quote "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

----------


## onlyrp

> since ron paulites are all for quoting gandhi when it seems necessary,let me add this quote "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."


precisely why I don't quote a pacifist who lived in the 20th century.

----------


## pacodever

> I would be pretty mad if my supper got stolen by a neighbor...
> In my opinion it's always good practice to kill animals as humanely as you possibly can, simply because there is no reason to cause suffering other than the desire to be cruel. Only cruel people hurt animals unnecessarily. However, I have no problem with anyone killing and eating a dog (or cat, or any other animal) and I think some people need become more accepting of other cultures.


Well, I have done some local research and apparently the Government of Guam is in a state of total $#@!ed-upness on this one which isn't surprising considering my experience here.  They recently passed "tough" new laws on animal cruelty, making it a felony and encouraging citizens to report cases of abuse (apparently so they can ignore the reports).  However, this did have the effect of getting them off the list of "Top Places to be an Animal Abuser" without actually doing anything or incurring any costs:

Through the recent strengthening of its animal protection laws, Guam joined the list of U.S. jurisdictions with felony animal abuse penalties, the release stated. The new felony penalty applies to not only cases involving cruelty, but also neglect of an animal which results in his or her serious physical injury or death. In addition, Guams new law made animal abandonment a misdemeanor; authorized the law enforcement seizure of mistreated animals; and adopted robust standards of care for animals.

http://mvguam.com/local/news/21976-g...rotection.html




However, if you want to eat your pet, while it is generally frowned upon, apparently there is no law preventing you from doing so.  As far as laws against inhumane slaughter, there is total confusion/indifference within the local law enforcement and government which also is not surprising considering it takes the local police 20+ minutes to respond to an active shooter (ended up being a double murder-suicide) on an island 30 miles x 4-12 miles with of 1/3rd if that being within DoD bases and not covered.

http://mvguam.com/local/news/17550-k...s-tackled.html

We never got anybody to admit doing it and we sort of tried to research the law, which does not allow you to kill a dog unless its your dog. You can only kill a strange dog if that dog is in the act of attacking someone or destroying your property, the law does allow that, he said.

As I read it, unfortunately I dont see anything there that prohibits you from consuming your own dog, he added. However, the laws do require humane slaughter, and thats very hard to do with a dog.

Animal ownership as far as dogs here is also a gray area.  You have roaming packs of boonie dogs, friendly neighborhood pets that are fed but not "owned", actually owned and cared-for pets, and everything in between.  In case "your" animal ever attacked and injured anyone, you could just say it was a stray and kill it with no legal accountability or keep what for all purposes is a pet, until you decide to eat it, in which case it becomes livestock with such a loose interpretation of  what is considered a "humane slaughter," that it is not worth even enforcing in the eyes of local agencies.

In retrospect, had I known the obscurity of the law out here and that the animals were being eaten and were probably not even legal property of my neighbors (meaning that when they strayed onto my yard they were as much mine as theirs unless they were able to produce documentation to the contrary), I could have done things differently and those animals would have ended up at the animal shelter.  If they were able to produce documentation that they owned the pets, I would also be able to report the abuse of the animals. That way, their right to eat what they assert is their property is maintained, while I can still exercise my right to catch and turn in what are for-all-purposes are strays to the animal shelter or report animal cruelty or inhumane slaughter if they maintain that they do in fact own it.

----------


## Keith and stuff

I don't understand.  Did you steal a dog and then called the cops on yourself?  I'm glad your neighbor didn't press charges.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How else do you describe intelligence? Our only frame of reference is the human mind. 
> 
> The fact that Bonobo's and Homosapiens have sex for pleasure is important... and this is just the tip of the iceburg with human-like traits. Don't get me wrong though, there is a chance that it could be just a coincidence, but it seems very unlikely to me.
> 
> If you think you can discount everything I just said by saying "confirmation bias" you are wrong. Because I looked at this issue objectively, seeking the truth, always to the best of my ability. I will be the first to admit that evolutionary theory is not 100%, especially a lot of the homonid discoveries, it seems like many of the skulls are similiar when they classify them as different species.
> 
> Watch the documentary on the Bonobos if you have an open mind about it, because seeing is believing... and then theres faith...


Just because the human mind is our only reference, doesn't mean that is THE only reference.  This is a very narrow-minded approach.  Even with your excuse, it still uses the confirmation bias by ignoring other possible frameworks for interpreting information that does not indicate in any way that your preconceived notions about the origins of human life are, in fact, true.  

Your use of the word "coincidence" is misleading since it suggests there was a relationship in the first place.  There are two ways to interpret the fact that humans and animals have similar traits.  One is that they were all sprung from the primordial ooze, the other is that the same guy made them, God.  Confirmation bias is a big problem because it encourages the use of facts that may not have anything to do with what you think it does in reality.  Confirmation bias is a serious issue that has permeated and affected science and scientists for years.  Good scientists know to avoid it, but evolutionary interpretation of fossils and geologic records basically requires it.  The use of the world "species" in your post is also telling because it is a clear demonstration that you are putting these animals into categories, but you never stopped to think who is deciding what separates these stories, or maybe you do know and you just agree.  In either case, it is a fatal conceit that also demonstrates confirmation bias.

It doesn't matter how objectively you think you are looking at an issue.  If you interpret things with a preconceived notion that they happened a certain way, then you will come up with evidence that fits your theory when, in fact, it may suit a thousand different theories as well.

ETA: The confirmation bias doesn't just affect scientists... it affects everyone in almost every facet of life, and it has affected everyone since the beginning of our existence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> since ron paulites are all for quoting gandhi when it seems necessary,let me add this quote "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."


That is a terrible quote.  Gandhi doesn't know what he's talking about.

----------


## eduardo89

> wrapping is not ruining, brother.


You wrap things in bacon. You don't wrap bacon. Well, unless you want to wrap it with more bacon.

----------


## WilliamC

> This is very telling.  Mass murderers make up their own rules as they go along, too.  Who are you to tell them that what they are doing is morally wrong?  You can say it violates logical principles, but that doesn't make it wrong.


Well there's your problem right here.



Hey, if your religion keeps you from becoming a mass murderer then please stick with it.

----------


## PauliticsPolitics

Seems like this dude will be killing dogs for food for the rest of his life, much like many farmers kill their own pigs here in the states.
It seems like the prudent thing to do is to teach him a more humane/quick way to kill dogs since he will probably kill many more in the future.
Seems like strangling/hanging is a stupid method. A quick knife to the throat would be way more humane.

Such advice is probably the best you can do for your interest in the humane treatment of animals.  You can also let him know, as a neighbor, that the torturous strangling method bothers you.

(Take this from a vegan, every individual will have a different threshold that they establish in regard to humane animal treatment. It is unwise to try and impose your arbitrary threshold on others with a lower threshold.  There is likely someone else who thinks your personal threshold is offensive and you do not want them telling you what to do.)

----------


## otherone

> Well there's your problem right here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if your religion keeps you from becoming a mass murderer then please stick with it.


Nice find.
It's what Nietzsche called 'weak morality'...imposed from the outside.   I feel a little safer every Sunday morning because of it.

----------


## WilliamC

> Nice find.
> It's what Nietzsche called 'weak morality'...imposed from the outside.   I feel a little safer every Sunday morning because of it.


Hey, whatever works to keep someone from going postal is fine with me 

Personally I prefer Universal Mandatory Armament Laws myself, 'cause even the most rotten evil despicable bastard imaginable is more likely to behave if he knows everyone around him has the ability to kill him at any time.

Appealing to a persons rational self interest is a far safer bet than appealing to their morality.

There's actually a growing amount of research into the evolution of religion and belief in an afterlife, which as far as I can tell are essentially the same thing. The earliest evidence of such in humans starts at least 70,000 years ago in Neanderthals and became part of **** sapiens culture some 60,000 years ago before the last diaspora of modern humans out of Africa.

Here's a link to the evidence for anyone interested.

That's why I like debating, I learn new things I would otherwise not be inclined to.

----------


## CHOCOLATEsteven

Living in Hawaii and being a Native Hawaiian has given me insight into things like this. It was common for Native Hawaiians to eat dog. It isn't done anymore to my knowledge, though I do hear about the occasional filipino eating one. I'm pretty sure it's illegal here, but from what I can see, it's the cultural lens we see everything through that affects our ability to cope with certain things. It's my understanding that life sustains life, and there's pretty much no way around it. Be it dog, shark, turtle, cat, snake or flower, rights extend to humans only; despite the fact that humans enjoy accommodating domesticated animals, which further exacerbates this issue.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> dogs don't have rights, end of story.


 First reply, 100% right, 100% complete.  We're efficient here at RPF.




> It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.
> 
> Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.


  The dog is his property... and that's the _reason_ why you're in favor of ordinances which violate his property rights?  That is, you favor fiat decrees which partially steal his property and make it (the dog) into communal property, wherein that whole group of freaks we euphemise as "the community" now are made owners of the dog and must all (collectively!) make ultimate decisions over the use, treatment, and disposition of the property.

Logic...not...on...  Please switch on logic.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I wouldn't do that to a dog unless I was starving and my life depended on it. The dog is there property and it was EATEN - mind your damn business.
> 
> If they were just torturing it for their own sadistic pleasure, I'd be prone to step in...


 Men have the right, the absolute right, to be sadistic and sick, so long as they are not aggressing against anyone nor violating any contracts.  A dog is not an "anyone."  Men have the absolute right to torture animals for their own sadistic pleasure, or for any other reason, so long as either they own the animal or the animal's owner approves.

If you do not like this situation, the libertarian solution is to form or join a contract community wherein everyone agrees to not engage in animal cruelty, as you define it.

----------


## otherone

> There's actually a growing amount of research into the evolution of religion and belief in an afterlife, which as far as I can tell are essentially the same thing.


IMO, religion exists because it's impossible for a self-aware creature to reconcile un-being.

----------


## WilliamC

> First reply, 100% right, 100% complete.  We're efficient here at RPF.
> 
>   The dog is his property... and that's the _reason_ why you're in favor of ordinances which violate his property rights?  That is, you favor fiat decrees which partially steal his property and make it (the dog) into communal property, wherein that whole group of freaks we euphemise as "the community" now are made owners of the dog and must all (collectively!) make ultimate decisions over the use, treatment, and disposition of the property.
> 
> Logic...not...on...  Please switch on logic.


So you support allowing people living in crowded urban areas to slaughter their own animals in their own homes in the plain view, hearing, and smelling of their neighbors?

What about processing their own sewage, or manufacturing their own explosives, or operating their own helicopter, or having a rock concert?

Anyone who can afford to do these things should be allowed to do them anywhere at anytime no matter what the consequences to other people's lives?

Which is why I can't understand anarchy. I agree with Ron Paul that we need to minimize laws and regulations and return power to more local governments, but I can't quite make the leap to complete anarchy where there is no rule of law and no expectation of any community standards.

----------


## WilliamC

> IMO, religion exists because it's impossible for a self-aware creature to reconcile un-being.


Happens to me most every night when I sleep.

I was 'un-being' for billions of years before I was born and it never bothered me a bit.

----------


## otherone

> Happens to me most every night when I sleep.
> 
> I was 'un-being' for billions of years before I was born and it never bothered me a bit.


Mazel Tov!  You are one of the few!  In my experience, most people fear death.

----------


## WilliamC

> Mazel Tov!  You are one of the few!  In my experience, most people fear death.


Oh I fear death, but not so much that the idea doesn't just piss me off more than anything else. And makes me sad.

There's just so much to learn and love, and I don't feel I've hardly gotten started yet. 

But I have zero fear of any sort of hell or judgement or afterlife, it's just not even something I worry about and it confuses me why others do.

Maybe they feel guilty for being born or something, I don't know.

I say I'm not religious but if you are willing to leave it at god is love then that covers me well enough.




Brings me to tears every time I listen.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So you support allowing people living in crowded urban areas to slaughter their own animals in their own homes in the plain view, hearing, and smelling of their neighbors?


 I personally support people doing whatever they like, because what's very important to me is that I be allowed to do whatever I like without being robbed and kidnapped.




> What about processing their own sewage, or manufacturing their own explosives, or operating their own helicopter, or having a rock concert?


For my own part, absolutely.  I'm very tolerant.

It goes back to homesteading theory.  Who got there first?  That determines everything.  If Mick Jagger moved in first, no one was around, and he's been holding rock concerts all along, then he has obtained an easement consisting of the right to give off loud vibrations.  He homesteaded the noise rights, see, just like he homesteaded the rights to the land when he built his rock palace atop it.  He wasn't violating anyone's rights at the time, because no one else was even around to violate.  Let's say now a new neighbor moves in who starts a library and objects to the melodious tones wafting over.  But can he demand the rocking and rolling to stop and thus get satisfaction that way?  No.  When he homesteaded the property, he was homesteading "dirty" property so to speak.  The easement was already established. If he now wants the property to be "clean", he must approach Mick and pay him or otherwise convince him to relinquish the easement.  Otherwise he can't get no satisfaction, not morally.

If, on the other hand, the librarian was there first, he has the right to the quiet and Jagger must pay up to gain the right to upset the existing order.

To look at it another way, either stopping existing noise or stopping existing quiet is upsetting an existing and established order.  The established order has the right of way.  The newcomer has no automatic right to supplant it.  Any new order must buy out the rights-holders of the existing order.

These things -- in the past, today, and in probable future scenarios -- are largely determined by convention.  Convention is powerful.  What constitutes aggression does not always have a precise and obvious answer.  A libertarian society could form in which having body odor in public was considered aggression and punished heavily.  Yes, your offensive molecules are going out and accosting the sensory organs of innocents.  It clearly could be considered aggression.  I would not want to live in a society of such prissies, but that is just a subjective aesthetic preference.






> Anyone who can afford to do these things should be allowed to do them anywhere at anytime no matter what the consequences to other people's lives?


Anyone who can afford to *stop* these things should be allowed to *stop* them anywhere at anytime no matter what the consequences to other people's lives?  

Neither is the correct answer.  Sometimes the doers have the right of way, sometimes the stoppers.  If we all respect each other's rights, we are able to resolve even the most sticky of these situations with a minimum of conflict.




> Which is why I can't understand anarchy. I agree with Ron Paul that we need to minimize laws and regulations and return power to more local governments, but I can't quite make the leap to complete anarchy where there is no rule of law and no expectation of any community standards.


 Your uneasiness does not have to do with the leap to anarchy, per se.  _That_ leap is the leap to accepting that security, defense, and judicial services can be provided on a free market.  Your difficulty in seeing how order could emerge without arbitrary nuisance laws is a difficulty which exists under minarchy as well.  Under minarchy there's just one monopoly justice vendor making sure the librarian doesn't violate Mick Jagger's rights, and under anarchy there's multiple competing vendors, that's the only difference.  Both libertarian minarchy and anarchy uphold actual rights -- either Mick's or the librarian's -- and neither will violate their rights with arbitrary property-rights-trampling decrees.

----------


## AFPVet

Some societies do different things. I just don't want to hear about it.

----------


## Stupified

> Personally I prefer Universal Mandatory Armament Laws myself, 'cause even the most rotten evil despicable bastard imaginable is more likely to behave if he knows everyone around him has the ability to kill him at any time.


Mandatory? Forcing everyone to be armed is just as bad as forcing everyone to be unarmed. It's dictatorship in both cases.

----------


## chudrockz

> With all due respect, mind your own business.


In most every case I'd agree, but I think if I came home and witnessed such a scene being put on by MY neighbors, I'd be unable to ignore it.

----------


## centure7

You also violated basic a basic rule of human decency. Its tough for me to say who was worse in this situation. You approached the police about a situation before approaching your neighbor and resolving the issue one-on-one. You've created quite a lot of hostility by doing what you did, so you should apologize. And since your neighbor does not have a problem eating dogs, you won't get an apology in return. That was a terrible idea. Offer him a few chickens in replacement for the puppy if you don't want the puppy to die too but for some reason don't mind him eating chickens. Just adding in my 2 cents worth.

----------


## r3volution

pigs are smarter than dogs and easier to train . just sayin .

if the dog was raised to be eaten its ok . if it was raised as a pet but eaten thats weird , but should not be illegal . i dont agree with the way the dog was being put down so there may be a legal issue there (slaughtering should be done with as little pain as possible) .

if you think it is ok to do this to 1 animal and not another you are a hypocrite . all meat other than our own is fair game . that is just life .

p.s. cruelty and neglect of animals in a pet or farm setting is illegal and should be enforced .

----------


## WilliamC

> Mandatory? Forcing everyone to be armed is just as bad as forcing everyone to be unarmed. It's dictatorship in both cases.


UMAL sounds better than UAL.

Children would be exempt, and I suppose there are some who are so feeble minded that they couldn't be trusted not to stupidly shoot themselves or others, but I'd much rather be on this side of the argument than the other.

No, not mandatory, but it gets the point across.

"May I see your firearm please..."

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Just because the human mind is our only reference, doesn't mean that is THE only reference.  This is a very narrow-minded approach.  Even with your excuse, it still uses the confirmation bias by ignoring other possible frameworks for interpreting information that does not indicate in any way that your preconceived notions about the origins of human life are, in fact, true.  
> 
> Your use of the word "coincidence" is misleading since it suggests there was a relationship in the first place.  There are two ways to interpret the fact that humans and animals have similar traits.  *One is that they were all sprung from the primordial ooze, the other is that the same guy made them, God.*  Confirmation bias is a big problem because it encourages the use of facts that may not have anything to do with what you think it does in reality.  Confirmation bias is a serious issue that has permeated and affected science and scientists for years.  Good scientists know to avoid it, but evolutionary interpretation of fossils and geologic records basically requires it.  The use of the world "species" in your post is also telling because it is a clear demonstration that you are putting these animals into categories, but you never stopped to think who is deciding what separates these stories, or maybe you do know and you just agree.  In either case, it is a fatal conceit that also demonstrates confirmation bias.
> 
> It doesn't matter how objectively you think you are looking at an issue. * If you interpret things with a preconceived notion that they happened a certain way, then you will come up with evidence that fits your theory* when, in fact, it may suit a thousand different theories as well.
> 
> ETA: The confirmation bias doesn't just affect scientists... it affects everyone in almost every facet of life, and it has affected everyone since the beginning of our existence.


How do you know your not a victim of confirmation bias?

Your example here suggests "primordial ooze" in a negative light. And then you mention that nice guy God...

See, I can play word games to.

Only difference here is, I am open minded and willing to read any anti-evolution literature/documentary etc. Like I said in the post which you misquoted, I am fully aware that scientists make mistakes or lie about "species".

Watch the documentary on the Bonobos by Nova and I will watch/read whatever you suggest.

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry, but why not use some social pressure instead of a local tyranny?
> 
> Tell your neighbor that this is unacceptable to you, and even though it is his property you will not deal with him if he continues. Put up local ads telling your other neighbors about what you've witnessed. Try to inform dog dealers so that they won't sell dogs to him.
> 
> There are millions of ways to get him to stop without pulling the power of the gun on him - either a federal, state, local, or personal gun.
> 
> Peaceful means may not work, but you should exhaust them. Only then should you ask yourself "is aggression justified". If it is, you don't need the state to do it for you.


Good Gawd.  Even Tom Woods agrees there should be laws.

----------


## Deborah K

> I can get around the cultural differences on what is considered food if we were on Chuuk, but there was nothing quick or humane about the "slaughter."  From initially hearing the sounds to seeing it had to be at least 45 seconds.   But it doesn't make any sense for it to be ok to abuse an animal just because I am about to eat it but illegal to abuse that same animal in other cases.
> 
> And I was just minding my own business in my own house until I heard some horrible animal sounds outside coming from the direction of their house but still possibly on my property or caught on the fencing between until I went outside and saw that $#@!.
> 
> There is a little bit of history too with the neighbors.  We've had to stop their kids from coming over and taunting our own dog (which we were relieved to finally get off the island yesterday), and throwing rocks at another neighbor's cow while it was tangled up.  They also regularly kick and beat their dogs (all puppies because we have yet to see a dog make it to 1 year old there) with sticks all in plain view so its not like we are being nosy.  We have tried to tell their children that they should treat animals nicely since they can't defend themselves when they came over to watch us put up X-mas lights.  The adults are usually nowhere to be found.
> 
> The joy with which one of the kids does this $#@! and watches his uncle (the one killing the dog) is sociopath, future rapist/murderer stuff.  Seriously chilling to my wife and I.  And of course my concerns that if we did call the police, we would just be ignored and create a tense situation with the neighbors was confirmed.  But just couldn't stand by and let it happen.  At least we'll be out of here Tuesday...


Deliberate cruelty to any living creature, causing it to suffer needlessly is abominable, and shouldn't be tolerated by the community, imo.  I don't care if it's an insect.  You were right to act on your conscience.

----------


## Cowlesy

Eat one of their kids. That'll teach them.

----------


## specsaregood

> Eat one of their kids. That'll teach them.


Come now.  Everybody knows that having kids and pets is just a fun way to store food for when the SHTF!

----------


## Deborah K

> It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.
> 
> Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.


To which you replied:



> First reply, 100% right, 100% complete.  We're efficient here at RPF.
> 
>   The dog is his property... and that's the _reason_ why you're in favor of ordinances which violate his property rights?  That is, you favor fiat decrees which partially steal his property and make it (the dog) into communal property, wherein that whole group of freaks we euphemise as "the community" now are made owners of the dog and must all (collectively!) make ultimate decisions over the use, treatment, and disposition of the property.
> 
> Logic...not...on...  Please switch on logic.


And then later affirmed LE's response by stating:




> If you do not like this situation, the libertarian solution is to form or join a contract community wherein everyone agrees to not engage in animal cruelty, as you define it.


How bout YOU take your own advice and try being a little less rude next time.

----------


## Shane Harris

> Sorry, but why not use some social pressure instead of a local tyranny?
> 
> Tell your neighbor that this is unacceptable to you, and even though it is his property you will not deal with him if he continues. Put up local ads telling your other neighbors about what you've witnessed. Try to inform dog dealers so that they won't sell dogs to him.
> 
> There are millions of ways to get him to stop without pulling the power of the gun on him - either a federal, state, local, or personal gun.
> 
> Peaceful means may not work, but you should exhaust them. Only then should you ask yourself "is aggression justified". If it is, you don't need the state to do it for you.


good point

----------


## Captain Shays

> pigs are smarter than dogs and easier to train . just sayin .
> 
> if the dog was raised to be eaten its ok . if it was raised as a pet but eaten thats weird , but should not be illegal . i dont agree with the way the dog was being put down so there may be a legal issue there (slaughtering should be done with as little pain as possible) .
> 
> if you think it is ok to do this to 1 animal and not another you are a hypocrite . all meat other than our own is fair game . that is just life .
> 
> p.s. cruelty and neglect of animals in a pet or farm setting is illegal and should be enforced .


All I have to say about that is if anyone ever tries to eat my dog they're gonna have a real big problam on their hands and that after I had a BLT

----------


## Billy_McBong

Does anyone else find it weird to hear a living thing referred to as property? I don't think there's anything wrong with taking an animal under your care to raise as a pet or for food so as long as the animal is not treated cruelly. Defenseless animals should not be abused by people, they should be protected against such by legal rights.

----------


## anaconda

Dog owners can be some of the most irresponsible, self righteous, mean-spirited, and self indulgent of people. Having said that, why does a canine deserve more respect than a bovine?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Good Gawd.  Even Tom Woods agrees there should be laws.


And I think you do not understand what he means when he says that.  This theory is then confirmed by:




> To which you replied:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				stealing property not OK
> 			
> ...


 A post in which you miss the distinction between "local ordinance" and "contract community".  Libertarians aren't opposed to rules.  We're opposed to _illegitimate_ rules, made by those with no legitimate authority.  People have the right to make whatever contracts they like, and contracts may bind people to follow any number of restrictive rules.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Your neighbor is sick in the head. Anyone who eats an animal which doesn't even taste good (I've heard) and slaughters it so cruelly has something wrong with them. I get what everyone is saying about animals not having rights and how it's weird for us to eat dog but to them it's like eating cow but that is just some $#@!ed up stuff to do to any animal. I would never string up a deer,cow, or pig and beat it to death.

If I saw someone doing that to a dog...$#@! private property rights. I just couldn't allow that to happen. I'd feel like hell for the rest of my life for allowing something so cruel to happen with my knowledge and to know that I did nothing. Someone who can treat a defenseless animal so badly and enjoy will probably act the same way to people.

----------


## TC95

There's no difference between eating a dog or a cow, chicken, pig or whatever.  If he must eat it, I wish he had just shot it in the head so it would die much quicker and suffer less.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> *There's no difference between eating a dog or a cow, chicken, pig* or whatever.  If he must eat it, I wish he had just shot it in the head so it would die much quicker and suffer less.


Right and that is why there is so much dog in the meat section at my local grocery store. Even countries who eat dog consider it to be so nasty that only a few people who have lived in the country for a long time and consider it a delicacy will eat it and they hide the places that sell it from tourist areas and the "farms" are usually not anywhere near the populated areas. 

If it's so normal to eat dog then why is everything chicken, beef, pork when I type in "Guam cuisine" to Google? 

http://www.travellady.com/Issues/Issue60/chamorro.htm

----------


## PierzStyx

> Right and that is why there is so much dog in the meat section at my local grocery store. Even countries who eat dog consider it to be so nasty that only a few people who have lived in the country for a long time and consider it a delicacy will eat it and they hide the places that sell it from tourist areas and the "farms" are usually not anywhere near the populated areas.


The difference is only that people project their feelings on animals and take them as "pets". Logically there is no difference. Culturally we are used to thinking of dogs and cats as human-like because we project our feelings on them, amplifying whatever limited natural feelings they already have. In essence, its nasty to you because you're not used to it.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> The difference is only that people project their feelings on animals and take them as "pets". Logically there is no difference. Culturally we are used to thinking of dogs and cats as human-like because we project our feelings on them, amplifying whatever limited natural feelings they already have. In essence, its nasty to you because you're not used to it.


People who have tried it describe it as sinewy and very chewy and it has to be heavily seasoned...so why even eat it? I saw a documentary on this once and in Korea they went around and asked a bunch of people if they ate dog and they could only find one person who did. Young people seemed especially disgusted at the idea of eating it. *My main point isn't even about eating the dog but how cruelly he treated it. If you don't view the animal as a pet but instead as livestock then for God's sake kill it like it is.*

----------


## bunklocoempire

To promote some understanding of another fellow human being and their quest for protein.

Don't like it?  At least try to understand it.

Love the tax angle.

Tyranny and dog meat?  Yelp...  I mean yep.


http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/...or-dinner.html
_Ask A Korean_


_...But dog meat-abolitionists of Korea often argue that this indicates the Korean law’s recognition that dogs are not for eating. On the other hand, however, the National Tax Board of Korea issued an opinion that dog meat restaurants may receive the same tax treatment for their purchase of dog meat as, say, the tax treatment that a barbecue restaurant receives for its purchase of beef. So it’s fair to say that this issue is muddled.

Several years ago, there was some attempt on the part of Seoul city government to regulate dog meat processing in order to ensure it is processed in a hygienic manner. However, the vocal minority vigorously opposed the “legalization” of dog meat, and the idea was dropped.

Q: How are the dogs raised and slaughtered?
A: Because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, dog-ranchers (so to speak) and dog meat sellers essentially go for the raising/slaughtering method that generates maximum profit. This generally leads to unsightly living conditions for edible dogs, similar to those of pigs or chickens in industrialized farming in the U.S., only in a smaller scale. Dogs are raised in a small cage and sold alive until they get to meat market. Then they are generally electrocuted before being processed and shipped to restaurants.


Q: Is it true that the dogs are tortured before they are killed?
A: Again, because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, there is no restriction about how to kill a dog for meat. At the meat market, the need to slaughter the dogs quickly usually means dogs are electrocuted, similar to cattle. However, especially in rural areas where people slaughter dogs to cook and eat on their own, the common method is to hang the dog and beat it to death, in an attempt to tenderize the meat. (This, however, may be counterproductive; while beating the meat does tenderize it, an animal that dies in a stressed state generally produces tougher and less tasty meat.) A figurative expression in Korean for a severe beating is “like beating a dog on bok day.”_

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> To promote some understanding of another fellow human being and their quest for protein.
> 
> *Don't like it?  At least try to understand it.
> *
> Love the tax angle.
> 
> Tyranny and dog meat?  Yelp...  I mean yep.
> 
> 
> ...


I tried to understand it and I failed. Specifically because of the bold parts.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Am I going to hell for laughing at your post?





> To promote some understanding of another fellow human being and their quest for protein.
> 
> Don't like it?  At least try to understand it.
> 
> Love the tax angle.
> 
> Tyranny and dog meat?  Yelp...  I mean yep.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## LibForestPaul

> I can get around the cultural differences on what is considered food if we were on Chuuk, but there was nothing quick or humane about the "slaughter."  From initially hearing the sounds to seeing it had to be at least 45 seconds.   But it doesn't make any sense for it to be ok to abuse an animal just because I am about to eat it but illegal to abuse that same animal in other cases.
> 
> And I was just minding my own business in my own house until I heard some horrible animal sounds outside coming from the direction of their house but still possibly on my property or caught on the fencing between until I went outside and saw that $#@!.
> 
> There is a little bit of history too with the neighbors.  We've had to stop their kids from coming over and taunting our own dog (which we were relieved to finally get off the island yesterday), and throwing rocks at another neighbor's cow while it was tangled up.  They also regularly kick and beat their dogs (all puppies because we have yet to see a dog make it to 1 year old there) with sticks all in plain view so its not like we are being nosy.  We have tried to tell their children that they should treat animals nicely since they can't defend themselves when they came over to watch us put up X-mas lights.  The adults are usually nowhere to be found.
> 
> The joy with which one of the kids does this $#@! and watches his uncle (the one killing the dog) is sociopath, future rapist/murderer stuff.  Seriously chilling to my wife and I.  And of course my concerns that if we did call the police, we would just be ignored and create a tense situation with the neighbors was confirmed.  But just couldn't stand by and let it happen.  At least we'll be out of here Tuesday...


Have you ever lived on a farm? Please stop judging people. The videos are out there if you really want to see how livestock is treated in THIS county, LEGALLY. Enjoy, you have been warned.

----------


## driller80545

We feed dogs horse meat. Crazy world.

----------


## MaxPower

While _eating_ dogs should be as legal as eating anything else, I am not comfortable with the notion that conscious beings can rightly be considered property of a sort completely indistinguishable from an inanimate object like a chair or a rug; that is, I am inclined to support ordinances prohibiting out-and-out _torture_ and abuse of animals (such as suspending them by a rope to slowly, painfully wheeze to death).

----------


## Revolution9

> Funny man.  But plants do have souls, like animals, so you bring up a good point.  It is still bad to kill plants.  There is an exception, but I won't get into that here at this time.


That is why holy men have floated over lawns since time immemorial.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Bnewfield

I would probably be outraged if I saw that... But I don't think there should be a law against it. I think there should be a law that you have to kill food animals as quickly and humanely as possible, and it doesn't sound like he had the dog's welfare in mind.

You can't legally determine which animals are OK to eat and which ones aren't, though. Where would you draw the line? Like horses: some people consider horses pets and companions; others think of them as making good food (personally, I've wanted to try horse meat for a while now)

----------


## Deborah K

> And I think you do not understand what he means when he says that.  This theory is then confirmed by:
> 
>  A post in which you miss the distinction between "local ordinance" and "contract community".  Libertarians aren't opposed to rules.  We're opposed to _illegitimate_ rules, made by those with no legitimate authority.  People have the right to make whatever contracts they like, and contracts may bind people to follow any number of restrictive rules.


You seem to me to be mincing concepts.  A "local ordinance" that is agreed upon by the community is no different in than what is "contracted" by a "community".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You seem to me to be mincing concepts.  A "local ordinance" that is agreed upon by the community is no different in than what is "contracted" by a "community".


 Oh, nowadays are local ordinances passed by *unanimous consent* of those to whom it applies?

That's the difference.  I can agree to have someone command me when and when not to _breathe_ by joining an orchestra, but such a restriction can only be made with my personal consent.  It cannot be made by a vote or a caucus or a bureaucracy or a representative body or a referendum or any other delusional process  -- I, personally, must agree to limit myself in this way.

Under libertarianism, I may buy up 50 square miles of land and form a city on my land wherein the rule is that everyone must walk on their hands at all times.  Or have no free speech, or be disarmed, or not use drugs, or not eat dog meat, or not torture dogs which they own.  But I can only make those rules for land which I own.

"Contract" and "ordinance" are miles apart, across an infinitely huge chasm.  And that chasm's name?  *Consent*.

----------


## FindLiberty

Come on. Is this a troll thread about some nuts eating dog meat?

 I say, live and let live. The only possible issue is WHO OWNS THE DOG?

We feed people beef.  What about those cows?  Aren't they sacred too?

And if they want to feed squirrel to the nuts... just say nuts to the squirrels.

----------


## Liberty4life

try video taping it and posting it on your facebook to bring awareness, let them know.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> Come on. Is this a troll thread about some nuts eating dog meat?
> 
>  I say, live and let live. The only possible issue is WHO OWNS THE DOG?
> 
> We feed people beef.  What about those cows?  Aren't they sacred too?
> 
> And if they want to feed squirrel to the nuts... just say nuts to the squirrels.


We don't hang cows and beat them while they come to a slow agonizing wheezing death.

----------


## beastmode986

its disgusting and cruel and as much as im against it it was his dog but still i would have done the same thing you did

----------


## Wesker1982

> It is absolutely disgusting, but the dog is his property.


This.

If animals had rights, then you would be violating them even if you ate one for survival. I would imagine most animal rights advocates would admit that it is not wrong to eat an animal for survival. This ultimately means that they do not actually have rights at all. Situations of survival do not make or break whether or not one has rights. And if you argue that eating animals for survival is immoral, then you would have to argue that much of human existence itself is immoral since it used to depend on animals (as "slaves" or as food). 

Most people agree that humans have rights, but no one argues that it is ok to eat a 4 year old if you are hungry enough. So by this standard I would say that even the "it is ok if it is for survival" crowd is inconsistent unless they think it is ok to eat a live 4 year old.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This.
> 
> If animals had rights, then you would be violating them even if you ate one for survival. I would imagine most animal rights advocates would admit that it is not wrong to eat an animal for survival. This ultimately means that they do not actually have rights at all. Situations of survival do not make or break whether or not one has rights. And if you argue that eating animals for survival is immoral, then you would have to argue that much of human existence itself is immoral since it used to depend on animals (as "slaves" or as food). 
> 
> Most people agree that humans have rights, but no one argues that it is ok to eat a 4 year old if you are hungry enough. So by this standard I would say that even the "it is ok if it is for survival" crowd is inconsistent unless they think it is ok to eat a live 4 year old.


This is self evident fact.

The lion has no concept of or respect for the "rights" of the gazelle.

Nor does the bluefish for the squid.

And so on...

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...9QEwAw&dur=929

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

honestly, i bet eating those dogs were probably more healthy than eating a  cow that was pump full of antibiotics, hormones and growth agents. 

i am around chinese a lot. i've probably eaten more different animals than most people here and parts of animals that others throw away XD.. snakes, kangaroo, dog, bats, aligator, oxen penis, pig uterus, chicken hearts.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> honestly, i bet eating those dogs were probably more healthy than eating a  cow that was pump full of antibiotics, hormones and growth agents. 
> 
> i am around chinese a lot. i've probably eaten more different animals than most people here and parts of animals that others throw away XD.. snakes, kangaroo, dog, bats, aligator, oxen penis, pig uterus, chicken hearts.


It is not so much the fact that he ate the dogs, it is that he tortured them.

----------


## FindLiberty

A few poor dogs suffered.  Caged cats are tortured as they are rendered for their "freshly oxygenated" meat in some cultures...
 America's corporate food business makes up for it all _in sheer volume_. e.g., Chickens don't have an easy time of it either.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

corporate farms are horrible... when they get caught with abuse or cruelty, you can't help but wonder how many millions of chickens died in painful, slow deaths. not many family farm products in the cities =S...

----------


## thoughtomator

I do believe the libertarian position on eating dogs is "_bon appetit!_"

----------


## smithtg

bumping this thread to honor obama!  I was on vacation last week and cant believe this thread is 22 pages - message to romney campaign - dog meat wiki here!

----------


## azxd

> bumping this thread to honor obama!  I was on vacation last week and cant believe this thread is 22 pages - message to romney campaign - dog meat wiki here!


Gotta keep it going 

Dog Wars Escalate: *Barack Obama Ate Dog Meat*

----------


## smithtg

dogs in america unite!   No MITT, no OBAMA.  What choice does a dog have?   Ride on top of a car or end up on a dinner plate

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh, nowadays are local ordinances passed by *unanimous consent* of those to whom it applies?
> 
> That's the difference.  I can agree to have someone command me when and when not to _breathe_ by joining an orchestra, but such a restriction can only be made with my personal consent.  It cannot be made by a vote or a caucus or a bureaucracy or a representative body or a referendum or any other delusional process  -- I, personally, must agree to limit myself in this way.
> 
> Under libertarianism, I may buy up 50 square miles of land and form a city on my land wherein the rule is that everyone must walk on their hands at all times.  Or have no free speech, or be disarmed, or not use drugs, or not eat dog meat, or not torture dogs which they own.  But I can only make those rules for land which I own.
> 
> "Contract" and "ordinance" are miles apart, across an infinitely huge chasm.  And that chasm's name?  *Consent*.


Ordinances are passed by elected officials representing their community- the definition of a republic.  If the community doesn't want the ordinance passed, they get involved and pressure their elected officials to vote against it.  Likewise, if the community wants the ordinance passed, they pressure their representatives into passing it.  Because it doesn't always work that way is not a testament to the failure of the system, it's a testament to the failure of the community to care enough to get involved.

And "unanimous consent" is a pipe dream. Where you have differing, independent thinking, you will always have discourse. Hence the beauty of a republic.

----------


## Yieu

> honestly, i bet eating those dogs were probably more healthy than eating a  cow that was pump full of antibiotics, hormones and growth agents. 
> 
> i am around chinese a lot. i've probably eaten more different animals than most people here and parts of animals that others throw away XD.. snakes, kangaroo, dog, bats, aligator, oxen penis, pig uterus, chicken hearts.


Yes, and as a Hindu, I recognize that it is not better to eat a cow than it is to eat a dog.




> It is not so much the fact that he ate the dogs, it is that he tortured them.


I think it's safe to call factory farm conditions torture, just saying.  I do not want to get into a big debate over that, though.

And I would not tell anyone not to kill (i.e. eat) animals because it is wrong to tell people what to do.  Nor would I judge them.

I will just continue treating animals the way God told us to in the Bhagavad Gita and other scripture, which is not to harm them.

It is not my business what other people do.  If I were to judge others, I would be judged for judging.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Ordinances are passed by elected officials representing their community- the definition of a republic [a rights-violating, socialistic, communistic process, which I support and I think that you should, too.]


 Actually, you not only think I should support this laughable communist farce of a system, you _demand_ that I support it, and if I do not support it, you wish me to be kidnapped and thrown into a cage.  I, umm,... "strenuously object."  Or this there an ordinance against strenuously objecting, too?  Well then in that case I suppose I just quietly live with it.  Because we're no doubt careening towards the "Love it or Leave it" level of discourse; I can already hear the gears in your head.




> And "unanimous consent" is a pipe dream. Where you have differing, independent thinking, you will always have discourse. Hence the beauty of a republic.


 Hence the beauty of the _market_.  The type of beautiful "discourse" you get in a *socialistic* system like a "republic" is the kind of discourse the OP's dog owner may have had with his dog:

"You are a dog.  I have decided to beatcha and eatcha.  Remember to vote on March 24th!  Make your voice heard!  Our system depends on citizen participation."  

If you disagree with the beater-eater's policies, the Common People -- who are totally In Charge -- can elect new Representatives to the Soviet Council.  If the Council is abusing them, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Unanimous consent, if it had never been tried, would indeed sound almost too good to be true.  A "pipe dream," as you call it.  However, this is the principle upon which the free market is built, and to the extent it is the free market it never violates that principle.  So we have a very large portion of our world and our society operating on the principle of unanimous consent.  The portion doing so is, very noticeably and very dramatically, the most successful, pleasant, and humane portion.  And within that portion, you can indeed have "differing, independent thinking," and you will indeed "always have discourse."  That discourse is the civilized, adult discourse of the type that does not bring a gun to the table to shoot any uncooperative members of the minority the head after the discussion and a vote determines which side is in the minority.

Your communistic "republic" system shoots people in the head when they peaceably disagree.  That is the sort of free discourse and independent thinking that you find in a communist system like a republic.

The market allows everyone to peaceably disagree forever.  It will never step in and "resolve" the argument of Mac vs. PC, or Pepsi vs. Coke.  The parties can just go on disagreeing forever and ever, always trying to persuade or inform the other side of the merits of their side, but never able to (in the terminology of the republic) "*do* anything about it," that is, never able to shove their solution down the opposing party's throats, and to finally put an end to their ignorant foolishness.  In contrast to the communism of a republic, which periodically selects a winning group (every two years, or four years or whatever) which then gets to boss around the losing group until the next winner-selection, the market never need select a winner.  In the socialism of a republic, the republic either implements A or B.  In the unanimous consent of a free market, A and B are not mutually exclusive; both can flourish side by side.

The system of unanimous consent has given us peanut butter, projector screens, patio chairs, prosthesis limbs, phosphorescent sticky stars, and portable photo printers, all in such staggeringly vast quantities they are available to average and even to poor people.  What has your system of socialism (which you call a "republic") given us?  Dead bodies?  Influenza?  The celebration of torture?  The glorification of mass murder?  Where's the beef?

No, sorry, your preferred socialist system is a *total flop*, just as all socialisms are.  Unanimous consent, on the other hand, is an astounding success.  It is the most successful system the world has ever seen.  And you want to say it's a pipe dream?  Well, true: if it had never happened, if we were not living in the middle of the results, then one could hardly fault a skeptic for his doubts.  All laundry, washing, and other household chores delegated to machines, with the homemaker fulfilling her tasks via occasional button-pushing?  Voyages of hundreds and even thousands of miles made with trivial ease and minimal expanse, often undertaken while the voyager is sleeping?  An impossible world, an impossible dream.

----------


## Athan

This is what local ordinances are for. Even state laws can get involved to a degree. This isn't the place for federal laws however.

----------


## Deborah K

> Actually, you not only think I should support this laughable communist farce of a system, you _demand_ that I support it, and if I do not support it, you wish me to be kidnapped and thrown into a cage.  I, umm,... "strenuously object."  Or this there an ordinance against strenuously objecting, too?  Well then in that case I suppose I just quietly live with it.  Because we're no doubt careening towards the "Love it or Leave it" level of discourse; I can already hear the gears in your head.
> 
>  Hence the beauty of the _market_.  The type of beautiful "discourse" you get in a *socialistic* system like a "republic" is the kind of discourse the OP's dog owner may have had with his dog:
> 
> "You are a dog.  I have decided to beatcha and eatcha.  Remember to vote on March 24th!  Make your voice heard!  Our system depends on citizen participation."  
> 
> If you disagree with the beater-eater's policies, the Common People -- who are totally In Charge -- can elect new Representatives to the Soviet Council.  If the Council is abusing them, they have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> Unanimous consent, if it had never been tried, would indeed sound almost too good to be true.  A "pipe dream," as you call it.  However, this is the principle upon which the free market is built, and to the extent it is the free market it never violates that principle.  So we have a very large portion of our world and our society operating on the principle of unanimous consent.  The portion doing so is, very noticeably and very dramatically, the most successful, pleasant, and humane portion.  And within that portion, you can indeed have "differing, independent thinking," and you will indeed "always have discourse."  That discourse is the civilized, adult discourse of the type that does not bring a gun to the table to shoot any uncooperative members of the minority the head after the discussion and a vote determines which side is in the minority.
> ...



So now, I'm putting guns to your head?   And now a Republic  is socialism, or worse communism?  You have taken the discourse to an illogical conclusion and are couching it in free enterprise.  You're not interested in sharing views and debating, you just want to win the argument and are now resorting to unfounded accusations because your argument is weak.

Further, I think it's pretty atrocious and disgusting for a poster to take another poster's quote and change it to make that person sound tyrannical.  Shameful really.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So now, I'm putting guns to your head?


 And also threatening to blow it off.  Yes.  That is what republics do.  That is the nature of _your_ system for which _you_ are advocating.  That is what it means to be a republic.  If a system did not have the component of threatening blow people's head off, if that piece were missing, then that system would not be a republic.  It would be something else.  Probably something less socialist and more desirable (desirable to me, perhaps not to you).

Your system also regularly robs money from me, and occasionally it threatens to kidnap me and throw me into cages.  Your system is just a _barrel_ of fun.




> And now a Republic  is socialism, or worse communism?


 It is both.  Really socialism and communism are the same thing.

Do you know what any of these words mean?  And can you explain the difference in them to me?




> You have taken the discourse to an illogical conclusion and are couching it in free enterprise.


 Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion?  I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.




> You're not interested in sharing views and debating, you just want to win the argument and are now resorting to unfounded accusations because your argument is weak.


 If my argument is weak, it seems unlikely that I would win the argument.




> Further, I think it's pretty atrocious and disgusting for a poster to take another poster's quote and change it to make that person sound tyrannical.  Shameful really. [I am Shocked and Appalled!!!  Have you no decency?]

----------


## Deborah K

> And also threatening to blow it off.  Yes.  That is what republics do.  That is the nature of _your_ system for which _you_ are advocating.  That is what it means to be a republic.  If a system did not have the component of threatening blow people's head off, if that piece were missing, then that system would not be a republic.  It would be something else.  Probably something less socialist and more desirable (desirable to me, perhaps not to you).
> 
> Your system also regularly robs money from me, and occasionally it threatens to kidnap me and throw me into cages.  Your system is just a _barrel_ of fun.
> 
>  It is both.  Really socialism and communism are the same thing.
> 
> Do you know what any of these words mean?  And can you explain the difference in them to me?
> 
>  Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion?  I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.
> ...


You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant, and you went so far as to change my quote so that it aligned with your conclusion. That is a deceptive practice, and if that is the kind of philosophy you ascribe to try and win an argument, then the debate is over.  In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between, socialism, communism, and a republic.  Tying them all together as if they are the same thing shows a serious lack of knowledge.  What you are describing is tyranny, and it doesn't go hand in hand with a republic, what a ridiculous assumption on your part.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> [Y]ou went so far as to change my [beautiful] quote


 !!!!!  !!!!!!  Who would do such a thing?!?!?




> That is a deceptive practice [, you LIARPANTS!!!1!]


Get serious.  No one but the most weak-minded would think that you actually said those things.  Scratch that; you did say them, but not using those words.  That was the point.  Look, plus I even used brackets wherever I added anything and ellipses wherever I left something out -- that is, I used accepted editorial practices.




> In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between [evil, wicked, badguy] socialism, communism, and...[pure, holy, righteous] republic[anism].


 Yet again I will ask:

Do you know what any of these words mean? And can you explain the difference in them to me?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Could you identify, specifically, to what illogical conclusion I have taken the discussion? I was not aware our discussion was at a conclusion.
> 			
> 		
> 
> You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant


 No, I did not say that.  Those are epithets _you_ have brought up as labels for yourself; _I_ never did.  You do appear to be supporting and defending the principles of communism as embodied in the vaunted "local ordinance," and to specifically be a big booster of an evidently communist system which you call "a republic."  

Does this mean you are a commie?  I don't know... what does it mean to be a "commie"?  Explain what you mean by that swearword and then we can mutually determine whether you personally fit its definition.

Does this mean you are a tyrant?  That word has a more specific and standardized definition, I think.  Are you controlling or interfering in the lives of others using aggressive coercion?  If so, you are a tyrant.  Are you trying to control the lives of others, or do you have the desire to do so?  If so, you are a would-be or wanna-be tyrant.  Now, are you advocating for the lives of others to be controlled via aggressive force?  Advocating for that in this very thread?  Yes.  Yes, you are.  Thus, one could with fairness say that you are an _advocate_ for tyranny, at least for what I consider tyranny.

----------


## flynn

as long as the dog is killed humanely. Local ordinance can produce anti animal abuse laws.

----------


## SkyPie

> Man.  You guys probably would have called the cops on my grandma.  When I was little she would hold conversations with me, sitting on a low bench and with her hands splayed near her feet.  While we were talking about whatever, a chicken might wander close by.  That was pretty much a fatal mistake.  It was grab, twist, swing, smack, and then tie up the feet and ask me to go hang it from the laundry pole in the yard for a bit to drain and finish twitching.
> 
> Fresh chicken is delicious.
> 
> I can't imagine dog is particularly good, but I would not eat there.  Your moral indignation is likely noted, but the idea that if someone kills a dog (rather than killing a chicken or a pig or a cow or a turkey or a deer) when they are young, they will probably become a serial killer... some of you are bonkers.
> 
> As for the assertion that the average person is going to be turned off by this discussion, consider that there are a lot of people in this nation who do hunt for food or sport, and who feel pretty strongly that they don't need some PETA PITA running after them screeching that they are awful people.


*Totally agree.*

----------


## SkyPie

> Thats sick, in my view.
> But then again, im a animal rights defender, so...
> 
> I accept that some animals die in order to feed the human, but a dog is a domestic animal, they will defend you with all their heart, they are really the man best friend, and you kill it like that? Sorry, but i would probably give a roundhouse kick to that subject.


*Animals do not and cannot have Constitutional rights. We don't torture animals because it would corrupt our own morality. Even the word humane pertains to human beings.

Dogs aren't nearly as domesticated as you might think. Left to their own devices they quickly form packs where they can and have taken down lamas and deer. And who's unaware of dogs mauling human beings, the Golden Retriever/Labrador mix that just last month dismembered a two month old baby, or so many other vicious attacks?

Take note of your inclination to inflict pain on your fellow man with a "roundhouse kick" but not a dog that might rip the face off a defenseless child. The dog was used as food. Sustenance for human beings. What you suggest is law based purely on sentiment and not logic.

There is no way to live on this planet without killing other life forms. No way. All creatures do what they must in order to ensure their own survival. Animals are killed, maimed, and displaced by vegan diet. Imagine how many would be negatively effected were we all vegans. Think of the detrimental effect of faux fur that takes years and years to decompose. I find it so ironic that many of the same people who push for environmental issues and no meat eating are the same people who strenuously promote (with their mouths) the use of synthetics over natural materials including food.*

----------


## SkyPie

> This is what local ordinances are for. Even state laws can get involved to a degree. This isn't the place for federal laws however.


*States have no more right to oppress the people than does the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Animals are and must remain property no matter what the state of Washington and such says.*

----------


## Exiled_LFOD

> You CONCLUDED that I am a commie and a tyrant, and you went so far as to change my quote so that it aligned with your conclusion. That is a deceptive practice, and if that is the kind of philosophy you ascribe to try and win an argument, then the debate is over.  In the meantime, you need to learn the difference between, socialism, communism, and a republic.  Tying them all together as if they are the same thing shows a serious lack of knowledge.  What you are describing is tyranny, and it doesn't go hand in hand with a republic, what a ridiculous assumption on your part.


When it is said democrats and republicans are two sides of the same statist coin they cheer.

When it is said theocracy, democracy, facism, socialism, communism, and republicanism are six sides of the same monopoly of force box they boo.

----------


## Sam I am

I am going to change your post in an attempt to make it less disturbing.  Tell me if it works




> So I live in Guam for another week and woke up this morning to a horrible sound coming from my Chuukese neighbors' yard.  Went outside to check it out and saw that one of our neighbors had strung their *cow* up by some cable so that it was hanging from the tree and choking to death.  I yelled at him to quit and get the *cow* down.  Which he started to do but I didn't think the *cow* was going to make it so I ran inside to get a knife to cut it down.  By the time I returned he was carrying the *cow* (still moving and making horrible sounds to the other side of the house).  I climbed over the wall and grabbed their other *calf* and took it back to my house.  By this time other cow[/b] was no where to be seen and had quit making sounds and the neighbor had driven off.
> 
> I called the police (I know  but there is not a *peta* or *livestock*-abuse enforcement agency out here) and filed a complaint.  This was the last remaining *cow* of the original three that neighbors had gotten about a year ago who mysteriously disappeared as well.  After waiting an hour and filing a police report, the police officer basically said they weren't going to do anything and that I could file a complaint, but they were still not going to do anything even then.  The head of the household came back and talked with the police and I was told to return the *calf* because it belonged to him, and the other *cow* strung up on the tree belonged to his brother who was doing the hanging.
> 
> *cow* eating is common and accepted on the island of Chuuk.  But this not Chuuk.  Guam has horrible animal protection laws and even worse enforcement and apparently even the lawmakers and enforcement are unsure of the legality of eating your own *cow*.
> 
> What is the libertarian stance on eating your own *cow* on your own property?   Even if you accept the cultural differences of eating *cow*, isn't hanging the *cow* from a tree and beating it to death with a stick (the Chuukese custom) animal cruelty?  *dogs* are put down more humanely than that.
> 
> Is there anything else I should have done?  Can't help but think that I should have just grabbed both *cow*s and got them to the animal shelter, but it sounds like legally I would have been in the wrong and I would have to worry about protecting my wife and newborn from reprisal as well as dealing with any legal repercussions while trying to get the hell out of here.  Not something I had ever thought about or was ready to deal early Saturday morning.
> ...

----------


## SkyPie

> Ordinances are passed by elected officials representing their community- the definition of a republic.  If the community doesn't want the ordinance passed, they get involved and pressure their elected officials to vote against it.  Likewise, if the community wants the ordinance passed, they pressure their representatives into passing it.  Because it doesn't always work that way is not a testament to the failure of the system, it's a testament to the failure of the community to care enough to get involved.
> 
> And "unanimous consent" is a pipe dream. Where you have differing, independent thinking, you will always have discourse. Hence the beauty of a republic.


*No ordinance should be passed if it violates an individual's rights. The Fourteenth Amendment assures the states are held to the Bill of Rights. Animals are and must remain property. You cannot tell people what they can and cannot do with their own property. It happens but it is unconstitutional. Laws need to be based on logic not sentiment.

The A.S.P.C.A., S.P.C.A., Humane Society of the Untied States and their lapdog groups like the Texas Humane Legislative Network are gestapo organizations that kick down people's doors and seize their property that they then destroy or sell for profit. They have lobbied for the right to an appeal be taken away, which in Texas it was. We are talking about complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Rick Perry signed HB 1451 into law last June. It requires dog and cat breeders to apply for permits which they can't get without passing a background check on themselves and anyone who comes into contact with their animals. They are FORCED to submit to unannounced inspections of any property that is known or suspected to contain animals or documents relating to the animals. The owner is allowed to be present but is not required to be present. - Do you understand that this means "animal rights" fanatics who disagree with all animal use can show up and confiscate their property anytime they want even if the owner isn't there? "Violations" such as matted hair or a 'hot spot' (licking granuloma), cataracts, etc. would be an automatic animal cruelty charge. I think three violations eliminates them from being allowed to obtain a permit or own animals. They will be forced to take their animals to a veterinarian at least once per year. - You don't have to take children to a doctor once per year! - They must maintain a written veterinarian prescribed health care plan and document every little ailment from a bug bite to holding up a paw for a day to major illness. Never mind that most vets have never once bred and whelped a litter of puppies and most know little to nothing about specific breeds. Nevermind that vets want a monopoly on pet care and this is a cash cow for them. Minimum U.S.D.A. requirements must be met and they're pushing for strengthening them. Flooring must be able to be washed down. Do you know anyone with a drain in their living room?

"Animal rights" agenda is truly frightening and more and more well-meaning but clueless people are jumping on board. There is no reasoning, no understanding of animal husbandry, no regard for Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and it's all being presented as 'you have to do these things but we don't!'

Google 20/20 Cruelty to Pet Owners and read all three pages. Never ever donate money to any "animal rights" or shelter type operation. To do so is in complete contradiction to everything purported to be good, and right, and free.

Again, we don't torture animals but they do not have rights. - And torture isn't choosing to allow a dog or cat to live and die naturally. Anything an animal gets from us is a benefit they wouldn't receive in the wild.*

----------


## MelissaWV

I can tell you have a better point than anyone else, because your post is bold and in color and in a larger font.

----------


## patriot2008

> Hey Humans, leave those kids alone!


I guess these are just nice and tender ones?

----------


## pcosmar

> Never ever donate money to any "animal rights" or shelter type operation. To do so is in complete contradiction to everything purported to be good, and right, and free.


While I disagree with "Animal Rights" I do support groups that care for animals. I have worked with rescues and have worked with "Friends of Animals".

This is something that each must decide for themselves. I care for and appreciate my pets. They are a part of my family.
I have no right to tell my neighbors how to care for theirs though.

----------


## phill4paul

_And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then.

And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary._

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Why are we bumping this thread? Is there a new recipe?

----------


## phill4paul

> Why are we bumping this thread? Is there a new recipe?


  It's Friday night. In a search for something else it crossed my path. 

  As with anything. Low and slow. Hickory and Cherry.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It's Friday night. In a search for something else it crossed my path. 
> 
>   As with anything. Low and slow. Hickory and Cherry.


Was the dog named "Smokey"?

----------


## presence

My neighbors dog has been in the freezer for 4 years now.  She doesn't want to bury it... 


_in case she forecloses on her home._

----------


## Dr.3D

> Was the dog named "Smokey"?


I always thought that would be a good name for a lynx.

----------


## JK/SEA

as an 'in progress' libertarian, my opinion is, if you want to eat dogs, and live next door to me, i reserve the right to raise Rottweilers in my kennels. And i love dogs, and i own guns.

go for it.

----------


## osan

Well, one thing you could have done was go over there with a rifle and kill all of them.

----------


## osan

> My neighbors dog has been in the freezer for 4 years now.  She doesn't want to bury it... 
> 
> 
> _in case she forecloses on her home._


Well, I can sort of relate.  When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks.  I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving.  My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions.  There he remains to this day.

----------


## FloralScent

> ...if the dog was killed quickly, then it's all good.


That's my only concern.

----------


## osan

> _It is absolutely disgusting_, but the dog is his property.
> 
> Just another reason why I am not against local ordinances that prohibit such things.


Why is it disgusting?  What is it about the act that makes it so?

----------


## otherone

> Well, I can sort of relate.  When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks.  I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving.  My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions.  There he remains to this day.


pic?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well, one thing you could have done was go over there with a rifle and kill all of them.


No, you could not have.  That would have been unjust aggression.  You would be a criminal if you did that, specifically a murderer.  Osan may be OK with murder.  I am not.

----------


## Natural Citizen

*Eating cat for Christmas: Activists call on Swiss parliament to outlaw pet consumption*...




> Reuters / Arnd Wiegmann
> 
> The animal protection  group, SOS Chats Noraingue, has handed over a petition with  16,000 signatures, including such notable animal rights defenders  as Brigitte Bardot, to the Swiss parliament on Tuesday.
> 
> Dog meat is often used to make sausage, while cats are prepared  around the holiday season in a similar style to rabbit - in a  white wine and garlic sauce. A type of mostbröckli made from  marinated cat or dog is another local favorite.
> 
> While the commercial sale of dog meat is banned nationwide, its  consumption is still legal and is particularly popular in  Lucerne, Appenzell, Jura and in the canton of Bern, according to  Tomek. Farmers are free to kill and eat their own animals. Those  in the Appenzell and St. Gallen areas are said to favor a beefy  breed of dog related to Rottweilers.
> 
> In a 2012 report on pet eating in the Swiss paper Tages Anzeiger,  the Swiss Veterinary Office chalked up the practice to a  _“cultural matter”_ and noted that some countries breed  dogs specifically for slaughter.
> ...


Continued - Eating cat for Christmas: Activists call on Swiss parliament to outlaw pet consumption

----------


## Anti Federalist

bump for another thread

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Leaving aside the issue of inhumane slaughter, which certainly seems to be the case here, how difficult can it be?
> 
> You own the animal, how is slaughtering it for food any different than slaughtering a lamb or goat or a chicken or a steer?
> 
> *We* are not the ones who are nuts.
> 
> A whole generation of soft, disconnected Americans who have no idea where their food comes from, no idea where their energy comes from, no idea where their consumer goods come from, they are the crazy ones, as far as I'm concerned.


Yeah, what I said.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is self evident fact.
> 
> The lion has no concept of or respect for the "rights" of the gazelle.
> 
> Nor does the bluefish for the squid.
> 
> And so on...


And also: what I said.

----------


## gaazn

Why do dogs seem to have more rights than every other animal?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yeah, what I said.


So long as you don't cage the animal for spectacle, allowing the soft to supposedly breeze the Serengeti, I might refrain from offering the obvious opinion that you are barberous and cruel in your quest for satisfaction in watching animals $#@! and be rather dull for a price.

Eat the endangered polar bears for what I give a $#@!. It is still weird to cage them for tourists and in my opinion, the truly weak.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So long as you don't cage the animal for spectacle, allowing the soft to supposedly breeze the Serengeti, I might refrain from offering the obvious opinion that you are barberous and cruel in your quest for satisfaction in watching animals $#@! and be rather dull for a price.
> 
> Eat the endangered polar bears for what I give a $#@!. It is still weird to cage them for tourists and in my opinion, the truly weak.


Polar bear meat is very distasteful and the internal organs are poisonous.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

This thread is making me hungry.

----------


## r3volution 3.0



----------


## loveshiscountry

Better to eat the dog than to starve. I just hope they ate slowly and didn't wolf it down.

----------


## kpitcher

> Well, I can sort of relate.  When Jack died in 2004 I put him in the freezer and there he stayed for 3 weeks.  I was kind of upset about his death and just could not get myself to bury him in a place where I knew I would be soon leaving.  My daughter finally prevailed upon me to get him in the ground, so I drove up to Pacific City (OR) to my friends place, a very wild and beautiful 20 acres of rain forest and interred my best friend under a stately tree of majestic proportions.  There he remains to this day.


Cremation is always an option... I know my mom was buried with the cremated remains of one of her furry loved ones.

----------


## osan

> There is no black and white.  IMO, if the dog was killed quickly, then it's all good. 
> 
> I would put humans on a level above the other animals (given many more rights beyond (inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain), though I have no solid reasoning to support that.


So then it would seem there is no real basis for elevating man for praise above other life.

----------


## otherone

> So then it would seem there is no real basis for elevating man for praise above other life.


Man praises man. Let other life praise itself.

----------


## osan

> Man praises man. Let other life praise itself.


Seems a mite self-serving, would you not say?  "Let them eat cake..."

While men have, and continue to do much that is praiseworthy, far more often they do that which ranges from "meh", to that which is downright evil and disgusting.  For such reasons I have come to a more tempered view on the tendency of man.  On average, he is nothing to praise, therefore indicating that such lauding should be reserved for the individual found guilty of having done something worthy thereof.  The typical example of the species merits far more clinical treatment, as does the typical act of even the best among us.  Observation of huge numbers of examples of both men and their actions most definitely does not include general praise of any sort  Here "men" refers almost universally to people of Empire, whose plague-like mindset infects virtually all examples.

The notion that only men have rights is idiotic on its face.  All life claims itself as First-Property.  To live is to steal away the First-Property from others - this is God's inescapable way.  So be it.  But men seem too often to indulge in gratuitous theft beyond that which is required for their own lives, and yet we praise ourselves.  How amusing.

Were the deer and chickens and cockroaches, etc., able and of a mind to make a coordinated stand against us, we would soon see just how "special" we really were in the relevant sense.  

It is the superiority of our instrumentality that separates us in some very narrow sense from the non-human rest, and oftentimes from each other as well.  I see no basis for praise of the race of man simply because they are men, nor because they possess the raw capabilities unique to them.  It is a lousy and most often blood-soaked lie that whispers to us how "special" we are.  

Men of untempered instrumentality are most often worthy of naught but the blade and disgust of the warrior.  It is precisely the distemper of the mean man that renders him a Weakman in contrast to the Freeman who understands the responsibilities that come to hand along with the instruments he wields.  That responsibility extends to all beings and all things, and not just to other men.  It is precisely the failure of men to recognize and embrace the other side of the coin of their status as free beings different from the rest that has caused them, as well as others, the boundless miseries they enjoy.  Rather than accepting his gifts with humility and grace, he has taken them to hand in the manner of an ill-bred and reckless brat, devoid of any sense beyond his own skin, who rampages through his days seeking only to gratify and glorify his stunted self within the narrow channel of his wither-hobbled perceptions.

Just my worthless opinion on the matter, mind you.

----------


## otherone

> Seems a mite self-serving, would you not say?  "Let them eat cake..."
> 
> While men have, and continue to do much that is praiseworthy, far more often they do that which ranges from "meh", to that which is downright evil and disgusting.  For such reasons I have come to a more tempered view on the tendency of man.  On average, he is nothing to praise, therefore indicating that such lauding should be reserved for the individual found guilty of having done something worthy thereof.  The typical example of the species merits far more clinical treatment, as does the typical act of even the best among us.  Observation of huge numbers of examples of both men and their actions most definitely does not include general praise of any sort  Here "men" refers almost universally to people of Empire, whose plague-like mindset infects virtually all examples.
> 
> The notion that only men have rights is idiotic on its face.  All life claims itself as First-Property.  To live is to steal away the First-Property from others - this is God's inescapable way.  So be it.  But men seem too often to indulge in gratuitous theft beyond that which is required for their own lives, and yet we praise ourselves.  How amusing.
> 
> Were the deer and chickens and cockroaches, etc., able and of a mind to make a coordinated stand against us, we would soon see just how "special" we really were in the relevant sense.  
> 
> It is the superiority of our instrumentality that separates us in some very narrow sense from the non-human rest, and oftentimes from each other as well.  I see no basis for praise of the race of man simply because they are men, nor because they possess the raw capabilities unique to them.  It is a lousy and most often blood-soaked lie that whispers to us how "special" we are.  
> ...


Exceptionally well written.

The entire occurrence of rights are nothing more than a pact sometimes shared among men, for the purpose of survival.  They are a supernatural concept, the result of the imagination, that do not not exist in practical reality.  An animal does not have the right to survival, it has an imperative to survive; as does every organism extant.  Man is no different.  The entire biomass is nothing more than one giant food processing machine.

It is the ability to conceptualize that sets man apart; not just from nature, but from his fellow man, and IMO, from God.  The ability to claim "I", born of self-awareness, creates a barrier between the individual and his environment that it not permeable.  Man is figuratively trapped by his ego.  The ability to create and grasp ideas that are the result of self-awareness is the foundation of man's exceptionalism.  But in reality we are monkeys with imaginations.

One fella's opinion.

----------


## PierzStyx

So you trespassed, stole someone else's property, and then called the corrupt, local thugs to come and beat them up?

The only one doing anything wrong is you.


Dogs are non-human meat. Meat is food. End of story.

----------


## osan

> The entire occurrence of rights are nothing more than a pact sometimes shared among men, for the purpose of survival.


That is the practical aspect of it.  There is also a conceptual aspect based in analytic reason applied in examination of the nature of the relationship of one man to another.  That is how I came to cobble the Canon of Proper Human Relations.  Basically, no man is endowed with authority over another.  Likewise, no man is inherently subservient to another.  There is no basis one could offer in defense of inherent master/slave relations that I, or any reasonably well trained sixth-grader, could not summarily demolish in while sleeping.




> They are a supernatural concept,


I do not think I can agree with this bit.  I think they are very natural. What to me is unnatural is the notion that humans are the only ones who hold them.  Given the definition of "right", it is clear that all living beings have them.  That human instrumentality leaves men in a position of vast material superiority over all other terrestrial beings, it does not follow that only humans have rights.  It simply means that men hold the ability to impose their wills upon the rest, and even each other, through our various means.




> the result of the imagination


Not sure they are the result of imagination, but rather that imagination allows us to discover and make sense of them.




> that do not not exist in practical reality.


Interesting choice of words.  Does the fact that some violate the rights of the rest mean that the rights asserted do not exist?  I don't think so.  I think that it means only that that some violate others.




> An animal does not have the right to survival, it has an imperative to survive;


Is this a distinction without a difference?




> as does every organism extant.  Man is no different.  The entire biomass is nothing more than one giant food processing machine.


As a family member once quipped to me regarding planet earth: "Everywhere is life, but no food."




> It is the ability to conceptualize that sets man apart; not just from nature, but from his fellow man,


It certainly appears so.




> and IMO, from God.


You may have bitten off a little too much with this one. 




> The ability to claim "I", born of self-awareness, creates a barrier between the individual and his environment that it _not permeable._


Not sure that last bit is strictly true.  Yogis, Buddhist monks, saddhus, and shamans of every stripe appear to have permeated the veil.  In fact, I may have also done it, though it does call into some question what, exactly, are all these things of which we speak.  I'm not sure anyone knows with any rigor and specificity.  To put it in the words of John Denver, "life ain't nothin' but a funny funny riddle".

Thank God I'm a country boy.




> Man is figuratively trapped by his ego.


A truth the Hindus, Buddhists, etc., have recognized for a long year.




> The ability to create and grasp ideas that are the result of self-awareness is the foundation of man's exceptionalism.  But in reality we are monkeys with imaginations.


And yet to me, that "exceptionalism" only exists when men display the spirit of grace, kindness, and generosity that shows proper respect not only to himself and his fellows, but to all life.  Very few people manifest this sort of attitude, so far as I have ever been able to see.  They are more than willing to rationalize abandonment of their best principles when it is convenient to them.  The warrior does not.

----------


## osan

> So you trespassed, stole someone else's property, and then called the corrupt, local thugs to come and beat them up?
> 
> The only one doing anything wrong is you.
> 
> 
> Dogs are non-human meat. Meat is food. End of story.


Humans are meat.

Meat is food.

End of story.

----------


## nobody's_hero

AF I like you man, but this thread was 2 years old. Look what you started again, again.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well there's your problem right here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if your religion keeps you from becoming a mass murderer then please stick with it.


Just read this.  Wow, it's incredible how shallow-minded people can be.  You act like the idea of murder being wrong is some kind of scientific fact.  Ok, then, show me the scientific experiment that proves murder is wrong.  How about rape, too, while you're at it?  How, exactly, does one "figure it out?"  Is it just the fact that society doesn't like it that makes it wrong?  What is it, exactly, to you?

We are all evil on the inside, and you can't reason your way out of it.  The vast majority of people, if they had been in Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign, would have gone right along with it, unless you're just willing to believe that an entire nation, millions of people can literally go insane and it has absolutely no bearing on the rest of us.  Most of us don't do it because we know we wouldn't get away with it, but the problem with that is that you CAN get away with it.  And if you just want to kill everyone you can before killing yourself, what's to stop you?  The fact that you have "the right" moral values?  Those values don't mean anything if you ever become resentful toward society.  It's only your relative success within the system that keeps your inner devil dormant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am an animal and proud of it.
> 
> Better than a vegetable yes?
> 
> Or worse yet a mineral


Why would you be proud of that?  If everyone's an animal, then there's nothing to be proud of in that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why would you be proud of that?  If everyone's an animal, then there's nothing to be proud of in that.


Not sure if you are aware of this, but, you are arguing with a dead man.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not sure if you are aware of this, but, you are arguing with a dead man.


Nope, was not aware of that.

----------


## Danke

> Nope, was not aware of that.


Not sure if you aware of this, but you are responding to a butt pirate sailor.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Humans are meat.
> 
> Meat is food.
> 
> End of story.



Not what I said. Re-read it.

----------


## osan

> Not what I said. Re-read it.


Neither did I write nor imply that you had.  I was simply pointing out the arbitrary nature of what your words implied.

----------

