Oregon Supreme Court- Animals can be Victims just like People

[Larry]

If you don't like it, put me on ignore. That's what I'm doing to you after this post.

If you don't like people asking you not to hijack a thread, and your response is to ignore all of them for daring to point out your doing so, then I suspect you're going to have more problems.

Outside of government spending, which can be quantified, how do we gage the level of 'care' a society places on an issue?

By responding to someone who posts, on a message board that's along the lines of "I saw a homeless man with a dog begging for change in the rain, and I felt sorry for the dog"?

[Kosher Ham]

What did I just step into here ?

 

Hmm...

 

I am going to just step back from this topic.

[Old Bay]

I am going to just step back from this topic.

 

 

I get the gist of it, but understand the slippery slope argument as well.  As per usual, if done with careful thought and application this would be fine. 

[Koolblue13]

If only we had the compassion for the homeless (or unborn humans) that we have for animals.

 

This is such a lazy rebuttal. This has nothing to do with humas, born or not and has ZERO bearing on anything related to what you're talking about. Nothing. Caring for animals, does not have an impact on if you also care for humans. You can show compassion for all living things equally.

If only we could keep the abortion comments in their own threads rather than threatening to derail a perfectly good thread about animals being treated as non-property by the state.

 

BTW, if animals aren't property any longer then can ranchers sell their cattle or do they have to be adopted?

 

They are still property, not what this is about.

So the same folks who are outraged about government agents conducting questionable raids and the NSA overstepping the bounds of privacy are overjoyed at the news that our judiciary has given law enforcement even more latitude to conduct warrant less searches. All righty then

In other news, I know several people who raise dogs to hunt wild boar. Should these people be put in jail? Curious what the sentiment is there

Is it legal? What are the laws that have not changed on this now?

 

I'm all for this ruling, but sadly I know the ultimate endgame is that anyone with even a pet goldfish might be subject to the cops breaking down their door because "they thought they heard the animal suffering"

No animal cruelty law has been changed by this. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Read the OP.

What did I just step into here ?

 

Hmm...

 

I am going to just step back from this topic.

I know better than to start an animal abuse thread on here too. My bad.

 

The gay thread, define a kiss. Same thing. 

[Larry]

No animal cruelty law has been changed by this. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Read the OP.

NOT TRUE.

(See, I can use all caps, too.)

What used to be a single offense, is now multiple offenses. Without the legislature proposing a single change.

And all the judge had to do, to change this law, was to invent a new right that didn't exist, before.

Read the OP.

[Koolblue13]

The definition of animal cruelty has not changed. The punishments have and being able to handle the situation have.

[Larry]

The definition of animal cruelty has not changed. The punishments have and being able to handle the situation have.

And changing the punishment for a law is changing the law, isn't it?

[Zguy28]

This is such a lazy rebuttal. This has nothing to do with humas, born or not and has ZERO bearing on anything related to what you're talking about. Nothing. Caring for animals, does not have an impact on if you also care for humans. You can show compassion for all living things equally.

Was it a rebuttal at all? Think of it more along the lines of musing about what/who we think is important in life and how that comes out subconsciously in our speech (or posts as it will).

If you don't like people asking you not to hijack a thread, and your response is to ignore all of them for daring to point out your doing so, then I suspect you're going to have more problems.

By responding to someone who posts, on a message board that's along the lines of "I saw a homeless man with a dog begging for change in the rain, and I felt sorry for the dog"?

See above. No intent to hijack. That's why it was in parenthesis.

[Koolblue13]

Was it a rebuttal at all? Think of it more along the lines of musing about what/who we think is important in life and how that comes out subconsciously in our speech (or posts as it will).

Here is a question along the lines of your comment. 

 

A lot of times, you get in pregnant dogs and cats, with no room to put the puppies, no one to work with them, no meds, food, etc.

 

Is it immoral to abort the babies? It's extremely common.

And changing the punishment for a law is changing the law, isn't it?

Has the definition of what constitutes cruelty changed?

[PF Chang]

If only we had the compassion for the homeless (or unborn humans) that we have for animals.

 

Compassion is not a finite resource. Certain causes appeal to certain people based on conditioning or experience.

 

Here is a chart called "Where We Donate vs Diseases That Kill Us." If only we had the compassion for heart disease that we have for breast cancer, I guess? The chart's data is only one year over the biggest fundraising events. Regardless my point is that compassion is not necessarily "logical." 

 

In terms of death count, what happens in North Korea far surpasses anything ISIS has done. I notice that doesn't stop us from caring a whole lot more about ISIS. I think that some people really only care about causes where the victim is "one of us" or where the person could see that victim having been themselves in a different situation. We aren't North Korean, but we are Christian.