Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[BillKauffman]

There has to be a line somewhere. 

There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?

People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Thanks for the suggestion.  I just got done watching the segment, and I'm pleased to report that my comparison not only holds water, but is even more apt than I first thought.  What exactly in that program was supposed to change my mind?  He profiles a few bad-apple type SPCA enforcers who have clearly done harm.  Am I supposed to extrapolate this to all local SPCA branches and assume they're all corrupt?  Consider the consequences of that way of thinking:

"Anarchists smash private property!"
"Gun owners go on rampages and kill people at schools!"
"Homeschoolers are religious wackos who molest children in scary compounds!"

Wow, a lot of freestaters are gun-owning anarchist homeschoolers -- scum of the Earth!

Stossel himself sums up the program with a critical point that you might have overlooked:

"By the way it's important to understand that all these SPCA's are independent of each other"

I never overlooked that. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem within those groups based on how many complaints that they received from all over the country. I also never said you should assume they're all corrupt. Please point to where I said that.
Also, what is Stossel supposed to do, spend days profiling every enforcer out there?

[Peacemaker]

Why does there have to be a line somewhere?  Can't you even begin to imagine a non-governmental solution to the problem of someone abusing animals?

Imagine if people took a moral responsibility to do something themselves whenever they saw an injustice, rather than having the safety and anonymity of just calling up the government to do their moral duty for them.  Perhaps people would really consider the situation and decide if a so-called injustice was really so bad that it warranted intervention.  I suspect many people would then decide that aggressing against their neighbors isn't really necessary. 

I couldn't agree more. 

I think People would think about what they don't like - then ask themselves if they want to confront this person (s) about it - then answer No to that question - then realize there's no victim - then go back to living their life.  A live and let live way of life would be adapted by all as the most honest way to deal with others.

[cyne]

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences!    My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm.   Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.

[margomaps]

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem within those groups based on how many complaints that they received from all over the country.

Allow me to paraphrase:

"But that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem with those gun owners based on how many mass shootings that they have committed all over the country."

I also never said you should assume they're all corrupt. Please point to where I said that.

I don't recall claiming you said that.  But this game is fun, so I'll have a go at it too:

Also, what is Stossel supposed to do, spend days profiling every enforcer out there?

I never said Stossel should spend days profiling every enforcer out there.  Please point to where I said that.

On second thought this game doesn't lead anywhere useful, and it's not very fun.

It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group.  And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass.  When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?

[Bald Eagle]

Everyone has to come to their own conclusions about the treatment of not only other people, but of other people's property.

Pharmaceutical companies, medical schools, and military field-medicine courses regularly USE animals to teach and learn and test things that are valuable for improving and saving human life.  They are injected, fed bizarre diets, toxins, killed, and sometimes partially dissected while still alive, or purposefully wounded (sometimes fatally) for the sake of having students treat the wound and prolong the life of the animal to the best of their ability.  If these experiments were not performed on animals - they would have to be performed ON HUMANS - or not at all.  

Livestock are typically raised . . . to be killed.  So that we can eat the muscle and organ tissue off their carcasses, and stretch their skin out into boots, handbags, rifle slings, and kinky BSDM outfits.

Extreme breeding programs have been going on for hundreds of years to produce breeds of animals that have certain characteristics - sometimes only for aesthetics (no matter how weird the subjective aesthetics of Chinese hairless dogs are) and that have serious health consequences as side effects of such planned and carefully controlled selective breeding.

Animals are tattooed and branded to identify them.

There are lots of things that happen to animals - either by humans, or as a result of nature and natural predators.
What should we DO?  Shall we initiate force, or do so by proxy because we disagree or do not understand?

If a man renders another man unconscious and slices him open, rearranges his guts, and them sews him back up, shall we unleash an angry mob against him for his evil and satanic actions?  Or do we actually like having doctors and surgeons around?
How much consent can/do pediatrician/pediatric surgeon's "clients" give?
NO MOMMY NO! DON'T LET THE BAD MAN STICK ME WITH A NEEDLE! I DON'T WANT HIM TO CUT ME!

There's a difference between cruelty, perceived cruelty, and the cruel reality of life.
It's not the situation that you have to look at - it's your response to the situation and the morality and ethics of that response that you have to seriously consider.

So "cruel" and "life is tough all around" are two totally different things.

How much more cruel is the government to its property (us) or to the property it confiscates (Child Protective Services, NHSPCA)?
And what should you DO about it?

Take a little time to think about it.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group.  And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass.  When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?

Again, I never said that you were expected to assume that all SPCA's are engaged in this kind of behavior but that enough are that it is a problem. Don't you think that there might be a problem with organizations that nationwide act as arms of governments but are private entities?
Also, Stossel did point out that he only chose from a few of the many cases of such abuse.

[erisian]

Here's a possible scenario for what happened:
Heidi and Cooper pissed off Sprowl and the cop in November. They couldn't "go get a warrant", because they had no probable cause. So they went to the vet, and said; "If you get a call from them, make sure you go out there and look around for some probable cause, because we want to bust them." So the vet used the opportunity two weeks ago to do just that.

The shelter law requires that shelter be "provided". If you turn your horses out in February in a paddock without a shelter in it, even for an hour, you will be violating that law. So if the vet saw the 12 horses in a paddock without a shelter, then he would have found the probable cause that he was looking for. It is immaterial that adequate shelter exists on the property, the law requires shelter in any paddock or pasture which has a horse in it at any time during the winter. This could also explain why the other horses weren't rescued stolen. They could only steal the horses that had no shelter provided.
Sure, it's stupid, but that's the law. 

Here's the shelter law:

435:14 Shelter Available. –  Horses shall be provided either:
     I. An adequately ventilated, dry barn with stalls of sufficient size so that the horse is able to lie down, and shall be provided adequate and suitable exercise in arenas, barn yards, paddocks or pastures; or
     II. A roofed shelter, with at least 3 sides from November 1 through April 15, shall be provided for horses kept in paddocks or pastures, and said horses shall not be kept tied but shall be able to move around freely.

[margomaps]

Again, I never said that you were expected to assume that all SPCA's are engaged in this kind of behavior but that enough are that it is a problem. Don't you think that there might be a problem with organizations that nationwide act as arms of governments but are private entities?
Also, Stossel did point out that he only chose from a few of the many cases of such abuse.

Remember how we started this discussion in the first place.  You asked me to watch the video, apparently believing or hoping it would change my assertion that it relied on the same appeal to emotion and irrational generalization that is used to demonize anarchists.  I watched the video, and I think I made it abundantly clear that I feel more than justified in my original assertion.   

The rest we probably agree upon.  Government intrusion and abuse of property rights?  Bad.  Said abuse carried out by a combination of government and private interests?  Also bad (but no worse).

I think we can move on now.  Agreed?

[margomaps]

Here's a possible scenario for what happened:
Heidi and Cooper pissed off Sprowl and the cop in November. They couldn't "go get a warrant", because they had no probable cause. So they went to the vet, and said; "If you get a call from them, make sure you go out there and look around for some probable cause, because we want to bust them." So the vet used the opportunity two weeks ago to do just that.

Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.

It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.

[Pat K]

Some folks want freedom, till their pet peeves
come up, then= THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW !

So what happens, a bunch of the same whiny ass
pet peeve folks get together and pass a law.

This is why freedom goes into the shitter.

[John Edward Mercier]

There has to be a line somewhere. 

There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?

People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Behavioral studies are beginning to show otherwise...
I'm quite sure that most slave owners felt they had a reasoned position on their property claims.

[John Edward Mercier]

And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)

Because they're property.

Unless of course  you want to go all Zen Buddhist Monk style and recognize that every living thing has 'rights', plants included. Have fun starving to death with nowhere to live because any action you might take to satisfy those needs of yours would undoubtedly end up with you violating the 'rights' of some other living organism...

When a lion eats a antelope did it violate its 'rights'? What about if a lion eats a human?
Its not Zen Buddhist Monk... its the question of where 'rights' originate. Locke expelled rights orginated with a Creator, but failed to prove that such a Creator existed. He did so because if 'rights' originated with nature... then those same 'rights' would exist for all natural things.
And the only natural right we know of is the Right of Might - Survival of the Fittest.

[KBCraig]

(...huge snip...)

Take a little time to think about it.

Excellent, Bill. Thanks!

[BillKauffman]

People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.

Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences!    My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm.   Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.

Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?