Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[stanford]

... tard)

He said, "tard".

[grolled]

Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.

Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?

I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.

[dalebert]

Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?

I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.

Sorry, Anton mentioned "retarded". When you have an animal, like a potentially dangerous dog, for instance, YOU have to protect it and make sure it doesn't violate anyone's rights because the animal obviously can't be counted on to understand the notion of rights. The same goes for people. If someone is attacking you, they're violating your rights, i.e. either purposefully or because they don't understand the notion of rights. Either way, they lose their own rights in the process, at least to a certain extent based on the extent to which they're violating yours, and threatening life and limb is pretty big. In other words, you are not violating their rights when you defend yourself. It's not your responsibility to analyze WHY they are violating your rights. You are not being unreasonable to defend yourself regardless of their reasons for attacking you. You are not violating their rights if you steal back something they stole from you. They gave up their right not to be stolen from, to a limited extent, by not respecting your rights. This is the basis of the NAP.

Rights are meaningless without reciprocity. So when animals can understand rights and respect them, and this may happen in rare cases as Mainshark suggested, then their rights should be respected in return. Extending the notion of rights to animals who can't even understand and respect rights is a complete redefinition of rights into something that can't be logically consistent.

[Russell Kanning]

Turkeys.  Is it ok to raise and kill turkeys because theyre uglier and dumber than horses or dogs?  I lived on the tiny island of Okinawa for a year and ate dog there.  They had dog farms.

whhy not .... there are also plenty of wild ones to shoot

[AntonLee]

Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.

Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?

I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.

I have rights in me?  I've been quite itchy lately can someone please remove these?  Officer?  Help please.

[lildog]

Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.

Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?

I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.

Good point.

Newborns also have no ability yet to comprehend.

But morality and belief in what is a "right" also has a lot to do with culture and education.  Case in point, in the middle east and many parts of the world it is accepted belief that women do not have rights.  For the longest time in this country black people were not believed to have rights.

You and I can agree that a woman is a person and thus has the same level of rights that either of us do but someone from a different culture sees it as acceptable to beat a woman and they believe that is a god given right according to their faith.

[xyz]

http://www.fuglyblog.com/2009/people-for-the-eating-of-tasty-arabians/

Thought you guys might find this interesting and/or entertaining.  I especially love the last paragraph so here it is:

It comes down to what it always comes down to.  Slaughter is the cheap, easy way out for people who do stupid crap like breed horses they don't handle and train, or cripple them up overriding them when young, or fry their brains with cruel training.  As long as that cheap, easy way out exists, there are no consequences for poor horse care or treating your show prospects like they are disposable.  Every time I see someone arguing that we should re-open the slaughterhouses, I know it is someone who has used them in the past to hide the evidence of their crappy horse care, thoughtless breeding or failed training.  Enough already.

Hmmmm...  Remind us of anyone??

[Fluff and Stuff]

Every time I see someone arguing that we should re-open the slaughterhouses, I know it is someone who has used them in the past to hide the evidence of their crappy horse care, thoughtless breeding or failed training.

I've never owned a horse (and don't want one) but it would be great for the people that live in North America if there were quite a few slaughterhouses opened in the US.

[AntonLee]

those damn farmers must be not taking care of their cows and pigs too!  Otherwise there'd be no slaughterhouses!

[MaineShark]

What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent?

How is someone in a coma going to violate your rights?  Drool on you in a malicious manner?

What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?

Depends.  Are they going around attacking others?

I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans.

All persons (human or otherwise) start out with rights, by virtue of their self-ownership.  Persons are reasoning creatures, and reasoning creatures respect the rights of others.  Someone who violates the rights of others acts in an un-reasoning manner, demonstrating that he has given up his person-hood in the choice to abandon reason.  As he is not a person, but merely a dangerous animal, self-defense is acceptable (cannot violate his rights, because he has none, by his own choice).  If he decides to make restitution to his victim, then he has demonstrated that he has once again embraced reason, and has re-acquired his person-hood.  As a person, he has the same rights as any other person (which is why libertarians don't believe in loss of rights for felons, for example).

Joe

[KBCraig]

Some horse lovers really do take it to extremes.

http://probablybadnews.com/2009/11/02/funny-news-headlines-say-nay-to-bad-puns/

[Fluff and Stuff]

This isn't exactly related, similar to Kevin's story.  11 city government workers in Memphis were reveled of duty after evidence suggests that they have been starving dogs at a city animal shelter for years.  These people may have been paid tax dollars to slowly starve dogs until the dogs died.

Of course, no charges have been filed, yet.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/oct/27/sheriffs-deputies-raid-city-memphis-animal-shelter

[anthonybpugh]

Horse news update.

Guess there won't be any drama surrounding all this anymore.  hurray....

I have it on good authority that the horses are being "surrendered" to whoever will have them. We should have a listing together soon and not sure where we're at with the numbers but from what I hear there are at least 28 still.

McKulley, now's your chance to get BG back, PM me or give me a call if you still have my cell no. I'm going to try to track down your no. too...

Anyone in NH or the surrounding states interested in helping out or who could offer permanent placement, please PM me.

This is great news for the horses without a doubt. I've had knots in my stomach with the frigid weather we've been having and am so looking forward to closure of this case.

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4588361#post4588361

[AntonLee]

thank god for another horse update. 

[leetninja]

im so confused ...