Lucifer1904
Well-Known Member
Say you have a dog that you have had for 12 years, would you choose to eat it?
That is my argument, I am not arguing against the humanization of animals for human consumption, i.e cows, chickens, pigs as that has been a part of human survival since the beginning of time. My argument for animals is that of pets such as dogs and cats. You would not eat a dog or cat so what is your reason for killing them.I wouldn't be eating a dog in the first place. As to whether I'd eat a pet of a type of animal I would eat, then it'd depend on how it died. It's a bad idea to eat a diseased animal. If it dies from old age or from euthanasia then no I'm not going to eat it. If I kill it for meat either with a knife or a gun depending on size of animal then I'll eat it.
Whether I choose to eat an animal or not, has no bearing on the issue. Even if my intent was to kill it for sport and mount it's head on my wall and use it's hide for a rug, it's an animal.That is my argument, I am not arguing against the humanization of animals for human consumption, i.e cows, chickens, pigs as that has been a part of human survival since the beginning of time. My argument for animals is that of pets such as dogs and cats. You would not eat a dog or cat so what is your reason for killing them.
I am not advocating cannibalism. I have no further comment on this debate at this time.are you advocating a return to Canaan Ba'al ism?
Quickly in over your head I see. Thanks for playing.I am not advocating cannibalism. I have no further comment on this debate at this time.
Ok that's not what you're advocating. But you are comparing animals to humans on both a consumption basis and a murder basis. So if you're not advocating eating people then there's no point to be made about eating pets in regards to supporting euthanasia in people unless you're also advocating going vegan - it's not a comparison.I am not advocating cannibalism. I have no further comment on this debate at this time.
You have not. You still equate killing humans to killing animals and conflate them as if they're morally equivalent. They're not. No matter how you spin it. Putting down Grandma after she breaks her hip is not the same as putting down your dog for the same thing.Based on this topic getting off-track from the topic of "Is euthanasia justified" due to the factor of animals in the debate. I have edited the debate to be only based on the justification for humans.
Do you have any outside verification of this "fact"? Because I don't believe your Liberty necessarily allows you to interfere with my pursuit of Happiness."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In that order. Not because it sounds good that way, it's the list of Rights in order of Supremacy. Your pursuit of Happiness does not allow you to infringe on my Liberty, my Liberty does not give me the right to deny you Life.
Can you give an example of where my Liberty would do that without also conflicting with your Liberty? I can't think of one.Do you have any outside verification of this "fact"? Because I don't believe your Liberty necessarily allows you to interfere with my pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is written as a legal document and needs to be read as a legal document. In legal documents, the order of lists are not arbitrary. If you need more than that, do your own research. If you want to understand our founding documents as the founders wrote them, not within the context of today's fluid 'penumbra' of rights, the Federalist Papers is a great place to start.My point is that you can't have an honest debate if you just make stuff up. Maybe there is relevance to the order of those words, maybe there isn't. Do you have any sources that confirm your statement that there is relevance to their order?
The trouble with that theory is that it doesn't take into account that multiple items with equal importance still have to be listed in some kind of order. (And if we're going to take things strictly as the founders wrote them, then the NRA's Second Amendment stance goes right out the window.)The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is written as a legal document and needs to be read as a legal document. In legal documents, the order of lists are not arbitrary. If you need more than that, do your own research. If you want to understand our founding documents as the founders wrote them, not within the context of today's fluid 'penumbra' of rights, the Federalist Papers is a great place to start.
If you believe your pursuit of Happiness allows you to take a Life or deny another's Liberty, that is an issue far beyond the scope of the Constitution and you'll answer for any actions you take or promote commensurate with that stance to a Judge far higher than any Supreme Court Justice. Good luck with that.The trouble with that theory is that it doesn't take into account that multiple items with equal importance still have to be listed in some kind of order. (And if we're going to take things strictly as the founders wrote them, then the NRA's Second Amendment stance goes right out the window.)
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
I don't need to read any non-Constitutional writings to understand the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, and that it is outdated and needs to be repealed. The military realities of the time it was written no longer exist. We have a professional army for defense, which is something the founding fathers didn't envision happening. You need to read the first part of the amendment that qualifies everything after it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". So if you're part of a well-regulated militia dedicated to the security of the State, you are entitled to keep and bear arms. If you're not part of such a militia, you are not Constitutionally guaranteed this right. Which would mean that local governments had the right to regulate firearm ownership. This was the legal view until about 10 years ago or so when the Supreme Court made one of its less legally correct decisions. They essentially changed the Constitution by their erroneous thinking. And now the NRA buys politicians to keep this from being fixed.If you want to know why your parenthetical statement is wrong, read the Federalist Papers. In the meantime, here's a few quotes from the Founding Fathers on firearms and their thoughts on private possession.
I am saying none of that. I am merely pointing out that your statement was factually wrong.If you believe your pursuit of Happiness allows you to take a Life or deny another's Liberty, that is an issue far beyond the scope of the Constitution and you'll answer for any actions you take or promote commensurate with that stance to a Judge far higher than any Supreme Court Justice.
Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.BTW - If you're going to take a stance that's intended to deny people the right to defend themselves not only from bad people, but also from an overreaching tyrannical government, for God's sake do some independent research. Please don't vote to enslave humanity because you heard someone say something you agreed with once.
I am saying none of that. I am merely pointing out that your statement was factually wrong.
Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
No. That is an original thought and statement of my own independent thoughts after thorough careful investigation. I also do not throw out facts that I find inconvenient. Bury your head if you must.Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.