Legislation for animals

Anything else on your mind that you would like to discuss with other like-minded people.

Moderators: Mini Forklift Ⓥ, C.O., Richard, robert, SyrLinus

Message
Author
CollegeB
Elephant
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Legislation for animals

#1 Postby CollegeB » Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:11 am

After my presentation people asked me questions. One was "if you could pass any legislation what would it be?" Lets look at this in relation to animals since that was the purpose. What would you all do if you were the president?

kollision
Elephant
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#2 Postby kollision » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:02 am

Make factory farms illegal and killing animals illegal as well. Kill an animal, you get life in prison or death.

CollegeB
Elephant
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#3 Postby CollegeB » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:57 pm

Sounds like prohibiton Kalani, and that didnt work at all infact It made the problem with alcohol worse. I think if there were bans on animal killing i wouldnt be opposed, but I think we should try to change people's minds since that is the only way anyone will care. A prohibition on things like factory farms would probably just mean you had even less controlled factory farms, politicians would become even more corrupt, and people may actually resent animal welfare/rights. But if the U.S. progressed to where 98% of the public supported such measures I think putting the opinions (killing animals is still murder or meat is wrong etc.) in writing would be great. You cannot legislate morality.

kollision
Elephant
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#4 Postby kollision » Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:04 pm

CollegeB wrote:Sounds like prohibiton Kalani, and that didnt work at all infact It made the problem with alcohol worse. I think if there were bans on animal killing i wouldnt be opposed, but I think we should try to change people's minds since that is the only way anyone will care. A prohibition on things like factory farms would probably just mean you had even less controlled factory farms, politicians would become even more corrupt, and people may actually resent animal welfare/rights. But if the U.S. progressed to where 98% of the public supported such measures I think putting the opinions (killing animals is still murder or meat is wrong etc.) in writing would be great. You cannot legislate morality.


They already do so, with murder.

User avatar
sirdle
Rabbit
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

#5 Postby sirdle » Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:30 pm

Sometimes I think that a politician is someone who figures out which way the crowd is running and then runs along in front. I think that reforms that start from the top and try to impose change at the bottom never work. The change has to start at the bottom with more and more people being aware of animal rights and wanting change to occur. Once that happens the laws will come naturally and they will have the strength of public opinion behind them.

How about something along these lines... The factory farms are selling "food" to the public, right? Well, make them back up that claim. Require them to document the nature and quantity of every component in the "food"... every vitamin and mineral... every hormone... every pesticide... every antibiotic... every bacterium. Any item which has been linked to cancer, osteoperosis, heart disease, atherosclerosis, anemia, diabetes, hypoglycemia, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, gallstones, ulcers, hypertension, or asthma in a reputable study would have to identified as such. To sell such "food" without disclosing the negative health effects of the "food" is fraud, pure and simple.
As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love --- Leonardo Da Vinci

CollegeB
Elephant
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#6 Postby CollegeB » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:35 pm

Sirdle I would like to see something like that. And kalani, I have been thinkig about what I said and your argument about murder came up. My thought though is that many people dont murder even if it was legal. And even because it isnt legal does not stop anyone who wants to. Im not making an argument for legalized murder though if that what anyone is thinking. And considering animals are beings with feelings perhaps a protection of life act is in order, but then women probably wont be able to have their right to kill things i mean have abortions, and what would we do about those who kill bugs, how do we punish that? I should retract my prohibition example because it deals with substances that are not life, though prohibition did make troubles with alcohol worse just as our drug war is doing. A prohibition on meat (though not libertarian) would be akin to banning slavery which I dont have a problem with (banning it, to clarify). Slavery and meat eating involve other sentient beings and as we feel they do deserve rights. I still think having people's perceptions of animals altered would be more effective than legislation. But none of us are truly free until the animals are, which is a sentiment I have read in many different places.

User avatar
Richard
Site Admin
Posts: 6064
Age: 34
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: England
Contact:

#7 Postby Richard » Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:18 am

Arresting people who are mass-murderers will prevent them from murdering anyone else. But all other kinds of murder are not prevented by current laws in my opinion, given that someone who murders someone either thinks they will get away with it, or they are going it in a sudden moment of anger, in which they weren't considering the law anyway.

With regards to killing animals, people are mass-murdering them, so arresting people who do this would prevent them from continuing. People who accidentally step on bugs are not murderers. People who deliberately step on bugs are murderers. From a moral point of view, they deserve to be locked away. But from a practical point of view, this won't work obviously. The police, who have never been hugely involved with animal welfare, would not suddenly agree with the laws that they were being told to enforce, and probably would not be bothered if it was so sudden.


Maybe I would arrange for kids to go on school trips to visit slaughter houses, if I had the power to do so. I'd make sure that animal rights were dealt with in schools properly by people who know what they're talking about. But I don't really know what's best.

User avatar
sirdle
Rabbit
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

#8 Postby sirdle » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:40 am

Ooooh I like the idea of a field trip to a slaughter house!
As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love --- Leonardo Da Vinci

compassionategirl
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#9 Postby compassionategirl » Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:26 pm

sirdle wrote:Ooooh I like the idea of a field trip to a slaughter house!


Yes, I think this is a great idea too (not sure if Sirdle is being sarcastic here). I think it is a great idea because I for one think that the truth is a powerful tool, and the animals certainly have truth on their side. I think people need to know the exact costs of the production of their food (not only the financial costs to themselves, but the cost of extreme misery and suffering for animals).

I think that the meat industry should be held accountable, should not get to keep the things we see on meet your meat video out of public view. At the very least, that video should be played for all highschool children to see - so they truly have the "whole" story in relation to their decision to either eat animals or not.

compassionategirl
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#10 Postby compassionategirl » Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:29 pm

sirdle wrote:Sometimes I think that a politician is someone who figures out which way the crowd is running and then runs along in front. I think that reforms that start from the top and try to impose change at the bottom never work. The change has to start at the bottom with more and more people being aware of animal rights and wanting change to occur. Once that happens the laws will come naturally and they will have the strength of public opinion behind them.



i love the lines you come up with Sirdle like the bolded one above - well put!!! :D

I strongly agree with the rest of what you said that I quoted.

As far as requiring full disclosure on ingredients and components found in the food and their health effects, I think this is important but I also think the suffering needs to be fully disclosed as well. Otherwise, the message is once again "WHo cares about the animals - the only thing that matters is human health." Well, that is not the ONLY thing that matters. Even if meat could be rendered healthy, it would still be unacceptable and unethical to kill animals for food when you can live just as healthy of a lifestyle that did not cost animals their innocent lives!!!

User avatar
V VII Hero
Gorilla
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

#11 Postby V VII Hero » Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:26 pm

I despise politics. but I am not one to complain as I do not hold the solutions to life's problems.

User avatar
sirdle
Rabbit
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Ventura, CA

#12 Postby sirdle » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:35 pm

compassionategirl wrote:As far as requiring full disclosure on ingredients and components found in the food and their health effects, I think this is important but I also think the suffering needs to be fully disclosed as well.

Good point!
As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love --- Leonardo Da Vinci


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests