Brickbat: That's Not Kosher

Poland's Constitutional court has upheld a law mandating that livestock be stunned before it is slaughtered. The law, in effect, bars traditional Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter, which require an animal to be conscious when its throat is slit. The government had exempted religious groups from that law, but the court's ruling makes those waivers illegal.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Poland's Constitutional court has upheld a law mandating that livestock be stunned before it is slaughtered.

    Tell those European chickens that Obama is going back on a campaign promise. That would surely stun them.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Nah, I assume they'll just follow the herd. Being pigheaded as they are.

  • ||

    Such punditry is fowl and not behooving of you.

  • Suki||

    +1 LOL

  • Generic Stranger||

    I'll bet the plaintiffs are feeling poleaxed after that ruling.

  • db||

    Regulations like these will do irreparable haram to the concept of religious liberty.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    It's a whole new kaballah wax trying to fuse animal rights and ancient rituals.

  • ||

    It's parve and parcel for the course.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd bet that that's exactly the point.

  • Zeb||

    I don't see a bad pun in that comment. F-.

  • Anomalous||

    What the halal are you saying?

  • ||

    Based on this article, Poland's Constitutional court was not asked about the validity of the law, but the validity of the exemption given by the Minister from the law to permit halal and kosher butchery. So the Government could introduce a bill to amend the legislation and enshrine that exemption in legislation, or the halal / kosher butchers could challenge the Polish law as it now stands to see if it is has priority over the EU law allowing halal and kosher butchery.

    Hey, where did my stupid joke go? Damn...

  • ||

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Jesus, IFH. You're about as funny as a Chip Bok cartoon.

    Your grasp of Poland's constitutional review process is spot on. Or I assume it is, seeing as I fell asleep about ten words into your post.

  • ||

    hungover again, i see

  • Whiterun Guard||

    What'd I spell wrong this time?

  • ||

    the spelling is impeccable for once. It's the general tetchiness and inability to concentrate on boring prose which suggest you woke up with a tongue like the bottom of an old birdcage

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Ah, nope. If I'm cranky it's from my run this morning. But I mean COME ON!, Brickbats are a time for puns and general light chatting! Not legal analysis. Or psychotherapy.

    Or legal-psycho analraping.

  • ||

    Now who's overthinking things on Brickbat? You should talk to someone like this

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Pffft, like a guy who is professionally miserable and personally despondant is going to take advice from a guy who...

    Ok fine, I see your point.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    So while we're waiting on the Friday Funny, who has awesome plans for tonight/this weekend?

    I'm going to go try (and fail miserably) and pick up an NGO tonight. After that I'll drink myself into a self-harming stupor. Wake up tomorrow, see if one of the Lebanese markets has (full) water bottles in, so I don't have to do the whole purification thing this weekend. And I may get to go to the US Defense Attache's house to watch Army-Navy on Saturday night. Then more drinking and shishah.

    Then sleep everything off on Sunday. And more drinking Sunday night IF I can bully/beg the hotel bar I frequent to put on an NFL game (assuming the satellite is working) instead of a replay of some crappy Real Madrid game from two weeks ago.

    Please make me jealous! Especially if you're doing any food stuff, because by Odin's Eight Legged Horse does the food here blow.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Do you have a hate grudge against your liver? Did....did it molest you? Show us on the doll where your liver touched you.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Right here *points to liver.

    And I'm good for most of the week, when I have work to do. But there's nothing to do here on the weekends except drink, or go to one of the open sewers they call a beach. There are some nicer beaches a bit further out of town, but I don't have a car, and I'm not exactly a beachy person anyway.

    Plus I'm Irish, so I'm pretty sure I'll get killed in a drunken brawl long before cirrhosis sets in.

  • BarryD||

    So primitive religious rituals from the ancient texts of absolutist tribal leaders who used imaginary deities to maintain their power, trump modern laws against cruelty?

    Sorry, but I'm not seeing any brickbats here.

  • Marshall Gill||

    No, Laws supporting religious freedom should trump modern animal cruelty laws.

    I personally prefer human liberty to vague legalisms promoted by statists, but to each his own.

  • BarryD||

    Which laws should religious freedom NOT trump?

    Everyone has a line. What's yours?

  • Marshall Gill||

    They are called negative rights, Barry. Pretty simple. Negative rights should not trump other negative rights. People being offended by certain types of butchering are pushing a positive right, the right to not have their feelings hurt by others actions.

    Everyone has a line. What's yours?

    It is certainly not drawn at how other people butcher cows....

  • BarryD||

    So there is a negative right to inflict cruelty on animals?

    Or do you need to claim some religious justification?

    Must it be an ancient religion? Or will Mormonism do? What about Scientology? Self-Realization?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "So there is a negative right to inflict cruelty on animals?"

    Yes.

    "Or do you need to claim some religious justification?"

    No reason at all, other than owning the livestock.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think that religious freedom should trump any law. There shouldn't be any laws that violate anyone's rights. Everyone should have the same rights. If a Kosher butcher has the right to slaughter a cow in a certain way, so should everyone else. If a Catholic employer doesn't have to pay for birth control, than neither should any other employer. I think that an absolutely essential part of religious freedom is no particular privileges for specific religions. That just allows government and the courts to define what is and is not religion.

  • BarryD||

    E.g. should parents, in the name of religious laws, be allowed to murder their teenage children for promiscuity or homosexuality?

    If not, on what basis? What's your first principle?

  • Marshall Gill||

    So you are saying that kosher slaughter compares to the murder of children? Gotcha.

  • BarryD||

    That wasn't my question.

    My question was, "Where is YOUR line?"

    Clearly, then, you have one. You think that civil laws against murder trump religious freedom. Kosher slaughter is not described in Scripture, whereas the death penalty for homosexuality is.

    So where IS your line?

  • Marshall Gill||

    You are just trolling me now, right?

    You don't know the difference between murdering a human being and butchering cows? Just because Liberty should trump animal cruelty laws it does not follow that Liberty trumps natural human rights. Nor did my first post claim otherwise. "vague legalisms promoted by statists" is obviously in reference to animal cruelty laws versus religious freedom. You are being purposefully obtuse saying that I claimed religious liberty trumps natural rights.

    Been fun playing though.

  • Tonio||

    Also, Marshall, Barry didn't say that animal slaughter was the equivalent of murder; you made that up. You're arguments have the same integrity as do those of Joe/Derider/etc.

    Also, you seem to imply that there's no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership, control and disposal. Am I getting this right?

  • BarryD||

    What constitutes "religious liberty?"

    If I don't join some religion, why are my liberties different from someone who does?

  • Tonio||

    I want to hear your answer to Barry's question, Marshall. Again: Which laws should religious freedom NOT trump?

  • BarryD||

    Thanks, Tonio, for getting it.

  • Tonio||

    And thank you, BarryD, for your brilliantly insightful question.

    I suspect that Marshall Gill does indeed get it, but realized he was on the brink of a slippery slope. Which is why he started with the huffing, ad-homs and subject-changing.

    Animal welfare is one of those areas where dogmatic libertarianism fails, and the doubling-down on cruelty only provides ammo to those who would paint libertarianism as a nutjob philosophy. The tendency to shoot the messenger is also unfortunate.

    However, I've seen some positive movement, however incremental, in the years I've been here. Glad to have another ally here.

  • Zeb||

    The line is that all laws should apply equally to everyone. If your religion requires violating anyone else's rights or harming anyone, then it is against the law. Just as if anyone else performed the same actions for non-religious actions.

  • Robert||

    Why should religious freedom trump cruelty?

    The crazy thing in this case is that kosher slaughter was clearly intended at the time as a measure against cruelty to animals. The technology of the time made this the least painful way for such an animal to die. But the strictures have been interpreted religiously to have the opposite effect from what was intended. Nowadays it would be less cruel to knock the animal out by certain means before cutting its throat, but the religious law did not anticipate that and is understood as saying that the 1st thing to do to the animal has to be cutting its throat. So yeah, I think they should be made to do what their law would say now if it were interpreted in a way that made sense!

  • fried wylie||

    So yeah, I think they should be made to do what their law would say now if it were interpreted in a way that made sense!

    If they performed periodic re-interpretations, 1. it wouldn't be much of a tradition, would it, and 2. Jews and Muslims could finally eat pork!

  • ||

    More on Jewish ritual slaughter, or Shechita. It is specifically designed to be bereft of cruelty.

  • ||

  • ||

    Bereft of cruelty? Do you write lyrics for Evanescence or something?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    You're not thinking of denigrating Amy Lee are you? Because I've started wars for less.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know who Amy Lee is, but Evanescence sucks.

  • Tonio||

    No, Groovus. The laws are not designed in the sense of a rational process whose ultimate goal is to reduce the suffering of the animals being slaughtered. The whole point here is that they are following what they believe to be orders from their god and which they've been following for several thousand years and which are not subject to change absent divine revelation; and their god has apparently not spoken to them since the time of their prophet Moses.

    FTFA: "If a...the knife severs with one motion the trachea, esophagus, and blood vessels of the neck, then suffering should be minimized." Relative to what? And no discussion of why this is so, or whether it could be done better. Like all religious nonsense they try for a facade of reasonableness, but it ultimately devolves into "god said it, we follow orders, and that's that."

    Also, these laws only deal with kosher animals slaughtered for food. AFAIK, there's no prohibition against cruel killing of non-kosher animals for non-food uses, ie anal electrocution of mink by the fur industry. Anyone know? HM? Anyone?

  • BarryD||

    I believe that Leviticus commands that one slaughter from his own herd.

    What about when a religion follows some of its own laws but not others?

    When do we say, "Aww, bullshit?"

    Religious freedom would say that we never can or should, as a society or through a government, tell someone what to believe or preach. In order to do that, what alternative is there to say, "Believe what you want, and here are the basic civil laws by which we live?"

    Otherwise, I'm a devout Sammihagarian, and my religion commands me to drive 125 every time I get on the highway. I'm immune to any civil laws limiting my speed, because they contradict my religious beliefs.

  • BarryD||

    (Incidentally, I lean anarchist, so I'm not arguing for the legitimacy of victimless "crimes" either, just saying that, if one accepts the notion of civil laws, the whole "but it's my religion!" defense has some real limits.)

  • entropy||

    How do I convert?

    I am willing to acknowledge that there is only one way to rock, and thou shalt put no other rock before him.

  • ||

    Still swinging a dull axe, I see, Tonio. I notice you glossed over this:

    While shechita isn't foolproof, it has been observed that the animals suffer as minimally as possible when slaughter is done by trained and experienced shochtim. Minimal suffering is the goal no less than a pronouncement that the meat is kosher for not having violated the physical steps of shechita.

    Also, can you provide proof that the practice of "stunning" unequivocally renders (ha!) the animal in question of pain and suffering? Let me answer that for you, you can't.

    Unless you are also an Animal Whisperer, which would put you on the same level as...wait for it...a devotee of a particular religious faith.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Only at H&R can I see an American expat in Liberia banter back and forth with an Australian. This place rocks.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Don't forget to toss in the US Doc in Commietopia!

  • waaminn||

    lol, not kosher at all dude.

    www.AnonHide.tk

  • fried wylie||

    I don't think slaughter CAN be cruel, as the entity becomes dead as a result. Cruelty requires a living recipient.

    If your method of slaughter caused them to suffer for years and years on end as you bled them dry, then sure, that might be cruel. Or it might just be taxation, and why aren't those fucking bovines paying their fair share, huh?!

  • Zeb||

    Good point. And how do they stun the animals? I'd imagine that hurts too. What should they do, put them under general anesthesia before slaughtering them.

  • Robert||

    A jolt of electricity to the brain can cause unconsciousness sooner than the pain from it can be perceived.

  • fried wylie||

    put them under general anesthesia before slaughtering them.

    And people were worried about hormones in their meat.

    Mmmmmm, you can really taste the double-juiced-in anesthetic goodnes!

  • Robert||

    It's the process, not the result. There are more & less painful ways to die. Slitting a throat is pretty darn good because when the jugular vein is cut, the loss in blood pressure to the brain causes rapid loss of consciousness -- but not instantaneously because there's that time the knife has to get thru the overlying tissue. If some means is available to avoid the pain of the knife cutting the neck, that would be preferable. Ever get cut shaving? Those can sting a good deal even though superficial. A deep cut like one across the throat would hurt even more.

  • fried wylie||

    Lasers. Is there anything they can't solve?

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think slaughter CAN be cruel, as the entity becomes dead as a result. Cruelty requires a living recipient.

    Its not dead when you start, so I think slaughter can be cruel. I could slaughter an animal by cutting off its legs and letting it bleed out, after all, and I think that would be cruel.

  • BarryD||

    Right.

    If a couple of old religions can't tell the difference between their ancient laws against slaughtering "downers" (laws that are replicated in a modern context, in the United States, where stunning is SOP) and an imaginary prohibition on using a stun gun to prevent unnecessary suffering in the slaughter, then I have a hard time getting animated about their "rights".

    FTR I'm a hunter. I face the cycle of life and death, and the paradoxes of eating meat, directly. I don't just pay someone else to do it. I sure don't have a problem with eating meat.

    Animal cruelty laws can be misguided in some cases, just as any laws. This one, however, seems pretty run-of-the-mill.

    So what, exactly, does someone's religion entitle him to do, that I'm not allowed to do as an ordinary citizen? Why should it?

  • fried wylie||

    I could slaughter an animal by cutting off its legs and letting it bleed out, after all, and I think that would be cruel.

    Exsanguination is as exsanguination does.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    This isn't religious freedom, it is property rights. Whatever is the tastiest way is the right way. People get so god damn fanatical about animals.

  • Tonio||

    No, the original argument was about whether religious freedom could trump animal welfare laws.

    Nice job demonizing people who care about animal welfare as fanatics.

    So, no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership, control and disposal. Am I getting this right?

  • BarryD||

    I'd be more willing to listen to a property-rights argument (i.e. the rancher raised the cattle, using his resources, time and labor). I'd counter it with, "Is there any problem with stunning as a method of slaughter? Does that prevent you from reaping the fruits of your labor in the form of meat?"

    Let that argument be made. It still comes around to the question, "Is a cow exactly the same as a lump of clay?" I doubt many people would say so.

    As a dog-loving hunter, I would have my disagreements with those who see a fish as morally equivalent to a child, as well as those who see a higher animal as no different from clay. I suspect I'm in the mainstream, there. (Unusual, really)

    What I'm not at all willing to entertain is the notion that Jews and Muslims have a special right to do something to that the rest of the country has deemed to be cruel and unnecessary.

    Argue against the regulation of slaughterhouse methods, if you will, but not on the grounds that religions bestow special rights on people.

  • Zeb||

    Yes. The only discussion should be on whether the law violates everyone's rights to slaughter their animals as they deem appropriate.

  • Redmanfms||

    It still comes around to the question, "Is a cow exactly the same as a lump of clay?" I doubt many people would say so.

    When some asshole puncher like Tonio comes up with such a disingenuous question than I'll be happy to be that huckleberry.

    The individual should be free to slaughter the animal however they so choose. The market can determine the feasibility of the method.

    What I'd purely love to see both you and Tonio do is make an argument defending statist destruction of individual liberty instead of expecting everyone else to defend whatever you believe crosses the arbitrary animal cruelty line.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm not an expert fisherman. I just fuck around and see what works. Once I caught this small bluegill, and released it, but I observed it flopping around floating on the top of the water. Then a big fish suddenly ate it. So the next time I went fishing, I deliberately caught a small bluegill, strung it up alive with a huge hook, weighted it down, and cast it out. I drew it in and cast it out for like an hour. Cruel as hell to the fish, who just wouldn't die. Caught a huge bass, which I had no need for, so I released it.

  • fried wylie||

    Caught a huge bass, which I had no need for, so I released it.

    Bass are a pain in the ass to clean anyway.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    You clean your fish? I go to Joe's Crab Shack.

  • Redmanfms||

    So, no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership, control and disposal. Am I getting this right?

    Yes.

  • BarryD||

    What's interesting, though, is that the Jews and Muslims are arguing exactly the opposite.

  • BarryD||

    (Unless they also brought a case arguing that Jewish and Muslim contractors, due to special rights conferred by virtue of their religious affiliations, didn't have to adhere to ordinary building safety codes, of which I'm unaware.)

  • Redmanfms||

    So you're seriously going to take the anti-liberty position because they made an appeal to (ultimate) authority?

    Really?

  • fried wylie||

    So you're seriously going to take the anti-liberty position because they made an appeal to (ultimate) authority?

    Really?

    STOP DISRESPECTING THEIR RELIGIONS!!11oneoneoneone

  • BarryD||

    Yes, if you want to call it that. Looking at the small-picture, it's "anti-liberty."

    The reason? The other position is the totalitarian one.

    Unless Satanists are allowed to do whatever they want, e.g. buy cats, soak them in gasoline, and light them on fire every Halloween, then this is, of necessity, a position that requires the government to give its stamp of approval to certain religions.

  • fried wylie||

    No, the original argument was about whether religious freedom could trump animal welfare laws.

    As I assert below, animal welfare laws are a form of spiritual philosophy, so it's an argument of who's philosophy trumps who's. Which is pretty damn arbitrary, except one of the philosophies currently has legal standing while the other doesn't. As we all know, the philosophy capable of leveraging more violence wins.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Question is, can Poles still by imported Halal and Kosher meat slaughtered in another country? If so, what's the problem? If not, well, they don't have to live in Poland.

  • fried wylie||

    Buying butchered meat from another country doesn't sound too fresh. Also probably more expensive.

    If not, well, they don't have to live in Poland.

    Ah, the ole "If you don't like it, then you can just *hitches thumb* geeeeeet ert" standby. While voting with your feet can be a valid solution, I feel like people shouldn't have to resort to it in any society that claims to be civilized.

  • fried wylie||

    This argument highlights how arbitrary animal welfare laws are.

    So what, exactly, does someone's religion entitle him to do, that I'm not allowed to do as an ordinary citizen? Why should it?

    Exactly. You should be allowed to slaughter your animal property in any way you see fit, regardless of your religion, provided your slaughter activities don't negatively impact the rights of your neighbors (no effluence issues, not performed publicly etc)

    Animal rights are a religious philosophy, just as kosher/halal practices are.

  • Tonio||

    So, no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership, control and disposal. Am I getting this right?

    Very interesting that I've asked this question three times here, and have yet to get a response.

    Animal rights are a religious philosophy...

    Really? Please explain. And if so, how do we access those special, special rights and privilieges that other religions get?

  • Redmanfms||

    Very interesting that I've asked this question three times here, and have yet to get a response.

    I gave you the answer you were secretly hoping you'd get poofter.

  • Redmanfms||

    Now you can feel free to make the dipshit argument I know that leading and stupidly disingenuous question was destined to evolve into. It was already made above by an equally disingenuous apologist for anti-liberty, so feel free to make it now Tonio.

    Don't expect anything other than the derision such an asinine and fallacious question deserves as an answer though.

  • fried wylie||

    timestamps, dude.

    It was getting angry about not getting a response at the same time you were giving it a response.

  • Tonio||

    Oops, sorry, you did indeed answer that above.

    But I see no need to take you seriously or continue this discussion since you've devolved to name-calling. Seems that if you truly had a principled argument you could make that, but it's a moot point now.

  • Redmanfms||

    Seems that if you truly had a principled argument you could make that, but it's a moot point now.

    You didn't have a principled argument in the first place you disingenuous fucking coward.

  • ||

    Really? Please explain. And if so, how do we access those special, special rights and privilieges that other religions get?

    Simple. Ask the animal. Get to it, Tonio. Ask those chicken and cattle what they have to say on the subject. I'll be waiting for your religious interpretation of their clucks and moos.

  • Tonio||

    Really, Groovus? Reductio ad absurdam? Had thought so much more highly of you.

    I recall that you dislike to participate in abortions. Why? Fetuses can't talk, so no problem, right?

    Come back when you're ready to have a serious discussion about neural complexity, and ability to feel pain, about all organisms, not just those with certain genotypes.

  • Redmanfms||

    Ahhh, shifting goalposts again I see.

    You were angling an appeal to ridicule from the very beginning with your false dichotomy question. But now you take the high ground on logical fallacy? Fuck me, you might as well just call yourself Tony w/out spaces and be done with it.

  • ||

    Really, Groovus? Reductio ad absurdam? Had thought so much more highly of you.

    Ad hominem. Possible No True Scotman.

    I recall that you dislike to participate in abortions. Why? Fetuses can't talk, so no problem, right?

    When you have crushed the head of a 24 week old little girl, and hacked her pieces, and then extracted her, then I'll listen to your opinions on the subject. When you witness the fetus trying to escape your forceps, curettage, and suction, (and deal with the incredible guilt resultant), then come back and talk to me. Until, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, "FUCK YOU!"

    Come back when you're ready to have a serious discussion about neural complexity, and ability to feel pain, about all organisms, not just those with certain genotypes.

    I take then that chimps, great cats, and other predators are guilty of murder then? Wait, they can't form abstract constructs such as: Natural Law, art, written language, religion, science process and method, morality, and the notion of "rights". Do they feel guilt? Can they express such emotions?

    Seriously, Tonio, I like you a lot, and enjoy your wit, but this makes you look like a Peter Singer religionista. Genotype matters, and no animal can ever have the expectation to tell me in writing what its wishes are. A unborn child can have that reasonable expectation eventually.

  • fried wylie||

    I take then that chimps, great cats, and other predators are guilty of murder then?

    Which makes destroying their habitats justice, wooo!

  • Tonio||

    When you have crushed the head of a 24 week old little girl...

    I've never had that experience, and never will. Are you really claiming that I have no right to an opinion on this because I haven't had those experiences?

    I take then that chimps, great cats, and other predators are guilty of murder then?

    Nice try, Doc. No, animals don't have the same agency as we do. I'm not suggesting that animals as the same as humans, but many people here present the false choice that animals either have full human rights or none at all.

    I don't think one has to have moral agency or the ability to extrapolate in order to have some protections from cruelty at the hands of humans.

    The universe is mostly shades of gray, there are few areas where things are black or white and we don't deal well with those.

    Seriously, Groovus, I like you a lot and enjoy your wit and respect your medical knowledge. But you really come across as arrogant and close-minded.

  • Tonio||

    Also, Doc, please discuss the propensity of humans who are serial killers or torturers of other humans to engage in deliberate and severe cruelty towards animals. Doesn't that tell you there's something wrong with that, if not for the animals then as a warning sign for humans?

  • Redmanfms||

    Also, Doc, please discuss the propensity of humans who are serial killers or torturers of other humans to engage in deliberate and severe cruelty towards animals. Doesn't that tell you there's something wrong with that, if not for the animals then as a warning sign for humans?

    Goalposts, shifted. Again.

    Define cruelty to animals. Prove that particular line is consistently crossed by a majority of serial killers.

    Then maybe as a bonus you could come back around to supporting an argument in favor of banning the behavior described in whatever arbitrary definition of "cruelty" you still haven't given.

  • Redmanfms||

    Seriously, Groovus, I like you a lot and enjoy your wit and respect your medical knowledge. But you really come across as arrogant and close-minded.


    Irony, thy name is Tonio.

  • ||

    So, no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership, control and disposal. Am I getting this right?

    The reason you aren't getting an answer is it's a flawed, loaded question.

    Animals aren't human. When they can argue for "rights", then I'll care what they have to say on the subject. Until then, they will have to rely on custodial care. Which, I am sure, since you are big on property rights and ownership, you would never impose your will on another.

  • Redmanfms||

    Well, I gave him his answer actually.

    I'm just waiting for him to ask his inevitable and stupid counter-question in which I'm forced to make some kind of fuckhead defense of child sacrifice.

  • Tonio||

    IOW, "loaded question" is code for one for which you have no good answer and don't wish to provide a serious response to because it reveals that your arguments rest upon a flimsy foundation. Got it.

    Also, why are animals any different from very retarded humans (ie, those that can't argue because they either can't speak or can't form coherent arguments) in this regard. I agree that they are, but I want to hear you explain why. And just saying the magic words "because they're human" doesn't cut it.

  • Redmanfms||

    Also, why are animals any different from very retarded humans (ie, those that can't argue because they either can't speak or can't form coherent arguments) in this regard. I agree that they are, but I want to hear you explain why. And just saying the magic words "because they're human" doesn't cut it.

    IOW, your initial question was indeed loaded and disingenuous.

    How 'bout YOU make a concerted defense of the anti-liberty position?

    We're all dying to here it.

  • Robert||

    Hey, I agree with Tonio about something, specifically, this.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks, Robert. Maybe you'll get further than I did with them. But I don't expect you will. Remember, the magic words "because they aren't humans" trumps everything.

  • fried wylie||

    Magic words? No.

    Their lack of sentience as a result of the genetics of their species precludes them from asserting their rights.

    The physical facts of their existence are the trump card, not anything any human has to say about it.

  • Redmanfms||

    Remember, the magic words "it's cruelty because I arbitrarily defined it as so" trumps everything.

    Then ask a loaded question designed to result in argumentum ad absurdum from the very beginning, then accuse anyone who dares point out the obviousness of its disingenuous nature as engaging in argumentum ad absurdum.

    Throw in some appeal to ridicule and goalpost shifting and....

    Voila, Tonio.

  • fried wylie||

    That recipe isn't clear, what temp do I put the oven on? Also, I'm not clear which ingredients are dry or wet, and should i mix them seperately before combining wet/dry?

    Alton Brown you are not, Red.

  • ||

    Also, why are animals any different from very retarded humans

    Genotype. You FAIL biology forever, Tonio.

  • Tonio||

    And you dishonestly edited that quote the same way NBC did with Zimmerman's. Nice.

  • fried wylie||

    When they can argue for "rights", then I'll care what they have to say on the subject.

    Eh, I'm still gonna wait at least 400years before recognizing their rights. Standard waiting period for transitioning from property to personhood.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "no difference between a cow and a lump of clay in terms of human rights of ownership"

    None. It is not worth the trouble. It is already hard enough preventing cruelty to people, I don't give two shits about stupid ass dolphins and whales and cows and pigs. People who lose their minds about animals often don't seem to give a shit about people- not saying you, but in general PETA morons seem to be this way, and I find it to be psychotic.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Sorry, but there is not some type of decency limit.

    "I would be offended about those guys who set a puppy on fire, but if I did that I couldn't be disgusted at someone who stomped a baby."

  • Tonio||

    Frank, I don't understand. Maybe an extra "not"? Please restate/expand.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I was responding to his comment that it is already hard enough to prevent cruelty to people.

    What I meant was that it is possible to be offended and horrified by cruelty to both animals and people. That it is not mutually exclusive.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I don't want puppies to be set on fire. I don't want the government to prevent puppies from being set on fire.

  • Tonio||

    And your handle isn't Frank_Carbonni.

  • Tonio||

    I don't want puppies to be set on fire.

    Good, so far. You have normal human emotions.

    I don't want the government to prevent puppies from being set on fire.

    OK, so what then? No prevention by anyone? No punishment by anyone? It's just OK then?

    So, what if your neighbor burned a puppy to death every night? Absolutely fine? Because it's just property. No worse than putting a lump of clay in the kiln, eh?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I do want to prevent the government from setting puppies on fire with flashbang grenades.

  • Tonio||

    ^This, Beavis. Thanks for making my point.

    So why is the outrage over puppies killed in police raids greater than the outrage over damage to inanimate objects? Nobody has ever said it was the price of the puppy; it was always understood that it was because it was a puppy. Am I misunderstanding something?

    Or is it possible that libertarians aren't really concerned about the puppies and only bring this up because they cynically know it will spark outrage in those with normal human emotions?

  • Tonio||

    Beavis, I'm going to thank you again. Now every HandR post which mentions a shot puppy is going to get a "So what, it's just property, right? /sarc" comment from me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Others: it's going to be a long ride, folks.

  • Redmanfms||

    Fail dipshit. For your statement to work as a shit-stirrer it would have to be predicated upon the premise that libertarians are in favor of government destruction of inanimate property.

  • fried wylie||

    Please explain

    Ok, 15mins into the explanation, this is gonna take a while....

    And if so, how do we access those special, special rights and privilieges that other religions get?

    Huh?

  • fried wylie||

    Shit, never mind, Groovus already covered the main point in my poorly composed and lengthy explanation: man asserts his rights.

    I also have this bit about how religious traditions evolved into our modern Rights through logical derivation of those traditions into a self-originating concept that doesn't descend from the mouth of God, but the wording isn't working out in the longer form. This summary kinda sucks at making sense too...I tried.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Religion is just a primitive way of explaining how people naturally organized themselves.

  • fried wylie||

    After the tribe, religion was the 2nd form of natural organization our species fell into.

    Have we gotten into a 3rd form yet?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Did religion replace tribes?

  • fried wylie||

    Did religion replace tribes?

    Tribe 2.0

  • Redmanfms||

    Have we gotten into a 3rd form yet?

    I would say we have. We went from arguing "natural rights" as being endowed by some "Creator" to arguing for "negative rights" because reason allows us to realize that more personal freedom is better.

    We're still left arguing over the 2nd form because religiosity and magical thinking still exist even without an all-knowing Sky God (and He/She/It/Them is still stomping around too)

    The 4th form will probably involve the total dissolution of government as the 3rd form has fully evolved past the need for legal enforcement.

  • fried wylie||

    The 4th form will probably involve the total dissolution of government as the 3rd form has fully evolved past the need for legal enforcement.

    C'mon technology, lemme live long enough to witness the dawning of that glorious day.

  • Tonio||

    As I assert below, animal welfare laws are a form of spiritual philosophy

    And you can assert til the cows come home, fried, but I don't accept that your assertion makes it so.

  • Redmanfms||

    And you can assert til the cows come home, fried, but I don't accept that your assertion makes it so.

    Clearly there are plenty of people here who don't accept that your assertion of what constitutes animal cruelty makes "it" so just because you asserted it.....

    But, hey man, intellectual integrity, it's just for the other guy right?

  • fried wylie||

    And since cows can't tell us what's what, we're both just making shit up, aren't we? Ta-da, religion.

  • Redmanfms||

    Mwahahahahaha.

    Good form ol' boy, good form.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I have always understood the libertarian argument for rights in the sense that they are based on cognitive ability, ability to feel pain, and the ability to reason.

    It's not necessarily a black or white proposition. There is nothing wrong with concluding that animals have some rights. At least in the sense that it is immoral to put them through suffering for no good reason*.

    *"Because it's funny" is not a good reason.

  • fried wylie||

    At least in the sense that it is immoral to put them through suffering for no good reason

    That immorality is not based on the harm the cruelty causes to the animal, but rather the harm done to the human inflicting the cruelty (ie desensitizing them to inflicting further cruelty, turning them into an inhuman monster.)

  • Tonio||

    I have always understood the libertarian argument for rights in the sense that they are based on cognitive ability, ability to feel pain, and the ability to reason.

    You would think that, if it was a rational, consistent philosophy. But the reality is, for most libertarians, that human animals have rights, lots of them, and that non-human animals have none. And the best answer you'll get from them is "because, we're human." And "human" is defined by genotype, not cognitive ability.

    As shown below, you committed the sin of asking them to justify this, and they're really, really uncomfortable with that.

    Cue the name calling and howling in 3..2..1.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Consistency cuts down on grey areas. Animals have all rights, or animals have none.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Yes, but the world is a little more complex than black and white.

    That's like saying, "Imprisoned criminals have all rights or they have none" or "Children have all rights or they have none" or "The mentally disabled have all rights or they have none".

  • Redmanfms||

    Still waiting on your definition of cruelty, WHY it is cruel, and WHY such definition is to be applied to animals over human negative rights there Tonio..........

    But, just for fun, go ahead keep pretending you've made a genuine argument.

  • ||

    And the best answer you'll get from them is "because, we're human." And "human" is defined by genotype, not cognitive ability.

    I'm still waiting for the chickens and cows to tell me "No."

    Even severely mentally decompensated patients (and I have operated on two) had the capacity to say "No." However, it took a trusted custodian, called a DPOA, to give me consent to perform surgery. Also something an animal lack the cognition to perform. Even the Great Apes. Their protection requires a custodian. Otherwise, evolution and Nature in action.

    When animals can write law and make their wishes known, or demonstrate in writing their wishes for custodial protection, then I'll take that into account.

    Is a dolphin who assaults a woman whilst swimming a rapist? Can they be tried in a court of law?

    Also, I have neither howled nor called you names. I have called you, an atheist, on your religious beliefs. Natural Law, as formulated by John Locke, postulated that Negative Rights are inherent, but with the proviso that those rights must be A) Voiced, and in written expression; and B) The claimant be able to defend those rights.

    Otherwise, "rights" are simply granted and not inherent and totally dependant on a custodian. Or a state authority.

    Are you a Pro-Lifer now, Tonio?

  • Redmanfms||

    Also, I have neither howled nor called you names.

    Nobody howled, but I called him names because he deserved it for being a disingenuous twat. But since he is a disingenuous twat and his prevaricating ministrations have been exposed he has left the building, consoling himself and remaining righteously indignant in his fallacious and arbitrary position without ever having made the least defense of them because some asshole on the internet called him a poofter.

  • Redmanfms||

    them = it

  • Tonio||

    Look, Doc, I'm not arguing for animals as the moral equivalent of humans, or that they have full human rights. I've stated that several times, yet you keep trying to claim that I have or should. Why the dishonesty?

    I've consistently made the point that animals deserve some protections against cruelty at the hands of others. I'm not going to respond to attempts, honest or otherwise, to inflate that claim into something else.

    Is a dolphin who assaults a woman whilst swimming a rapist? Can they be tried in a court of law?

    Is a dolphin who saves a drowning human, as many have, entitled to special protection?

  • Tonio||

    at the hands of humans

  • Redmanfms||

    I've consistently made the point that animals deserve some protections against cruelty at the hands of others. I'm not going to respond to attempts, honest or otherwise, to inflate that claim into something else.

    You also won't respond to attempts to get you to define WHAT constitutes cruelty and WHY liberty should be abrogated to ban whatever behavior falls under that definition, so stop being such a sanctimonious shithead.

    Is a dolphin who saves a drowning human, as many have, entitled to special protection?

    Is a human?

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I'm a libertarian and I have no problem with providing some protection for animals. Obviously not to the same extent as people and it would obviously vary from animal to animal (mammals having a higher value than reptiles and reptiles having a higher value than insects).

    Animals have the ability to feel pain and they have some form of cognitive ability, so there is nothing irrational about providing some form of protection.

  • Redmanfms||

    Here's where practical libertarianism and an understanding of economics comes into play: If you view X method as inhumane and cruel, refuse to buy meat produced using X method. Don't go around trying to limit others' freedom by banning X method because you arbitrarily decided it to be cruel.


    So far, I haven't seen ANY of the anti-liberty advocates in this thread define WHAT constitutes cruelty or WHY said cruelty is "cruel."

  • fried wylie||

    "I can't define cruelty, but I know it when I see it."

    Works for other arbitrary prohibitions, why not this one?

  • ||

    Speaking of the correct way to kill I have started reading Arrian's work on Alexander the great and apparently Alexander sacrificed children (3 boys and 3 girls so far) to the gods.

    Xenophone 40 years earlier when he was wondering around what is today Syria and Iraq also made sacrifices then would search their guts for prophecy. The book always described them as "victims" and I assumed they were goats or sheep.

    Now I am not so sure.

  • johnl||

    Any opponents of traditional slaughter want to venture an opinion on hunting? Bow hunting? How about allowing wolves to roam forests?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement