Vegan Animal Sanctuary Owner Charged With Stealing Cows From Neighboring Farm
Animals are property, and property rights matter.

Earlier this month, a vegan animal sanctuary owner in Newfane, New York, was arrested for grand larceny, a felony. The charges against the upstate sanctuary owner are rather unusual: police allege she stole a pair of cows from a neighboring beef farmer.
The controversy began when two cows from a herd owned by farmer Scott Gregson, who owns McKee Farm in Newfane, went missing on July 15.
"I don't understand how they got out because the fence was intact, gates were closed and the [electric fence] charger was working," Gregson told Lancaster Farming.
When Gregson later learned the pair were at the neighbor's animal sanctuary, a half mile down the road, he asked sanctuary owner Tracy Murphy to return them.
"She asked if I had proof I was the owner, then told me to get off her property because I was trespassing," Gregson told USA Today.
"How could anyone expect that we would hand over the animals when we feel we're in our legal right, right now, to hang on to these animals?" asked Asha's Farm Sanctuary owner Murphy, in comments reported by station WIVB last month. "And we're a sanctuary. We don't want to hand over these animals that are going to go into slaughter."
Instead, Murphy offered to buy the cows. Gregson declined. A standoff of sorts ensued.
Police visited Murphy in July, they say, and asked her to return the cows. She did not do so.
As the WIVB report also details, neighbors rallied in support of Gregson—by all reports an exemplary farmer—even protesting outside Asha's Farm Sanctuary. Neighbor Nancy Fawcett told the station that livestock occasionally get loose in farming communities, and to seize that livestock instead of returning the animals to their rightful owner "just didn't make any sense, that's not what you do."
"Nothing against [Murphy], what she does, her business, and what she chooses to do for the good of injured and helping other animals," said another neighbor, Laurie Andrews-Skinner. "But in this case, she's stolen two cows and she needs to give them back to the rightful owner."
"The message was simple," said local farmer Ed Pettitt Sr., who organized a protest outside Asha's in support of Gregson. "It was: Do not steal [or] violate the livestock rights of our farmers. The other side tried to make it about eating meat, veganism, that's not what the issue is."
Police agreed. Earlier this month, they returned to Asha's Farm Sanctuary, arrested Murphy on charges of felony grand larceny, seized the cows, and returned them to Gregson.
Murphy will fight the charges. "From my standpoint, now that she has been charged, the fight is just beginning, but we intend to vindicate her rights in every court imaginable," Murphy's attorney, Matthew Albert, said earlier this month.
Domesticated pets such as dogs and livestock such as cows are considered property under the law.
"These cattle belong to the farmer and everyone involved knows that, so there's no legal right not to return them," explained Brook Duer, an experienced agricultural lawyer in Pennsylvania, in comments she made to Lancaster Farming on the Newfane controversy. "I never heard of anything like this with livestock." Duer also suggested "finders keepers" is not a legal theory that applies in this case.
The mission of Asha's Farm Sanctuary is a typical one for such facilities: "to end animal abuse through direct rescue and rehabilitation." While many animal sanctuaries are undoubtedly run by people who care deeply about those animals, many stories have emerged over the years that show they sometimes can't or don't care for the animals they care about. In 2020, for example, The Washington Post reported on a criminal investigation into the founder of Earth Animal Sanctuary in Illinois, who was charged with aggravated animal cruelty after hundreds of animal carcasses—some still rotting—were found dumped in bags on the property.
More recently, in May, the owner of a New Jersey animal sanctuary, Rooster's Rescue Foundation, was charged with animal cruelty after investigators found dozens of "neglected" animals at the sanctuary. Just last month, officers in Mayfield, New York, a few hours west of Newfane, seized dozens of animals from an animal sanctuary owner who, they allege, kept dogs, rabbits, goats, and other animals in "filthy, uninhabitable conditions."
Property rights exist first and foremost to protect property owners. And animals are property.
If the tables were turned here—if a pair of Murphy's animals had gotten loose from her sanctuary and ended up on Gregson's farm—those animals would still be Murphy's property. Not Gregson's. And I'd have written a column in support of Murphy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well yes, animals are property under the law. But the moral status of animals is somewhere between inanimate objects and grown human beings. While animals are property, there are (rightfully) rules against treating this particular type of property in cruel or unjust ways. I'm not saying stealing the cows was necessarily right, but it would be nice to have a more thorough discussion about what the moral status of animals ought to be in a libertarian framework.
My cow. My choice.
I think Mr. Linnekin covers that framework very thoroughly in his seven word subtitle.
Revenge-bent cows will soon be roaming the streets, looking for vengeance, WITH a vengeance! Turn their hides into our shoes??! How DARE we! Run and HIDE, people!!!
Hide, hide! The cow's outside! Armed with a doubly-mean, double-meaning shotgun!
Cows with guns! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
A little boy went into a shoemaker's shop and asked the shoemaker:
"What are shoes made of?"
The shoemaker replies offhandedly "Hide."
Little boy goes "What?"
Shoemaker repeats "Hide."
Little boy goes "What?"
Shoemaker firmly says "Hide."
Little boy goes "What?"
Shoemaker yells "HIDE, HIDE! THE COW'S OUTSIDE!"
Little boy says "I don't care, I'm not afraid of any cow."
When my wife first came to the States from the Philippines she had a little difficulty with some nuances of the English language.
One day while I was driving we passed some cows in a field. She said, "look at that bunch of cows." I said, "no, herd of cows."
She answered back "of course I've heard of cows I'm not stupid." I told her, "no, no, a cow herd." She told me she didn't care if a cow heard or not, she never said anything bad about one.
I gave up.
Are animals no different than any other piece of property that a person might own?
Animals are no different than any other piece of property that a person might own.
This is contrary to empirical reality, where most pet owners develop an attachment to their pets that goes beyond that of most ordinary property.
Pets are not livestock.
Did you know that Lying Jeffy’s an idiot?
But cattle are chattel
Dang. Didn't see that before commenting.
You’re an excruciating, sealioning idiot. Just stop. No one care what you think, no one respects you, and your observations and opiate garbage.
Basically, so are you.
"This is contrary to empirical reality, where most pet owners develop an attachment to their pets that goes beyond that of most ordinary property."
A) This is not true. I have a piano given to me by my grandmother. Came to the west on a covered wagon. I regard it as far more special than my kid's chinchilla or fish.
B) Even if it WERE true that people build an attachment to animals above and beyond other property, so what? Are you really arguing that because I feel an even greater attachment to THIS property, you now get to dictate how I treat it? If anything, that is the property you should beg off regulating, due to the deeply personal nature of my relationship to it.
Cattle are chattel.
A housecat is different than a car is different than a Holstein is different than real estate...
Whether there's differences is irrelevant. Animals are property, and it should not be within the purview of government to intervene on property rights of an individual unless it's to protect the rights of another individual.
So from a legal sense, no, they should be no different. (Overt states it much more succinctly)
Now sure, I also find it immoral to abuse animals, but I don't believe they have inalienable rights as people do. It should be none of the governments business if a man kicks his dog, slaughters a calf, or force feeds his goose.
Now sure, I also find it immoral to abuse animals, but I don't believe they have inalienable rights as people do.
Why do you regard it to be immoral? And why is this such a common belief? If I set a piece of paper on fire, no one would complain, but if I set a cat on fire, I would not only be thrown in jail but condemned as an evil person. (And if I set a dead cow on fire, I would be preparing a steak for Trump.)
I believe it is because animals have a moral standing that is somewhere between fully-grown human being, and inanimate object. If this is correct, then it is appropriate to ask whether the rules for ownership of inanimate property ought to apply exactly to animals, or if a more restrictive version of these property rights ought to apply.
You should go take a philosophy class at your local community college and fuck off.
Even wokies would probably end up beating his fat ass out of irritation
"Why do you regard it to be immoral? And why is this such a common belief?"
Human emotion and Judeo-Christian values. Sentimentality should not be a valid reason for restricting the (property) rights of an individual.
So sure, you can ask that question all you want. I'll simply direct you back to my previous comment.
Have you actually read of how the Abrahamic religions slaughter both sacrifices and animals for consumption? A .357 to the animal cranium would be much more merciful.
Cows raised for processing are property. There are no claims the butcher or farmer was absuing livestock. The only immoral action here is theft. Of course you habd waive the actual immorality away.
Maybe if someone stole the bears in your trunk you would understand.
What an infantile argument.
Well yes, Jesse's insane thoughts and distorted arguments are Jesse's property under the law. But the moral status of Jesse's insane thoughts and distorted arguments is somewhere between mud, filth, and shit, one the one hand, and the reasoned, data-driven thoughts of grown human beings. While Jesse's insane thoughts and distorted arguments are Jesse's property, there are (rightfully) rules against treating Jesse's demented brain in cruel or unjust ways. I'm not saying smacking Jesse upside his so-called "head" necessarily would be right, but it would be nice to have a more thorough discussion about what the moral status of slime-dripping assholery ought to be in a libertarian framework.
But Jesse apparently HATES this line of thought! Maybe Jesse is a masochist, desperately seeking a good, hard head-whomping!?!
Jesse: "What an infantile argument."
Sqrlsy: "Hold my beer..."
Sarc never lets go of his beer.
Sarc meant hold where the beer will soon come out.
Tweezers required.
Jesse, this discussion is above you. Maybe you should sit this one out.
Sophomoric philosophy debates in your head aren’t above anyone here, except maybe Dee.
Pedo Jeffy, nothing you have, or ever will say is above anyone. You are a subnormal idiot. You have no business criticizing anyone, and you should feel terrible that you’re even alive.
Do bears crap in trunks as they do in the woods?
Yeah, right there in the stall next to The Pope. (The Pope is the one tapping his foot next to the diaper-changing station.)
How about the moral status between fertilized egg and freshly born human?
A freshly fartilized egg smell is more powerless (more of a victim) that the fresh-born baby. Therefor, per victims' rights movements and laws, the egg smells need to be declared the Master Race of Victims, and enslave, and boss around, the new-born babies! AND the REST of us ass well! Check your privileges, and SUBMIT to the ultimate-helpless VICTIM egg smells!!! Let's get cracking on implementing this!
Sqrlsy hates medical science. Just hates it.
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer HATES freedom. Just HATES it! ALL MUST OBEY The Great Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, ye lowly peons!!! All Hail!!! This is what SCIENCE commands us to do!!!
See?
What about it?
LOL
Fucktard (Jeff)
I recently left a bowl outside and after it rained, some frogs hatched some tadpoles in it, which I killed when i dumped out the water.
What level of purgatory does this put me in?
"Well yes, animals are property under the law."
Followed by a pile of completely unrelated gibberish.
He is a post modernist. He thinks gibberish over multiple paragraphs makes someone smart.
So, do you favor repealing laws against animal cruelty?
After all, if animals are merely property, then torturing an animal is no different morally than abusing any inanimate object that you own. Is that what you believe?
Sorry my friend, that is an argument that you brought up - the article has nothing to do with it. Feel free to hash it out on your Facebook page.
I thought I'd have the discussion here instead. No one is compelling you to participate in it.
Hell of a discussion.
Hey Lying Jeffy, when you try and have these discussions and no one participates, do you think it’s because the topic is stupid, or because you’re so dishonest that no one wants to have a discussion with you?
Not sure what you are after here. The article makes no mention of animal cruelty. The fact the Vegan things it's cruel to slaughter a cow does not give it moral credibility. Are you making the argument that the slaughter of the cow is the act of cruelty? If so, where do you draw the line? There are a number of sentient creatures that are affected by any number of acts we humans do on a daily basis. One of those acts is feeding ourselves. When a farmer plows a field and plants something else there all manners of creatures are affected. Raising cattle is an example of that choice. We raise cattle because we need food to survive. If not cattle then pigs, if not pigs then chickens, if not chickens then beans. All of those choices are destructive on one level and productive on another. There is no torture in killing an animal to eat it. That act has existed for millennia.
Well, if animals are nothing but property, then there is no concept of cruelty towards property, is there? Besides the stated reason for the theft was a belief that the animals would be mistreated if they remained where they were.
I hope your landlord beats you with a switch for your pedantry.
And as I stated, the fact 'the Vegan' thinks it's cruel does not make it so. The fact the Vegan can imagine cruelty to the cow does not then give them the right to steal it.
Duh. The line is you can eat an animal but you can't slaughter it first. You have to eat it alive, like a cheeta.
Abusing animals devalues them, causes emotional pain to our neighbors, and creates a sense of disorder for fellow humans.
It’s wrapped up in the language of morality, but legally it’s akin to defacing property, vandalism, and disorderly conduct.
We punish animal cruelty not because animals have legal rights, but to protect the legal rights of humans who care about animals.
That is why it’s perfectly legal to kill an animal for food or their parts, while still punishing other acts done to them.
We punish animal cruelty not because animals have legal rights, but to protect the legal rights of humans who care about animals.
Let us suppose that animals were morally equivalent to inanimate property in every way. Then if an animal owner were to 'vandalize' or 'abuse' that property, the owner would have every right to do so, no? Provided that the NAP was not violated of course. And if the NAP were not violated, then the owner's 'abuse' of his own property would not affect anyone else's rights in any way. So how would making animal abuse illegal affect the legal rights of other animal owners?
“Let us suppose that animals were morally equivalent to inanimate property in every way.”
Let us suppose that Lying Jeffy gets paid by the number of responses to his dumbass posts. Could you think of a more appropriate beginning to a post of bullshit?
“Let us suppose that animals were morally equivalent to inanimate property in every way.”
But they are not. No supposition needed. Argument ended.
I favor visiting unspeakable cruelty upon you. Which is still better than you deserve.
but it would be nice to have a more thorough discussion about what the moral status of animals ought to be in a libertarian framework.
What discussion? The libertarian position is somewhere between callous indifference (It's not my problem) and opposition to laws based on morality.
Umm, the NAP itself is a moral statement.
I appreciate your honesty.
I don’t think it is quite accurate to say that libertarianism is opposed to laws based on morality.
Wary maybe, but basic libertarian principles are based on moral and value judgements — just not always or necessarily traditional Judeo-Christian moral and value judgements.
The state determination of morality is anti libertarian. Only you leftists don't understand that. That's why most of you support child indoctrination against parental wishes.
“Wary maybe”
Clearly Dee should be the spokeswoman of libertarianism.
We have those rules not because of the "moral status of animals", but because of the moral status of humans.
Good one! Worth stealing.
Like property rights is actually the right of humans to own property.
thanks https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/streampilot-review-scam-legit-bundle-deal-fastpass-pro-reviews/
It’s an article about stealing. Why is the moral status relevant? If the article was about the kidnapping of children, would you expect a discussion about the moral status of children?
While I don't advocate inflicting pain on non-sapient animals for shits and giggles, when it comes to Individual Rights, they only apply to sapient beings.
If nonsapient animals had rights, would gazelles, sloths, and deer have a claim against the predations of lions, tigers, and bears (Oh my!)? What about the "rights" of ticks, aphids, and tapeworms? I mean if human rights apply to all humans regardless of conditions of birth, why wouldn't so-called "animal rights" apply to all animals?
While I don't advocate inflicting pain on non-sapient animals for shits and giggles, when it comes to Individual Rights, they only apply to sapient beings.
If nonsapient animals had rights, would gazelles, sloths, and deer have a claim against the predations of lions, tigers, and bears (Oh my!)? What about the "rights" of ticks, aphids, and tapeworms? I mean if human rights apply to all humans regardless of conditions of birth, why wouldn't so-called "animal rights" apply to all animals?
And as Al-Ghul alludes to below, if "animal rights" is somehow compatible with having pets, are Individual Rights compatible with ownership of other humans? To answer any of these questions in the affirmative to any of these questions makes a mockery of the concept of rights.
thnaks https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadvalet-review-bundle-deal-525-off-scam-warning-dont-buy-/
OK https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plr-sites-review-scam-legit-self-updating-site-creator-4u-review/
Go fuck yourself.
"But the moral status of animals is somewhere between inanimate objects and grown human beings. "
Collectivists love to posit irrational grey areas to confuse others and get away with taking their stuff and telling them what to do.
The side story about what unrelated sanctuary farms may have done wrong was not relevant to this story.
It pointed out how idealistic good intentions without considered practical concerns quickly turn to evil. Seemed entirely apt for the story at hand.
I suppose he could have also talked about how good steak tastes.
Broiled is my preference. A bit of a crisp on the outside and red in the center.
Well-done but marinated for me, but Shhhh! Don't mention it to Sarc! 🙂
I disagree. It goes to show that sometimes people who claim the moral high ground don't actually possess it. For example:
https://petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/#why-peta-kills
"In 2014, PETA was contracted to help remove stray dogs in Eastern Virginia. But local resident Wilber Zarate alleges in a $9.7 million lawsuit filed in Norfolk that PETA officials paid children to lure his family dog off of his porch. When the kids failed to entice Maya, a Chihuahua, PETA officials trespassed onto Mr. Zarate’s porch and nabbed the pooch.
When Mr. Zarate’s niece contacted PETA about Maya’s disappearance the next day, PETA denied even being in the area that day. When she told the representative at PETA that she had security footage of the dognapping the representative abruptly hung up. Two days later, the PETA employees who had abducted Maya returned with a fruit basket and the news that Maya was dead.
Further violating the law, PETA euthanized Maya within hours of abduction instead of waiting the legally required five days. The Commonwealth of Virginia fined PETA for this infraction.
Mr. Zarate’s daughter, who he bought Maya for as a Christmas present years before, began mourning immediately. “[Cynthia] cried for weeks, became lethargic, lost sleep, refrained from eating and lost weight,” according to the lawsuit.
PETA settled the lawsuit for about $50,000 and was fined by the state for killing the chihuahua."
Haven't heard that story before, Jesus Christ. But I've always known that PETA is fucking evil.
"People for Ethical Treatmen of Animals: We will kidnap your dog and murder it for money."
Jesus, I can't believe plaintiff's counsel didn't try harder to bring the case to trial and ask for punitive damages. $50,000 and a fine will not deter PETA from such malicious wanton conduct.
The temptation to knock out the people showing up with a fruit basket, tie them up, and threaten to euthanize them with a syringe would have been overwhelming for me. I love my dog and if you're kidnapping and murdering my little buddy, you'd better come armed.
PETA should fork over more read than that.
I wouldn't want anything they read. 😉
As for bread, if it's made with yeast, PETA forking bread is cruelty to Eukaryotes, and all animal cells are Eukaryotes, so even if yeast isn't an animal, PETA is hitting too close to home.
Don't cattle russlers get hanged?
They used to, and this is basically the exact comment I scrolled down to make.
Lady (and I use the term loosely) is lucky she's only being faced with jail or fines.
Not always.
Sometimes they're shot.
Presumably the case law on cattle rustling is well developed.
This. I'm not for going back to the days of old when rustlers were strung up, but how the hell is Murphy not sitting in a jail cell right now.
Well, she was arrested. Can't find out if she made bail.
Good point. In a lot of states livestock theft is treated pretty harshly. I wonder what kind of sentencing she faces in New York.
I assume that the legacy of such punishments derived in part from how stealing livestock, like stealing a horse, might directly lead to death of the owners. And real death, not mean words-induced, sadness-driven emotional "death."
"...And real death, not mean words-induced, sadness-driven emotional "death.""
Kind of a shame that needs an explanation, but that's where we are.
Maybe they,l force feed her a 40 Oz. Porterhouse, rare.
There is no bail in NY, except for murder and rape involving a weapon. Judges may not consider dangerousness or prior criminal activity.
Everyone is released. Some with monitoring, most without.
That’s why crime is up 40% year over year and ordinary people are being beaten and shot in the streets. Tourists routinely get attacked now.
The criminal class is completely emboldened.
A brand new precedent would be redundant
I would tell you something about redundancy, but I would be repeating myself. 🙂
Her claims are udderly ridiculous.
http://instantrimshot.com/
I am reporting your comment to the high council of Punnsylvania. You shall be pun-ished for your misdeeds.
Clearly you make him Cow-er in fear.
Please don’t milk the pun. There’s too much at steak here. Mooving right along…
With milk and meat cooking, the gravy he is making out of this story is mushrooming!
Don’t have a cow, man.
Look, if you find udder puns titillating I have no beef with that…
It’s ok, most people here can take some real prime ribbing now and then.
Orally teasing udders is one way to motor-boat on the back forty, though I prefer to go give a shout-out to Pasteur. 🙂
Fuck vegans. They are the sanctimonious proselytizing evangelical zealots of the vegetarian community.
Hence why jeff defends it. He too is a sanctimonious proselytizing evangelical zealot.
"Lying pile of lefty shit" works, too.
Although that fatfuck is no vegan.
The best thing to do with vegans is convince them to become breatharians.
Plants have feelings too!
"Vegetable Rights and Peace!"--Neal, The Young Ones
https://youtu.be/0y7QhnjyDXU
He was always cooking lentils.
Not just any lentils...South African lentils! That's like paying 4 Pounds 50 to eat black men! 🙂
South African Lentils | The Young Ones | BBC Studios
https://youtu.be/vc1ha6-H8rs
Well, at least Neal built his own gallows to make amends. 😉
THE HOLLIES--THE AIR THAT I BREATHE (WITH LYRICS)
https://youtu.be/m66y9w5VkPw
Put this on loop and blare it non-stop outside their Vegan compound* a la the U.S. capture of Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega.
Vegans are so impressionable from lack of vital nutrients to the brain that they just might take the next step. 🙂
* (Yes, "compound" is the right term here, as it is typically used to connote something nefarious is going on within.)
The Kennedy Compound comes to mind
Exactly! 🙂
Woah. The Hollies totally stole part of “Creep”! Radiohead should sue!
They would need a very good lawyer for that. Maybe a long cool woman in a black dress?
Huh … apparently, the Hollies had to pay John Fogerty a bit of cash out of court for Long Cool Woman. Did not know that.
It was more about the Hollies existing as a band well before Radiohead arrived with 'Creep' but yours works too. I had forgotten that lawsuit with Fogerty.
I doubt that the courts would stand for any "Special, so fucking special" pleading. 🙂
Good one!
There exists a hypothetical vegan who just follows a vegan diet and doesn't feel the need to talk about how they're a vegan incessantly to almost everyone they meet. I'm completely okay with this hypothetical person.
The existence of said person is impossible to prove.
"The existence of said person is impossible to prove."
Consider it proven. (Though I admit some vegans do get all "high-and-mighty."
Signed,
Resident Vegan
Hey, if you have chosen that route as a personal lifestyle choice and don't lord it about or try to foist it on anyone, good on you. Honestly.
I don't agree with your use of the term 'some', though. I would replace it with 'most', or 'the vast majority', or, if I was feeling very charitable, 'not every'.
"I don't agree with your use of the term 'some', though. I would replace it with 'most', or 'the vast majority', or, if I was feeling very charitable, 'not every'."
That is understandable. The ... uh .... "loud" vegans are usually recent "converts," and can be annoying as all hell. I just found out last week that a fellow musician-friend of mine is vegan. I have known her for three years, and didn't have a clue.
I have known her for three years, and didn't have a clue.
She's only trying to get into your pants; once you are tied she'll show you her canine side.
Yeah... I don't think so. Maybe forty years ago, when we were both in our late twenties, and single. Not these days. lol
That does give rise to the question: Is oral sex Vegan?
And as a fellow Atheist asks: How about Communion under the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantionism? Can Vegans do that? Hmmmm... 🙂
What about biting your nails?
I mean, technically that's autocannibalism, isn't it?
I guess in all cases a vegan would spit rather than swallow.
Correction:. Transubstantiationism.
*Whew!* The Clergymen sure like hearing themselves talk!
The more syllables the more compelling.
"No True Vegan."
😉
Seriously, those who partake and those who abstain from anything are not natural enemies but are actually symbiotic in a free society where initiation of coercion is banned. And we all partake and abstain from something.
The only real problems come in when straight-Edgers (sXe) or Eco-Wackos want to make their Veganism the law for everyone else.
I do wonder, though, how Vegans get necessary complete proteins, B12, and Iron in their diet, and aren't synthetic equivalents derived from meat? "Inquiring Minds want to Know..."
Where do the plant-eating animals most of us eat get all those nutrients?
Good question! From what little I have read (I used to keep goats), researchers are wondering the same thing (they ruled out the bacteria on the plants as a significant source.)
It gets back to what I've said earlier. Meat is just concentrated vegetation and plants are just reconstituted meat. And the Omnivore is just rodeo-riding the Ouroboro and enjoying it all. 🙂
Anyway, I know a few vegetarians that take B12 tablets. My understanding is that there are plenty of vegetarian sources for iron.
But wouldn't the B-12 either derive from meat or be a synthetic version of meat-derived meat? I'm just not seeing where Vegans are totally shunning meat.
Correction: meat-derived B-12. Damnit! Just talking about Veganism makes me not think and talk right. 🙂
They are pretty common, actually. When going out for dinner, they won't make a fuss and just quietly order something vegan. When you invite them over for dinner, they apologize for their dietary needs the same way any decent person with an unusual diet would and give you a face saving way to uninvite them.
They tend to be totalitarians.
"How could anyone expect that we would hand over the animals when we feel we're in our legal right, right now, to hang on to these animals?" asked Asha's Farm Sanctuary owner Murphy
Yes, an appeal to that universal legal foundation used by dimwits everywhere: feelz.
If humans are animals, and animals are property, then slavery is justifiable. Just to be clear, I don't think slavery is moral. Just something on which to chew.
You thought there was a point there?
It's so deep and insightful it went over everyone's head. We just don't get it, man.
That is one of the possibilities....
Point is, it's not as cut and dried as the author posited. There are different kinds of property rights, and I merely wished the author delved a bit deeper than he did, kinda fluffy.
You're full of shit. Should have shut up and just looked like an idiot.
This is a classic example of the Fallacy of Division.
It is also a classic example of stupidity.
Is this your roundabout way of simping for animal fornication?
It's more of a reach-around way.
Humans are animals but other animals are not humans.
A sea cucumber and a man are radically different things, even if science puts them in the same kingdom.
C'mon fat. We all know every time you step on an ant or kill a mosquito you are guilty of murder.
"Get off fat! Get off fat!"--From History of the World, Part I.
Chew on this, dog spelled backwards is god!. Far out, eh?
Mind. BLOWN.
And a dyslexic Atheist is someone who lacks belief in a dog. (Being an Atheist, I can say that.) 🙂
Atheism is actually proclaiming a knowledge a God does not exist. Agnostic is expressing the unknown aspect.
Positive, Affirmative, or Active Atheism is defined as you say, but Negative or Passive Atheism is a mere lack of belief.
Just because you change or add words doesn't change the original definition. It has Latin roots. The word means exactly what I said.
The prefix 'A-' means 'Without' or 'lacking,'. 'Theos' means God ods,' and -'ism' means 'belief or thought of' or 'practice of.'. Therefore, Atheism is lack of belief in a God or Gods.
This isn't hard.
Correction, 'Theos' means 'God or Gods.'
Again, not hard.
Greek roots.
A is greek "not" Theos is greek "God"
God in Latin is Deus. From the same proto-indo-european roots, but Atheism is definitely from the Greek.
Right. And the earliest recorded Atheist thought came from Pre-Socratic Greece and the Lokavana/Charvaka School of India at about the same time 2600 years ago.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief, open to proof, but skeptical.
Atheism is an active belief that there is no god.
Agnosticism is the philosophical position that either something or all things in the Universe are not simply unknown, but unknowable. It is a position on the nature of knowledge, not on God or Gods as such. Both Theists and Atheists can be either Agnostics or Gnostics.
And I should add, anyone else has a right to say it too. I love a good, pithy, punny, well-thought-out Atheist joke and take no offense at them. 🙂
We humans are what Aristotle called The Rational Animal.
We have to use Reason to understand our world and utilize and apply knowledge and productive labor to the things we discover and use those results to our benefit in order to survive.
To do all that requires the individual freedom to think, express, act, and keep the fruits of one's individual effort. Hence, any form of slavery is anathema to human nature and needs wiping off of the Planet and never to be taken anywhere else we go and never to be used on any other Sapient beings we meet.
Thoroughly chewed, swallowed, digested, and excreted, Al-Ghul. Have fun fighting Batman over it too. 🙂
Thing is there are signs that whales and crows and pigs and gorillas and elephants and lots of other animals have some of the same rationality that we Homo sapiens like to think is our special mojo. And a lot of times, we aren’t all that rational ourselves.
Libertarian Sci-Fi writer in his work The Probability Broach portrays a world where humans are able to communicate with apes, chimps and monkeys as well as whales, dolphins and porpoises and they are all found to be sapient and are even members of The North American Confederation, a collection of City-States and other small bodies that is the closest thing to a central government.
So yes, Libertarians should allow for the possibility of other sapient species in our moral Universe...based on evidence, of course.
Now, to say humans are Rational Animals means they require use of Reason to survive, not that they always do use their Reason or always use it well.
Libertarian Sci-Fi writer in his work The Probability Broach portrays a world where humans are able to communicate with apes, chimps and monkeys as well as whales, dolphins and porpoises and they are all found to be sapient and are even members of The North American Confederation, a collection of City-States and other small bodies that is the closest thing to a central government.
So yes, Libertarians should allow for the possibility of other sapient species in our moral Universe and with equal Individual Rights and Individual Responsibility...based on evidence, of course.
Now, to say humans are Rational Animals means they require use of Reason to survive, not that they always do use their Reason or always use it well.
L. Neil Smith is the writer's name.
I’ll have to check it out.
I’ve always liked the essay he wrote on “pizzaocracy” or “pizza democracy”. (I think he wrote it. I’m going by memory.)
So just sapiens? What are the factors that determine an animal is property, rather than sentient and autonomous.
All whales are mamals
All mammals have hair
SHAVE THE WALES!!!
Every Sperm is sacred….
Came to me out of the Blue
I am not a vegetarian or vegan, but I have to admit that they are probably on the ethical high ground. The human race probably will get to a point someday where we no longer raise or kill other animals for food.
No they aren't you retarded trash.
Why are animals more precious than plants? Both are living entities that seek to reproduce.
Why is JesseAz more precious than bacterial infections? Both are living entities that seek to reproduce.
And don’t forget that Big Pharma is out to get both bacterial infections and JesseAz, all for selfish profit motives!
FBI Request to Facebook Demonstrates Interference in the 2020 Election
In 2020, the Hunter Biden laptop story dropped in October. The FBI not only threatened the repairman... but requested Facebook censor the story on its platform. Who said this? Only Mark Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan’s podcast. They tweaked the algorithm at the request of the bureau.
OT, but the release on a Friday afternoon stinks of Obo's attempts at 'news management;:
"DOJ releases redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit following court order"
[...]
"According to the redacted affidavit, the FBI has established that 184 classified documents were included among the 15 boxes the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in February. The affidavit also states that “there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified [National Defense Information] or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstmction will be found at the PREMISES.”..."
https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/08/doj-releases-redacted-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-following-court-order/#:~:text=The%20US%20Department%20of%20Justice%20%28DOJ%29%20Friday%20released,a%20Thursday%20order%20by%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Bruce%20Reinhart.
Documents which Trump can (by law) declassify, 'retention requirements' (didn't fill out the library log!) and 'obstruction'.
The claim is Trump is obstructing something?
Not smelling any better than it did the day of the raid.
The fact the FBI used the fact that Trump had cooperated with NARA to justify the grand jury the next day later and claim evidence for obstruction is amazing.
I still really like the claim that they have reason to believe there's evidence of obstructing the investigation before the investigation exists.
"We went to seize allegedly classified documents and found that Trump had put a PADLOCK on the door! Clearly he had something to hide!"
What don't you get? He had moving trucks after leaving the white house. Moving trucks!
When all other presidents leave the Whitehouse they carry out their worldly possessions wrapped up in a single lace doily .
The fact that Orange Hitler used moving trucks instead proves that he was emptying the National Archives.
Meanwhile, SleepyJoe is emptying the treasury.
carry out their worldly possessions wrapped up in a single lace doily
Didn't the Clintons bring a bunch of furniture they were given with them? I somehow picture them like the Jerk: "All I need is THIS chair. And this lamp. All I need is this chair and this lamp."
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ec/fe/0b/ecfe0bac1c5e4dcd980fb94dd4ad2859.jpg
The padlock argument being an argument nobody has made. In fact, they asked for them to get a better padlock.
Woosh!
You might want to look in a mirror when saying that.
Is the whoosh that you think I don’t know you were trying to make a joke?
Woosh!
Woosh!
Poor Dee.
No cure for autism, real or pretend.
Everyone, but everyone knows what a Friday afternoon media release is.
What about cricket rights? Maybe the crickets don't want to be raised in a factory farm as food. Each cricket should get at least one cubic yard to be a cricket in.
*The sound of crickets in reply to that proposal.*. 🙂
Jiminy! We’ll get right on that! —Sacramento
Ol' Jiminy Cricket was the street-smart one of the Disney Universe, and is to this day in the Disney + Universe too. He not only lives on a square yard, but on limitless lengths of celluloid and distributed in bits and bytes of data! He's a Singularitarian insect!
You and Your Eyes The Human Animal I'm No Fool Jiminy Cricket 16mm Film NEW
https://youtu.be/2BaxdXcqBX0
Veganism Your neighbor has two cows, you steal both and say "Uh uh, I didn't steal no cows."
The cows requested asylum. Obviously.
They didn't cross the fence, the fence crossed them.
It’s called freedom of moovment! Never Herd of it?
In Soviet Russia, cows slaughter YOU!
No , it's "Nuh-Uh!". The antonym of "Yuh-Huh!"
Consider who you're talking about here. 🙂
“Terming the laptop ‘disinformation’ by the FBI, Intelligence Community, Congress, and the Biden campaign, along with Big Tech, impacted voters,” said Technometrica President Raghavan Mayur, who’s been recognized as the most accurate pollster in recent presidential elections. “A significant majority—78 percent—believe that access to the correct information could have been critical to their decision at the polls.”
In fact, 47 percent said that knowing before the election that the laptop contents were real and not “disinformation” would have changed their voting decision—including more than two-thirds (71 percent) of Democrats.
Almost 8 of 10 respondents said that a truthful interpretation of the laptop would have likely changed the election’s outcome more in favor of Trump.
The poll also found that more than half—51 percent—give the media failing grades (D or F) for their coverage of the topic of the laptop.
Also, 81 percent of Americans said they want the attorney general to appoint an independent special counsel to investigate possibly incriminating email and other evidence contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
https://tippinsights.com/shock-poll-8-in-10-think-biden-laptop-cover-up-changed-election/
That poll is bogus. Democrats came out to vote against Trump, not for Biden.
Biden could have been caught dead in a ménage á trois involving a five year old Chinese girl and a Russian male hooker, and Democrats would have still voted for him.
The media so hate Trump in 2020 that, even if it reported accurately on the criminality intimated by the Hunter laptop, it still would have spent their resources bashing Trump.
This may have changed some independent voters, but they’re only 20% of the electorate and most would have stayed home rather than vote for Trump.
The deep blue, highly populous strongholds would have still voted Biden, and that’s all that mattered.
Agreed, it wouldn't have change the outcome. The democrats would have "found" more votes
Yeah, it's bogus. 47% would have changed their vote? So, what, they're saying that Biden would have got 4% of the vote instead of 51%? That's literally unbelievable.
Not unusual at all. That is why cattle are branded at birth. Traditionally the penalty for cattle rustling was hanging. In this case, I'd be sure to use a hemp rope.
We’re ALL branded at birth! Check out the gender box on your birth certificate! GAAA!!
Have we started using PM (Provisionally Male) and PF (Provisionally Female) yet??
So which Reason writer will submit today's anti-DeSantis piece?
Our benefactor Charles Koch desperately craves the return of the early 2000s neocon GOP that a Liz Cheney Presidential nomination would represent. And with #TrumpDocuments guaranteeing Drumpf will be in prison, Cheney's only competition is the fascist who literally made it illegal to say "gay" in the entire state of Florida.
#LizCheney2024
Cheney's only competition is the fascist who literally made it illegal to say "gay" in the entire state of Florida.
Masterwork.
I thought they were only semi fascists according to Biden.
Should the NAP, in some form, apply to animals?
Well, here is an answer from the Mises Caucus. Not surprisingly, this author's answer is "no".
https://lpmisescaucus.com/uncategorized/animals-and-the-non-aggression-principle-stratton-j-davis/
However, this argument does not really the issue of laws against animal cruelty. The author here argues that an animal owner is incentivized not to treat his/her animal cruelly, and that is true. But that is also true of every person interacting with every other person. It doesn't justify repealing laws against abusive behavior between humans.
The author also claims that assigning rights to animals would be contrary to their natural tendency to hunt and kill each other. That's true, but it's also true of human beings when in a state of nature, generally speaking.
This isn't really a well-reasoned argument.
Now, elsewhere you'll read that animals can't have rights because they don't have the ability to reason like people do. So they can't enter into agreements and contracts, and they can't understand intellectually the consequences of committing aggression against other animals or people. That is true. But that is only an argument against assigning the full panoply of rights to animals, not to reject completely the premise that the NAP shouldn't apply, at least in a stripped-down form, to animals.
However, this argument does not really the issue of laws against animal cruelty.
Considering that such laws are quite literally made by moral busybodies, it's not hard to see why libertarians will be against them.
So? Why are laws judged by who wrote them rather than by what they do?
Should laws against animal cruelty exist, or not?
Should laws against animal cruelty exist, or not?
Not according to libertarian principles.
Feel free to say which ones you intend on breaking.
I don't agree that libertarian principles preclude the existence of a version of the NAP that applies to animals.
I don't think animals should be accorded the full panoply of rights as human beings.
But we already recognize that the NAP is more of a spectrum rather than a binary rule even when applied to human beings. For example consider children, or consider mentally incapacitated people, or consider people in comas, or consider people who are physically disabled. Because of their own limitations of their physical and mental abilities, the full NAP does not apply to them either. Parents coerce children into doing certain things and we don't consider that to be problematic - unless the coercion crosses a line into abuse. Same with the others. So I do not see the conflict in placing animals somewhere on that spectrum of non-aggression. So treating animals like property is fine, unless it crosses a line into abuse. It is a different line than that with children, or the mentally disabled, but there is a line nonetheless.
For example consider children, or consider mentally incapacitated people, or consider people in comas, or consider people who are physically disabled.
Men are not beasts and beasts are not men.
If you cannot spot the difference between them, then it's pointless to complain about abuse.
But beasts are sentient animals who are capable of feeling pain and emotion. No they are not the same as humans, but they are also not the same as inanimate objects.
No they are not the same as humans
Then that's all there is to it.
Why should the NAP, in any form, only apply to humans?
Because we are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom.
Because only Human lives matter.
Because Humans eat animals.
And finally, because no animal would or could reciprocate, they are instinctual creatures after all.
Because we are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom.
That is true, but it is not binary. It is a continuum. Moreover it depends on the metric for comparison. Cheetahs are faster than humans. Dolphins swim better than humans. Eagles fly better than humans. Elephants are larger than humans. Gorillas are stronger than humans. But humans have superior reasoning capabilities by far.
Because only Human lives matter.
But that is not true even from the point of view of human pet owners. Often they view pets as if they were part of the family. Clearly the lives of these pets matter more than typical inanimate objects.
Because Humans eat animals.
That is an appeal to tradition.
And finally, because no animal would or could reciprocate, they are instinctual creatures after all.
That is true, but that is only an argument against affording animals the full panoply of rights that humans are afforded. Nobody is seriously arguing that animals should have the legal authority to enter into contracts like adult humans do. But animals have some characteristics that humans do which might justify some protection against some types of aggression. They are sentient and can feel pain. They have *some* awareness of property and self-defense. They are not the same as inanimate objects.
It’s just that simple, huh? The world is divided into man and beasts? (Did that come straight from The Bible, by the way?)
It ain’t that simple. I love my cousin with Downs Syndrome, but I have to admit a typical border collie is more rational than she.
By the way, nobody has trouble if one argues that border collies shouldn’t be treated cruelly or raised for food. But you’ll get an argument if you say the same thing of a pig, even though they are similar in intelligence.
It’s all about tradition and what we are used to, much more than thinking rationally about animal rights and cruelty.
"It’s all about tradition and what we are used to, much more than thinking rationally about animal rights and cruelty."
None of this is irrational. There is nothing about calling an animal property and then doing what we want with that animal. When we had chickens, the kids developed an attachment to one. That one survived all the culling, while others came and went. Nobody in our family had any problem with that, because it was understood that the animals exist on our land at our sufferance. Most are needed for food, some for companionship.
I have no problem reconciling the difference between a pig and a dog. The pig is food. It will be treated as necessary to become food. The dog is more than that to our family. It does work, but it also is a companion to the kids, and so it is treated in ways that allows that use in the family. It is not a surprise to me, or at all illogical, that in certain asian countries dogs are treated as pigs. Or that on sled teams, the dogs aren't treated much better than a mule.
The problems with "irrational thoughts" only come when you forget these basic facts and try to apply some "rights" framework to animals. That is how you get into areas of trying to decide why it is wrong to raise pigs for slaughter, but ok to kill field mice with aggriculture, and ok to let your dog sleep inside. It is irrational precisely because such a rights framework is impossible to reconcile with reality and nature in general.
This is why "Animal Rights" people fall into two camps. They are the PETA extremists who stand by an absolutist moral framework that any rational person sees as insane and unworkable, or they are the types who won't stand by an actual moral framework, and instead ask you to justify yours. The latter type will never actually stand by a real framework, but they'll insist that somehow they are ethically or morally superior even though they refuse to specify why.
or they are the types who won't stand by an actual moral framework, and instead ask you to justify yours. The latter type will never actually stand by a real framework, but they'll insist that somehow they are ethically or morally superior even though they refuse to specify why.
I agree that there is a lot of emoting on the issue of animal welfare. But it cuts both ways. Yes there are the bleeding heart types who want to give full legal personhood rights to monkeys. But then there are those who have nothing but an appeal to tradition to justify why they should do as they please to their animals. As with most issues, reality is complicated. I think there is broad consensus that while animals are regarded as property, they should not be treated as nothing more than inanimate objects. That they have a moral standing somewhere between people and rocks. Obviously different animals occupy different positions on this moral hierarchy, cute pets are higher than ugly spiders. And no one agrees precisely where everything belongs on this hierarchy. But I think it exists at least conceptually.
"But then there are those who have nothing but an appeal to tradition to justify why they should do as they please to their animals. As with most issues, reality is complicated."
You are confused. Looking at nature and saying, "It is the way of things that animals are cruel and merciless to one another" is not Tradition. It is looking at reality.
"I think there is broad consensus that while animals are regarded as property, they should not be treated as nothing more than inanimate objects."
And here is exactly what I talk about when I mention people who are unwilling to put up a moral framework they will stand behind. Unless you think that a fallacious appeal to the majority is a moral framework.
"But I think it exists at least conceptually."
Then go find a concept you are willing to argue for. So far you have offered nothing of substance other than vague platitudes.
Looking at nature and saying, "It is the way of things that animals are cruel and merciless to one another" is not Tradition. It is looking at reality.
I am referring to how human beings treat animals, not how animals treat each other. There is a great deal of appeal to tradition to try to claim that human beings should have full rein to try to do whatever they want to animals because they always have been able to in the past.
And why don't we start with this for your moral framework.
Would you agree that items of property that are capable of feeling pain and suffering are qualitatively different than items of property that are not capable of feeling pain and suffering?
"I am referring to how human beings treat animals, not how animals treat each other."
Why should we treat humans differently? It is odd to me that on the one hand, you argue that because animals are similar to humans, the deserve similar rights. But when we talk about how animals treat each other, well humans are different.
On the one hand you want me to include animals in my moral code- they have human attributes (such as feeling pain and emotions) that somehow bind me to protect them. But on the other hand, I am expected to exclude how animals treat each other.
This is incoherent. If indeed harming animals is wrong, then the moral code would require me to prevent wolves from killing elk. But if animals are allowed to be animals, and we recognize them as having "different rules", then there is no reason why I should apply the same rules to them as I apply to my neighbor.
"Would you agree that items of property that are capable of feeling pain and suffering are qualitatively different than items of property that are not capable of feeling pain and suffering?"
Sure, as long as you agree with me that a piece of property that has sentimental value to me is qualitatively different than a piece of property that has no sentimental value. Or that a piece of property that is higher quality is qualitatively different than a lesser piece of property.
I don't disagree that animals are different than inanimate objects. I just don't agree that the ability to feel pain just suddenly gets you rights. Why is this the test, not the fact that you are capable of math or reading? Or the fact that you have human DNA? Or the fact that property is alive in the first place (e.g. a plant)?
And if, IF, an animal that feels pain gets rights, why does this not oblige humans to prevent the suffering of animals at the hands of other animals? If you must act to prevent me from mistreating my dog, aren't you equally beholden to prevent a wolf from mistreating a deer?
"It’s all about tradition and what we are used to, much more than thinking rationally about animal rights and cruelty."
This is nothing other than an attempt by the gray-boxed lefty asshole to re-define the terms of the discussion.
Please add my "fuck off and die, shitbag" to the next reply.
"You are confused. Looking at nature and saying, "It is the way of things that animals are cruel and merciless to one another" is not Tradition. It is looking at reality."
You are entirely too kind. This is not "confusion", this is a steaming pile of lefty shit hoping his/her bullshit might be accepted.
Please ad my "Fuck off and die, asshole" to the next reply.
You think someone with downs has less rationality than a dog? Wow.
What a piece of shit.
I work with several DS kids in my kids' school and cub scout pack. The idea that they are less rational than a dog is nonsense. Utter nonsense.
And the fact that Mike thinks that is absolutely crazy.
If Mike really does have a cousin with DS, then he has taken exactly zero time to get to know this person.
A girl in my kid's pack has DS. For the past 3 years, she has come to my house to build pinewood derby cars. While she had help, there is no doubt that she rationalized this product. She started with a drawing, and then did all the work to turn a block of wood into that drawing. The only thing she did not do was operate the band saw for two cuts on the wood. She just drew the lines and had me do that.
Put aside the fact that this girl was able to use tools, decide whether she was using them correctly, adjust and adapt. Just the fact that she could abstractly "design" something that she would not use until Derby Day a few weeks later, and then execute that design is demonstrating an ability to rationalize that no border collie has ever demonstrated. Think about all the intelligence that comes into looking at a block of wood, drawing a line and understanding to communicate to me to cut that line, and understanding that when that cut happened it would result in a transformation that met her abstract image in her head.
The idea that any dog has anywhere near this level of rationality is nonsense, and honestly I hope Mike really takes a deep look inside himself to understand why it is that he can't see that in his own family when I can see that in someone I've spent a few hours with over the years.
Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.
Men are not beasts
Well, on occasion….
Ever been to a Furry Convention? 🙂
You are a heavy supporter of all vaccines which are often tested on animals prior to humans.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/medicinesandvaccines
Are you immoral for supporting these acts?
And this is why you are incapable of participating in this discussion. You don't want to discuss the issue, you want to use it as a wedge to assign blame.
There is no point in arguing with sophists, sea lions, post modernists as they argue from subjective points of view. Even here you decide what lines of argumentation are valid and only ones you choose to engage in are those. It is a pointless argumentation to argue with people like you because enough will constantly change the rules of debate or disallow various threads that simply disprove your arguments simply.
You are the one starting a debate on animal cruelty yet you've already disallowed an argument to be brought in for vaccine development on animals. Do you see how fucking dishonest that is?
LOL if anyone is the post-modernist around here, it is you. You are the one who posts crap, calls it an argument, and then gets all mad and huffy when others see through your crap and call it out for the bullshit that it is. You want to insist that your bad faith trolling be considered on par with logical and well-reasoned argumentation. Such as above, when you brought up vaccine development in animals in a transparent attempt to try to call me a hypocrite. You don't give a shit about the animals or the vaccines, you just want to use the issue to troll me. That is quite obvious from your comment. So fuck off Jesse.
If you closely observe jeff, or the left-leaning commenters here or at volokh, their arguments can generally be sorted into the following responses. Sophistry and in-group bias are the given, overarching framework. Within these, begging the question, strawman, gaslighting, DARVO, projection, accusing the other of that of which one is guilty, and ad hominem are hallmark techniques. There is also a tendency to ignore facts in favor of narratives, refuse to answer or 'dignify with an answer,' accusations of racism etc, and the inevitable shifting goalposts. This is an in-group that has a population that is inherently lacking in integrity and hypocritical -not all, but a significant portion.
Sophistry and in-group bias are the given, overarching framework. Within these, begging the question, strawman, gaslighting, DARVO, projection, accusing the other of that of which one is guilty, and ad hominem are hallmark techniques.
So, just like the right-leaning commenters then.
Jeffy, this discussion is above you. Maybe you should sit this one out.
Sorry not sorry, I'm not an idiot like Jesse. Maybe it's time for your nap.
Lol. You post 2 attempts at sophistry calling out the raising of cattle for food implying it is cruelty and then posit others are the idiots.
Youre such a joke jeff.
calling out the raising of cattle for food implying it is cruelty
But I didn't. You are the only one who made that claim.
I simply believe there is a fruitful discussion to be had on what the moral status of animals ought to be within a libertarian framework.
This discussion is above you because it is not based on tribalism and does not assign blame based on tribal identity. You can't think beyond tribalism and you certainly have a hard time with intellectual discussions of abstract topics.
It is an interesting discussion. And it is interesting that a lot of the arguments you will get for why it is OK to raise and kill animals for food are the same arguments that used to be made to justify slavery.
I eat meat, but I admit that I may be judged by more ethically evolved future humans as not being all that ethical in doing so.
So interesting jeff won't erase discussions on vaccine developments in animals.
Only areas of the conversation that don't hurt his arguments are allowed. And you're dumb enough to call that interesting.
The ethical questions associated with using animals for medical testing, including for vaccine development, are indeed some interesting questions, and it could be a fruitful discussion. It just won't ever be a fruitful discussion with YOU.
"Jeffy, this discussion is above you. Maybe you should sit this one out."
This one and just about every other one in which that lying pile of lefty shit has ever engaged.
2nd attempt was as infantile as the first.
Feel your teeth. Do you feel the canine teeth? There's your answer.
Eating animals is not cruel no matter how much sophistry you present.
Feel your teeth. Do you feel the canine teeth? There's your answer.
Those same canine teeth which can be used to eat animal flesh can also be used to eat human flesh. Should cannibalism be legal?
And since I know this is difficult for you to have a discussion on abstract concepts, no I'm not actually arguing in favor of cannibalism. I am pointing out the very obvious flaw in your simplistic reasoning.
Animals are not equal to humans.
Sorry.
You're right, animals are not the same as humans.
Animals are also not the same as inanimate objects.
Closer them them than us.
"However, this argument does not really the issue of laws against animal cruelty"
Yeah that's because the article was discussing whether the NAP ought to apply to animals.
"But that is only an argument against assigning the full panoply of rights to animals, not to reject completely the premise that the NAP shouldn't apply, at least in a stripped-down form, to animals."
So what? If you are going to agree that animals are property, then the argument is incumbent upon YOU to say why you have the right to dictate how my property will be used.
And further, when you get down to libertarianism, you need to explain how it is that the NAP justifies you interfering with a private property owner's rights over their property. They don't have to justify their use of the property to you.
To put it another way, you are the one who is arguing that the NAP be extended to Animals in some way. So it isn't incumbent on me or others to justify the negative. It is incumbent on you to explain how it is that a simple prohibition against aggression would allow me to kill a chicken "humanely" rather than "cruelly". The NAP is simple. There is no middle ground here. There is no "panoply of rights".
The NAP cannot be enforced between a man and a beast because if it were, beasts would be quickly slaughtered for breaking it. A dog will bite a cat. A cat will kill a mouse. And by the way, when animals predate upon prey, it is in often cruel ways. Ever see how a Komodo Dragon takes down an animal over days of slow torture, finally consuming it while it is still alive?
So since we cannot enter into a pact with these animals, the onus is on you to explain why they should have rights, and why you (or any other person) ought to have rights over the animal.
Jeff will ignore your responses because they easily steer away from his acceptable lanes of discussion on the topic.
The NAP is simple. There is no middle ground here. There is no "panoply of rights".
The NAP is like the Ten Commandments. It is a moral framework, not a legalistic doctrine. One of the Ten Commandments of course is "thou shalt not kill". It is a good broad principle. But it does not answer every question associated with every scenario associated with killing. Is killing in self-defense justified? How about killing to prevent a greater evil? How about killing in times of war? The Ten Commandments don't have answers for each of these specific scenarios. It only speaks broadly that killing ought to be avoided.
So it is the same with the NAP. It says "thou shalt not commit aggression against another". But it doesn't have detailed answers about specifically what constitutes aggression and who is precisely covered under it. Which is fine. We use our own judgment and reason to provide sensible answers within the moral framework provided by the NAP.
So, let's not even consider animals for right now. What about taxation? Is taxation acceptable under the NAP? If you read the NAP like it's a legalistic doctrine, then the answer is no. Taxation is a type of aggression and therefore prohibited. So does the NAP then require anarchism? Or, maybe we can use our brains and realize that taxation for the purpose of funding a government to protect rights is justifiable from a libertarian perspective. What about children and parenting? Parents commit aggression against children every day by coercing them to do things like clean their rooms. Is that an unacceptable violation of the NAP? Or do we use our reason and understand that children don't have the same moral status as grown adults because they do not have the same capacity to know the consequences of their actions as adults do? Nonetheless, there are limits to the degree of coercion that parents can impose on children - when it crosses the line into abuse, then that's prohibited. What precisely is child abuse? It can sometimes be tough to tell. But the key point here is that the NAP is not a simple black/white thing. So yes there is a panoply of rights. Children have some rights, but not all of those that adults are entitled to. The mentally/physically disabled, also have fewer rights, unfortunately, due to their own conditions.
The mentally/physically disabled, also have fewer rights, unfortunately, due to their own conditions.
Cite?
"The NAP is like the Ten Commandments. It is a moral framework, not a legalistic doctrine."
If this were true it would be irrelevant. Unless you think that rights are only a legalistic doctrine.
"The Ten Commandments don't have answers for each of these specific scenarios."
I would highly recommend you go read about the ten commandments. Because the commandments themselves do answer this. (Hint: The original translation of the commandments was, "Thou Shall not Murder".)
"But it doesn't have detailed answers about specifically what constitutes aggression and who is precisely covered under it."
Yes it does. And it is very odd to me that as a self professed libertarian you are unaware that "Initiation of force" is very well defined.
"We use our own judgment and reason to provide sensible answers within the moral framework provided by the NAP."
We derive answers from the NAP. The NAP is a foundation, and then you reason from it. That is why if you cannot be a party to the NAP, there is nothing that can be built in your protection. A dog cannot be part of a pact based on the NAP, so you can't draw your treatment of him from the NAP.
"Taxation is a type of aggression and therefore prohibited."
Correct.
"So does the NAP then require anarchism?"
No this does not follow. C.F. Covenants.
"taxation for the purpose of funding a government to protect rights is justifiable from a libertarian perspective."
No this may be justifiable to you but it is not moral from a libertarian perspective.
"What about children and parenting? Parents commit aggression against children every day by coercing them to do things like clean their rooms."
No they do not. The parents hold the children's rights in trust until the children are at an age of majority.
"Or do we use our reason and understand that children don't have the same moral status as grown adults"
They absolutely have the same moral status as adults. The fact that they are incapable of exercising their rights responsibly doesn't change the fact that the kids still have inalienable rights.
"Nonetheless, there are limits to the degree of coercion that parents can impose on children - when it crosses the line into abuse, "
That is what we would call a breach of trust. I can similarly have trust over your estate. I could do lots of things you don't want me to do. That doesn't mean I am coercing you, because I am entitled with those decisions. If I breach that trust, that is initiation of force.
"Children have some rights, but not all of those that adults are entitled to. "
Nope, they still have the rights. But they are held in trust by their creators (or delegates). The same goes to your mentally disabled.
So, once again, we have spent paragraphs of your word salad with you trying to poke holes in my beliefs, but unwilling to stand up for anything. So I will repeat:
1) If you are going to accept that animals can be property
2) YOU need to provide a moral framework for why you get to tell me what to do with my property.
3) And if you are going to claim to be a libertarian, then you need to explain how that is consistent with the NAP.
Otherwise, all I see you doing is saying, "Well the animal rights people maybe have a point." To which I say, "Maybe they don't."
I don't know how many more ways that I can say this.
Living breathing creatures, particularly mammals, are simply different categories of property than inanimate objects.
Living breathing creatures, particularly mammals, are sentient creatures, can feel pain, can form family attachments and can form tribal bonds with humans, have a sense of property, have a sense of self-defense. They share many characteristics with human beings in these respects.
One of the reasons why human beings are regarded as having rights is because of their inherent moral worth, independent of any utilitarian consideration. I have the right to say or do things that may have zero utilitarian value because I have dignity and self-worth simply by existing, and to violate my rights is to violate that fundamental dignity. And I believe it is the same with animals, particularly mammals, just to a lesser degree.
So I support laws against animal torture and animal cruelty. I do believe the state should tell you not to torture your property. Because animals, particularly mammals, have the capacity to feel pain and suffering, unlike your pocketwatch or your plunger. I believe this can be justified from a libertarian perspective by looking at the NAP as a moral framework and not as a binary rigid rule, that applies 100% to humans and 0% to everything else. I think the broad concept of the NAP should govern our interactions with animals - to a lesser degree than it does with humans of course, but not to zero degree. Despite your protestations, the NAP as interpreted as a legalistic doctrine does not provide the unambiguously correct answer every time. Is abortion "initiation of force"? How about theft of intellectual property? How about capital punishment? The fact that even libertarians still debate these things demonstrates that the NAP is not a rigid iron law. It is, instead, a very useful guide.
That is my position as of now, anyway. I fully admit that I don't have all the answers. I can be persuaded to view this issue in another way, provided the argument is convincing. But trying to convince me that your dog is exactly the same as your pocketwatch is not going to do it. That is why I simply wanted to have a discussion, to explore the idea.
And this is getting to be a habit with you, that you want to try to turn a conversation into a confrontation. Why does a conversation have to turn into a shouting match?
"Living breathing creatures, particularly mammals, are simply different categories of property than inanimate objects."
This is nothing more than emoting. "These things are different than others. We like these things more. These things feel."
A framework allows me to make decisions. Under condition A, I am justified doing X. But under condition B, it is unjustified. The NAP allows me to do that. I can reason out from those basic foundations what is initiation of force, and what is not. Sure, we might disagree in certain areas, but that is a logical disagreement, not feelings.
Your framework does not tell me why it is wrong to put a calf in a tiny pen for a year before killing it. Or why it is wrong to grow chickens in a barn and then suffocate them. Or why it is right to keep my dog living in misery as cancer eats away at it.
"So I support laws against animal torture and animal cruelty. "
But which laws? Is a law requiring a pig to have 30 sq feet of space instead of 20 moral? By what component of your moral framework?
"Because animals, particularly mammals, have the capacity to feel pain and suffering, unlike your pocketwatch or your plunger."
Why is the ability to feel pain somehow determinate? What level of pain is acceptable or moral? How- by your framework- am I to tell if chopping the head off a chicken (which is painful) acceptable vs suffocating it with CO2 (which is not painful, but results in a sense of panic)?
"I think the broad concept of the NAP should govern our interactions with animals - to a lesser degree than it does with humans of course, but not to zero degree."
And all you want to talk about is degrees. You cannot articulate a principle that allows us to say why the NAP prevents harming an animal but allows us to kill that animal.
Please. Give me some logic. Why can the NAP forbid me from killing a person, but not forbid me from killing an Animal. If the NAP is not absolute, then does that mean I get to kill a human who is mentally incompetent? If not, why not? Why is a human being given the full rights but
TL;DR, you are dodging and you are dodging hard. You declare that there are limits, but are unwilling to specify how we determine that limit. You declare that there is a spectrum, but merely feel that it exists. Until you can give me a working framework, all I can assume is that you are letting emotions overrule your capacity for logic.
Ackshuyally, Six of the Ten Commandments are thoughtcrimes and the other four are social prohibitions that were found in The Code of Hammurabi and pre-existed the alleged time the Commandments were given to the alleged Moses on Mount Sinai.
And then there were the five Moses on the tablet dropped.
One of which was “Thou shalt not garble the order of the words in thy sentences.”
I was using the nerdy meme spelling of actually and the Orwellian spelling of thought crime. Hence, the garbling.
True. 🙂
Moses Ten Commandments--Mel Brooks
https://youtu.be/w556vrpsy4w
Many laws don't exist to protect someone's rights, they exist because they conduct in question is considered uncivilized and incompatible with society.
A libertarian society likely wouldn't have animal cruelty laws, but it would ostracize you for committing cruelty against animals.
You're defecating in the wrong corner shit-for-brains. If you really want NAP for the animals, go take it up with every predator. I'll even let you off easy, you get 2/3 of them to agree to abide by the NAP and I'll stop shooting them. Until then, my shooting them is no more a violation of the NAP than sweeping up broken glass, making sure fires are doused properly, controlling for noxious weeds, giving/taking antibiotics, or catching/killing invasive pests.
You're an low-brow, sub-HS-level, con artist trying to bringing an obvious one-sided deal to the table in order to bargain. Fuck off.
Oh look. It's yet another moron who can only think in binary terms. Either animals must have the human version of the NAP or the NAP does not apply at all to them. Either animals must be capable of signing contracts, or it must be legal to torture them. No gray area in between!
Do you have a pet? Have you ever had a pet? Do you regard your pet as something more than mere property? Like, maybe, a trusted companion or even a "part of the family"? Human beings, at some point or another, have been advocating for humane treatment of animals since about 2500 years ago. The idea of being kind to animals is not some modern radical woke plot to take away your hamburgers. It is a serious idea that has been around for a very long time. If you want to stake out the pro-animal-torture position then go right ahead. But while you are doing so, don't be surprised when everyone else treats you like the creep that you are.
Eating animals is not torturing or abusing animals.
If it was, there's a whole class of animals who should stand trial.
Dunno which pile of lying, grayed-out, lefty shit made that claim and don't care; fuck the lot of them with a running, rusty chainsaw.
"Do you regard your pet as something more than mere property? Like, maybe, a trusted companion or even a "part of the family"? "
What is bizarre to me is that you think these are mutually exclusive concepts.
I have family heirlooms that I treat with great reverence. I have also had beater cars that I beat the shit out of. I also have plungers that I use to get shit out of my toilet.
They are all property. My Property. And I'd look on you telling me how I should treat my dad's pocketwatch just as skeptically as if you were telling me how to treat my Aussie.
It's yet another moron who can only think in binary terms.
Says the guy who, when presented with a spectrum, says "This dude's talking in binary." You aren't intelligent or cute or even really honest. On the intelligence spectrum, you're sub-HS and frequently lower. On the spectrum of self-perpetuating chemical reactions, you're above the majority of advanced mammals, which should give you the potential to be well above sub-HS level thinking, but you can't or won't rise to that level for whatever reason. On the spectrum of respect earned or reciprocated, you're on par with the average mammal. Can your strictly binary/non-binary neural network comprehend that or am I just a non-tribe member? Dumbass.
Do you have a pet? Have you ever had a pet? Do you regard your pet as something more than mere property? Like, maybe, a trusted companion or even a "part of the family"? Human beings, at some point or another, have been advocating for humane treatment of animals since about 2500 years ago.
You ask these questions like they have binary answers or strictly binary or even unidirectional implications. Yes, I have and had pets. I've also had livestock and associated or 'communed with' (and decidedly not) wild animals, how about yourself? No, they were not all equally respective of the NAP, even within species and races/breeds. No, I didn't treat them all as trusted companions as I didn't implicitly trust all of them and they didn't trust me. This is understood by most second-graders. No, I've never regarded them as part of the family as I was never once related to any of them by blood or marriage. No, humans have not been advocating for the humane treatment of animals for 2500 yrs. they've been advocating for the mutual respect of property, among humans, for 2500 yrs. The Native Americans weren't claiming the bison as friends and fellow Native Americans, they were claiming them as food, skins, and as part of the decor. The treatment of animals as on par with humans and deserving of equal rights is an exceedingly recent phenomenon and it does have it's origins with people who overtly want to not just take everyone's hamburgers away, but want to take hamburgers away from humans and grass away from cattle and, give ground beef to the cats and give the grass back to the bison. Like granting rights to cats but not cattle is somehow more equitable or humane or respective of rights, human or other.
Again, your obfuscation of unidrectional regression with cries of "Muh non-binary thinking!" is not clever and people 2,500 years ago would've recognized your shit by its smell and treated you appropriately. Continue your regressive rants as you see fit. Don't be surprised when you get the regression you seek. I've trained dogs with more foresight.
LOL, you are nothing but a wordy insecure bully.
Sophist. Just like most of your arguments on just about any topic. There is no substance. There's no 'there' there. Waste of your own time and everyone else's.
Sometimes, open-ended discussions scare people.
A person stole something and there's no real dispute about them stealing it, then they were arrested for stealing and the property was returned to its owner.
Why is this an article?
Baylen Linnekin owes Reason one article every week. You don’t have to read them.
There’s no evidence anything was stolen.
The gates weren’t opened, the electric systems and fences were secure, and the cows aren’t talking.
It’s been assumed there’s theft, but Farmer Gregson will make the defense’s case easy if he repeats what was told in the article.
If a kite, left by you in your yard, ends up in mine, that doesn’t mean I stole it. It could’ve tumbled, flew, or moved by a hawk. It could have gotten washed into a drainage pipe connecting our yards.
I’d be under no obligation to return your kite or even admit its existence. And without evidence that a crime occurred, any search and arrest should get dismissed.
Pretty sure a statement that "I see you have my property, return it" should do the trick, asshole.
You can't keep someone else's cow, even if it wanders onto your property. That's not how the law works. Even without the special laws on livestock, there are general laws on finding property worth more than a specified amount (which a cow easily surpasses) and they don't involve simply keeping it.
You mean Article VIII of the constitution isn't the "Finders Keepers" clause?
Well, what I mean is that m40195971 is a lying pile of shit, but your comment works, too.
"...You can't keep someone else's cow, even if it wanders onto your property..."
m40195971 will be surprised to learn this. Lefty ignoramuses often are surprised to learn anything at all, and do their best to avoid doing so; see, oh, turd and Joe Asshole.
Totally not just a bunch of trash-talking edgelords. Nope nope nope.
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1562886932815704065
Twitter is a shit pit.
The charges against the upstate sanctuary owner are rather unusual: police allege she stole a pair of cows from a neighboring beef farmer.
Unusual? I think we used to call that cattle rustlin'.
And, at least out west, the typical penalty was hanging from the nearest tree. Murphy should be lucky that this is New York State and the 21st century.
They still have trees, though.
"She asked if I had proof I was the owner, then told me to get off her property because I was trespassing," Gregson told USA Today.
So she believes in property and borders... we've established that much.
*applause*
Perhaps she was auditioning for a part in a Gary Larson cartoon.
Perhaps you're a fucking lefty ignoramus.
Can you give more context of whom / what that is a photo of?
So dense.
In summary, vegans are fucked in the head.
I'm a fan of shooting cattle rustlers.
If the tables were turned here—if a pair of Murphy's animals had gotten loose from her sanctuary and ended up on Gregson's farm—those animals would still be Murphy's property. Not Gregson's. And I'd have written a column in support of Murphy.
Getting nitpicky; this is incorrect because you skipped the base you're trying to argue from. If Murphy's operating a sanctuary, the animals aren't captive and/or domesticated. There's certainly a case to be made that she owns *some* of her animals every bit as much at as much as Gregson owns his but any given deer wanders into her sanctuary, I can't shoot it. It wanders out, especially onto my property, it's literally fair game. Specifically because she doesn't own the deer.
"If the tables were turned here—if a pair of Murphy's animals had gotten loose from her sanctuary and ended up on Gregson's farm—those animals would still be Murphy's property. Not Gregson's. And I'd have written a column in support of Murphy."
If Mrs. Murphy hadn't given sanctuary to a pyromaniac cow, Chicago would still be standing.
+1
+0.15: For creative applicability.
-0.15: O'leary, not Murphy.
One, the cow was just clumsy, not obsessed with fire.
Two, and sad to say, Chicago is still standing, and in even worse shape.
Well well. Look who got caught wearing the uniform of literal traitors.
https://archive.ph/UcBrS
One man’s traitor is another man’s freedom fighter.
Wow, a group of people dress in historical reenactors uniforms and chemleft radical shitweasel pretends the confederate soldier outfit is some sort of political statement.
You should take a trip here Jeff: https://www.gettysburgbattlefieldtours.com/gettysburg-reenactment/
You can spend many happy hours screaming "TRAITORS!!!" at thousands of people.
He could have chosen literally any historical figure he wanted.
So, outside the re-enactment community it's not widely known that there are certain armies and sides that are less popular than others and, if you're trying to re-enact a battle and only one side shows up, there's no re-enacting to be had. So, a good portion of re-enactors, frequently a majority if not totality, have and arrive with both/many/all sets of uniforms. Come time to re-enact, they don the uniforms necessary, since no-one's actually dying or advocating for any particular side. The details are plotted out and fudged to the point that I'd guarantee you could find battles where "less popular side" re-enactors are depicted absorbing twice the number of bullets as Union soldiers to "die" in roughly equal or accurate proportions. Not to advocate the invincibility of the less popular side any more than to highlight the heroism of the more popular side but to represent the human costs as accurately and equitably as possible. As a matter of fact, the most fanatical re-enactors would have the biggest problem with his shoes, which are polished leather and clearly left/right footed, rather than one-footed, raw leather hide, and shrunk to fit with water.
It should surprise no one that some people are more beholden to an objective presentation of reality and history than you.
Union soldiers
Sorry, "soldiers of the more popular side". My mistake for "slandering" re-enactors across multiple wars.
That's nice.
Except that photo wasn't taken at a Civil War battle re-enactment event.
From the article:
Faculty in the photo had been given the option of dressing as a historical figure, people familiar with the photo said, but most opted for regular attire. Mastriano is the only one wearing a Confederate uniform.
So there was no requirement or expectation that anyone show up wearing any particular type of uniform. He could have shown up wearing any "historical figure" uniform he wanted. He chose that of the traitors.
So you just typed 200 words of red-herring garbage to try to puff out your chest a little bit and attempt a wicked putdown in your sad little display of misdirection. Just sad.
Except that photo wasn't taken at a Civil War battle re-enactment event.
I didn't say the photo was taken at a re-enactment. I didn't even say the word photo. I said hundreds if not thousands of people own and wear Civil War Uniforms from both sides explicitly without endorsing the cause of either side. If you read what I wrote and heard "Republicans advocate slavery by posing in photos wearing Confederate uniform." that's on you.
Congrats on spewing more shit with fewer words.
Shitweasels like you are why we can't have nice things.
Well, he is from the South … of New Jersey.
Thank heavens those classified documents at Mar-a-Lago were locked up behind strict security measures which could never ever be fooled by Russian spies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/27/fake-heiress-infiltrates-mar-a-lago-trump
She infiltrated the Mar-a-Lago country club, not Trump's house. Stop pretending they're the same thing. AND she got fucking caught.
Also, she's a Ukrainian, not a Russian. Yes, she can speak Russian, but so can all Ukrainians seeing as the languages are mutually intelligible. Like Scots English and American Standard English.
You're always trying to be fucking tricky with shit a retarded chimp would see through.
Also, she's a Ukrainian, not a Russian.
Actually, it's not entirely clear from the evidence provided that 'American' isn't more accurate. She's the daughter of an American citizen and the news sources I keep reading refer to her as an 'immigrant', rather than 'illegal immigrant'. None clearly reference the time/place/circumstances of her birth except to say 'Ukranian-born', which as we've been lectured multiply since Hillary's birther conspiracy started, doesn't clarify the issue.
Not to defend an illegal immigrant/foreign national/spy, just trying to objectively parse who does and does not count as a citizen and when. Turns out that 'illegal' is a useful and definitive distinction. Who knew?
more accurateany more or less accurate...Everyone is missing the obvious question. Did the vegan ask the cows if they identify as meat or vegetable? If not they are a transfood groupphobe
Can you imagine stealing a cow who’s a vegetable? You’d get a hernia!
If it's too heavy, it's better to do like Frank Zappa and "Call Any Vegetable":
https://youtu.be/XhDGiW-qZ2k
Leftists in Germany unveil Marx Statue Alongside Lenin Statue
http://www.rferl.org/a/32007216.html
You know who else had statues of dubious taste erected in Germany?
Is there a Madame Tussauds in Germany?
Well, they wouldn't be *Ahem!* erected. That would be considered "degenerate.". )
Alexander Schnurer?
Peter Lenk?
Wilfried Fitzenreiter?
Sorry, with links to specific SODT:
Schnurer: locationscout.net/germany/1437-el-nino-radolfzell
Lenk: dynamic-media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-o/1b/ab/f5/ed/la-statua.jpg?w=1200&h=-1&s=1
Fitzenreiter: dynamic-media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-o/0c/e7/1d/98/three-girls-and-a-boy.jpg?w=1200&h=-1&s=1
I’m gaining new appreciation for the term “private collection”
Estonia, Poland, and Latvia have torn down Soviet-era statues in recent days amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, but MLPD party leader Gabi Fechtner insisted to RFE/RL that links drawn between the Soviet Union and the Kremlin’s attempted war of expansion into Ukraine are unfair.
“They use this as a reason to tear down monuments to Lenin or to the Great Patriotic War (World War II). But [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a contradiction to socialism, Stalin, and Lenin,” she claimed. “So these monuments should remain in place.”
So what is Putin's service as a KGB man, chopped Kulak liver? Former KGB men would have something to say to her with a poisoned umbrella tip!
So what is Putin's service as a KGB man
In reality? Probably that of a steely, ambitious careerist.
That pretty describes the entire Nomenklatura of every commie regime
But KGB service by Putin is not a contradiction of socialism, Stalin, and Lenin, which makes this Commie defense of the statues and disavowal of Putin all sound like gibberish.
Regrettably, the penalties available to the court do not include having the snotty, self-righteous little cattle rustler flogged.
-jcr
Googled the perp, found this interesting tidbit:
To run our Sanctuary full-time, Tracy resigned from her highly profitable position as an Assistant Vice President at the international company HSBC in 2014.
-jcr
Back in the day they used to HANG cattle rustlers. Maybe it's time to invoke that punishment again.
John C. nailed it: "snotty, self righteous", is an apt description of that woman.
Murphy is lucky she doesn't live in Texas. Rustling is still a thing there and her sanctuary would probably get seized by the county sheriff, assuming the rancher whose cows she stole didn't enact his own summary justice - which is also still a thing in Texas.
"If the tables were turned here—if a pair of Murphy's animals had gotten loose from her sanctuary and ended up on Gregson's farm—those animals would still be Murphy's property. Not Gregson's. And I'd have written a column in support of Murphy."
This paragraph is entirely unnecessary. Of course the theft of farm animals cannot be excused. Animal rights wackos are wackos. We should all just eat a kabob while they rant.
Vegan cattle rustlers? Wow, just when you think you've heard everything...
"... I'd have written a column in support of Murphy."
No, you wouldn't have written a column because it would not have become an issue. Unlike leftists and hippies, the farmer understands property rights and would give Murphy's animals back without an argument.
Unless it was a cat, dog, or other predator that was starving because a vegan fanatic was trying to feed it a vegan diet, or an herbivore that was starving because the fanatic wouldn't kill when needed to keep the plant and animal populations in balance. Then I hope the farmer would have reported this _actual_ animal cruelty.
Does responding to one of these spam comments with another one that has identical text make ANY practical sense? I guess the second spammer gets a 50% chance of getting whatever profit might actually be derived from someone clicking one of those links. The text is identical except for the "(res)" in the second one, the meaning of which I don't know, the boldfacing of the final line with the (differimg) link, and the blank line just before that one.
Nice
I made $30,508 in only five weeks operating part-time proper from my apartment. When I misplaced my final commercial enterprise I were given worn-out proper away and fortunately I observed this task on line and with that I am capable of begin reaping masses proper thru my house. Anyone can obtain this pinnacle degree profession and make extra cash on line by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>>