How fvcking stupid do you have to be...

[innerSpaceman]

I'm with you on supporting convicted felons of crimes you don't think should be criminal (drug offenses a great example).

But can you really come up with no rational reason for crimilizing harm to animals? What is the difference between that and harm to humans that's not simply anthropocentric "I want it so" rationalization?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

What is the difference between that and harm to humans that's not simply anthropocentric "I want it so" rationalization?

Probably the same anthropocentric "I want it so" reason that keeps farming humans for food illegal.

I can understand the arguments against animal cruelty laws to a point. But somehow I doubt Mr. White wore that t-shirt as a statement against affording protected status to animals and the moral ramifications of such laws.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I can understand the arguments against animal cruelty laws to a point. But somehow I doubt Mr. White wore that t-shirt as a statement against affording protected status to animals and the moral ramifications of such laws.

Perhaps not, but it seems pretty clear that he doesn't think that what Vick did should put him in jail.

I'd see the stupidity of it if the shirt says "Vick's Innocent!" or "Vick Didn't Do It!" I'm not so much seeing the stupidity of saying "Vick shouldn't be in jail!"

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But can you really come up with no rational reason for crimilizing harm to animals? What is the difference between that and harm to humans that's not simply anthropocentric "I want it so" rationalization?

Yes, I can come up with some. But it takes work and, in my opinion, fudging. For me the primary bases on which criminalization emerge have to do with social contracts (implicit and explicit) and violations thereof. Animals do not participate in this contract themselves and I primarily view domesticated animals as property.

But I've worked abound it to some degree to get the result I want rather than necessarily the result that is more appropriate to my starting axioms. But I'm uncomfortable with that.

Yes, you'll be able to say that my fundamental axioms aren't anything other than a form of "I want it so" rationalization and you'd be correct. That is always true; there is no objective morality. I just generally try to resist violating those axioms just because another set of "I want it sos" are more appealing in fringe situations.