You did NOT answer the question.

You just reiterated what I said, and then implied what you THINK i was looking for.

We now agree that the Constitution does not apply to animals -- only to human beings.

Whether the Feds or the States make laws against torturing animals is irrelevant. 

What I asked is:

On what do you base your opinion that laws should protect animals? 

Those laws can be at any level of government.

Answer the question I asked, not the one you think I'm going to ask next.

Not sure what you are getting at....is it some ethical or moral thing?   Laws don't have to based on anything. 

So if someone’s loses consciousness? Are they then by OG’s definition no longer a formed human?

Laws don’t have to be based on anything? Even OG’s feelings?

 

...I still don't view that clump of cells as alive.  So to me its not immoral.  To me even if you have a heartbeat unless you have consciousness you are not a formed human.

So if someone’s loses consciousness? Are they then by OG’s definition no longer a formed human?

Yep. Every night when he(?) goes to sleep (i.e. losing consciousness) he reverts to an unformed clump of cells.

I think a case could be argued that even when consciousness returns upon awakening in the morning there is still nothing there but an uninformed unformed clump of cells.

Yep. Every night when he(?) goes to sleep (i.e. losing consciousness) he reverts to an unformed clump of cells.

I think a case could be argued that even when consciousness returns upon awakening in the morning there is still nothing there but an uninformed unformed clump of cells.

it's a slippery slope to start letting the state/lawmakers decide what constitutes a human being with the right to live.




Also on Netflix:
https://tinyurl.com/yylslf8a

No once you gain consciousness you gain humanity then you can't lose that till you PERMENTLY LOSE it.  AKA death.

No once you gain consciousness you gain humanity then you can't lose that till you PERMENTLY LOSE it.  AKA death.

There are people deemed incompetent to decide whether or not to continue providing life support even though they are very much conscious.

Victims of stroke, traumatic head injury, dementia, etc.

Those people are conscious, but others make the decision to end their lives or withhold medical treatment so they may pass.

So much for the "must permanently lose consciousness (aka death)" argument.

Not sure what you are getting at....is it some ethical or moral thing?   Laws don't have to based on anything.

Laws are based on documents (such as the Constitution), morals, ethics, and so on.

Where does the state or federal government derive its power to even make laws?  The Constitution.  The federal gov't makes laws within their jurisdiction.  All other laws are relegated to the states.

States have their own Constitutions. 

Do any of these Constitutions include animal rights?  Is the state required to protect the animals from torture or abuse based on the protections listed in the Constitution such as our Bill of Rights?

if not, then criminal laws must (1) not violate the applicable Constitutions, and (2) address a behavior or act that society deems criminal.

So, on what basis is animal torture considered criminal?  Is it a moral basis?  What makes humans, any human, believe the practice of torturing ones own pet is wrong?

Does religion grant the animals these rights?  Common sense?  Empathy?

Where does the desire/duty to protect these animals come from?

Laws are based on documents (such as the Constitution), morals, ethics, and so on.

Where does the state or federal government derive its power to even make laws?  The Constitution.  The federal gov't makes laws within their jurisdiction.  All other laws are relegated to the states.

States have their own Constitutions. 

Do any of these Constitutions include animal rights?  Is the state required to protect the animals from torture or abuse based on the protections listed in the Constitution such as our Bill of Rights?

if not, then criminal laws must (1) not violate the applicable Constitutions, and (2) address a behavior or act that society deems criminal.

So, on what basis is animal torture considered criminal?  Is it a moral basis?  What makes humans, any human, believe the practice of torturing ones own pet is wrong?

Does religion grant the animals these rights?  Common sense?  Empathy?

Where does the desire/duty to protect these animals come from?

You do know there are countries like England that don't have Constitutions. Im pretty sure they have laws. Including ones that deal with animal cruelty.

There are people deemed incompetent to decide whether or not to continue providing life support even though they are very much conscious.

Victims of stroke, traumatic head injury, dementia, etc.

Those people are conscious, but others make the decision to end their lives or withhold medical treatment so they may pass.

So much for the "must permanently lose consciousness (aka death)" argument.

If you are brain dead you are dead.  If you get into an accident and there's no oxygen to your brain for like 10min no matter the state of your body you are dead.   Others aka doctors can decide on your state.

I used to be super pro abortion when I was younger and fucking around a lot.  Had a few pregers scares from chicks.  So abortion was a no brainer and they were down with it too.  IIRC, at that time they allowed abortions up until 3 months.  And the really down chicks even said "well if I am preggers, at least you can shoot inside until 3 months". 

Then I got older and realized it's way more complicated, for all the reasons you guys are mentioning.

My grandfather had a stroke and was brain dead.  The only thing keeping him alive were the machines.  To test if he was brain dead, the docs turned the machines off.  If he gasp for air or had any other type of reaction, then his brain was not dead.  They did this multiple times and had zero response from his body.  So they pounced him brain dead and turned the machines off.

You do know there are countries like England that don't have Constitutions. Im pretty sure they have laws. Including ones that deal with animal cruelty.

So, where does England base its laws?  They have a Parliament, similar to our Congress.  They have to derive their authority to make laws from somewhere.

Thee Monarchy?  Magna Carta? 

If we assume all of the documents only apply to humans, then the source of their authority to create laws is established. 

The real question remains:  Where does the desire/duty to protect these animals come from?

i.e. what makes animal torture wrong?  You think it'd derived from feelings?

If you are brain dead you are dead.  If you get into an accident and there's no oxygen to your brain for like 10min no matter the state of your body you are dead.   Others aka doctors can decide on your state.

Did I EVER use the words "Brain Dead?"  Ever?

I said "incompetent" -- legally non compos mentis ...

non compos mentis nŏn kŏm″pəs mĕn′tĭs►
adj.   Not of sound mind and hence not legally competent.
n.   One who is not legally competent.
n.   Not capable, mentally, of managing one's own affairs; not of sound mind; not having the normal use of reason. Often abbreviated non compos and non comp. See insane.

Incompetent -- as in "unable to follow along with an intellectual conversation    ".

The real question remains:  Where does the desire/duty to protect these animals come from?

i.e. what makes animal torture wrong?  You think it'd derived from feelings?

You sound like a guy arguing about slavery 400 years ago.

“Where does the desire to protect these animals come from ?
What makes animal torture wrong?
These are my personal property to do with as I see fit.”

Times change and wrongs are righted.
I think there would be a Constitutional Amendment if every State didn’t adopt a cruelty to animals law.
(Unless one State allows torturing animals which I’m not aware of.)

And isn’t the Constitution the Law of the Land.
So your saying laws are based on laws.  No shit Sherlock.

You sound like a guy arguing about slavery 400 years ago.

“Where does the desire to protect these animals come from ?
What makes animal torture wrong?
These are my personal property to do with as I see fit.”

Times change and wrongs are righted.
I think there would be a Constitutional Amendment if every State didn’t adopt a cruelty to animals law.
(Unless one State allows torturing animals which I’m not aware of.)

And isn’t the Constitution the Law of the Land.
So your saying laws are based on laws.  No shit Sherlock.

You sound like a troll.

Bye.

Incompetent -- as in "unable to follow along with an intellectual conversation    ".

That’s trolling.
(But appropriate for this situation and to respond to your post.  )

You sound like a troll.

Bye.

The amount of hate these three blocked liberals have is amazing. 

They certainly have no common ground with most of the forum, just show up to argue and spew.

The amount of hate these three blocked liberals have is amazing. 

They certainly have no common ground with most of the forum, just show up to argue and spew.

AssHole slings insults even when he can't honestly find anything to pick apart in my post.

He can't help it.

"The Troll Dogma Lives Loudly in Him."

The amount of hate these three blocked liberals have is amazing. 

They certainly have no common ground with most of the forum, just show up to argue and spew.

Who are theses three blocked liberals? I have at least four on your radar by my count and that’s if you're including me. I’m technically an Independent.

I’ve met a ton of the forum members and broke bread with them.
(And drank “tea”)

How would you even know RobDmc when you block us?
You can’t even read what we post, much less form an opinion on it.

Where were my insults?
Edit: I did say no shit Sherlock.

What ..... in YOUR post I reposted ?

You pick apart grammar and English!    who does that ?!

Old Padawan. Learn to answer direct questions and not deflect and insult, then productive discussions you may have.