From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: What would *you* have done?
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:11:41 CDT
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

David Caruso II (me) wrote:
*>	Hmm ... just remember that the dog is property, and that the owner of 
*>said property is within his lawful rights to do whatever he wants to the dog.
*>Any attempt on your part to rescue the dog may result in the man having the 
*>lawful right to shoot you.  At least this is the point of view of some hunters.
*>Definitely not mine.

John Van Etten wrote: 
> Now David, is this either fair or accurate?  Have you ever asked any

	No, it's not, but I was being intentionally facetious, based on the
view of animals as "property."  After all, my baseball is property, and no one
is going to bitch if I take it to the park and beat it with my bat (unless I
hit something with it) ... The word, property, all-too-many times has been a
comfortable euphemism for inherently corrupt deeds.  Take slavery, for
instance.  I'd like to believe that a similar reference may some day be applied
to the concept of the rights of animals, in general.  Things are changing, you 
know.  More and more people are beginning to lean towards the a good, healthy 
view of animal rights than ever before.  Who knows what's going to happen?

> of us mean nasty old hunters whether or not we think this chap is
> right in beating a dog, or is this just another part of the

	No, I don't think all hunters would advocate beating a dog.  I don't
think hardly anyone would think that.  But you did say, John, that you feel no
qualms about shooting a pack of stray animals, such as cats.  To me, this is
obvious abuse.  "But those animals aren't pets ... aren't property," you would
no doubt claim.  And to that I say, "So what.  It doesn't matter." 

> beer-guzzling, brain-dead, macho-wanna-be, blood-lusting, killer image
> of hunters which you've conjured up in your mind and presented before

	As I said quite a long time ago, my representation of that fictional 
hunter was obviously *extreme*.  My own father used to hunt.  I definitely know 
better than to think all hunters are like this.  Always have.

> in this forum?  I, for one, do not feel that animals should be beaten
> for no good reason and have stated so many times.  And I have a slight
> suspicion that I'm not alone in such views, among people on this side
> of the fence.  Dogs are indeed property, but they are alive and as
> such have certain rights that are not given to a block of wood or a
> spare tire.

	Ooh! ... "certain rights."  Please define these rights, John, and in 
unambiguous terms.  I'd like to hear it.  And make sure not to blunder and 
include a right like, "The right to avoid unnecessary harm."

> Do you feel that others should have the right to do things which they
> feel are OK, but which are either illegal or unethical?

	No, I don't -- not everyone.  Ethics can only be judged by their
colleagues and their society, as mine will.  I don't expect people to disagree
with the kind of ethics I have displayed as much as they would with someone's
who believed it was ethical to enslave anyone with a mole on their butt cheek. 
In my acting according to my ethical standards, I suspect I would have some
enemies and more than some supporters.  My ethics deal with the defence of all
innocent life.  Most people would definitely not see that as negative, even
as broad as I have viewed it. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II                       "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals