Nine more dogs were seriously injured in May at MA dogtracks

A lot of injuries (0.00 / 0)

That's nearly as many injuries as were reported in the first week of the last NFL season.  

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:43:44 PM CDT

... and if you could remind me (6.00 / 1)

of the number of NFL players who are there for some reason other than that they actively chose that line of work?

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:52:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As contrasted (3.50 / 2)

As contrasted against the dog owners who chose the occupation in which they are engaged?  Probably a similar percentage.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:56:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does the report (6.00 / 3)

note the number of dog owners who were injured?

Look, if you want to take the view that animals are property and have no intrinsic rights, that's fine -- just say it.  Most people disagree, but we're a big tent here at BMG.  Otherwise, though, you're raising red herrings.

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:59:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure, I'll state the obvious (0.00 / 0)

You, a lawyer, know as well as I.  Dogs are chattel and have no intrinsic rights.  Legally speaking, you disagree?

Is it your position that we should bestowe animals (including the lowly red herrings) with intrinsic rights?

And, if that is true, how do you propose to balance the 'intrinsic right' of the animal with the person's right to property.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:06:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a point you've failed to address many times (6.00 / 2)

is that we often regulate how people can use their personal property.  this is the weakness in your "dogs are chattel" approach.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:14:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look (0.00 / 0)

Then, you plainly don't understand of my argument.

My position:

1: Making illegal the racing of Greyhounds is more than regulation.  It is, in substance, the elimination of a person's property: his "license" to conduct his business.  Get it?  I could care less whether the dog is or is not property to you.  

i.e. regulating guns is limiting them to certain people and certain place; contrast with a gun ban.

2: The State has every right to do take away the Racing License. I DO NOT disagree with this.  The State has the right to regulate property.  It has the right to regulate marriage.  It has the right to regulate guns, and speech and political contributions, and so on....

3: It is my opinion, that IF the state takes away an individual's property (The license, and NOT the dog. I'm not talking about the dog.), then the State should appropriately compensate the individual for the property it has in effect taken.  

That is, if the state thinks it so very important that Greyhounds should be protected, then the individual should be or reimbursed for the loss that individual has suffered at the hands of the state. The collective should pay the dollar price of its choice.  Always.

And lastly, and not part of my argument, I reply to this and other threads, mainly because I am apalled that those of you who spoke so zealously about the State denying you a 'right to marriage' have no sympathy or empathy with those who feel strongly about an individual's property right:  "it's just a business", "...the owner can turn the track into condos", "...it's only a few hundred jobs."

I would have thought that those who spoke so passionately about a right important to them, could empathize about a right important to others.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:29:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a right to a license? (0.00 / 0)

you are saying that the license is the property of the dog owner.  but i'm not sure that's true.  no one has an intrinsic right to a license, do they?  if arlington goes dry again, can the restaurants with liquor licenses demand compensation for the lost sales of liquor?  i doubt it.  i would appreciate it if you would link to examples in massachusetts where former license holders were compensated when the license was revoked due to change of law.

and i take you at your word that all along, you've been talking about the license being the property, not the dog.  but your previous comments really don't reflect that.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:35:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A cite (0.00 / 0)

A cite, is quite possibly not available, but I assure you that if the State decided to put a road through the middle of a liquor store, it would pay the owner for the value of his building including his liquor license.

The Brief submitted to the SJC on behalf of the Greyhound track owner makes a detail analysis of this argument, with reference to Liquor licenses as property and the effect of this referendum as a property taking.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

uh huh (0.00 / 0)

well then let us know how that turns out.  if the court agrees that the license is property to be compensatede, i will relent.  unless/until, it sounds like a desperate kitchen sink attempt to me.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:52:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Private Property (6.00 / 2)

And the Attorney General refutes this argument in her brief.

Thus a license to conduct dog racing involving gambling is not "private property." It reflects a narrow, heavily-regulated exception to the longstanding common law and statutory prohibitions on gambling on animal races. It is always subject to the condition that such racing may again be prohibited by law.

---

by: Carey Theil @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:59:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dogs have feelilngs, can feel pain, recognize their family members (6.00 / 2)

So albeit "before the law" dogs are chattels, need I remind you that at one time some members of our own species were also treated as "chattels".

There are also laws on the books against animal cruelty, I might add, for this reason.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:27:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yet we still raise animals to slaughter them (0.00 / 0)

The same can be said of many "livestock." Sheep, cows, lamb (I've never heard anybody say the same about chicken or turkey.)  Yet society still finds it perfectly acceptable to raise these animals until it is time to kill and eat them.

I'm a vegetarian but I'm not a PETA person. For the most part I don't really have a problem with eating meat as long as the animal is treated while alive and then killed in appropriate fashion.

That last part, in appropriate fashion, is the problem with dog racing. The dogs are not treated appropriately and as far as I can tell there is no way to race dogs appropriately for sport.  

---

by: Political Inaction @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 16:22:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, to ask the obvious question in response, (6.00 / 3)

what is the basis of bans against dog fighting?  If dogs are property that the owner is free to treat and dispose of as he or she will, why not dispose of them by having them fight each other to the death?  Some people enjoy it; some people make money off it; folks who don't like it don't need to come, just like folks who don't like monster truck rallies needn't show up there either.

I cannot see any rational basis for banning dog fighting other than that it is cruel to the dogs.  And if that is so, then the dogs must have some intrinsic right not be treated cruelly.

So yes, I disagree with your basic premise.  Most laws that restrict what I may do with my property exist because some things that I do may adversely affect other humans (nuisance laws, zoning, etc.).  But animal cruelty laws do not fall into that category.  Same with endangered species laws, much reviled by the property-über-alles crowd.  I just can't square those laws with the view that animals are nothing more than another species of property.  They seem to require as a premise that non-human animals (and even plants, in some cases) at least have the right to exist (i.e., not be driven to extinction), and in the case of animals, not be treated cruelly.

And, to answer your question,

how do you propose to balance the 'intrinsic right' of the animal with the person's right to property.

That's easy.  We'll do it the same way we conduct similar balancing in other areas.  The legislature (or, in this case, the people acting in their legislative capacity via the initiative) will weigh the options and make a choice.  Rights like these get balanced all the time -- that's the nature of regulation, no?

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:02:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And lest anyone get the idea (0.00 / 0)

that I'm some kooky plant-rights activist, let me clarify something on the endangered species point: it's quite easy to make a case that endangered species laws benefits humans by preserving a diverse ecosystem, etc.  In fact, most would probably justify them that way, rather than the more controversial rights-based approach suggested above.  But I think it's much harder to make an analogous case for animal cruelty laws.

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:42:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Animal cruelty laws (0.00 / 0)

David, it seems to me that the soundest rationale for laws against animal cruelty is like the rationale for laws against desecration of a corpse. Surely the corpse does not have rights in any usual sense of the word. But desecration of a corpse can injure the dead person's family; and in any case, we think the kind of person who would desecrate a corpse is worthy of censure and punishment.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 16:17:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't agree, Ted. (0.00 / 0)

desecration of a corpse can injure the dead person's family

Yes - that's a perfectly good justification for such a law.  Same thing with trees on my property - I can do whatever I want with them until my actions start affecting my neighbors.  But surely, the same cannot be said of animal cruelty laws - after all, the injured dog's "family" consists of other dogs.  So I don't buy that analogy.  It's easy to justify corpse desecration laws in the terms you suggest, but not so for animal cruelty laws, where there is no human who is directly affected in an analogous way.

in any case, we think the kind of person who would desecrate a corpse is worthy of censure and punishment.

But surely, that is an impossibly vague and fuzzy-headed standard (to quote your comment downthread).  Who is "we"?  What is it, exactly, that makes that "kind" of person "worthy" of punishment?  And what would be the analogous rationale with respect to animal cruelty?  At bottom, it must be because you think it is "wrong" to be cruel to animals -- which seems necessarily to imply that animals are have some intrinsic right not be mistreated.  Just because they can't walk into court and enforce it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, IMHO.

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:30:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

David (0.00 / 0)

At bottom, it must be because you think it is "wrong" to be cruel to animals -- which seems necessarily to imply that animals are have some intrinsic right not be mistreated.

I think it's wrong to cut down a beautiful old tree without a good reason, or to deface a gravestone, but that doesn't mean trees or gravestones have rights. And I don't have this opinion because of a concern for the owner's right--I think the owner of a beautiful old tree who cuts it down without a good reason acts wrongly. Something can be wrong for me even though no one (human or animal, inanimate or inanimate) has a corresponding "right."

But surely, the same cannot be said of animal cruelty laws - after all, the injured dog's "family" consists of other dogs.

Well, no. I think it's fair to say that a person and an animal can have a close enough relationship that harm to the animal is harm to the person. By the same token, a person and an animal can have a close enough relationship that it becomes ethically wrong for the person to harm the animal in ways that would otherwise be permissible.

There is a sophisticated case to be made that at least some non-human animals have rights. My point was that if you don't buy that case, you can justify laws protecting animals on other grounds

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:34:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dig a little deeper. (0.00 / 0)

I think it's wrong to cut down a beautiful old tree without a good reason, or to deface a gravestone, but that doesn't mean trees or gravestones have rights.

What is the basis of your thinking that it's "wrong"?  I mean, really, who cares?  You're not causing the tree or the gravestone any pain.

By the same token, a person and an animal can have a close enough relationship that it becomes ethically wrong for the person to harm the animal in ways that would otherwise be permissible.

That is an argument why you shouldn't harm my dog.  But I don't see how it's an argument that you shouldn't treat your own dog badly.  Let's posit that no other person in the world has any sort of "relationship" with your dog, and that you would find it pleasurable for your dog to participate in dog fighting.  Yet the state still bans it.  Why?

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:54:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aha! (0.00 / 0)

What is the basis of your thinking that it's "wrong"?  I mean, really, who cares?  You're not causing the tree or the gravestone any pain.

Let's posit that no other person in the world has any sort of "relationship" with your dog, and that you would find it pleasurable for your dog to participate in dog fighting.  Yet the state still bans it.  Why?

My goodness, David, you come across here as a utilitarian! I think you think that the goodness or badness of an action depends on whether it causes pain or pleasure. When I said earlier that I thought there was a sophisticated case for animal rights, I had the utilitarian case in mind. If pain and pleasure are what matter, then we ought to take into account the pain and pleasure that animals feel. Fair enough. If you're a thoroughgoing utilitarian, you can hold that view. Not much room there for a theory of human virtues or flourishing there, though. I think that justification of my own view, which on this topic is not really utilitarian, would be pretty involved, and since we both agree that we support the ballot question, not worth making in this thread.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:13:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Utilitarian is but one explanation (0.00 / 0)

I think it's possibly religious zeal.

The Massachusetts 17th century Body of Liberties included the phrase that no man shall exercise tyranny upon a brute creature (or some wording like that) and formed the early cornerstone for many of the animal cruelty laws.  The phrase was significantly lifted from the Old Testament, which (upon reflection I suppose is utilitarian).

With many particular law or movement -- abortion, gun control, gay marriage to name three -- there's a visceral reaction by zealots.  The basis for the zeal may be in strong religious tradition or else the fact that the particular movement will seriously impact their personal situation. Regardless, tolerance for those people directing affected zealots' moral values, is simply strangled.  

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:35:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I find that quite amusing (0.00 / 0)

for reasons upon which I do not choose to elaborate ...

---

by: David @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What (0.00 / 0)

A atheist rejects all teachings of the Old Testament?  Maybe is even a zealot with regards to some of them.

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:09:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about being an atheist? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I did (0.00 / 0)

I just typed it.  Up one comment.

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you are an atheist? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:04:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure and it reminds me of (0.00 / 0)

the dyslexic atheist:  There's no such thing as Dog

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:12:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting response! (0.00 / 0)

We'll have to hash this one out elsewhere, Ted.  Will look forward to it.

---

by: David @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:01:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

a dog = a football? (5.33 / 3)

look up these words:

living being

inanimate object

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:00:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

Can you even read?  Quote where I compared a dog to a football.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:32:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

you're basically asserting that dogs have no more rights than a football. They're both property, after all.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:36:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While true (0.00 / 0)

I never said it.  But that's correct, dogs do have no more rights than a football.  

Human owners however, have more obligations with respect to their dog than they have to a football via certain animal cruelty statutes.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:44:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but isn't that moralizing? (0.00 / 0)

Following the logical conclusion of what you've been arguing, I would think I should be free to decide to leave my dog in a kennel until it starves. So, are you saying that I actually have to feed her?

If I have to feed her, what else do I have to do? What else constitutes

more obligations with respect to their dog?

Do I have to let her outside a few times a day? Do I have to take her to the vet for regular check ups? Do I need pay for her to get regular shots? Do I need to make sure that severe hazards and dangers are out of the way - like, should I pick up the rat poisoning, or something? Should I not subject her to races in which there's a fairly significant chance she could become severely hurt or even die? Where does one draw the line, now that you've conceded the necessity to "moralize."  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:49:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your property; your morals (3.00 / 2)

Who am I to tell you how to behave

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:52:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you need to answer the question (6.00 / 1)

You just told me that I actually have to feed my dog! I have 'more obligations' toward my dog than my football. So, pray, tell, why should we have statutes that force me to feed my dog, but not statutes that would prevent us from forcing dogs into activities which have high rates of being cruel and dangerous to them, from breaking bones to death.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:56:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

Can any of you read?

Please quote where I said you had to feed your dog.

I said, you had obligations, because someone passed a statute re: cruelty to animals.  This is a fact.  Not an opinion. You have legal obligations that exist in this State.

What does that statute mean?  I have no idea, and, I'm not your attorney, unless you pay me money.

But, for my dime, I have no interest in imposing my morals, or telling you what to do or not do to your dog, if it doesn't affect me.

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:02:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay. (0.00 / 0)

Please quote where I said you had to feed your dog.

I said, you had obligations, because someone passed a statute re: cruelty to animals.  This is a fact.

Really, Gary, you're making this too easy.

So, I have to feed my dog, because it would be inhumane otherwise. Is it not such a leap to go from there to banning large-scale inhumane activities toward dogs, such as racing? You may not personally think they deserve such warm regard, being no better than a leather ball, but there's at least some precedent for legislatively moralizing how we treat our animals, no?

You can feel free to vote no, but I'd like you to stop pretending as if there's no difference between a dog and a football because, as you yourself have pointed out, we have 'certain obligations' toward our dogs. I, along with hundreds of thousands of other people in this state, just think we should extend them.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 18:08:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sure, right here (6.00 / 1)

http://bluemassgroup.com/showC...

allong with your upthread comment about footballers.

seriously, can you try to not be deceptive for a moment?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:37:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Total NONSENSE. Ban greyhounds? (0.00 / 0)

Let's see, where is the LOGIC in this mean spirited political attack on people who are "different", and dogs who are different, being pushed by those who don't understand? BAN them!!!

The non greyhound folks claim "Too many injuries" because greyhounds run on custom made tracks, on a smooth sandy surface that is manicured daily for their little feet. Hmmm. Well, what is the alternative?

OK, so... Take the same group of 500+ greyhounds and run them on "pet dog" parks and ball fields full of holes, rocks, and clumps of weeds??? Great idea! I'll BET they would have LESS injuries.

Or MAYBE the real aim here is "Ban greyhounds from running." Sure that's real nice... Chain them up and never allow these animals, whose greatest desire revolves around chasing and running 35 mph,... to race. That's compassionate (?) So says the "Humane" Society!

Come on. I want to see FACTS, statistics. How many "pet" greyhounds running on a NON- professional "greyhound track" suffer injuries. OH, these figures are taken entirely out of ANY relevant context, you say? Just like the entire Orwellian double-speak "Protect Dogs" measure? Uh-huh.

Then there's the whole insanity about "It's CRUEL to keep them in a Kennel 20 HOURS a DAY!!" At the same time suggesting they shouldn't be allowed the activity they love ... racing.

Sure, keep them inside a house, 22 HOURS a day except for a daily walk with a chain around their neck. Like your typical pet owners do. Real nice.

Yeah, who cares about these greyhounds. They don't need to run anyway. Fatten them up, and turn them into Labradors. How dare they desire to race!!! This is 1984. We will FORCE you to "Protect Dogs". WE are the "HUMANE" Society and WE know better!!! :(  

---

by: Digdog @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 22:10:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Curious (0.00 / 0)

I'm curious Digdog, do you happen to have any financial interest in this issue?

---

by: Carey Theil @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:06:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

they're just property (6.00 / 1)

throw 'em in the dumpster.  / snark off /

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:44:52 PM CDT

Dogs or NFL players? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:47:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

were you that kid (0.00 / 0)

who liked pulling the wings off of flies?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:01:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Were you that kid (0.00 / 0)

in school who made irrelevant and ad hominen replies to otherwise substantive topics?

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:31:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it is a valid question. (6.00 / 1)

since you are equating footballs with dogs, i wondered if you have a history of disrespect other non-human life.  of course you don't have to answer the question.

but i will answer your question.  i was the kid who liked finding weaknesses and inconsistencies in the faulty reasoning of schoolyard blowhards.  then as now, i enjoyed pointing them out.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:40:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Laurel (0.00 / 0)

I'm in favor of the ballot question to ban dog racing, I grew up with dogs, I abhor cruelty to animals and support laws banning cruelty to animals. But I've got to say that I'm amazed by your tone on this thread. Until very, very recently, the idea that non-human animals have "rights" was radical. Today, of course, there is a pretty well developed argument for "animal rights" (Peter Singer et al.), particularly with regard to chimpanzees and gorillas, but certainly some other mammals too. But still, I think if you are going to go on the warpath about dogs and footballs, you need to justify your view. I mean, legally speaking dogs are chattels. And legally speaking, they have no rights.

When I was clerking for a trial judge, I remember reviewing a complaint that had just been filed. The complaint alleged police brutality. The named defendants were Officer X, Officer Y, and "Lt. Bars." Who, I wondered, was Lt. Bars? Neither the judge nor I could figure it out. Then it dawned on us. Lt. Bars was the police dog. The judge dismissed the complaint as to Lt. Bars on the grounds that a dog can't sue or be sued. Would you disagree? And if so, what does it mean to you to say that a dog has rights?

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:59:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

please let me know (6.00 / 1)

how you read my tone.  then i can reply more effectively.

"war path"?  i am arguing points.  when you argue points, are you on the war path too?

it was gary who inferred that dogs were the equivalent of footballs with his crass reference to NFL injuries.  i just pointed out the assumption behind his reasoning with that comment.

as long as i have been alive (almost 50 yrs!), i have heard people speak of the intrinsic rights of animals, and dismay that the law does not recognize them.  this is not some freaky newfangled notion.  just because the law doesn't recognize rights doesn't mean that people don't believe they exist.  the fact that this initiative has come so far reflects the common sentiment that animals do have certain rights as living things (the right not to be tortured, for example), and that the law needs to begin reflecting that.

i heard last week or so that finland (or was it norway?) has just passed a law that if you attack a police dog, you are subject to the same penalties as attacking a human police officer.  wave of the future?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:09:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tone (6.00 / 1)

Well, since you ask, I had the following comments in mind, which seem to me to be ad hominem--they attack the messenger rather than the message:

were you that kid who liked pulling the wings off of flies?

since you are equating footballs with dogs, i wondered if you have a history of disrespect other non-human life.  of course you don't have to answer the question.

But I don't want to fight about your tone. It just seems to me that you are giving what Gary has to say short shrift. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. But he's not so clearly wrong as the tone of your comments (there I go again!) makes it appear.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 16:21:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you need to read more than this diary to understand. (0.00 / 0)

it is laughable that you say i gave gary short shrift.  on the contrary, i gave him plenty of quality shrift in a previous diary on the subject, to which he declined to substantively reply.  so when he started off this diary with a crass comment, i thought maybe he would respond better to a similarly toned reply.  i'm happy to see that he actually did eventually try to reply more directly to some of us in the present diary.  was it my tone?  perhaps!  perhaps not!

why, of all the posts on all of BMG, are you challenging the tone of my few posts in this diary?  i've never seen you be tone police around here before.  what gives?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 16:55:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

of all the gin joints... (0.00 / 0)

why, of all the posts on all of BMG, are you challenging the tone of my few posts in this diary?  i've never seen you be tone police around here before.  what gives?

Maybe I'm just particularly grumpy today! More substantively, animal rights is one of those issues that sometimes drives me nuts, not because I don't believe in protecting animal welfare, but because a lot of what I read about the issue seems well intentioned but fuzzy-headed. "Animal Rights Now!" sounds to me a bit like "Free Mumia!" (or more approprately for BMG, "Free Ben LaGuer!")

Clearly, there's some history between you and Gary that's not apparent on this thread and that I don't know anything about (I haven't followed the posts on this topic). So why not just ignore him? (I know that's hard to do--there are a couple of posters here who seem to draw me like a moth to a flame).

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:14:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

true, some posters are like flames to certain mothy readers (0.00 / 0)

but you do have some nerve suggesting to me who i should and shouldn't ignore, all because, as you say, you're a bit cranky today.  i hope you feel better soon.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:28:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Information on the Nine Broken Legs (6.00 / 3)

For more information, see the press release we put out this afternoon.

Also, you can look at the actual records themselves.

Finally, the ProDog website has even more information about the injuries dogs suffer.

---

by: Carey Theil @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 14:52:03 PM CDT

To know the significance of this number, one needs to know... (0.00 / 0)

How many dogs are there at the racetracks?
How many dogs are there in Massachusetts, excluding racetracks?
Of those, how many suffered broken legs in May?

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans" - Sen. John Kerry

---

by: Syarzhuk @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 16:20:18 PM CDT

not sure i buy that approach. (6.00 / 1)

does the trauma and pain of a single dog with a broken leg increase or diminish based on the number of other dogs who whave broken legs?  the answer being no, i can't see how proportional numbers are important.  and besides, it's not just the broken legs. it's the way the dogs are treated through their entire miserable chattled lives.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:00:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No decrease in the individual animal's pain... (0.00 / 0)

...but it would be innumerate to suggest that the fault was with dog racing, if the rate was not significantly higher in racing dogs when compared to non-racing dogs of the same breed.  And if racing is not responsible for an increase in broken limbs, the data on breaks can't be logically used to support the ban on racing.

---

by: Shane @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 19:16:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's been (0.00 / 0)

over 800 major injuries since 2002, Shane.

Nearly eighty percent of these injuries involved broken legs. Other reported injuries include paralysis, death from cardiac arrest and a broken neck.

http://www.protectdogs.org/rac...

The tracks each, apparently, require at least 1000 dogs to operate. I don't know how many more beyond 1000 there are, though given profits (using that word loosely) at the two tracks, I doubt very many.

Any way you slice it, that's a lot of dogs. Dogs don't get hurt like that when you take them for a walk around the block, that's for sure.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 19:23:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

minor correction (0.00 / 0)

1000 dogs each - at each track.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 19:24:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fair enough. but you still are ignoring (0.00 / 0)

1.  the data that is out there to answer your question, and
2.  the conditions the doge are forced to live under when they're not out on the track.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:54:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the conditions the doge are forced to live under... (0.00 / 0)

...either constitute cruelty to animals (and so are punishable under MGL Chapter 272 Section 77) or don't. In either case I don't see a reason to prohibit dog racing outright.

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans" - Sen. John Kerry

---

by: Syarzhuk @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's true only if (0.00 / 0)

you believe that regulations are always perfectly calibrated.  however, society is constantly learning more and readjusting regulation to keep up with our improved understanding.  perhaps the cruelty laws need revisiting, but just because they are not being broken doesn't mean cruelty isn't happening.

what i do find interesting though is your willingness to look away from the injury numbers provided in this diary.  they are substantial.  you started out asking whether the incidence of injury is greater in racing dogs than in non-racing dogs.  the answer is a resounding yes.  then you still go on to endorse racing?  is there some reason why that criterion no longer is meaningful to you?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Not prohibiting" is not "endorsing" (5.00 / 1)

" perhaps the cruelty laws need revisiting, but just because they are not being broken doesn't mean cruelty isn't happening"
If the law that defines cruelty is not broken than the cruelty is not happening. I don't see anything wrong with the law. There might be problems with the way it is applied (or, more likely, not applied when it should be). In this case, we should be fixing the law/application of it, and not creating new laws or banning the activity outright. However, my feeling is banning is easier to do rather than going after each individual case, so that's the chosen cause of action.

"the answer is a resounding yes" - no one has provided the data to support it yet. I'm still waiting...

"then you still go on to endorse racing" - endorsing is not the same as "not prohibiting". I do not like smoking, dog racing, sport fan crowds on the T and many other things. However, while I wholeheartedly support the ban on smoking in restaurants, I am not advocating banning smoking outright. Same thing with dog racing - apparently there are people who enjoy it, and there are businesses who generate cash flow to the DOR. If there is evidence that what they do to dogs constitute cruelty, they need to be punished and forced to change their ways. But I don't feel I have the right to ban that activity outright.

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans" - Sen. John Kerry

---

by: Syarzhuk @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:08:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a ton more info (6.00 / 1)

linked from this post.  I suggest you start there.

---

by: David @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:21:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dog racing is reprehensible. (6.00 / 1)

I have an idea:  why don't we just eschew the racing altogether and just simply toss the dogs to the lions?  Gaaa.  

 

---

by: lightiris @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 20:36:39 PM CDT

Strawmen dropping like flies (0.00 / 0)

Let's see, I must have torn wings off flies.  Actually never did, and it's irrelevant to the argument.

Footballs are the same as dogs.  Actually footballs are referred to more often as pigskins, not dogskins.  Regardless, I never made such comparisons even though any 1st year law student knows animals, under the law, are property.  Again, irrelevant to my argument.

"...let me know how that turns out," is the comment from a legal expert, to a brief submitted to the SJC with respect to the argument that the Racing License is the property subject to taking.  BTW, here's how that will play out.  The SJC will wait until the election, and when the Greyhound racing ban doesn't pass it will rule the appeal moot.

Dogs aren't property, they have rights too, feel pain, have a god dog.  Whatever ... again irrelevant.  Your opinion about dogs isn't relevant to the fact that passage of the amendment would amount to people being deprived of a business and of jobs.  But, vent away.

Dog fighting is bad.  Ok.

"Your property, your morals", merits a wild flurry of empassioned '3s'.  Ok, your property, OUR morals.  That seems to present the argument very well.  I understand completely your position, and welcome my Progressive Overlords.

"you're saying I have to feed my dog."  No, I'm saying I wish you'd feed your dog (and leave your computer alone). Actually, whether you feed your dog or not is simply none of my business, and I won't presume to say it, nor did I, you wild strawfighter you.

And last, let's toss the dogs to the lions.  I'm speechless, other than to say, let's not?

---

by: gary @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:57:42 PM CDT

oh well, then why didn't you say so in the first place? (6.00 / 1)

now you got me all convinced that you've got, well, something to say about some various things.  or something.  anyways, don't forget to vote!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a little refresher (0.00 / 0)

I never made such comparisons

But that's correct, dogs do have no more rights than a football.  

Seriously, this is too easy.

Same old, hashed-out, defeated arguments... Gary.

Your opinion about dogs isn't relevant to the fact that passage of the amendment would amount to people being deprived of a business and of jobs.

Come back with something fresh. The Government does this all the time, it's perfectly legal. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean the government - you know, we, the people - can't do it. If you have problems with that, as I've said before, feel free to lobby to change the constitution, enshrining the right you apparently hold above all others, sacred or something.

"you're saying I have to feed my dog."  No, I'm saying I wish you'd feed your dog

and, again, with the backtracking.

I said, you had obligations, because someone passed a statute re: cruelty to animals.  This is a fact.

You know, my friend raves about this. You should try it out!


---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:18:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lets close that dog racing loophole! (0.00 / 0)

   I never made such comparisons

   But that's correct, dogs do have no more rights than a football.  

Seriously, this is too easy.

Same old, hashed-out, defeated arguments... Gary.

You are almost stunningly obtuse on this point.  Gary has made the point over and over again that, as a technical legal matter, dogs are mere chattels and have no rights.  Are you disputing that?  Can you cite any statute, case, or any other source of law that actually grants rights to dogs or bans a particular treatment of dogs because those dogs have rights?

Do you support the ban on greyhound racing because you want dogs to have rights?  You seem to be going down this road with some of your comments regarding lack of consent by the dogs.  But I'm not sure if you totally support this position or you are just using it to support your arguments.  So is this ban on greyhound racing just the first step in a Dogs' Bill of Rights?

It seems to me that supporting the ban means that you feel that a majority of voters can impose its moral views on MA as a whole on matters that do not concern them.  If a majority of people in a state feel something is morally wrong, than is it OK for them to impose that moral view on the rest of the state?

---

by: Power Wheels @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I even endorse this (0.00 / 0)

If a majority of people in a state feel something is morally wrong, then is it OK for them to impose that moral view on the rest of the state?

I endorse this.  If a majority of people want to impose their morals then it's right and democratic to do.  

But for God's sake, reimburse the guy--the individual-- whose life your moral decision is impacting.    

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well at the very least (0.00 / 0)

those guys will have health insurance and extended unemployment coverage after they are fired by referendum, right?

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:25:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gary (0.00 / 0)

Every decision impacts prices and values in some way. We can't  endorse people for everything. I'd be willing to help people who lost their jobs get back on their feet. I'd give the tracks a little notice before they had to shut down, so they could make arrangements to sell the places. And, anyway, what value does a place like Wonderland's license have if they're bringing in a whopping 1.6 million in bets? We're doing them a favor, as far as I'm concerned. Wonderland's already stated publicly that they're going to close anyway,  unless the state gives in on Racinos... which ain't happen'n.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:16:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

err (0.00 / 0)

reimburse, not endorse. LOL.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PW (0.00 / 0)

He obviously made comments he tried to say he never said. Not even Gary tried to defend that hiccup.

Gary has made the point over and over again that, as a technical legal matter, dogs are mere chattels and have no rights.  Are you disputing that?

Yes. I am. They have both legal rights and intrinsic rights which aren't recognized - government just hasn't caught up with them, yet. However, government has recognized that dogs have some rights, no matter how often you and Gary want to stamp your feet in the ground and throw a temper tantrum, because you don't agree they should.

As I've already made the point, government has said my dogs have a right to be fed; I actually have to feed them. I can't just say, "Oh, I don't want my dogs any more, I'm going to let them starve," because that could end up with me going to jail. My dogs also have the right to be protected from me treating them cruelly: I can't beat them, throw them off the balcony, lock them up days at a time, etc. Those rights, whether you like them or not, exist.  

Do you support the ban on greyhound racing because you want dogs to have rights? .... So is this ban on greyhound racing just the first step in a Dogs' Bill of Rights?

No, I support the ban because I think those rights already exist - except, the Government just hasn't caught up with them yet. We don't need any big, fancy Dog Bill of Rights. But they do deserve minimum protection, including the freedom from intentional cruelty, the promise of food and water and to be protected from the elements. Basically, a freedom to live without a purposeful harm. That too much to ask?

It seems to me that supporting the ban means that you feel that a majority of voters can impose its moral views on MA as a whole on matters that do not concern them.

In fact, it can. That doesn't mean I think it should, every time, but it can. Massachusetts can't impose its morals on me if that invades my rights, of course, but if Massachusetts wanted to say that I had to feed my dog food the caliber of what I, myself, eat, then I guess I'd have to do it. That doesn't mean Massachusetts could suddenly rob me of my right to marriage, or freedom of speech or freedom of religion, because those rights are constitutionally protected, but anything that's not is fair game. As I've said repeatedly on this thread - if Gary (and you) don't like the system, feel free to start your legislative movement to change it.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:33:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That seems incorrect (5.00 / 2)

They have both legal rights and intrinsic rights which aren't recognized - government just hasn't caught up with them, yet. However, government has recognized that dogs have some rights, no matter how often you and Gary want to stamp your feet in the ground and throw a temper tantrum, because you don't agree they should.

I'm pretty sure that no court in the US has ever concluded a dog has rights.

Rather, I think, with respect to dogs, cats...you may, according to statute have obligations with respect to your property.

For example, I must annually submit my car for an inspection.  The car doesn't have the right to be inspected.  Rather, I have the obligation to undertake the inspection.

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 14:16:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do we (0.00 / 0)

have car inspections? Because cars are dangerous machinery which can kill people. We don't have inspections because car have rights, we have inspections because people have a right to the safest roads possible.

Dogs, on the other hand, are living creatures. Whether or not my dogs eats isn't going to effect you, my neighbors or anyone but me. However, we still have laws 'obligating' me to feed them. Why? Because we, as a people, have decided dogs have a right to be treated with certain respect as living creatures.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:12:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A long slippery slope (0.00 / 0)

This is a bit Peter Singerish for me.

It is nearly impossible to argue that the animal has rights:  it does not even have the right to exist.  People with ill-trained pets get fed up and put them down.  Some may abhor this, but we don't prosecute it, so long as they did it humanely at the vet.  The person who owns it gets to make that call.  Many/most of us eat animals, and human society has for a very long time, without compunction.

I susepct that the rationale for prohibiting animal cruelty has more to do with what we think it does to the person being cruel rather than because the animal has rights.  To the extent that this concern is implicated by dog racing, we have some nice anti-cruelty laws right there in the MGL, and we need not even wait until November to enforce them.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:59:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the key phrase (0.00 / 0)

so long as they did it humanely at the vet.

Indeed, thar be rights even when we put em down.

We can debate when, and if, animals should be allowed to be put down, but obviously society hasn't gotten quite there yet irregardless. But we have gotten to the point where, if we are going to put an animal down, it has to be as safe and painless as possible, done by a paid professional. Again, I can't just let my dog starve.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 16:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Irregardless (0.00 / 0)

You have every right to use the word irregardless, but it's just so wrong.

I'm just not so sure the history of animal cruelty statutes has its basis in the animal having 'rights'.  Once again, I don't think there's a single US court that has concluded an animal actually has rights.

You say you can't let your animal starve.  Is that because the animal has rights?  Or, is it because the State concluded that starving or abused animals were unhealthy or dangerous or offensive to the community, much the same as an unhealthy automobile.

Of course you can disprove my hypothesis by producing one court case.

---

by: gary @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 16:27:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gary, (0.00 / 0)

I'm not an lawyer, so really my ability to weigh in on judicial politics is limited to the knowledge I gained in about one class.

I don't know what the courts would think on the matter, but I can wage a guess on the source (which, surprisingly enough, isn't the courts). I'd be reasonably confident to guess that a great many legislators who enacted these laws did so because they thought animals were entitled to certain rights and privileges, because they were living creatures. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a great many of their voting constituents agreed with them and were happy for those decisions. There was a reason these laws are enacted - and that's because the people of this great union think animals have rights and want to see them protected, which is exactly what's happened in the past and may very well happen later this year.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:31:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the right to exist (0.00 / 0)

some people don't have that right either, if they commit certain crimes in the USA and other death penalty countries.  interesting to ponder, isn't it?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 22:39:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sadly, not in Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)

At least we do our best to keep them confined in the General Court, though.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 16:55:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ryepower12... (0.00 / 0)

government has recognized that dogs have some rights, no matter how often you and Gary want to stamp your feet in the ground and throw a temper tantrum, because you don't agree they should

I'm not sure where I threw a temper tantrum.  I love dogs, I've owned several throughout my life, I've always taken excellent care of them, and I hate to see any dog treated cruelly.  The dog-loving part of me is very sympathetic to this ballot initiative.  But the dog-loving part of me hasn't convinced the libertarian-leaning part of me that this is a proper action for government to take.

government has said my dogs have a right to be fed; I actually have to feed them. I can't just say, "Oh, I don't want my dogs any more, I'm going to let them starve," because that could end up with me going to jail. My dogs also have the right to be protected from me treating them cruelly: I can't beat them, throw them off the balcony, lock them up days at a time, etc. Those rights, whether you like them or not, exist.

Are these really rights that a dog has or merely prohibitions or duties imposed on humans?  If there is a law saying that I can't cross a street at a certain spot, then does the street have a right not to be walked on?  Can you cite to any legal authority at all that supports your position?

Massachusetts can't impose its morals on me if that invades my rights, of course...That doesn't mean Massachusetts could suddenly rob me of my right to marriage, or freedom of speech or freedom of religion, because those rights are constitutionally protected, but anything that's not is fair game.

So you really don't recognize a license to operate a dog track as property?  Or do you not recognize a right to property in the Constitution?  And the right to marry is not, to my knowledge, constitutionally protected.  A state could get rid of civil marriage all together if it were so inclined.  But if a state does choose to have marriage then it cannot discriminate on who gets to be married without a rational basis.

---

by: Power Wheels @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 18:34:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what's the difference? (0.00 / 0)

In this country, I can speak almost completely freely. I can also get unemployment benefits if I've been laid off. One of those rights comes from the constitution, the other through the legislative branch. You can argue meaningless rhetoric till the fat lady sings, but until the current situation I have a right to both. Under the current situation, no matter where the right comes from, my dogs have the "right" to be fed, protected from the elements and be free from animal cruelty. I don't need any legal citations, that's the way things work in America and that's what the definition of "right" means: a legal claim, among other things. Dogs have the legal claim to be fed and guaranteed other protections - those are their rights, as currently defined. In the case of Greyhounds, I hope they're expanded.

So you really don't recognize a license to operate a dog track as property?  

Sure, it's their property, but Americans don't have the right to do anything they want with their property - not now, not ever. Get over yourself.

A state could get rid of civil marriage all together if it were so inclined.

Of course it does, so long as it treats everyone equally, because equal protection is a constitutional protection. So that's why we have marriage for all, but I suppose the legislature could have chosen marriage for anyone. Unlike you, I'm not afraid of this little thing we call "Democracy." You should try it sometime.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:45:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

corrections (0.00 / 0)

Of course it does could, so long as it treats everyone equally, because equal protection is a constitutional protection. So that's why we have marriage for all, but I suppose the legislature could have chosen marriage for anyone no one.

You can argue meaningless rhetoric till the fat lady sings, but until the current situation changes I have a right to both.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:49:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you know what a legal claim is? (5.00 / 1)

Dogs have the legal claim to be fed and guaranteed other protections - those are their rights, as currently defined.

You may want to consult a law dictionary, as opposed to a general dictionary.  A dog cannot make a legal claim.  A dog cannot be the beneficiary of an enforceable trust.  And, to the best of my knowledge, another person cannot make a claim on a dog's behalf.

Under United States law, dogs are chattels and have no rights.  Unless you can point to actual legal authority then your statements are meaningless.

I don't need any legal citations, that's the way things work in America

Oh, I see.  A completely baseless assertion because "that's the way things work in America."  I guess I can't really compete with that.

---

by: Power Wheels @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 17:55:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

whatever (0.00 / 0)

a dog must be fed, legal claim or otherwise. You can argue about semantics all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that - in this case - you've utterly failed to argue your point well.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 22:48:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing is... (0.00 / 0)

when you make a statement like "a dog has rights" then you need to back that up with some type of support.  You continue to make that claim.  What you need to do is either admit you were wrong or go find some evidence that you're right.  Making the statement that "thats just the way things are in America" and dismissing calls to back up your incorrect point as "just semantics" do not support your argument.

you've utterly failed to argue your point well.

Continuing to argue the same point without providing any support and dismissing all calls to provide support is the very definition of failing to argue a point well.

Once again, I don't know of any legal precedent that exists outside the brain of Ryepower that concludes that a dog has legal rights.  Can you point to any?

---

by: Power Wheels @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 21:52:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]