Quote:
Rhinoqulous wrote
I never said they were members of society. Yet they are still a large part of society (just look at the dollars spent every year in America on pets) and play integral roles in society (as favored property).
|
Both of those facts can apply (more so!) to houses, so either you think we need house-protection laws or these points are red herrings - immaterial to why you support said laws.
Quote:
|
Rhino wrote
I don't think it is a very complex argument, not that it needs to be. Causing extreme suffering to animals is considered by and large to be bad (in this society). Puppy mills cause extreme suffering to animals. Therefor there should be laws prohibiting puppy mills. (for example)
|
And we're (I'm trying not to speak for Stern here, but I think I know what he's getting at) saying that "I don't like it!" constitutes neither a rational argument nor a particularly compelling reason to interfere in peoples; lives against their will.
Quote:
|
Rhino wrote
I think I answered this above except maybe one more step, in that some states lack animal cruelty laws, so a possibly solution is to nationalize the laws to fix this). How about you provide an argument that would allow some states to allow animal torture?
|
1) Specific to the US, the Constitution probably wouldn't allow the government to infringe upon states' rights by enacting nationalized animal welfare laws. It would end up in the Supreme Court, and there's a decent chance it would lose, although its not guaranteed.
2) More broadly, the concept of federalism should apply. There's no obvious reason why this decision needs to be made at the national level - it isn't something that inherently affects people across state lines (e.g., Texas not having animal protection laws doesn't have any obvious impact on Illinois, for instance) or which states are incapable of legislating on their own (because most of them already have).
3) The absence of any kind of supporting, rational argument is sufficient in and of itself to reject legislation that forcibly interferes in peoples' lives against their will, especially at the federal level, where it's basically inescapable without leaving the country.