Fwd: Re: Why do we treat stray animals better than stray

Theodore Latham (tedrico@hotmail.com)
Sun, 17 May 1998 14:33:05 PDT


>From liberty@vaxxine.com Sun May 17 13:55:12 1998
>Received: from jfvtitmk.niagara.com (ppp162.st-cath.niagara.net 
[198.53.148.181])
>	by alpha.vaxxine.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA14295;
>	Sun, 17 May 1998 16:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980517165754.007de8a0@vaxxine.com>
>X-Sender: liberty@vaxxine.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:57:54 -0400
>To: "Theodore Latham" <tedrico@hotmail.com>
>From: Liberty <liberty@vaxxine.com>
>Subject: Re: Why do we treat stray animals better than stray humans?
>   (Tedrico Selected Topic)
>Cc: wmkm@dallas.net, mccarty@teleport.com, s248_1132@hotmail.com,
>        liberty@vaxxine.com, hpu@rocketmail.com, CutiePie95@aol.com,
>        daniC541@aol.com, rickkoca@earthlink.net, anitra@speakeasy.org,
>        arose@macromedia.com, techbear@no_spam.serv.net
>In-Reply-To: <19980513192109.6123.qmail@hotmail.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>At 12:21 PM 13/05/1998 PDT, techbear@no_spam.serv.net wrote:
>
>Hey guys, another piss-ass libertarian argument that will probably 
cause
>some of you to make your hair curl, but come on guys, this makes sense!
>
><snip>
>>Every human being has an intrinsic worth as a human being. That is the
>>fundamental concept of philosophies as diverse as the pro-life 
movement, 
>>the peace movement, and the movement to abolish the death penalty.
>
>No, I view the fundamental issue is that people have a right to self-
>determination.  In the pro-life movement, I could understand why 
someone
>would want to place a value on the life of an unborn infant, who has 
not
>yet been born, thus giving him or her the right to be born.  However,
>usually, the radical pro-lifers have not been around after the unborn 
baby
>has been born, thus one can say, life begins at conception and ends at 
birth.
>
>I tend to support abolition of the death penalty, simply because it is 
not
>evenly applied.  If you are going to use a form of punishment, this 
same
>tool must apply to all people that commit the same crimes, not just 
those
>the state sees as "more deserving" as such.  This also opens the door 
to
>lots of other debates, such as whether somebody who committed a crime 
in
>the throes of "mental illness" should be convicted (i.e. I say they 
should
>be convicted, if it is proven they committed the crime - no special 
rules
>should apply).  Capital punishment seems to be the tool of preference 
for
>poor, black males who have committed murder, presumably against a 
police
>officer - again, killing a cop to me, is like killing anybody else, why
>should the rules differ at all?  A murderer is a murderer is a 
murderer.  If
>capital punishment were the rule, then everybody who commits the same 
crime
>should get the noose, per se.  Because this is not evenly applied, 
therefore,
>I believe it should not apply to anybody.  At least, with life in 
prison,
>we can reverse any mistakes we might make in convicting an innocent 
person.
>
><snip>
>>That worth requires that we help people in need.
>
>The difficulty is that the term "people in need" varies so much between 
>person to person, that it has become literally meaningless as a 
substance
>of public policy.  Because of this, it is up to each person to help who
>THEY think is most in need, not to make ME pay for helping someone who 
I
>may not view as being as needy as perhaps, someone else.
>
><snip>
>>Please note well: I am not endorsing a 'free-ride' or government dole 
for 
>>anyone who wants one. I am saying that many of the people living on 
the 
>
>Of course, you are.  "People in need", which according to liberal left,
>includes anybody that does not have the capacity to purchase for 
themselves,
>everything they want, let alone everything they need.  But, then again, 
I,
>who has been there, do not want the government to tell ME what I need, 
>instead of allowing me to determine this for myself.
>
><snip>
>>streets just need the opportunity to get back on track;
>
>Definitely, a hand-up, as opposed to a hand-out, is better anyday.
>
><snip>
>>many more need a place because they are simply unable to care for
>themselves. 
>
>As determined by whom?  You?  The homeless advocates?  A psychiatrist?  
>When we start making a distinction between those who are "unable to 
care 
>for themselves", and "those are able to care for themselves but are 
living 
>on the streets as an alternative lifestyle", one needs to ask 
themselves, 
>who is going to make this determination?  Who is going to determine 
that
>Jack, is just a moocher, while John, for example, is somebody that 
cannot
>care for himself.  It would appear by the context in which this is 
described
>that it would be somebody other than Jack or John, who would make this
>determination, and yes - this is exactly what people with mental health
>problems can do WITHOUT - somebody else making this decision for them!  
And,
>even when it is found, by whoever's Holy water, that this person indeed 
>cannot care for themselves, who are WE to impose our own solutions on 
them?
>
><snip>
>>Why do we treat stray animals better than we treat stray humans?
>
>The last I heard is that most stray animals are herded to the humane 
>societies, and if not "claimed" by anybody within a certain number of 
days,
>these animals are sold for adoption (ownership) or euthanized after a 
given
>period of time.  Is that really better than how we treat "stray 
humans"?
>Should we start selling "stray humans" for adoption by new pet owners?  
Do
>any of us want to be "owned" by anyone?  Or threatened with 
extermination,
>if we refuse to be enslaved by someone else?  Come on, guys, this 
argument
>does not hold water, and you know it ;-)
>
>Liberty (Lillian)
>- liberty@vaxxine.com
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com