This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Abby Normal on 07 April 2013 - 06:04
HM - you are right. The KC are currently lobbying for the ban to extend across UK, but it hasn't been ratified yet. I'm dreaming again :) Many other European countries have already banned them. This is interesting though, from the rules of the WUSV Universal Championship 13-17 June 2012:
Rules of animals’ rights
The appropriate laws of Slovenia protecting animals are to be respected and obeyed.
It is against the law to possess and use electronic devices and prong collars.
Offences will result in disqualification.
by Prager on 07 April 2013 - 20:04
I tried to find term "ball" drive in scientific literature, hoping that it will be right next to a chicken drive, speeding car tire drive and cat drive,... but all in vain.
I am sorry could not help it.
Hudmutter: I fail to see really why anybody needs to use an e collar in a sports location,
any more than Hans does.
I do not use e collar but I am against banning it.
Prager Hans
I am sorry could not help it.
Hudmutter: I fail to see really why anybody needs to use an e collar in a sports location,
any more than Hans does.
I do not use e collar but I am against banning it.
Prager Hans
by Prager on 07 April 2013 - 20:04
Abby Normal:Hans liberty in itself is a huge debate. But let me say this, what is morally desirable is as you say often practically unworkable.
Now you are again putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I said that it is "practically unworkable". I have said that practically it is not so. It is workable, but people do not care, thus do not use such thinking in practice. Thus it is not so in real life. But that is wrong.
As I said : When we are talking about political and legal and personal decisions, we must put other people's Liberty and justice for them above anything else. That is the only moral way to go. Thus I personally would not be so nonchalant with other people's Liberty and Justice. It is absolutely immoral and wrong to pass laws which create victimless crimes, which punish people who do no wrong. That is totally unacceptable. The communism, Fascism, Nazism,....the worst evil in history came from thinking that minority must be ruled and subsequently subdued by majority.
By the way Liberty is pretty clear cut issue,.... to me anyway.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Government is here to uphold these truths and not to violate them.
Prager Hans
Now you are again putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I said that it is "practically unworkable". I have said that practically it is not so. It is workable, but people do not care, thus do not use such thinking in practice. Thus it is not so in real life. But that is wrong.
As I said : When we are talking about political and legal and personal decisions, we must put other people's Liberty and justice for them above anything else. That is the only moral way to go. Thus I personally would not be so nonchalant with other people's Liberty and Justice. It is absolutely immoral and wrong to pass laws which create victimless crimes, which punish people who do no wrong. That is totally unacceptable. The communism, Fascism, Nazism,....the worst evil in history came from thinking that minority must be ruled and subsequently subdued by majority.
By the way Liberty is pretty clear cut issue,.... to me anyway.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Government is here to uphold these truths and not to violate them.
Prager Hans
by Hundmutter on 08 April 2013 - 05:04
Wasn't that Declaration written BEFORE Emancipation ? And BEFORE
women got voting rights in America, too ? NOTHING is all that 'clear cut'
Hans ...
women got voting rights in America, too ? NOTHING is all that 'clear cut'
Hans ...
by Abby Normal on 08 April 2013 - 08:04
Hans I appear to keep putting my foot in my mouth, since I did not intend to put words in yours!
Let's get hypothetical. Liberty should allow me the freedom to indulge my preference for playing extraordinarily loud music at 4 am, because I am an insomniac and it pleases me to do so. That's OK? Ask my neighbours if it is OK. A kid in your town likes to bust up the town and generally create mayhem, because he enjoys it and he should have the liberty to indulge himself should he? Someone else loves to take potshots at the local dogs and cats. There is a law against them doing so.......why? Because liberty has to have some boundaries, otherwise you have a lawless society.
Therefore I have to disagree, it is not workable nor sensible to allow everyone complete liberty to do everything that they may wish to do. In the context that this thread is being discussed there is a victim, and it is the dog, or it is perceived to be so. Laws are established to maintain a status quo, and in that process some would say that liberty is restricted. In the UK we are not allowed to own guns. I may be a very responsible person who would not run amok with a gun, yet I am forbidden to own one. Personally, I am happy to forfeit my 'liberty' to own one, in order that those who would not act responsibly are restricted. But that's my personal view and clearly not yours. As I said, I think it's a very big question, and far from being as clear cut as you see it. Anyway that's my opinion FWIW.
Let's get hypothetical. Liberty should allow me the freedom to indulge my preference for playing extraordinarily loud music at 4 am, because I am an insomniac and it pleases me to do so. That's OK? Ask my neighbours if it is OK. A kid in your town likes to bust up the town and generally create mayhem, because he enjoys it and he should have the liberty to indulge himself should he? Someone else loves to take potshots at the local dogs and cats. There is a law against them doing so.......why? Because liberty has to have some boundaries, otherwise you have a lawless society.
Therefore I have to disagree, it is not workable nor sensible to allow everyone complete liberty to do everything that they may wish to do. In the context that this thread is being discussed there is a victim, and it is the dog, or it is perceived to be so. Laws are established to maintain a status quo, and in that process some would say that liberty is restricted. In the UK we are not allowed to own guns. I may be a very responsible person who would not run amok with a gun, yet I am forbidden to own one. Personally, I am happy to forfeit my 'liberty' to own one, in order that those who would not act responsibly are restricted. But that's my personal view and clearly not yours. As I said, I think it's a very big question, and far from being as clear cut as you see it. Anyway that's my opinion FWIW.
by Prager on 08 April 2013 - 12:04
Hundmutter
You are mixing truth with reality. In this case the truth is pretty clear cut. Reality never is because there are people whose selfish motives override the respect for Liberty.
Prager Hans
You are mixing truth with reality. In this case the truth is pretty clear cut. Reality never is because there are people whose selfish motives override the respect for Liberty.
Prager Hans
by Prager on 08 April 2013 - 13:04
Abby Normal
Society without legal boundaries? You are describing anarchy. No that is not what I am trying to describe. I am describing liberty. There is a difference. With liberty comes responsibility. Everybody's liberty ends where someone else's Liberty starts. In another words you as a free person should be able to swing your arms around as much as you want until you start hitting someone in the face.( So to speak). That is your boundary - infringing on other peoples' liberty.
I give you example which may hit a home. Let say government tells you some people are abusing dogs thus we will not allow people to have dogs. How would you like that? Jack booted thugs with guns knock on your door and say too many people are abusing dogs thus we are here to take your dog and kill it. That is not so far fetched since similar thing happened in China. In principal there is no difference between that and saying that you can not use e collar or pinch collar because some people are using it in abusive way. In the end that is what the extremist want to happen anyway ( get rid of the ownership of pets) and all these laws they are pushing are just little steps to it. Of course if these people would come on so strong by trying to take your dogs away everybody would be up in arms. You know the story of boiling a frog. Right? If you throw the frog in boiling water it will jump out but if you are turning the heat on slowly then the frog will slowly boil to death.
I am against slowly boiling to death. I am against disrespect for other people's Liberty by anyone. I hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual.
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. Like I do not like e collar but I am here fighting for the right of people who use it properly to do so.
Government should exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property and not to oppress it. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Thus if you go so far as to protect dogs from abuse - significant risk of harm, then you need to punish the people who do such harm and not to punish all including the ones who use e collar or pinch or what ever device without being abusive and thus actually limiting their Liberty.
I would also like to elude to the notion that "it is the law" thus it must be right. Law is no measure of justice. Law and Justice are 2 different things. Many laws are unjust. Never forget what MLK said:Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Prager Hans
Society without legal boundaries? You are describing anarchy. No that is not what I am trying to describe. I am describing liberty. There is a difference. With liberty comes responsibility. Everybody's liberty ends where someone else's Liberty starts. In another words you as a free person should be able to swing your arms around as much as you want until you start hitting someone in the face.( So to speak). That is your boundary - infringing on other peoples' liberty.
I give you example which may hit a home. Let say government tells you some people are abusing dogs thus we will not allow people to have dogs. How would you like that? Jack booted thugs with guns knock on your door and say too many people are abusing dogs thus we are here to take your dog and kill it. That is not so far fetched since similar thing happened in China. In principal there is no difference between that and saying that you can not use e collar or pinch collar because some people are using it in abusive way. In the end that is what the extremist want to happen anyway ( get rid of the ownership of pets) and all these laws they are pushing are just little steps to it. Of course if these people would come on so strong by trying to take your dogs away everybody would be up in arms. You know the story of boiling a frog. Right? If you throw the frog in boiling water it will jump out but if you are turning the heat on slowly then the frog will slowly boil to death.
I am against slowly boiling to death. I am against disrespect for other people's Liberty by anyone. I hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual.
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. Like I do not like e collar but I am here fighting for the right of people who use it properly to do so.
Government should exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property and not to oppress it. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Thus if you go so far as to protect dogs from abuse - significant risk of harm, then you need to punish the people who do such harm and not to punish all including the ones who use e collar or pinch or what ever device without being abusive and thus actually limiting their Liberty.
I would also like to elude to the notion that "it is the law" thus it must be right. Law is no measure of justice. Law and Justice are 2 different things. Many laws are unjust. Never forget what MLK said:Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Prager Hans
by Hundmutter on 08 April 2013 - 14:04
In an ideal world I would of course agree that only those who
mis-use dog tools (or guns) and thus cause pain (or death)
should be stopped / punished; and not those people who
use things carefully and in the correct circumstances.
But how do you decide who is correct, appropriate, careful
in the use of such things - when they are widely available for
anyone to pick up ? And WHO decides, for that matter ?
BTW I used 'ball drive' because in the circumstances it seemed
a little silly to write of Prey Drive, being as how I was talking
about the dog preferring to run after his ball rather than chase
deer or rabbits.
mis-use dog tools (or guns) and thus cause pain (or death)
should be stopped / punished; and not those people who
use things carefully and in the correct circumstances.
But how do you decide who is correct, appropriate, careful
in the use of such things - when they are widely available for
anyone to pick up ? And WHO decides, for that matter ?
BTW I used 'ball drive' because in the circumstances it seemed
a little silly to write of Prey Drive, being as how I was talking
about the dog preferring to run after his ball rather than chase
deer or rabbits.
by Prager on 08 April 2013 - 17:04
@Huntmutter.
Who decides and how? It should be decided by the standard of what reasonable person would do and not do and not by a standard of some extremist wacko who pressures a politician into such action.
That is then decided not by democracy where mob rules but by elected responsible, honest representatives. It is called representative republic.
It is up to us to elect such people.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Barry Goldwater and many others.
Who decides and how? It should be decided by the standard of what reasonable person would do and not do and not by a standard of some extremist wacko who pressures a politician into such action.
That is then decided not by democracy where mob rules but by elected responsible, honest representatives. It is called representative republic.
It is up to us to elect such people.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Barry Goldwater and many others.
by Hundmutter on 08 April 2013 - 18:04
Yeah, but.
Tried discussing dog issues with most politicians ?
Tried discussing dog issues with most politicians ?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top