A END OF THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD DOGS. - Page 15

and then you wake up one day and say "oh shit" we are living in England.  Well Paul, you got my morning off to a good start with a really good belly laugh

Paul, I know exactly what you said, you wouldn't turn them in. YOU wouldn't let them do it. What about all the 'others' who wouldn't turn them in either, and 'would' let them get away with it? That's not how laws are designed to work, and you are exactly the argument for a ban instead. Would you do the same with existing laws? Not turn someone in, but do something about it yourself?

Like Hans, you use extreme examples to try and shore up what (seems to me) a somewhat paranoid perspective. Life and laws are always in a state of flux, and must change to meet evolving circumstances.  We need to try and have a balance where a good balance is struck to meet all needs. That includes legislation to try and ensure that animals are treated better, people have trouble buying semtex, and certain pesticides shown to be harmful aren't available to be slathered over everything we ingest. I just don't have a problem with this, but then I live in England LOL.

Accountability and personal responsibility are going to hell in a handbasket

Abby
As a Socialist you would believe the government should dictate morality and what is best for you. I do not need others to teach me right or wrong, nor do I need rule of law to infringe on others rights to support my feelings and opinions. The 2nd amendment give us the right to bear arms. Why? To protect ourselves against the government. Why? Because power corrupts. Founding fathers of America learned that, in your country and did not want to live under that and neither do I.  Little by little the right of Americas are being stolen away from us. Why? In part because some people can't stand that others do not believe like they do.  That is why I say "mind your own business" . We all have plenty of issues of our own to resolve.

Hundmutter:Hans - do I really need to remind you that Hitler called his programme
​"National Socialism";  he never really claimed to be a follower of Karl
Marx's Communist philosophy, nor does much of what he thought should
be done (including wiping out 6 million or so) fit with Engels, Lenin etc.
Personnally I am nearer to a Trotskyist, than a Nazi !  (I'm not a Stalinist,
either, btw).  That people (you) can argue there are 'fine lines' between Right
and Left precisely proves my point that it is  a slippery slope

HUNDMUTTER there are many form of socialism and they  all go from bad to horrific. In your statement above you clearly  are mistaken socialism with Marxism-Leninism. Where Marxism-leninism same as Nazism is a form of socialism 
It is amazing to me that you call your self a Trotskyite on international forum. Do you even know who was Trotsky? Trotsky was Zionist Nazi. Do you know what that is? Do you know that  It was actually Trotsky who ruled Russia during Lenin's illness. He mercilessly caused the people suffering of a magnitude the world had never seen before. Do you know that in the beginning Trotsky wanted to use the guillotine to execute people, but was scolded for this idea.He was a cynic and a sadist of the worst sort. He often executed his victims personally. He murdered his hostages in the cruelest manner and even ordered children killed. He ordered disciplinary executions. There are plenty of documents about these cruelties preserved in the archives of the Communist Party.
.

Here is one of his famous statements:

"We must turn her (Russia) into a desert populated by white Negxxxs upon whom we shall inflict such a tyranny as none of the most dreadful despots of the East have ever dreamt of.
The only difference is that this tyranny will not come from the right, but from the left, and will not be white, but red, in the literal sense of that word, for we shall shed such streams of blood that all the losses of human lives in Capitalist wars will shrink and pale before them. The biggest bankers on the other side of the Atlantic will work in very close collaboration with us. If we win the Revolution, crush Russia, we shall consolidate the power of Zionism on her funereal remains and become such a force that the whole world will go down on its knees before it. We will show what real power is.Using terror, blood-baths, we will reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a complete idiocy, to a bestial condition... And meanwhile, our youth in leather jackets -the sons of watchmakers from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, oh how magnificently, how rapturously they are able to hate everything Russian! With what enjoyment they are annihilating the Russian intelligentsia - officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, academicians, writers... "

(Aaron Simanovich, "Memoirs", Paris, 1922, Molodaya Gvardiya, Moscow, No. 6, 1991, p. 55.)

Hundmutter Looks like you have a great role model .
Prager Hans

Paul
I do not know how you made up your mind that I am a 'socialist'. I hold no fixed political views, Some socialists are right, some democrats are right and you can't please all of the people all of the time.  I heard a very interesting debate today about the interpretation on 'the right to bear arms'. It seems there are as many interpretations of what it was meant to mean as there are interpretations of religious texts and their meanings, and as many zealots to interpret it in the most extreme ways to suit them. It was also reported that 80% of Americans support a tightening of the legislation in terms of gun control.
Anyway, I was more interested when this still involved discussing dogs. It has gone way too far into politics and unnecessary animosity against other countries for my tastes. Therefore as you so politely request....I'm out, to mind my own business.

ABBY NORMAL. The whole basis of your argument Hans means that nothing should be banned (otherwise this would be an infringement of liberty), all things would just be used appropriately, or as decreed, and punished if the 'rules' of use were not complied with. Otherwise you would not be having this conversation.  Any 'ban' has to be an anathema to your argument, you simply cannot have it both ways. A ban on anything must always affect the innocent who would not violate the use of the 'banned' item in the first place. Guns are again the obvious example. It violates my liberty that I am prohibited from owning a gun, yet I would not use one for nefarious purposes, nor would I harm anyone or anything with one. Yet I believe that this is a good thing and I believe if you were to look at statistics it would be proven to be the case. Therefore, at the expense of my liberty a decision was made which was for the good of the 'whole'. It works for me.

You are getting closer to understand what I am talking about, but you are wrong about what I believe, I do not think that "nothing" should be banned.You keep saying that BUT it is simply not so.  I do not believe such thing. I think there are many things which should be banned like murder, theft, robbery, assault, overreaching of a government, and I can go on for hours.   I am not against law and order. But I believe that  only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly and  morally be termed crimes and should be banned.  I am against laws creating “crimes” without victims. Do you understand that concept?  Such laws are immoral and tyrannical in form of soft or hard tyranny.   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.
As far as property goes   I am  against all laws arbitrarily banning or restricting, besides many other things, property. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.I am against all violations of the right to private property. Dogs are property and e collar is property and pinch collar are property. You can ban actions which violate other peoples rights,  but you can  not ban property. 
The fact that these principals are violated by governments all the time all over the world does not give them moral validity and right to do so.  
Again I am talking about universal and ancient and God given principals of Liberty. 

 Prager Hans

Prager
Very well said.

Hans I always understood what you were talking about, just didn't agree with you.

The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.....Dogs are property and e collar is property and pinch collar are property.  In which case Hans, are you saying that you do not agree with any animal welfare legislation, since it tells you how you must (or rather must not) treat your 'property'?  That any owner is free to 'enjoy' their property (dog) in whichever way they choose (some people have a very twisted idea of 'enjoy'). You see, I do not see any animal abuse as a 'victimless' crime. I have also always had an issue with dogs defined as property, since they are sentient beings, and somewhat different to a fence post or brick wall. Still at one time slaves were defined as such, as were wives. Maybe we will be enlightened enough to change this one day as well.

Hans, if you must critiscise my choice of role model, at least do 
it in the basis of something he actually wrote or said, and not
using a scurrilous quote that has been created and repeated by
a succession of right wing websites.  At that point I might be
prepared to go on debating my affiliations with you, but lets take
it to Off Topic.

I repeat _ I didn't raise the subject of views on animal welfare
involving anyones political viewpoints.

For the same reason, Paul, I am not telling the USA what laws
it should make, just discussing the principals of whether laws
on the subject are needed or should be introduced wherever /
everywhere, whether existing laws are enough or need to be
tightened, how effectively they can be policed, or whether they
are not needed because 'some' of our number can sort the
offenders out, in some way !?, without recourse to club rules
or legislation.  LOL @ Paul for assuming Abby is a Socialist, I
knew she was over here and thought she probably would not
identify as one - we have a Conservative Government at this time,
btw.

You know, this discussion you started is even more ironic, given
the USA reputation for interfering in the way other countries are
run !!!!

 

Hundmutter
My opinion is the USA should mind our own business as well. A small government that protects our borders would be good as well. We should not waste my money and your freedom with the American Governments desire to police the world.