BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't see how anyone concerned with the rights of animals could wholly ignore the rights of humans.
Do you think that's how most vegans operate?
Hell, even if you only care about the well being of humans, you still have to care about animals; Animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change (which will fuck humans the most, and is a major human rights issue). Not to mention how meat and other animal products are not fit for human consumption since we have healthier alternatives.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Writing legislation is never the solution to any problem.
I know this is your libertarian side speaking, but legislation, while never solves any problem 100%, plays a significant part in helping solve social issues, such as civil rights, ensuring healthcare, well being of workers and environment, or as
@Jebus said lowering of DUI incidents. Sure, there are times where legislation has been used for bad things (sometimes acciedentally, since although the intentions are good, the idea never was tested enough, if at all), but being against legislation altogether as a mechanism for doing good things because of the bad laws is ridiculous.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's an assertion that one person may have valid authority over another, such that the former may make commands which the latter must obey under threat of violence.
What would you consider "valid authority"?
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
It's a claim to ownership over the individual no different than taking milk from a cow is a claim to ownership over that cow.
I think this is a false equivalence. As a consequentialist, I am concerned with what does the most
good, not necessarily what is the most (or sounds the most)
fair. Democratic Governments keeping society in line is
good, while milking a cow is almost always
bad.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
A claim to ownership over another person is called slavery.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to assert the government 'owns' the people.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
I don't support human slavery as a means to dissuade people from owning cats.
It's not slavery, it's making the people not do something because it is harmful.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Cats killing birds of their own free will is none of our concern - that's just the nature of cats.
It's an issue that humans have caused when we brought cats to different countries after we domesticated them. Since we caused this ecological issue, I think we have to make up for it, because we're basically responsible for the extinction of many bird species. Cats are very skilled hunters, and will kill sometimes just for entertainment.
But even disregarding that, even if we didn't cause it and notice that it's a problem, it's still something we should be managing, like parasites, natural disasters, diseases, etc. I don't want to see this line of reasoning of yours to be applied to other areas.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
Once the money dries up, the number of cats will sort itself out naturally, and what the remaining cats do with birds are their own business.
The cats won't just magically go away; they reproduce like crazy (gestation period of two months, about 3-5 cats per litter, and they mature within a year or so), and if we want to end this problem, the most humane and effective way is to spay and neuter them.
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am
As inconvenient as it may be, moral self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves.
I doubt this applies to cats.