Posted on 12/08/2004 12:45:36 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I'm sorry, could you post a better reference?
In context (from the NIV):
"18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."
You rock!
It doesn't matter once you start locking up people based on crimes they have never committed.
1866 is recent? In decades? Either research your facts better, or take a math course.
"Kent," if you please. With a "t." :)
To answer your question; yes rational,thoughtful people can find both morally abhorrent
Then, plainly: there are more than a few irrational, non-thoughtful "conservatives" herabouts, as evidenced by a deplorable handful of responses on this very thread; for they (deminstrably) feel precisely the opposite.
(and tell the difference between the two).
In what way, precisely, is wanting to see practitioners of (what we both agree are) morally abhorrent actions swiftly and severely punished NOT "telling the difference between the two"...? This premise simply makes no sense, as presented; it suffers from a lack of constancy. :)
I know nothing is more important than a human baby.
Now, with the above said, this story makes me sick. What a man to beat his pet. I have a short circuit in my brain that gives me such a violent knee jerk reaction to a story like this. But on a calmer note, I cannot decide just what is appropriate for this. Definitely plenty of jail time. But I read an interesting reply to this post. What if it was a hamster? I think he should still be punished but I don't know how. What about a goldfish or ant farm? I know not.
And I do not automatically justify my disgust over these cases by saying people killers begin with animal abuse. To me, you don't have to go there. Killing the pet should be bad enough, I'm willing to just be infuriated with that much.
I remember once Paul Harvey had an item about how there is a high rise in the incidents whereas abusive husbands maintain their suffering wives by threatening to do horrific things to her pet should she leave. I realize it could also be a monster wife threatening a husband but I got the drift it is mainly the other way around.
These stories just make me sick. I'm just venting here tonight.
This should be a misdemeanor at most. For those of us who grew up on farms, we realize how anyone can think any care given an animal would be cruel in some form (they are left outside, fed scraps, etc.). We even have to put down animals. This criminalizes that behavior, too.
Additionally, locking someone up in anticipation of the same being done with a human is grossly unfair. I do not doubt the guy is psycho to some extent, but should we lock up people before a crime is committed or even planned?
Agree...
I can't either, I'm with you. Yet, I like to eat meat. I must be a coward when you think about it. I am uncomfortable bringing this up to the front of my mind and trying to sort it out.
Thanks for the information and the support. I stand corrected on the recency of the laws, but the Ohio one seems to be a very simple law. As mentioned below, even a man who baked his wife's cat received a "mild penalty".
I don't have a problem with a "mild penalty" for that. That is not a felony if it is mild and appears to be a simple property claim (which is what I've been standing up for).
From the Humane Society:
http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/GLROsp03.pdf
Thanks for the heads up!
I can sight 1000 reference, you can refute it 1000 times... I am not going into that game of sematics with you. You either accept the fact or you don't.
You have made you point, I have made mine.
I am not going to belabor it any further. We are on two different ends of the spectrum.. the only differnce is I can make my point with out resorting to personal attacks like saying people are NUTS for belving people should be thrown in jail for beating a defenseless animal for taking a leak on the floor.
Well put.
Unbelievable that a 4-yr-old would or could stab a puppy to death. What can you do with such a child?
Never laid a glove on you. You done good, champ. :)
Man,
What's wrong w/ you?! This guy is a disgusting animal and should be held accountable. While I am as pro-life as anyone here in freeperland, why can't we just be happy that this SOB got what he deserved and will, hopefully, be turned into some prisoner's b@tch?
Any sign of morality and justice should be applauded.
I have stated from moment one that animals are property and should only be worthy of a misdemeanor.
For information on the Ohio law from before 1875 (Humane Society):
http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/GLROsp03.pdf
Another page filled with links is here:
http://www.animal-law.org/library/aplw_fn.htm
One exerpted quote shows what animal rights lawers are thinking:
FN37. It is interesting to note that the article on horses did discuss issues concerning the fairness to the horses, but the article on the dancing chicken did not discuss such issues. This reflects that the social tolerance for abuse to animals is much lower for horses than for chickens. In some jurisdictions, chickens are not regarded as "animals." See, e.g., State v. Stockton, 333 P.2d 735, 737 (Ariz. 1958). Indeed, the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 601- 02 (1988) and 7 U.S.C. §§ 1902, 1904 (1988)), does not cover chickens, thus reflecting a social attitude that chickens are, for some reason, not worthy of protection.
That last part is what scares me because the author's perspective is truly consistent. Why aren't chickens considered animals? Because if they were, they would have to be protected. It's all right there on the animal rights legal site.
I'm not crazy, guys.
I believe I said you were "sounding nutty" but not a "nut".
However, I did ask someone here if they might be a DUmmie.
I totally and completely agree with you. My point exctley, though better phrased.
Paddle their rear end a couple of times, along with a few lectures about animal cruelty. Watch for any tendency of repeat behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.