Just How Stupid Are We?

[moda0306]

But I am imposing my will on him. I'm using physical force to make him do something he doesn't want to do. Now, he's a baby. We're all cool with it. But if this is okay, why is it not okay if I do it to a 17 year-old? What about a 9 year-old? a 5 year-old? Where's the line? Can you acknowledge that it's a tough thing to nail down a concrete answer on?

Here are my answers:

1. As soon as they leave home, then you can't impose your will on them any more.

2. If they stay at home but could leave, then you have to make an agreement with them as to what rules you can enforce; if they don't like your position then they can leave.

3. Until then, you can use the minimum force needed to prevent serious harm to them.

Bam. And very astute about the statist child tactic. As I've said, the existance of grey doesn't mean there is no black and white. The grey is tiny and virtually everyone understands. Dressing a mentally retarded person for cold weather when it's snowing outside is not "imposing your will" on them.

To the individual affected, whether the grey is "tiny" is irrelevent.  As a respecter of individual sovereignty I would think you'd appreciate that.

The fact that "virtually everyone understands" is also irrelevant, as "virtually everyone understands" that there is a role for government. 

But, most importantly, you're basing your entire philosophy on the idea that the reason we have any RIGHTS at all is our ability to choose our actions, and understand the moral consequences of them.

Some children and mentally retarded people don't have that capacity.

How do they acquire their "rights?"  If a dog doesn't have rights, how does someone who is biologically different than a dog obtain them if they are of similar mental capacity?

The existence of grey areas does not omit black and white, but it can sometimes reveal that the basis on which you judge "black" vs "white" is actually kind of f'ked up, or at least our insistence on lending to any sort of utilitarian perspective on the matter (where ends justify means).

So you can't insult us for using "ends justifying means" if you do the same.

[moda0306]

The real answer in my mind is that we all "just know" what's appropriate and what's not in these types of situations. Nobody gives me flak for wiping my screaming baby's bum even though I'm forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do. If Moda prevents his 12 year-old daughter from becoming impregnated by a 40 year-old creepster, we take him out for a beer. When Kshartle bundles up a mentally ill person and takes him for a walk, we all think he's a swell guy for being nice and not wishing the mentally ill person didn't exist, which is what most do. That's in fact why it's so hard for the government to nail these things down with laws. They're squarely in the realm of "I know it when I see it." And that's another reason why I think a non-government society would function better. If the community was fine with something, nobody would be hassled about it because the communal consensus would create a social order that reinforced the standard.

What about nasty awful brutal communities that have decided to do terrible things? Well, the victims could always shoot back. Or move away, as Moda is so fond of proposing.

So do "most" people think Kshartle is swell for bundling the mentally ill guy, or do "most" people wish the mentally ill guy didn't exist?  You seem to contradict on that point.

And to be fair to the "we all just know" argument, which is quite useful (we'll never "logic" our way out of some of these discussions (though Kshartle somehow managed to without even knowing what deductive logic is )) ... We also "all just know" that society would break down if there was no government...

And I say that with the understanding that the number of people that want to abolish government is astoundingly small.  Government isn't just in place to enforce norms, it's there to handle infrastructure and insure the uninsurable (disasters, wars, etc).  The reason government gets involved in things we consider norms, is because 1) they are the default enforcement mechanism for any law, and 2) we want certain laws to be followed even beyond what they would "natually" be.

It's a societal norm to take care of your kid.  It's a societal norm not to commit murder.  It's a societal norm to mow your lawn.  However, when one person doesn't comply, there are consequences that shock the conscience of most people (or just look bad on their street and piss them off).  Government prevents a race to the bottom, but also limits those behaviors that exist that MOST find offensive to lower than they otherwise would be simply because only some people want to do it.

But my main point is that the "we all just know" argument is not good enough, especially if we're talking about abolishing government, because "we all just know" that we NEED some level of government.

[moda0306]

Maybe you don't have any children so it's still abstract for you. Let me give you a concrete example.

My 18 month old son is sick today. His poop is slimy and disgusting and acidic and gives his poor little butt a terrible rash. When I clean his rashy butt off, it hurts him and he thrashes around and screams. I have to hold his legs open so I can get the poop off and then smear healing goop on his butt, or else his rash will get even worse and bleed (it's happened before). He can't understand any of this since he's just a baby, of course. I can't convince him to cooperate, and my wife or I can only distract him with toys and games until the wipe touches his butt and it hurts again. Was my action moral? Did I aggress against him by forcing myself on his body, even though what I was doing was actually in his best interest? Did the ends justify the means there?

Omg PS.......I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.

Wiping your 18 month old's bottom is not "imposing your will" on them. Picking them up when they run out into the street is not "imposing your will" on them.

I know you know this and you know why. I assure I do to.

No, PS is imposing his will on his son in this case.  But most would agree that the violence in this case is justified, because it is done to protect.

It is frustrating that you don't acknowledge that PS is imposing his will.

Here are a couple grayer examples:

Let's say that PS's son is not 18 months, but 4 years old.  But he isn't toilet trained.  But the son strongly objects to his parents using physical force to compel him to change his clothes/diaper.  He strongly objects.  What do you do?

Or let's say that you have have 4 y/o who is playing at a park playing in a little puddle of water.  He isn't disturbing anyone else, but he is getting pretty wet.  You wish that your son would quit playing in the water because (i) you need to leave,  (ii) you would prefer your son not get into the car all wet and (iii) other parents at the park are looking at you disapprovingly because their kids are afraid to approach him.  You tell your son it is time to leave, but he objects.  What do you do?

We are approaching an "A Few Good Men" moment where we ask, "Do you think children are a parents' property!?" and Kshartle responds "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!"

[Gumby]

But my main point is that the "we all just know" argument is not good enough, especially if we're talking about abolishing government, because "we all just know" that we NEED some level of government.

I keep trying to ask how local town codes/rules would be enforced without some public/private entity to enforce them with a threat of violence. Nobody seems to know.

CODE OF ORDINANCES City of SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

CODE OF ORDINANCES CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
SUPPLEMENT HISTORY TABLE
TITLE I: - GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE III: - ADMINISTRATION
TITLE V: - PUBLIC WORKS
TITLE VII: - TRAFFIC CODE
TITLE IX: - GENERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE XI: - BUSINESS REGULATIONS
TITLE XIII: - GENERAL OFFENSES
TITLE XV: - LAND USAGE
TITLE XVII: - BUILDING REGULATIONS
CODE COMPARATIVE TABLE
ZONING COMPARATIVE TABLE
REFERENCES TO ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES

Source: CODE OF ORDINANCES City of SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

Does anybody really think that Springfield, Illinois doesn't need agreed-upon codes to function? I think it does.

Does anybody really think that the majority of residents in Springfield, Illinois want to do away with building codes, and traffic codes, and wastewater codes, and land usage codes, and sanitation codes?

Note that I still haven't gotten an answer to this question of how these agreed upon rules/codes could be enforced and upheld without the threat of violence.

[Pointedstick]

So do "most" people think Kshartle is swell for bundling the mentally ill guy, or do "most" people wish the mentally ill guy didn't exist?  You seem to contradict on that point.

Both. I think most people are made very uncomfortable by the existence and presence of mentally ill people, and this very discomfort causes them to think highly of those who volunteer to take care of them.

And to be fair to the "we all just know" argument, which is quite useful (we'll never "logic" our way out of some of these discussions (though Kshartle somehow managed to without even knowing what deductive logic is )) ... We also "all just know" that society would break down if there was no government...

[…]

But my main point is that the "we all just know" argument is not good enough, especially if we're talking about abolishing government, because "we all just know" that we NEED some level of government.

Sure. I just think that a better way is possible, even if it's never been tried yet. We can't chuckle at people who drove Ford Model Ts and believed it was the best car simply because the Tesla hadn't been invented yet. Maybe government was the best we could do in an age where people themselves were violent and brutal and cruel and bigoted. But as that age recedes into the past, maybe we can do better.

[Kshartle]

But my main point is that the "we all just know" argument is not good enough, especially if we're talking about abolishing government, because "we all just know" that we NEED some level of government.

I keep trying to ask how local town codes/rules would be enforced without some public/private entity to enforce them with a threat of violence. Nobody seems to know.

CODE OF ORDINANCES City of SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

CODE OF ORDINANCES CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
SUPPLEMENT HISTORY TABLE
TITLE I: - GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE III: - ADMINISTRATION
TITLE V: - PUBLIC WORKS
TITLE VII: - TRAFFIC CODE
TITLE IX: - GENERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE XI: - BUSINESS REGULATIONS
TITLE XIII: - GENERAL OFFENSES
TITLE XV: - LAND USAGE
TITLE XVII: - BUILDING REGULATIONS
CODE COMPARATIVE TABLE
ZONING COMPARATIVE TABLE
REFERENCES TO ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES

Source: CODE OF ORDINANCES City of SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

Does anybody really think that Springfield, Illinois doesn't need agreed-upon codes to function? I think it does.

Does anybody really think that the majority of residents in Springfield, Illinois want to do away with building codes, and traffic codes, and wastewater codes, and land usage codes, and sanitation codes?

Note that I still haven't gotten an answer to this question of how these agreed upon rules/codes could be enforced and upheld without the threat of violence.

I doubt they all can. Why do you think we need all these?

[Kshartle]

We are approaching an "A Few Good Men" moment where we ask, "Do you think children are a parents' property!?" and Kshartle responds "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!"

No I've said repeatedly in previous threads that children are not their parent's property. I've said it many times and argued against the ridiculous notion.

That is much more likely your answer. Remember the justification for the puppy torture?

[Kshartle]

  this doesn't strike me as being a accurate representation of the limited government position at all. government limited to using force in the defense of property and liberty (actions you agree with even if you prefer them being privatized) is one thing, what you describe is pro government as long as it is enforcing what i want..  truly limited  VS  limited to what i want, principals VS coercion and force..

For a split second I'll agree with you.
"Limited government" is 50% worthy goal, and 50% bs term for "I want government to do things that I like, but not other things I don't like, and I want to have a term to stand on a moral pedestal next to liberals that I want to argue with."

First off, I don't know what "defending freedoms" even means.  It's always sounded like a BS term.  Enhancing freedoms?  I could agree with that.  But that's just me.  But I think universal healthcare enhances my freedom.  Freeways enhance my freedom.

Defending property is more tangible, but 1) they have to take some property to protect the rest, and 2) vast sums of property are just arbitrary (or stolen) claims on real resources.  These are just ways for men to take control of the world around them, not enjoy pure freedom.  Property DOES enhance freedom in my opinion, but has ony limited connections to it as a direct connection to our free individual selves.

to me defending freedoms means  freedom of speech, of religion, the right to keep and bare arms, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to keep the product of your labor etc..  limited government protects those freedoms for individuals from individuals, and for individuals from governments domestic and foreign.

the problem universal health care is a problem of defending property, somebody property/money/labor are being taken to provide it,
the guy who studied to be a doctor is a real resource, the guy who worked his ass off for a wage earned a real resources, are those just arbitrary claims or are they legitimate to take because it meets your need?  to me taking them is a aggressive use of force the same type kshartle rails against, the type government shouldn't be doing.

How can a group of people, funded with stolen money, be a defender of property rights? How can a group of people that impose their rules with the threat of the use of force, be a defender of human sovereignty?

why does the money have to be stolen? why would their threat of the use of force be wrong if it is limited to the defense of the liberty's you seek and that you would defend with violence yourself?


the tax thing is certainly problematic, earlier i suggested going back to a pre 1913 type tax system (buried in post avalanche). i doubt it is a perfect solution to the theft problem, but combined with a willingness to pay into a system that provides defense of your liberty property and nothing more. it might not work out to bad..
the perennial problem is that government expands the way scorpions sting frogs and they convince people that expansion is the right thing to do or is necessary almost effortlessly...

[Kshartle]

We are approaching an "A Few Good Men" moment where we ask, "Do you think children are a parents' property!?" and Kshartle responds "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!"

No I've said repeatedly in previous threads that children are not their parent's property. I've said it many times and argued against the ridiculous notion.

That is much more likely your answer. Remember the justification for the puppy torture?

What would do you do in the scenarios I gave?

(I'm also curious if you are a parent yourself).

I'm not a parent.

I just saw them. It's difficult to keep up with a thread, particularly when half the posts are questions for you.

I'll try to answer before leaving the office.

[Gumby]

Why do you think we need all these?

Because almost all of these rules were created to solve conflicts that came up — or come up regularly — in various real-life situations.

If you've ever been to a town meeting, it's basically things like..

My neighbor's dog is too loud.
I can't stand the smell of that slaughterhouse.
Why is there sewage backed up in the street?
Why is the community park unsafe?
Why is there trash in that field?
Why are cars parked on this shoulder?
People are driving around the school bus while kids are getting on and off. It's dangerous!
My neighbor is blasting music too loud.
That business is dumping chemicals into that storm drain.
That car is driving too fast when kids are playing in the street.
That electrician is making homes unsafe.
That intersection is way too dangerous.
Those neighborhood kids are doing XYZ in the park
Can we put a stop sign by the school entrance?
The tenant who lives below me doesn't have sprinklers in their apartment. It's a fire hazard!
My neighbor's 9-year old kid was driving their car down the street. He could kill someone!
Someone is feeding the birds in the park. Now there is poop everywhere!

And so on. Societies need rules to function properly. Otherwise you just have chaos and a lot of unhappy people. Most people (particularly those at those town meetings) seem to want an underlying threat of violence if the commonly accepted rules aren't followed.

I don't see how people would be willing to give up those community ordinances that are enforced with violence.

[moda0306]

We are approaching an "A Few Good Men" moment where we ask, "Do you think children are a parents' property!?" and Kshartle responds "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!"

No I've said repeatedly in previous threads that children are not their parent's property. I've said it many times and argued against the ridiculous notion.

That is much more likely your answer. Remember the justification for the puppy torture?

First off, I was kidding.  I know you don't think kids are property.  Though I'm not sure how they qualify as having "self-ownership" if they don't control their actions or understand right vs wrong.

And YOU are the one who said that a man could torture puppies because they were his property (though you expressed disgust at the act).

How am I getting hit on that?  I think there is some threshhold of animal "rights" that have been crossed in my mind.


But, more importantly, how do people with diminished capacity have rights if they don't have self-ownership?

[moda0306]

Why do you think we need all these?

Because almost all of these rules were created to solve conflicts that came up — or come up regularly — in various real-life situations.

If you've ever been to a town meeting, it's basically things like..

My neighbor's dog is too loud.
I can't stand the smell of that slaughterhouse.
Why is there sewage backed up in the street?
Why is the community park unsafe?
Why is there trash in that field?
Why are cars parked on this shoulder?
My neighbor is blasting music too loud.
That business is dumping chemicals into that storm drain.
That car is driving too fast when kids are playing in the street.
That electrician is making homes unsafe.
That intersection is way too dangerous.
Those neighborhood kids are doing XYZ in the park
Can we put a stop sign by the school entrance?

And so on. Societies need rules to function properly. Otherwise you just have chaos and a lot of unhappy people. Most people (particularly those at those town meetings) seem to want an underlying threat of violence if the commonly accepted rules aren't followed.

The noise is a good one.... do I have the right to make as much noise as I want as long as I'm not inflicting physical harm on others?  What about playing porn up against the front of my house (I swear I've seen this in a movie/show)?

[Kshartle]

And YOU are the one who said that a man could torture puppies because they were his property (though you expressed disgust at the act).

Please provide that post.

[moda0306]

And YOU are the one who said that a man could torture puppies because they were his property (though you expressed disgust at the act).

Please provide that post.

From what I remember, you said htat 1) the puppies were his property and he could do with it as he chose, 2) it was still wrong (for some reason that you didn't define). 

It would be great if you want to clarify 1) whether a man can morally torture a puppy... does tht qualify as "violence," and 2) if he can't, why not, if the puppy doesn't have self-ownership.

[moda0306]

Here you are, Kshartle.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg84501

[Xan]

How can a group of people, funded with stolen money, be a defender of property rights? How can a group of people that impose their rules with the threat of the use of force, be a defender of human sovereignty?

I'm not sure how, but this is what we in fact find in practice.  I find a lot more "how" questions in your proposal, including "how the flip could it ever possibly even work".

[Kshartle]

Here you are, Kshartle.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg84501

Jesus Christ scroll up five where I explain to you why you cannot.

Completely dishonest Moda.

You know damn well my first sentence...directly at Rien and Tech when they say they would shun for doing it.....with a wink afterwards....means I was joking.

Completely dishonest way to have a conversation.

[Kshartle]

Here you are, Kshartle.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg84501

Jesus Christ scroll up five where I explain to you why you cannot.

Completely dishonest Moda.

You know damn well my first sentence...directly at Rien and Tech when they say they would shun for doing it.....with a wink afterwards....means I was joking.

Completely dishonest way to have a conversation.

I would invite everyone to have a read. I think it was a pretty decent post from me. Not the one he linked to. the one 4-5 posts higher up.

[Kshartle]

why does the money have to be stolen? why would their threat of the use of force be wrong if it is limited to the defense of the liberty's you seek and that you would defend with violence yourself?


the tax thing is certainly problematic, earlier i suggested going back to a pre 1913 type tax system (buried in post avalanche). i doubt it is a perfect solution to the theft problem, but combined with a willingness to pay into a system that provides defense of your liberty property and nothing more. it might not work out to bad..
the perennial problem is that government expands the way scorpions sting frogs and they convince people that expansion is the right thing to do or is necessary almost effortlessly...

What would happen if someone didn't want any of the government's services? Would they still have to pay taxes?
If so, then the money would be stolen from them.
If not, then that would be fine, but I don't think it is very likely that any government would actually follow such a rule. Do you?

my understanding (possibly flawed) is that the taxes were in the form of tariffs duties and excise taxes and if you don't want to pay in you don't buy those items, it is likely not a perfect system and undoubtedly has its own drawbacks, but it seems better than the theft model of income tax, 

It's just farther removed but it is imposing a tax on producers and consumers and who gets to decide who get punished?

[Pointedstick]

my understanding (possibly flawed) is that the taxes were in the form of tariffs duties and excise taxes and if you don't want to pay in you don't buy those items, it is likely not a perfect system and undoubtedly has its own drawbacks, but it seems better than the theft model of income tax, 

But if you don't want to pay income taxes, you don't have to work, right? Don't want to pay property taxes? Just be a vagrant! Don't want to pay sales taxes? Just don't buy anything! Don't want to  buy health insurance? Just die!

like i said "the tax thing is certainly problematic"
if government was truly limited i probably wouldn't object to being taxed to have it, i don't even object to a small fraction of the taxes i pay now, since i think they do go to that limited legitimate function buried under the behemoth government we have... i might even voluntarily donate to a truly limited government to keep it working (but given its obsession with expansion, i suspect i would be pissed off at what they were up to most years and not want to support it)

obviously i don't have an ideal solution, but less is better than more, privatization/free-market is better than gov force, and moving in that direction is moving towards finding those solutions.

[Kshartle]

my understanding (possibly flawed) is that the taxes were in the form of tariffs duties and excise taxes and if you don't want to pay in you don't buy those items, it is likely not a perfect system and undoubtedly has its own drawbacks, but it seems better than the theft model of income tax, 

But if you don't want to pay income taxes, you don't have to work, right? Don't want to pay property taxes? Just be a vagrant! Don't want to pay sales taxes? Just don't buy anything! Don't want to  buy health insurance? Just die!

Yes.....you are free to starve to death.

PS......these arguments you made in jest will now be adopted by 25% of the members.

Doaahhh

i know

we need to invent some kind of Representative government to guarantees us that there will be no taxation without representation

unless its 100% voluntary its theft... but there must be some tax system that is better designed, more equitable, one that can move us toward a type of government we would support voluntarily or get free-market choices with, better than the one we have now (insert lyrics to the Beatles "Tax Man" here)

[Kshartle]

We are approaching an "A Few Good Men" moment where we ask, "Do you think children are a parents' property!?" and Kshartle responds "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!"

No I've said repeatedly in previous threads that children are not their parent's property. I've said it many times and argued against the ridiculous notion.

That is much more likely your answer. Remember the justification for the puppy torture?

What would do you do in the scenarios I gave?

(I'm also curious if you are a parent yourself).

I'll get back to this. I have to run to dinner with friends.

They have a completely non-violent, negotiated approach to parenting and are raising two very indenpendent and confident girls, 10 & 7.

They do have conflict though so I'll be watching how it's resolved.

[Gumby]

Interestingly, most civilized countries seem to use a "Justice of the Peace" to solve neighborhood disputes and keep law and order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Peace

Justice of the Peace
A justice of the peace (JP) is a puisne judicial officer elected or appointed by means of a commission (letters patent) to keep the peace. In past centuries the term Commissioner of the Peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are (or were) usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.

HISTORY
In 1195, Richard I ("the Lionheart") of England commissioned certain knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas. They were responsible to the King for ensuring that the law was upheld, and preserved the "King's peace", and were known as "keepers of the peace"...


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Peace

If you read through that Wikipedia article, it would seem that civilized countries, across the globe, have historically had a need for someone who would resolve disputes and complaints with a threat of violence.

I honestly can't imagine a civilization without some kind of Justice of the Peace (who uses the threat of violence to keep order).

Less developed groups often rely on "Paramount Chiefs" or "Tribal Chiefs" to solve their disputes and keep order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_chief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_chief

The next level down would be a "Clan Chief"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_chief

Which is basically the leader of a large family. So, you can see how the threat of violence within clans/families to keep order was extended as people congregated into larger and larger groups.

[Gumby]

KShartle....

I'm trying to understand your position better. Would you say this Wikipedia article represents your position on violence accurately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others. Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of most present-day libertarian philosophies...

...Anarcho-capitalists generally argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen private property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

If so, are you familiar with the enormous list of "criticisms" of the NAP listed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggres ... Criticisms

Criticism certainly don't invalidate a position, but it's there are a lot of criticisms are listed!

[moda0306]

Here you are, Kshartle.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg84501

Jesus Christ scroll up five where I explain to you why you cannot.

Completely dishonest Moda.

You know damn well my first sentence...directly at Rien and Tech when they say they would shun for doing it.....with a wink afterwards....means I was joking.

Completely dishonest way to have a conversation.

Kshartle,

I was talking about the part where you say that the dog is your property.  Not your winking joke.  If the dog is your property, you can do what you want with him.

Take a step back and realize you're the one that took my example to stating it was ok to kill puppies. 

Let's set the record that neither of us think it is right.  However, based on your logic that our ability to control our actions as being the source of our intrinsic moral value, and animals not having that trait, I'm not sure why in your mind that they do?  If dogs don't have RIGHTs, why is it WRONG, in your mind, to kill one?  If it is wrong, though, isn't factory farming wrong?  If we are to abandon violence, where do we draw the line with animals, as billions of them are subject to factory farming conditions daily.