Dutch wrote:
> Let's cut to the chase, you don't believe that animals deserve any
> protection from abusers.

The Rule of Law

If you dont pay the fine, you eventually go to jail, if you dont go to
jail they come looking for you, if you choose to defend your freedom
with your life eg with a gun, you will be shot.

That has happened in the past and wil happen again in the future and in
the cases of where the crook was a murderer or robber of another human
being or their property, then that is exactly as one would expect the
Rule of Law to mean.

I dont believe a person who beats up on HIS dog should be threatened
with the same punishment (The Rule of Law) as the person who rapes your
daughter.

> Well, too ****ing bad shit-for-brains,

If *shit for brains* is the label you prefer for a person who holds the
view that a human life is more valuable than a dog's life, then so be
it, do you feel better now?

> Why isn't it right to protect animals from abuse?

Read above.

I have also said there are MORAL ways (moral according to *human life*
being the *standard* of moral values) to deal with people who violate
YOUR values.

If YOU value a dog's life, then BUY the ****en dog.

> I never suggested animals had morals, I'm talking about human morality.

Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?

WHY do you keep avoiding that question?

> Animal abusers intiate the physical harm.

When or if they do, to humans, thats when and only when it becomes a
*moral* issue, as YOU yourself have said, morals ONLY apply to humans.

>
> Oh I see, it's fine to use force to defend your values, but I can't use
> force to defend mine.

You are NOT wanting to defend YOUR values, you are wanting to FORCE
them upon others.

YOU have a perfectly rational and moral right to defend YOUR animals
from what you perceive as harm, thats it.

The fact that the law allows you to be a busy body scabby scummy
socialist does not make the law right.


Michael Gordge