Another source of light pollution

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:08:12 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:58:45 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

Maybe the law against cruelty to animals is only there to allow the
authorities to have a pretext to lock up sadistic people before they
graduate to humans, and is not there because anyone (among those making
the laws, that is) really cares about animals.

So even the most outrageous tortures done to animals for some legitimate
practical reason would remain perfectly legal.

John Savard

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:22:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:08:12 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:58:45 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

Maybe the law against cruelty to animals is only there to allow the
authorities to have a pretext to lock up sadistic people before
they
graduate to humans, and is not there because anyone (among those
making
the laws, that is) really cares about animals.

So even the most outrageous tortures done to animals for some
legitimate
practical reason would remain perfectly legal.

You're speculating.

Also note that the reason for torture is to make the subject of the
torture suffer. When would that be a legitimate reason?

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 12:07:19 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:22:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:08:12 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:58:45 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

Maybe the law against cruelty to animals is only there to allow the
authorities to have a pretext to lock up sadistic people before
they
graduate to humans, and is not there because anyone (among those
making
the laws, that is) really cares about animals.

So even the most outrageous tortures done to animals for some
legitimate
practical reason would remain perfectly legal.

You're speculating.

Can you say "LD50"? I knew you could.

In any case, since I am responding to the claim (law against cruelty
to animals) -- (animals have rights), I don't need to prove that my
proposed rationale for laws similar to those we have now is the actual
one, as to refute that claim, I only need to show that it is not
necessarily true in all _possible_ cases.

John Savard