Back

ABA Journal

Home

Animal Law

‘Dogs are people, too,’ researcher says; what are the legal implications of animal emotions?

Oct 9, 2013, 11:35 am CDT

Comments

I suppose it is only a matter of time until the House of Delgates declares dogs "human" by Resolution (and, if dogs wear hats and act human, the Journal Staff won't question it).

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 09, 12:12 pm CDT

Anyone that has seen a dog's tail in action could tell you that dogs have emotions.

By NoleLaw on 2013 10 09, 12:30 pm CDT

Of course dogs have emotions! Have you ever seen how they act when they lose at poker?

By A. Krebs on 2013 10 09, 12:42 pm CDT

I would not be surprised if the courts one day declared that some dogs are people entitled to certain legal rights, since the courts have previously declared that some people, such as the unborn, are not people and have no rights whatsoever.

By Yankee on 2013 10 09, 12:55 pm CDT

This piece was hilarious. It took an MRI for him to figure out what everyone who OWNS a dog already knows--they love food and their people.

By KS Attorney on 2013 10 09, 1:49 pm CDT

What if a dog "identifies" as a dog?

By Hedgehog on 2013 10 09, 1:57 pm CDT

While I would LOVE to see the law recognize that animals have emotions and are different from say, a chair, I don't think we can totally do away with the idea that dogs are property. They don't have the same level of self-determination and self-awareness as a human, so declaring them "people" wouldn't make sense. I do think there is good logic behind the idea that a human has to be a good custodian or guardian or they lose the animal - our current animal rights laws only protect animals from the worst behaviors.

By RecentGrad on 2013 10 09, 2:09 pm CDT

Of course dogs have emotion. They are happy to see their people, they get sad when we leave, they get scared during thunderstorms, and more. I've seen my dog have dreams (feet twitching, making noises while asleep). The comments ridiculing the idea of giving dogs limited rights are missing the point. Humane treatment of any sentient being should be guaranteed, and penalties should exist for those who harm sentient beings, whether they are human or animal.

By LB on 2013 10 09, 2:13 pm CDT

Of course animals have emotions and plants respond to stimuli. This, however, should have no bearing on that fact they are both legally property. My Lord, what nonsense is next? Expecting the slavery analogy by animal rights activists in 5. 4. 3. 2...

By ACD on 2013 10 09, 3:22 pm CDT

Dogs are sapient, sentient beings, full of emotions and feelings, with their own unique personality. Dogs have many human qualities of personhood. Dogs show joy and happiness, love and affection, fear and anger, sadness and grief, and other emotions. Dogs and humans interact on many levels. If you want to experience real loyalty, get a dog.

A dog is a warm-blooded mammal in the same scientific class as humans. War dogs are especially sapient, sentient beings, are valued members of our armed forces, and honored for their wartime service.

http://www.stripes.com/news/museum-erects-memorial-for-animals-who-served-in-war-1.94722

Dogs mourn, grieve death, and the loss of humans. At the funeral of Navy SEAL Jon Tumilson, killed in Afghanistan, Hawkeye, his black Labrador retriever, lay down in front of Tumilson's flag-draped casket, and "There, the loyal dog stayed for the entire service."

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/07/06/dogs-may-mourn-as-deeply-as-humans-do

@9 In my state dogs and other companion animal pets are treated a personal property, not unlike the status of African-Americans as held by the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). The Court ruled that slaves, as chattel or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process. African-Americans are no longer considered chattel or private property by the courts. This reversal is evidence that law is a living, changing force.

People generally bring dogs and other companion animals into their life for love and companionship, not to acquire property. People often consider a dog as a member of the family, and seek the finest care for their, just as they would for a human family member. The bond that exists between humans and dogs is an extraordinary one.

The human/animal bond and the indispensable relationship of dogs and other animals and human beings is immortalized in the story of Noah and the Flood, the Book of Genesis, beginning chapter 6, verse 13:

"And God said unto Noah…make thee an ark of gopher wood…the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits…And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

There is no evidence that Noah was commanded to save any chattel or personal property from the flood, thereby creating a class to save (a few humans and every species of animal) and a class to destroy (many humans and all else).

@4, Yankee, if you have a citation to that case where the "courts have previously declared that some people, such as the unborn, are not people and have no rights whatsoever", please provide the citation, I want to read the case. The unborn do have rights, a wide range of rights, from prenatal care through criminal prosecution by the state of those who negligently kill a pregnant woman and unborn child.

A life is a precious gift, whether it is a human life or the life of an animal. It saddens me that defenders of unborn children often loose interest in the child once he or she is born. The current government shutdown is by Republicans wanting to stop the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that provides healthcare to the unborn and children. What do Republicans offer in lieu of the ACA, besides empty rhetoric?

By dogs are family on 2013 10 09, 4:04 pm CDT

See, it only took 42 minuets to cite Dredd Scott. I win the pool! Is there Godwin's Law corollary for Dredd Scott references?

By ACD on 2013 10 09, 4:08 pm CDT

WOW! ACD has telepathetic powers :) he must get ESPN... Now for the "use dogs for glue" post by someone who claims that animals are our god-given property to do with as we please in 5. 4. 3. 2. ...

By mike on 2013 10 09, 4:16 pm CDT

Sorry ACD, took me 8 minutes to get through @10, answer an email and post my response.

By mike on 2013 10 09, 4:17 pm CDT

doggie jail for vandalism?
doggie prison for maulings?
doggie death penalty for especially heinous killings?

By defensive lawyer on 2013 10 09, 4:33 pm CDT

@11 ACD, No Godwin corollary applies, your logic is misplaced.

Read the opinion in Scott v Sanford. According to Chief Justice Taney, "the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Opinion_of_the_Court

"The Court also presented a parade of horribles argument, based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, listing what the Court considered to be the inevitable and undesirable effects of granting Scott's petition:"

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Where is your "parade of horribles argument" against the legal implications of animal emotions?

By dogs are family on 2013 10 09, 5:03 pm CDT

"Read the opinion in Scott v Sanford. According to Chief Justice Taney..."

quod erat demonstrandum

@13 No problem Mike. I only skimmed @10. You Sir, are a brave man. :)

By ACD on 2013 10 09, 5:07 pm CDT

@11: ,,I win the pool! Is there Godwin’s Law corollary for Dredd Scott references?>>

Yes. You get Godwinned, for comparing people who believe in animal rights to Nazis.

By Mr. Ed on 2013 10 09, 7:16 pm CDT

It seems the sides are arguing past each other here. No one is disagreeing that intelligent animals have emotions and feel pain; no one is excusing inflicting suffering on them. No one is arguing that there are not property aspects to ownership of a dog; otherwise I want back that $800 I recently paid for my Sheltie pup. We all have certain feelings toward people who abuse a dog; but what about cattle? What about breeders and pet stores? What about an octopus in an aquarium? Can we agree that the person/property distinction is not a useful one when applied to certain animals?

Legislation to prevent cruelty to animals has nearly universal acceptance; the issues seem to be with lax enforcement, especially where animal ownership meets commerce. I think this research is useful not so much to move certain animals across the person/property divide as to blur the lines of that divide and suggest an area in between

By Mr. Ed on 2013 10 09, 7:27 pm CDT

Mr. Ed:

Perhaps I was unclear – I don't know how – but, in case I was, I will explain.

I was not comparing animal right's activists to members of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) or Nazi's for short. I was stating that the tendency of people in internet discussions – usually centered on law and politics – to compare their opponents to Nazis (Godwin's Law) is comparable to the tendency of animal right's activists to invoke Dredd Scott to rebut arguments that animals are and should continue to be considered chattel.

Was that clearer? I sure hope so.

By ACD on 2013 10 09, 7:30 pm CDT

Of course they have emotions. Animals are a lot more than some of our intellectually indifferent behavioral scientists give them credit for...

By concernedcitizen on 2013 10 09, 10:27 pm CDT

Well, No. 10, first, there are no dogs in MY family. Second, I also disagree with your analogy comparing black people to dogs. Third, why would God have said all that crap to Noah in English as you have alleged? I think you have pretty much failed to check any of your "facts".

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 09, 11:00 pm CDT

animals can be possessed by demond, same as people. Jesus drove out some demons into 2,000 pigs in the New Testament.

By defensive lawyer on 2013 10 09, 11:08 pm CDT

@19 -- ACD:

On reflection it is clear you did not compare animal rights people to Nazis. Still, I think the Godwin reference is not analogous. The problem with Nazi comparisons is that it shuts off discussion -- it is an escalation beyond reason. I don't think that applies to the slavery analogy. You were right (and quickly vindicated) to predict it would come up. But analogizing the ownership of animals to the ownership of humans is not a discussion stopper of the kind that Godwin's addresses; it's a natural extension of the subject matter. Also, it's addressed to the topic, and not to the individual.

Interesting comment in the GL entry on Wiki: "While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate." That kind of sentiment underlies my overreaction to your comment. I don't think the animal ownership/slavery analogy is that far off topic (although I don't agree with it). I read your comment as a "There you go again" kind of dismissal. While it is predictable that someone would make the slavery analogy, they do not deserve to be chided for doing it.

By Mr. Ed on 2013 10 10, 1:47 am CDT

It is a noteworthy lesson of history that tyrannical people (and reanimated mummies, as I understand it) have an issue with cats, but even the Nazis, with their many flaws, were fond of dogs. Hitler kept a favorite German Shepard named "Blondi," which was a gift from Martin Bormann, and he had previously owned mother and offspring females named "Blonda," and still earlier (1920s) dogs named "Mukl" and "Prinz." Dogs tend to be not very good judges of character.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 10, 6:33 am CDT

@21. B. McLeod. My reference to Scott v. Sanford was for the purpose of showing the evolution of law, and how the Supreme Court got it wrong. Perhaps that was not clear. I am not comparing animals to black people as you wrote. I attempted to show how the thinking of the time, or zeitgeist, changes.

I did not claim you had any dogs in your family. Trolls are usually solitary.

I did not express which language God spoke to Noah. Translators did that work long ago.

The biblical flood story may be a better illustration that the Scott case. According to the story (whether it is a factual account or myth I don’t know) it appears that God valued the lives of animals as compared to humans, and commanded Noah to ensure the continued presence of animals on the Earth.

@24. B. McLeod "Dogs tend to be not very good judges of character." Hitler was elected by the German people, not dogs. Hitler’s ideas were codified into law by lawyers, and enforced by judges, not dogs. There were no dogs in the dock at the Nuremberg Trials.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 10, 1:44 pm CDT

Clearly, these posts indicate "it's a dog eat dog world."

By charlegman on 2013 10 10, 7:13 pm CDT

Wrong again, No. 25. Hitler was not "elected" by anyone, nor was his party elected to a majority of seats in the Reichstag. He was appointed Chancellor. Now granted, that was not by a dog, but otherwise, you are still batting 1000 on being wrong on the facts.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 11, 12:29 am CDT

@27 B. McLeod. Yes, appointed Chancellor, but then won as party leader the German federal election March 5, 1933 with a majority of the popular vote, 17,277,180 million votes - almost ten million more votes than Otto Wells, the second place candidate with 7,516,243 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

Getting back on topic, the linked Times story and study shows that "by using the M.R.I. to push away the limitations of behaviorism, we can no longer hide from the evidence. Dogs, and probably many other animals (especially our closest primate relatives), seem to have emotions just like us. And this means we must reconsider their treatment as property."

Yes, "and probably many other animals....And this means we must reconsider their treatment as" breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Humane Society reports pigs are smarter than dogs and three year-old humans.

"Pigs are widely known to be highly inquisitive, with considerable learning and problem-solving abilities.[180],[181] They easily learn to operate levers and switches to obtain food and water, and to adjust ambient temperature to their liking.[182]"

"Pigs have also been observed to work in collaboration to free themselves from their pens.[183]"

"According to Donald Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare at University of Cambridge Veterinary School, who has been conducting mirror reflection tests with pigs: "Pigs have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than] three-year-olds."[184]"

http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/pigs/pigs_more.html

"Sir Winston Churchill, Britain's famed prime minister, was fond of pigs and reportedly said, "Cats look down on you; dogs look up to you; but pigs look you in the eye as equals."[3]"

So this reality makes animal-eating people nervous, and angry: They don’t want to give up bacon and eggs for breakfast. Of course, the animals we eat vary by culture. You won’t find dog on a restaurant menu in America, but in Indonesia you may.

"In President Obama’s best-selling memoir, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro."

""With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)," the president wrote. "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.""

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/

So you may want to become a vegetarian - like Hitler.

Perhaps the scientists can further study dogs, and other animals, and explain why only humans are capable of atrocities like The Holocaust.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 11, 3:04 am CDT

Your histories must be written by dogs. In the election of 1933, despite use of emergency powers to suppress the socialist and communist parties in the wake of the Reichstag fire, the Nazis (not Hitler "as party leader") still managed to garner only 43.9% of the popular vote, thus failing to attain either a majority of the popular vote or a majority of the seats in the Reichstag.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 11, 3:24 am CDT

Actually, referring to your linked source, I see that you obviously delegated the math to one or more dogs, failing to account for the results of any but the first three parties, and failing to understand the "percentage 43.91" clearly showing that the Nazis only had about 43.9% of the popular vote. If you actually go on to look at the data shown for the other parties, it confirms that the Nazis once again failed as a party to obtain a majority of either the popular vote or seats in the Reichstag.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 11, 3:30 am CDT

@29 - That would depend on the 1933 election you are referencing. The one in November went to the Nazis by 92%. So you see why allowing minority parties to control electoral outcomes is problematic.

Yo dogs, meat tastes good. It satisfies a hunger that sprouts never will. If you want to start a movement to protect animal welfare, focus on how they are treated and the market distortions based on taxpayer funds that we implement to keep meat cheap.

By NoleLaw on 2013 10 11, 3:35 am CDT

"So you may want to become a vegetarian - like Hitler."
<buzzer>
I am sorry "Dogs are Family" but you have violated Godwin's Law. Sadly, this means you lose. Thank you for playing. Dont be too sad because We at the ABA have some great parting gifts such asas: Legal Analysis of Charlotte's Web by Wilbur; Animal Farm by Orwell, and How the (naughty word) am I going to clean this ark by Ham.

Seriously, this thread is a near endless source of amusement.

By ACD on 2013 10 11, 3:41 am CDT

Hah. Like Herr "Dogs," I was referencing the March election, because by the time of the November "election" (indeed, as of June or July 1933) the Nazis had banned all competing political parties. So, yeah, they did really well in that November 1933 one, but most serious historians don't consider it to have been a real "election." As I recall, there was an unopposed Nazi slate, plus twenty or so candidates who were not Nazis, but affiliated to the point they were endorsed by (and stood for office with the permission of) the Nazis.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 11, 6:12 am CDT

Dogs will never be declared "human" simply because it would effectively end the keeping of them as pets and their numbers would drastically decline. Indications of emotion or anthropomorphism should not drive this issue. Animals are animals, and though they deserve humane treatment, they are not people, no matter what Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2 says. ;)

By LawJake on 2013 10 11, 11:37 am CDT

Finally! How long before I am able to marry Sparkles?

By Jim on 2013 10 11, 12:53 pm CDT

@29-30 B. McLeod, my "histories" come from Wikipedia. I doubt dogs write articles on Wikipedia, unless they have a computer with a special paw-enhanced keyboard.

As for the nazis failing to attain a majority of the popular vote, the irony is too rich: U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4 (Electoral College), 3 U.S.C. § 4, and Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000): Presidential candidate George Bush won the U.S. presidency with a minority of the popular vote, in a presidential political system that is effectively limited to two parties because of the Electoral College. Still I guess it’s better for the SCOTUS to determine the president than the tactics used by the nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Same with presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992: Clinton won a plurality in the popular vote (43%, even less than 43.91% the nazis got in 1933), and a wide Electoral College margin. But Independent candidate Ross Perot, who got 19,743,821 popular votes, got zero Electoral College votes. Until the Electoral College is repealed, choice is effectively limited to two parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Also see Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/slevinson/undemocratic/

@32 ACD, sorry, no Godwin’s Law. My statement (not a comparison) was for the purpose of irony: Hilter was a vegetarian out of compassion for animals, yet slaughtered millions of people. And WWII resulted in millions of animals killed as a result of hostilities.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 11, 12:59 pm CDT

@35 - Don't do it. I hear she's a total bitch.

By NoleLaw on 2013 10 11, 1:09 pm CDT

Dogs are human because they have emotions?

That a researcher views that as a logical conclusion shows how far research has declined.

That anyone else views it as anything but laughable shows how far society has declined.

That the ABA Journal thinks it worth dignifying shows how far the ABA Journal has declined.

That so many commenters are ridiculing it for the nonsense it is shows there is still hope.

By Ohio lawyer on 2013 10 11, 1:19 pm CDT

"Dogs have emotions."

Yeah, I think everyone who's ever met a dog figured that out in about 5 seconds.

This article required the coalescence of various morons to see the light of day: the researcher, the reporter, and her editors.

By John2510 on 2013 10 11, 1:21 pm CDT

@ACD: It's funny how you used a ridiculous analogy to describe those who you believe will use a ridiculous analogy.

By Smeliot on 2013 10 11, 1:37 pm CDT

@11 - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Godwin's Law approaches one.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 10 11, 1:40 pm CDT

Great. So now the Supremes will have dogs exercising their first amendment rights too.

By PatPend on 2013 10 11, 1:45 pm CDT

We don't need no stinkin' scientists to tell us dogs have emotions.

By Stuart on 2013 10 11, 1:47 pm CDT

@35....think this through...any dog named "Sparkles" is gonna want a HUGE frickin' diamond engagement ring....5 or more carats. Just sayin'.....

But seriously...I've been in animal rescue for 30 years. ALL animals show emotion. This is another one of those dumb grant funded research things like finding out why people fall in love. But, hey, if it gets animals more rights and to be considered more than chattel I'm all for it.

By CrazyCatLady on 2013 10 11, 2:36 pm CDT

Dogs can't be people. If they are people, we couldn't put them to sleep. We would just have to leave the timing of their death to cars.

By Me on 2013 10 11, 2:56 pm CDT

Slavery in the U.S. is an interesting historical anomaly. Where is it written that slaves have to be inferior beings? (Justice Taney in Scott v Sanford, I know.)

The Romans kept chattel slaves, but didn't try to justify it by pretending that the owned were lesser beings than the owner—they just fought a war, we won, you lost, sucks to be you.

The Old Testament—same tome that condemns homosexuality, as punishable by death as eating a bacon cheeseburger—likes slavery. A lot. Says you have to treat 'em right, though.

My dog is a retired racing Greyhound. When she's mobile, she is *way* faster than your dog. She is also quite possibly the most flatulent canine living.

I suppose that I "own" her. OTOH, she sleeps approximately 23-1/2 hours a day, on a $2K leather dog bed (formerly known as my couch), gets fed tasty nuggets on a regular basis and commands the household with an unbearable whine that gets her anything she wants.

. . . I'm wondering who the slave is in this relationship.

By Is Slavery So Bad? on 2013 10 11, 3:06 pm CDT

Not sure about the author's motives after a mushy piece like "Dogs Are People, Too" bu the neuroscientist wants to find an animal model for human behaviors. By documenting that dogs can be trained to sit for an MRI scan, that they experience positive feedback in the caudate, and they they have functional homology to human emotion also experience in the caudate, the author has created a model where he can study and monitor a dog's response and make analogies to human responses in similar situations.

Possibly contrary to the author's intent, he has now also created a model to study anti-depressants, addiction, positive/negative stimuli, etc.

or maybe... he's a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde with a pseudonym he uses in the "Journal of Inhumane Animal Research"

By mike on 2013 10 11, 3:27 pm CDT

The Democratic National Committee and the Obama people are already organizing well-funded national campaigns to sign up the nation's dogs to vote Democrat 2016.

By Politico on 2013 10 11, 3:53 pm CDT

They are capable of rudimentary affection but that is as far as it goes.

And they don't belong in streets, parks, or anywhere else except their owner's detached houses and gardens, I think you would say yards, so that nobody else hears them bark or is troubled by their faeces.

By Andrew on 2013 10 11, 3:54 pm CDT

For anyone interested in learning more about pet personhood, and what it could mean for you--and your relationship with your dog or your cat, check out this explainer: http://davidhgrimm.com/2013/10/08/are-cats-and-dogs-people-or-toasters-a-primer-on-pet-personhood/

By David Grimm on 2013 10 11, 4:03 pm CDT

@49: Andrew, maybe someone should conduct a test to see if YOU have emotions.

By Smeliot on 2013 10 11, 4:08 pm CDT

@48 - and watch the law suits if anyone demands to see their identification!

By John2510 on 2013 10 11, 4:15 pm CDT

@49 Your lack of affection for dogs matches your politics: Heartless and cold. I have a saying that has served me well - Beware the person who doesn't love dogs.

By Unplugged on 2013 10 11, 4:39 pm CDT

53: What are my politics? Have a guess? You won't offend me though you may amuse me.

By Andrew on 2013 10 11, 5:41 pm CDT

Dogs are family presents an articulate and reasoned argued backed by references. I appreciate your well worded posts and obvious intelligence. WHY ARE YOU NOT IN CONGRESS???

By Kristenruth on 2013 10 11, 5:46 pm CDT

B. McLeod: It's not "Shepard" it's "Shepherd."

By T&E Paralegal on 2013 10 11, 5:47 pm CDT

Dogs are family, I appreciate your well reasoned and intelligent presentation. You are obviously thoughtful and intelligent. WHY ARE YOU NOT IN CONGRESS??? PLEASE RUN!!!

By KRISTENRUTH on 2013 10 11, 5:49 pm CDT

Kristenruth @ 55 AND 57. I will take you out for your walk now. I'll get your Kibbles when I go to the store. Please do not pester the mail carrier!

By psable on 2013 10 11, 5:56 pm CDT

Until I have at least filed a suit to get products that are, even in part, derived from slaughtered livestock labeled "contains slaughtered livestock," even if Jesus existed and heaven exists, I won't get in.

This is my purpose as a Christian. But I haven't filed yet. I am God's least worthy servant. I should be ashamed. What am I talking about? I am ashamed.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 11, 6:07 pm CDT

Excuse me. I guess that should be "derived from slaughtered livestock" in the case of organically fertilized, (dried cattle blood), crops as well.

I forgot there for a moment.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 11, 6:11 pm CDT

Dogs are not family.

They are not your children.

Unless you are of advanced age or tragedy intervenes they are going to predecease you.

I once heard (as a magistrate) a case where A's dog attacked B's dog during "walkies" and B then attacked A - both women, I have to add - and B said in court that she had been "defending her little girl". And one of my fellow-magistrates murmured under her breath "There was a stupid bitch at both ends of the leash"!

By Andrew on 2013 10 11, 6:17 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 11, 6:35 pm CDT

Oh my God! Next they are going to learn to disregard their own feces!

By justpassingby on 2013 10 11, 6:35 pm CDT

@ 10: "The current government shutdown is by Republicans wanting to stop the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that provides healthcare to the unborn and children. What do Republicans offer in lieu of the ACA, besides empty rhetoric?" How about personal freedom? Each time the government tells you what you must do or what you must not do, your freedom is curtailed.

By George Renneberg on 2013 10 11, 7:07 pm CDT

Well, dogs have plenty of personal freedom. A dog will sit right in front of you, licking its own ball sack, and think nothing of it. Whether you have guests over, or whether you are trying to have dinner, or whatever, it makes no difference to the dog. If everybody starts doing that kind of stuff, it's going to become very awkward. Can you imagine walking into the Managing Partner's office, only to find he is busy licking his ball sack? And what of associates? I suppose they will probably have to start sniffing the butts of partners. Oh, wait. . .

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 12, 3:42 am CDT

Yes, and not sniffing your female colleagues' crotch will be discrminaory, won't it? I'm beginning to see an upside here . . .

By Andrew on 2013 10 12, 4:02 am CDT

@10--you want a court case that declared that unborn children are not "persons" under the constitution? Look no further than Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973), and their progeny. Yes, these tragic cases are at odds with the laws you cited that appear to protect unborn children—and it is my hope that the laws favoring the humanity of the unborn child from the point of conception will win out on a national scale.

And the account of Noah and the Ark is fact, not myth (see 1 Peter 3:18-22; Matthew 24:36-39). But it was not to teach that man is less valuable than animals—indeed, the in Noahic covenant God allowed man to eat animal flesh for the first time—we were vegans before that point, see Genesis 2:16, 9:1-4. God preserved Noah, along with his family, who found grace in His sight, and were alone in being righteous in the earth, and God sought to preserve His animal kingdom by saving enough animals to reproduce (and some extra "clean" animals for the sacrifices that pointed to the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, on the Cross, which is the only thing that can pay for anyone's sin (including Noah's)).

In any event, I wonder what effect this MRI discovery about dogs might have on laws regarding bestiality. What the heck--our nation now embraces the ethic of homosexuality, which the Bible condemned no less (actually, even more) than bestiality (see Leviticus 18:22-23, 20:13 and 15, Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Actually, I tend toward animal rights, and I am sensitive to animals' emotions, and try to treat them with dignity and compassion (Proverbs 12:10), and would favor laws enforcing the same. Indeed the Bible commanded that you could not boil a baby animal in his/her mother's milk (Exodus 34:26). Our family of 6 humans (my wife and I and our 4 children) has 9 animals (a Siberian Husky, 3 cats (all related), 2 fish (one of which we have had for almost 15 years), 2 guinea pigs, and a turtle), and we love 'em all to death.

But we must, must protect the humanity of the unborn from the point of conception, judicially and legislatively, lest we incur greater judgment as a nation.

By Jason R. Craddock on 2013 10 12, 7:30 am CDT

67. Here endeth, I hope, the sermon.

By Andrew on 2013 10 12, 9:24 am CDT

Carl Sagan wrote up the idea, in very general terms, that the rules we apply in prohibiting cruelty to animals might give us insight into the abortion debate in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, DRAGONS OF EDEN. I hesitate to say "his conclusion," but his "conclusion" seemed to revolve around intelligence in animals and intelligence at 9 weeks into the human pregnancy, when the fetal brain, the human brain, turns on. (But cf. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_a_fetus_have_brain_activity, last accessed just now.)

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 12, 11:53 pm CDT

We painless euthanize dogs. Can't we do that for human fetuses once they become able to "feel" pain because their brain has become activated? That's all I care about, really. As an atheist and as a Christian.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 13, 12:02 am CDT

Some states still do it for convicted murderers too, although in a growing number if states, the judges are too timid and overgentrified to let it stand.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 13, 12:50 am CDT

Tom Y- Actually we do not painlessly euthanize dogs, and it is one of those awful secrets that no one either know or talks about. Dogs are led, and most often carried, into crowded steel boxes where they seem to discern or perceive death and start crying out. Have you ever heard a dog cry? Not yelp, not bark, not screech- but cry? Haunting does not begin to describe it. They are pushed into a gas chamber. They paw at the box to be let out, and their cries get louder as they get gassed. Be there for one of those deaths, and then tell me what you think. Or if you even feel.

Do not for one second say that any of this is humane or painless. Never, ever again. Unless you would have one of your loved ones be killed the same way.

By DKK on 2013 10 13, 3:43 am CDT

DKK, I do not dispute a word you say. I was thinking of how pet euthanasia should be. Like this for example: http://youtu.be/IxCMQV-qF7c

And, McLeod @ 65, if this post gets deleted for being about a cat instead of a dog, well, I think I'll cough out a hairball or two.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 13, 4:07 am CDT

Rhwrut?? Ruh-Roh! You know I don't control that stuff, Tom.

B. McLEOD,
STILL NOT ON ABA STAFF

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 13, 6:11 am CDT

# 67. You love your animals to death? Interesting choice of words.

By Me on 2013 10 13, 2:01 pm CDT

@55 and 57 Kristenruth, thank you, appreciate your support. You may enjoy some of my animal rights posts at http://www.nosue.org/animal-rights/ Object to the "normalization of violence" accepted to put dinner on the table.

So far every post has missed a HUGE reason that dogs should have personhood.

CORPORATIONS HAVE PERSONHOOD!

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) - Corporate Personhood!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/dogs-personhood_n_4079215.html

Sometimes you cannot see the forest for the trees.

@65 B. McLeod, what about male partners and associates walking around the office in an obvious turgid state? And the SEC lawyers during the economic meltdown with stacks of porn in their office? What do you think they were doing with that porn? (masturbation on government time).

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/gop_says_sec_lawyer_watched_8_hours_of_porn_a_day_amid_financial_crisis/

http://www.abajournal.com/files/SECPornSummary.pdf

@67. Jason R. Craddock, okay, I’ll re-read Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973), and their progeny. But in the past I noted that a woman’s right to choose is a liberty interest, in essence a justifiable homicide, which acknowledges the fetus as a human being. Sad but true.

@64. George Renneberg, okay, fine, personal freedom - so long as you are healthy and wealthy. Otherwise - SOL. Look, I am not a fan of Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable, in part because it continues high rents to the healthcare industry. Medicare for all is the way to go. And by "all" I mean Congress, the President and the federal judiciary too!

The health of the American People is too important to hand off to private industry. The two largest exporting nations have universal healthcare, Germany and China. U.S. companies are at a competitive disadvantage when they must pay extra-ordinary rents to a protected private healthcare industry. See U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Public Healthcare http://youtu.be/RSM8t_cLZgk

U S Healthcare Held Hostage by Corporate Fraud http://youtu.be/zs7ds9x2z9I

By dogs are family on 2013 10 13, 2:17 pm CDT

"So far every post has missed a HUGE reason that dogs should have personhood"

*sigh* Just when I thought your arguments couldn't get dumber.

I know this will be a waste of time but I will try and explain this to you. Corporations HAVE AlWAYS been legal persons. That is the whole damn point of the corporate structure. A corporation is an investment vehicle/business model that allows people to pool their resources without the risks associated with simple joint ventures or partnerships. It does this by creating a legal person, a corporation, and allowing this fictional person to hold debt, own property etc. This did not start with Citizens United. It has been this way for a few centuries. I am sure some attorneys whose practice is centered in this talk could explain it better -if they were so inclined-, but good God man, please stop while you are ahead. There may be worthwhile arguments as to why domestic animals should receive heightened legal protection, but you are reaching new depths of absurdity with each post.

By ACD on 2013 10 13, 6:23 pm CDT

ACD @ 9 & 19 --

If you are still waiting in anticipation for "the slavery analogy by animal rights activists," you're too late. PETA tried than back in 2011. See the ABA News article <http://www.abajournal.co/news/article/judge_doesnt_buy_expanding_13th_amendment_arguments_in_peta_suit_over_ensla/> and district court order <http://media.utsandiego.com/news/documents/2012/02/08/PETA_Order_to_Dismiss_case.pdf

Dogs are family @ 76 and ACD #77 --

Don't forget that it was the Congress, not the courts, that first declared that the word "person" includes "bodies politic and corporate." Dictionary Act of 1871, presently codified at 1 U.S.C. § 1 ("the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals").

By Zipherblat on 2013 10 14, 11:48 am CDT

@77. ACD - Citizens United granted First Amendment free speech to corporations by prohibiting the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. That is a new and controversial expansion of corporate rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

ACD: "A corporation is an investment vehicle/business model that allows people to pool their resources without the risks associated with simple joint ventures or partnerships."

Fine, but the "legal person" created has limited liability in a way that a human being or animal does not. A dog or other animal is a living entity like a human being, but a corporation is not. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, but a corporation cannot be incarcerated like an animal or human being, only its corporate officers can, but that rarely happens. So a corporation is more like a zombie than a real person. A zombie is an animated corpse raised by magical means such as witchcraft. (Wikipedia). A corporation is a non-living person raised by legal process.

The problem with these non-living zombie-corporate-persons raised by legal process is corporatism, corporatocracy and corporatization.

Corporatism has the makings of fascism. "Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations)... In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini."

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

Corporatization is the process of transforming state assets, government agencies or municipal organizations into corporations. (i.e., public utility commodity into ENRON nightmare).

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

"Corporatocracy....is a term used as an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization.[18] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.[18]"

"The term was used by author John Perkins in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, where he described corporatocracy as a tacitly coordinated collective composed of corporations, banks, and governments.[4] This collective is known as what author C Wright Mills would call the Power Elite. The Power Elite are wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in Corporatocracies. These individuals control the process of determining society's economic and political policies.[19]"

"The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources..."

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

Dogs are closer to people than non-living zombie-corporate-persons raised by legal process. That was the point, which apparently you did not understand. Hope this makes it clearer for you.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 14, 12:44 pm CDT

Sorry, the last link in comment 79 should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

By dogs are people on 2013 10 14, 12:49 pm CDT

@78. Zipherblat - thank you. Appreciate the citation to 1 U.S.C. § 1. And thanks for a link to the ABA story, see comments @2, 5, 22, 28, AndytheLawyer

By dogs are people on 2013 10 14, 1:09 pm CDT

"@24. B. McLeod “Dogs tend to be not very good judges of character.” Hitler was elected by the German people, not dogs. Hitler’s ideas were codified into law by lawyers, and enforced by judges, not dogs. There were no dogs in the dock at the Nuremberg Trials"

BUT...this brings up something. Did the dogs implicitly aid Hitler in his crimes? Why didn't the dogs blow the lid on Hitler's plans? Why didn't they try to stop him? The fact is they didn't so should they have been on the dock at the Nuremberg Trials?

By SME on 2013 10 14, 6:50 pm CDT

Lost in the shuffle was Herr "Dogs" never admitting he was completely wrong, given that Hitler was never "elected by the German people."

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 14, 9:41 pm CDT

R'of Course I woof be permitted to take the bar(k) in California. Arf! Arf!
Thank you Jerry Brown. I always though you looked like a schnauzer!

By Rastro on 2013 10 15, 7:01 pm CDT

It may be more accurate to say that "people are dogs!"

By sponson on 2013 10 15, 7:02 pm CDT

@78. Zipherblat. Having read the decision, the PETA-orca whale case failed to argue or establish personhood for the whales. No attempt was made at personhood for whales. Instead the plaintiffs tried to directly apply the Thirteenth Amendment to whales, which attempt was found to lack standing. The judge was sympathetic and wrote "the goal of Next Friends in seeking to protect the welfare of orcas is laudable" (conclusion). Footnote one (page 4) shows a weakness in the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss:

"The court notes that while "[a]nimals have many legal rights, protected under both federal
and state laws" which provide for the humane treatment and criminalizing cruelty to animals, only human beings have standing to bring such actions. Cetacean, 386 F.3d at 1175. "It is obvious that an animal cannot function as a plaintiff in the same manner as a juridically competent human being." Id. at 1176. Next Friends cite no statute authorizing Plaintiffs to bring a private right of action. Instead, Next Friends contend that they have constitutional standing under the Thirteenth Amendment."

http://media.utsandiego.com/news/documents/2012/02/08/PETA_Order_to_Dismiss_case.pdf

I would argue that "It is obvious that a corporation cannot function as a plaintiff in the same manner as a juridically competent human being." In fact, a corporation needs a juridically competent human being to do anything at all. Arguably a dog could appear in court and demonstrate evidence of personhood, something a corporation could never do alone. If a plaintiff established personhood for a whale, such case may do better with the Thirteenth Amendment.

So a corporation is both a zombie raised-up by legal process, and a dependent invalid needing human assistance to do anything. This linked website notes corporations are zombies and have agency in common with human beings. Still a corporation’s agency depends on a human being.

http://www.artandscienceofdoingnothing.com/?p=325

Anyway, my reference to Scott v Sanford was not to invoke Thirteenth Amendment protection for animals, but to show how the Supreme Court got it wrong, to show the evolution of law, and how the thinking of the time, or zeitgeist, changes.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 16, 3:00 am CDT

@83 B. McLeod, "Lost in the shuffle was Herr "Dogs" never admitting he was completely wrong, given that Hitler was never "elected by the German people."

I acknowledged that Hitler was appointed Chancellor, see post 28. Also see "Was Hitler democratically elected?" by Eike Pierstorff

http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/

"People who say that Hitler wasn’t really elected are usually germanophiles who search for excuses for crimes of the german people in the "Third Reich" (the argument is that a small undemocratic minority oppressed the good people of germany).... So, since Hitler and the NSDAP had more votes than any other party during the Republic of Weimar and governed on the basis of a law that had been passed by the absolute majority of the parliament is seems reasonable to conclude that he was indeed democratically elected."

Again, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 with only 43% of the vote, and George W. Bush won the 2000 election with less that a majority of the vote. There are other examples too.

Getting back on topic, Chips the dog was the most decorated war dog from World War II. Chips was a German Shepherd-Collie-Siberian Husky mix owned by Edward J. Wren of Pleasantville, NY. During the war, private citizens like Wren donated their dogs for duty. Chips shipped out to the War Dog Training Center, Front Royal, Virginia, in 1942 for training as a sentry dog. He served with the 3rd Infantry Division in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany. His handler was Pvt. John P. Rowell.

Chips served as a sentry dog for the Roosevelt-Churchill conference in 1943. Later that year, during the invasion of Sicily, Chips and his handler were pinned down on the beach by an Italian machine-gun team. Chips broke from his handler and jumped into the pillbox, attacking the gunners. The four crewmen were forced to leave the pillbox and surrendered to US troops. In the fight he sustained a scalp wound and powder burns. Later that day, he helped take 10 Italians prisoner. For his actions during the war, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart; however, these awards were later revoked due to an Army policy preventing official commendation of animals. His unit unofficially awarded him a Theater Ribbon with an Arrowhead for an assault landing, and Battlestars for each of his eight campaigns. Chips was discharged in December 1945 and returned to the Wren family.

In 1990, Disney made a TV movie based on his life, entitled Chips, the War Dog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chips_(dog)

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

War dogs like Chips fought for your freedom to blog on this website, so give those dog-soldiers some credit. Honestly I cannot imagine you ever jumping into a pillbox to overpower a machine gun crew to save the day like Chips.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 16, 3:22 am CDT

That you can find some idiot who accuses all thinking people of being "germanophiles" adds little to the discussion. The facts are that even by violent suppression of opposing parties and putting opposing candidates in jail, the Nazis were unable to win a majority of the seats until they had banned participation by opposing parties entirely.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 16, 4:11 am CDT

"..and how the thinking of the time, or zeitgeist, changes." Yikes, McLeod's premonitions from another article may indeed come true.

By SME on 2013 10 16, 1:52 pm CDT

@89SME

I have learned to be in awe of the powers of B.McLeod.

By ACD on 2013 10 16, 2:02 pm CDT

I can't believe these extremist arguments continue... A dog is not a person, you cannot sue a dog for their income - you sue the owners. A dog does not have the right to 'pursue happiness' because if you ask most dogs I believe they would be very happy playing with your leg, which is not allowed in my house (you may run your house differently). Dogs are property that enjoy the rights every living being enjoys - not to be tortured. Laws against cruelty to animals are not laws for personhood. It is extremist arguments like that that distract and prevent well purposed laws from being passed. Rather than pass laws banning slaughter, why not convince America it is unhealthy to eat meat. Dogs will never and should never have the right to vote, freedom to come and go as they please, freedom to do what they want. Dogs do as the people want, sit, stay, don't bite the neighbor (although the neighbor may deserve it). If you were to come across a pack of wild dogs, absent your modern conveniences, dogs would not respect your rights as a person. It is not in their capacity, they do not have the intelligence or sense of others rights to be given rights themselves. FInally, Spay and neuter your animals. You are not that special and there are enough dogs in the world we do not need any more.

By mike on 2013 10 16, 2:38 pm CDT

@89 SME, if you do not believe "the thinking of the time, or zeitgeist, changes" I would like to hear your explanation for in the change in attitude from Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Scott v. Sanford: "According to Chief Justice Taney, "the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Opinion_of_the_Court

That said, I understand there are people, including sitting judges, that still concur with Chief Justice Taney.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 17, 11:17 pm CDT

@91 mike "I can’t believe these extremist arguments continue" Are you referring to the "Corporations HAVE AlWAYS been legal persons." extremist argument? I can’t believe thinking people still fall for that nonsense either, given the harm caused by these zombies. See my corporation comments @79

By dogs are family on 2013 10 17, 11:20 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 17, 11:23 pm CDT

@91 mike. See this comment by Farmer, NYT Pick - "The Human Cost of Animal Suffering"
March 14, 2012 at 11:03am

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/the-human-cost-of-animal-suffering/?comments#permid=25

"In my lifetime on the farm, we lived with animals and we died with the animals. Our every waking moment was devoted to the care of the cattle. Even as my late father was dying, he asked non-stop how the cattle were being cared for. Life as it goes on on a regular farm is intertwined with new births, growth of the animals and ultimately death. For so many urban people, life is sanitary...never touching upon the heartbeat or the end of the heartbeat."

"It used to be that animals sent to slaughter were selected and likely sent off to a slaughterhouse in your town where you knew the people working there or the owners. Cattle were trucked a short distance and the job was done, quickly and without pain as best as we could know from occasional visits there."

"Now, things are far away, cattle must ride hours and hours from almost every rural town to massive plants owned by one of three huge companies, worked often by immigrant workers, we lose complete touch with the final destination of our cow."

"Consumers, though, should acknowledge some of the role in the creation of this massive industrializing of agriculture. For decades, you have sat in silence and disinterested in what was going on on the farm. As we older farmers warned of the creation of the consolidated massive food systems we see now, you all replied that you wanted food cheaper....and cheaper... You have reaped what you have sown. I am hoping the younger generation will be able to turn the ship around."

Finally, watch Alexia Allen of Hawthorn Farm, a wilderness skills instructor who also has a small farm in Woodinville, Washington. I thought she did a really good job of demonstrating a respectful, even loving, harvest of a chicken.

http://youtu.be/5_S3P0eU0lE

By dogs are family on 2013 10 17, 11:24 pm CDT

Dogs are family,I do indeed believe it changes. I just think that sometimes this is bad and sometimes it's good. In the case of Taney I believe the change was good (you weren't accusing me of harboring the view of Taney's day I hope). However the change in thinking from small farms to the massive centralized food systems is a bad paradigm shift. My reference to McLeod's comments from another article dealt with a potential change in thinking that would de-stigmatize sexual relations between adults and children. As far as Mikes comments about corporations ALWAYS being people, this is neither extremist or non-extremist. It is a question of historical fact...Mike is either correct or incorrect about that. Although our current laws regarding the rights and status of corporations may be wrong or require reforms, I don't believe I would characterize them as extremist.

By SME on 2013 10 17, 11:53 pm CDT

Also, I thought Citizens United dealt almost exclusively with overturning spendimg restrictions on corporations. I wasn't even aware that those same restrictions also applied to labor unions as well. Well, I guess either way then it would be fair.

By SME on 2013 10 18, 12:02 am CDT

And, given that there are already fetishists into role-playing as dogs and dog owners, as the "zeitgeist" shifts, and more "dogs are people" extremists weigh in, we can expect the dog-playing fetisists to insist on being recognized by others as actual dogs. No doubt, the AP and hence, the Journal staff, will defer to the fetishists' "identification" as dogs, and the ABA House of Delegates will pass a Resolution calling upon all of us to do so in the spirit of tolerance. Then, of course, the people who play the "owner" or "handler" role may well insist on the right to have sexual relations with actual biological dogs, because dogs and people have been established as equals, hence, legally interchangeable. I'm guessingthe ABA will back that one too, and the House of Delegates will proceed to call upon all states to repeal their antiquated, moralistic codes against bestiality.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 18, 12:06 am CDT

"The two largest exporting nations have universal healthcare, Germany and China.."

Germany? You mean those same germanophiles who elected Hitler?

By SME on 2013 10 18, 12:11 am CDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett's_Case

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

With much of George Washington's wealth tied up in his 150 (300) slaves, this wealthy man had a lot to lose if the colonies went the way of England's other colonies. Makes you wonder, what was Washington's motivation to fight in the Revolutionary War?

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/the-wealthy-100-a-ranking-of-the-richest-americans-past-and-present/#sthash.29PyQ0xL.dpbs

Oh that's right. Slaves weren't human, they were simply animals. Got it.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 18, 1:00 am CDT

Please stop comparing 18th Century black slaves to dogs, and please stop denying that you are doing that, when you totally, obviously, ARE.

By B. McLeod on 2013 10 18, 7:33 am CDT

Comparing animals to slaves in the antebellum United States and to the Jews and others slaughtered in Nazi death camps (See "eternal Treblinka" referenced above) is not only a text book example of a false equivelancy; but also belies a gross disregard for human life.

By ACD on 2013 10 18, 10:34 am CDT

@Lee Rawles, my apology for my censurable offense, perhaps a link to a story I authored called "Down on the Factory Farm" cross-posted on a third-party website.

@100 Tom Youngjohn, you are getting into dangerous territory: Truth. Going back further, there is no apparent legal authority or jurisdiction for European monarchs to have extinguished aboriginal land title in what is now America and make land grants of Native (Indian) land to the monarchs’ friends and cronies that formed the original American colonies. And thanks for the link to Somersett’s Case. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed "All [white men of privilege] are created equal". The rest, not so much. One point about George Washington, there is some evidence that his slaves were actually owned by Martha Washington, according to
Ask A Slave: The Web Series.

ASK A SLAVE Ep 1: Meet Lizzie Mae
http://youtu.be/X1IYH_MbJqA

ASK A SLAVE Ep 2: Abolitioning
http://youtu.be/AEaNduN88DQ

@96 SME. No, I do not accuse you of harboring the view of Chief Justice Taney. The whole idea of "personhood" needs reexamination in my view, from corporate personhood to animal personhood. Unfortunately slavery is alive and well in 2013, see Slavery continues to haunt the modern world, but efforts to eradicate it are growing, in the ABA Journal April 2013.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/slavery_continues_to_haunt_the_modern_world/

Also see How Many Slaves Work for You? December 31, 2012 in the New York Times, by Louis P. Masur.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/how-many-slaves-work-for-you.html

"The organization Slavery Footprint asks on its Web site, "How many slaves work for you?" A survey poses a series of seemingly innocuous questions such as what do you eat, what do you wear, what medicine do you take, and what electronics do you use? Upon completion, a number is revealed: I discovered that 60 slaves work for me — cutting the tropical wood for my furniture, harvesting the Central Asian cotton in my shirts or mining the African precious metals used in my electronics."

Slavery Footprint
http://slaveryfootprint.org/

American demand for Apple products, made in slave conditions in China, is another part of the problem. Conditions are so bad in these factories people commit suicide on the job.

Reuters: "Taiwan’s Foxconn Technology Group, known for assembling Apple’s iPhones and iPads in China…has been plagued by a spate of workers’ suicides in its Chinese factories since last year…"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

Assoc. Prof. of Economics and Law, UMKC Bill Black gives his view of the behavior of Apple and other technology companies in dealing with suppliers in China. He does not buy the idea that the US is powerless to do anything about work condition in China and provides some concrete suggestions.

http://youtu.be/o-aMfp4v37o

@B. McLeod, always good to hear from you. You are a valued contributor.

By dogs are family on 2013 10 18, 11:50 am CDT

@102 ACD: Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, is an excellent book. Have you actually read the book, or are your comments gratuitous and uninformed?

Eternal Treblinka is not a "text book example of a false equivelancy; but also belies a gross disregard for human life". To the contrary, Eternal Treblinka enhances understanding of a gross disregard for all life, human and animal. No group has exclusive ownership of The Holocaust as a topic of discussion. See Freedom of speech, and the First Amendment.

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

"The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]"

From the Amazon.com website: "ETERNAL TREBLINKA: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson, Ph.D., describes disturbing parallels between how the Nazis treated their victims and how modern society treats animals. The title is taken from the Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself a vegetarian: "In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka."

"The first part of the book describes the emergence of humans as the master species and their domination of the rest of the inhabitants of the earth. The second part examines the industrialization of slaughter (of both animals and humans) that took place in modern times, while the last part of the book profiles Jewish and German animal advocates on both sides of the Holocaust."

"The Foreword is by Lucy Kaplan, a former attorney for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors."

"Charles Patterson is a social historian, Holocaust educator, editor, and therapist. He is the author of Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. He is also the author of Anti-Semitism: The Road to the Holocaust and Beyond, The Oxford 50th Anniversary Book of the United Nations, The Civil Rights Movement, and From Buchenwald to Carnegie Hall (co-authored with Marian Filar)."

"He is a graduate of Amherst College, Columbia University (Ph.D.), and the Yad Vashem Institute for Holocaust Education in Jerusalem. Dr. Patterson now lives in New York City. He is a member of PEN, The Authors Guild, and the National Writers Union."

@102 ACD, what are your credentials?

By dogs are family on 2013 10 18, 12:18 pm CDT

" thanks for the link to Somersett’s Case. " You are welcome DOGS ARE FAMILY.

McLeod, yes, I so totally AM.

ACD, I found out from Jewish law professor David Skover about Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce, and I found out from Lenny Bruce that the Nazi made soap out of rendered Jewish ("Kosher") fat, and, considering the fact that we make soap out of animal fat here in the United States, if you are implying that Lenny Bruce didn't know how to tell a funny joke, well, I'm offended.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Trials-Lenny-Bruce-Collins/dp/B005ZOL91K

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 18, 4:57 pm CDT

@104

"“ETERNAL TREBLINKA: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson, Ph.D., describes disturbing parallels between how the Nazis treated their victims and how modern society treats animals."

This is a False Analogy. They are not comparable. Modern production of foodstuffs is not analogous to the attempted systematic extermination of whole classes and races of people.


“He is a graduate of Amherst College, Columbia University (Ph.D.), and the Yad Vashem Institute for Holocaust Education in Jerusalem. Dr. Patterson now lives in New York City. He is a member of PEN, The Authors Guild, and the National Writers Union.”

argumentum ad verecundiam


I am beginning to think there is a special place in Hell – alongside the inventor of CD/DVD security packaging and the vuvuzela – for the designer of the Wiki/Google search engine tool bar. Because "[a]ll generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called "facts." They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain. Who does not know fellows that always have an ill-conditioned fact or two which they lead after them into decent company like so many bull-dogs, ready to let them slip at every ingenious suggestion, or convenient generalization, or pleasant fancy?"

By ACD on 2013 10 18, 8:30 pm CDT

@106 ACD. You did not respond to my question asking whether you read Eternal Treblinka, so I conclude you did not read the book.

Instead you made a gratuitous statement about the book: "This is a False Analogy. They are not comparable. Modern production of foodstuffs is not analogous to the attempted systematic extermination of whole classes and races of people."

"Modern production of foodstuffs"? No: The industrialization of slaughter of both animals and humans that took place in modern times.

You did not respond with any credentials. Instead you wrote: "argumentum ad verecundiam".

In this case "argumentum ad verecundiam" is better than "argumentum ad anus".

Your speculation about "special place in Hell" for "the inventor of CD/DVD security packaging and the vuvuzela" (BTW, I do not think the inventors of each item are the same person) and the "designer of the Wiki/Google search engine tool bar" stands as an example and a demonstration of your lack of any coherent reasoning ability.

You claim "They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." but offer no argument or proof, just more hot air. (BTW, I don’t have or use a Wiki/Google search engine tool bar)

"Who does not know fellows that always have an ill-conditioned fact or two which they lead after them into decent company like so many bull-dogs, ready to let them slip at every ingenious suggestion, or convenient generalization, or pleasant fancy?"

Does that mean you consider bull-dogs as people?

By dogs are family on 2013 10 18, 10:27 pm CDT

Ok...total change of heart for me. However it's not from reading that book Dogs are people is talking about. I saw the movie Air Bud. You should see that dog drop a slam dunk! Wow! There was a man charged with animal cruelty on a dog recently in my town. He is being sued by dog for civil rights violations. The JDL is helping the dog in any way they can. When asked his feelings towards justice finally being served the dog replied "woof!"

By SME on 2013 10 19, 2:56 am CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 10 19, 4:43 am CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.