[The following is a true story.]

A young lawyer, recently admitted to the Georgia bar, learns that he’s been appointed by the court to represent a man in jail on a misdemeanor charge.? The lawyer is handed a folder containing the criminal complaint as he heads to the jail.? Sitting across from his client in the jail’s attorney visiting room, the lawyer opens the file and read the criminal complaint.? His eyes widen as his jaw undiplomatically drops to the floor.

“Mr. [Smith], this criminal complaint says you’ve been charged with bestiality in that your neighbor and her young daughter saw you in plain sight in your backyard having sex with your dog… What do you have to say in response to these charges?”

“It’s my dog.”

And that, my friends, is my retort to Matt Naugle’s absurd notion that the Constitution gives an absolute right for people to treat animals as property as they wish.

The law should reflect that animals are property, and thus the only crimes against animals should be those which currently exist to protect property? Anything less involves taking away rights from man. And more importantly, the same people who blur the difference between harming humans and animals also seem to be perfectly OK with murdering unborn babies.

In other words, because Naugle presumes that most animal rights activists are Pro-Choice, he’s allowed to depart from his religion’s belief that all life is sacred and if you wish to torture, screw, or kill your dog, if such an act would not already constitute as a crime against property (crimes involving damage to inanimate objects), then it should be hunky dory.

Naugle reveals the clich? of slippery slope argument.? Used against his own argument, he presents not a slippery slope but a readily available rational to permit bestiality.

Naugle’s undeveloped thought process is in criticism of a bill that would increase the penalties for cockfighting.??? In other words, the “absolute property rights” argument has already been rejected by the General Assembly and no court in the land has found that such a criminal statute violates the property rights of individuals under the Constitution.

It’s only been a law since 1980 – you know, when Reagan was President and Jim Rhodes was Governor.? Yeah, Naugle is now officially to the right of 1980s Ohio Republicanism.

Tagged with:
 
  • You managed to get the phrase Matt Naugle and the word bestiality into the same post. This is the reason you are my hero.

    FWIW, Matt Naugle has long been established as a fucktard with dain bramage. I wouldn't expect too much of him.

  • jeffhess

    Shalom ME,

    Smack me upside the head with a ham hock, but Matt's perversely right on this one.

    As a matter of law, animals are property, and as far as an individual's treatment of their property does not impinge upon the rights of others in the community, the law should stay out of the individual's backyard and bedroom.

    If you want to talk morality/ethics, that's a different matter

    B'shalom,

    Jeff

  • Pingback: Have Coffee Will Write » Blog Archive » MY COMMENTS…()

  • So fuck your dog in the bedroom and not the back yard and fight your cocks in the basement and not the barn.

    Got it.

  • “…the Constitution gives an absolute right for people to treat animals as property as they wish.”

    I said that? hardly. I'm stating my personal policy reference.

  • modernesquire

    I'm with Eric on this one. The law does not limit the treatment of animals as purely the same as the treatment of non-living property. The law has long since recognized that animals, including livestock, must be treated by their owners with a different level of care than say, your laptop computer, because it is living property.

    You cannot take morality or ethics out of the law. Just because the law doesn't cover everything that is considered moral or ethical does not mean that the law does not contain ANY moral or ethical basis.

    How does murder, theft, etc. infringe on the collective rights of society in ways entirely unrelated to societial ethics or morals?

  • Oh, FFS! You can't torture a chair or any of your other inanimate property. You can torture an animal. Even food and research animals have been granted some protection against inhumane treatment – granted, enforcement isn't a top priority, but at least if someone is caught being viciously cruel, they can be punished.

    “And more importantly, the same people who blur the difference between harming humans and animals also seem to be perfectly OK with murdering unborn babies.”

    WTF? How about: people who seem hell-bent on forcing all child-bearing aged women to be forced to live by their religious beliefs, also find the torture of animals to be an acceptable, fun pastime.

  • MB, let's remember who we are dealing with here:



  • Sorry in advance is this ruins your lunch…

  • modernesquire

    Well, I'm glad that you admit that your policy “preference” has absolutely no grounding in our history of constitutional government and private property rights.

    But your “rights” don't derive from your personal policy preferences. If they did, then we'd have anarachy, not a republican form of government. There is no such things as an infringement of a non-existent right, and our society does not recognize the property right you speak of and hasn't, I'd say, for the duration of your life.

    Weird that you find laws protecting the private sexual behavior of consenting adults abhorrent while you advocate for a policy that would allow you to skull fuck the losing rooster in a cockfight.

    You've got some warped values, Naugle.

  • LOL. If only they were all so quiet and just scampered away, what a wonderful world it would be.

  • your friendly local pedant

    Actually, Carter was President in 1980.

  • MB, let's remember who we are dealing with here:



  • Sorry in advance is this ruins your lunch…

  • modernesquire

    Well, I'm glad that you admit that your policy “preference” has absolutely no grounding in our history of constitutional government and private property rights.

    But your “rights” don't derive from your personal policy preferences. If they did, then we'd have anarachy, not a republican form of government. There is no such things as an infringement of a non-existent right, and our society does not recognize the property right you speak of and hasn't, I'd say, for the duration of your life.

    Weird that you find laws protecting the private sexual behavior of consenting adults abhorrent while you advocate for a policy that would allow you to skull fuck the losing rooster in a cockfight.

    You've got some warped values, Naugle.

  • LOL. If only they were all so quiet and just scampered away, what a wonderful world it would be.

  • your friendly local pedant

    Actually, Carter was President in 1980.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!