According to your logic then, there should also be laws against human suffering caused by wild animals too. Right? There should be laws with wording like "A bee shall not sting a human." - that's where your crazy logic leads. [sarcasm on]Because, I mean, obviously we can't possibly be enacting laws based on consideration for human suffering in itself, if we don't also have laws that ban wild animals from attacking humans.[sarcasm off] In fact, taken to its conclusion we'd have to have laws banning every possible animal, mineral and vegetable from causing suffering to humans, otherwise where's the consistency in having laws that mostly try to stop humans from harming other humans?vicdan wrote:Wow. You totally missed the boat, huh? it's staring you right in the face in your own quote. Emphasis mine:
A person must not be cruel to an animal.
Coming back to reality(sorry Victor, but you've had enough time floating around in fantasy land), some of the reasons why the laws are as they are:
- Unlike humans, animals don't tend to comprehend, let alone be dissuaded, by threats of fines and jail time as set out in human laws; calling for animals to recognize laws themselves would be insane.
- A law that attempted to prevent all animals from inflicting suffering upon other animals would need to be enforced and realized at all times and points by humans, and would be absolutely impossible to achieve with our current level of development. Thus the law is attempting to be pragmatic and realistic in scope, amongst other things.
- Preventing animal(and human) suffering is not the only goal that human's possess, other goals need to be factored into the equation. If this wasn't similarly the case for human suffering we'd have to spend every available resource and second of our lives attempting to stop suffering in humans in order to be consistent, but "we" don't.
Finally, what you conveniently left out in your response, was that I was addressing your claim that the laws aren't universal for animals, and I proved that they pretty much are - the laws I referenced apply simply to all "live vertebrates"(except humans) and some "live invertebrates" too, not just the cute pet bunnies and similar that you're fond of using in your arguments.
There are provisions in the animal welfare legislation for self-defense and killing of pests - which mousetraps would likely fall under. Just as there are provisions for self-defense against other humans and executions(some inhumane) of humans considered to be "pests." These aren't loopholes, they are very intentional aspects of the relevant laws, both human and animal.vicdan wrote:And of course there are big enough loopholes to drive a truck through. Does the law in question ban conventional mousetraps?
Actually there is just such protection in Dog Control Act 2000:vicdan wrote:Does it protect wild or domestic animals from being attacked by predator pets, like cats and dogs? Without even taking a glimpse at that law, I can bet dollars to donuts that the answer is 'no' on both counts.
Dog Control Act 2000 wrote:
PART 3 - Control of Dogs
SECTION 19. Dogs attacking persons or animals
(2) If a dog attacks an animal or chases a horse being ridden,
the owner or person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence.
Penalty:
Fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.
vicdan wrote:That law is exactly as i described such laws --
The laws, actual laws which I have quoted, not the imagined laws which you have been referring to, contradict and debunk everything that you have ignorantly claimed.
No, they concern attempting to control the human part of the relationship because animals can't comprehend and won't follow human laws.vicdan wrote:they concern not animal suffering in itself, but human relationship to animal suffering;
The specific act I referenced concerns "vertebrates", not only "some animals" as in your imagined laws.vicdan wrote:and they only concern some animals, not all of them,
There are exceptions that legally allow intentional infliction of suffering to occur, such as self-defence, mirroring exceptions present within laws relating to human welfare.vicdan wrote:even though the suffering of a mouse caught in a conventional mousetrap is no less than the suffering of an abused dog.