The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 2

Jun 05, 2013 5:39 PM

Laurent VahLaurent VH

i have a weird question.

Do animals have rights?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 356
Printed copy of this post
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 356 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Read Comments 101

Shaun Hamer

Moral relativism can be applied wherever those who choose to adopt it see fit.i would rephrase the question, does the golden rule only apply to the human species, or is life sacred in some sense and do we have a duty of care to all life? sorry thats 3 questions.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 359
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 359 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Edna Agla

alot has changed, we didnt understand the english language, we were stepped on, stripped of our identity , and have been denied our riights. so now im aware of this, so i see the idle no more movement, and if your asking do animals have rights? well if animals have rights? do the Original peoples have rights? at the moment, no... The queen has our rights under her dress. we need to assert ourselves. and Claim our animals rights.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 360
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 360 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Scott Duncan

BIG BARBECUED STEAK followed by fucking my woman/women until they cry...

...NOTHING on this planet has rights until I get those 2 things. I hope this clears up that "animal rights' question, concisely.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 360
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 360 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Pete Daoust

Hey hey....wow wow, my dog had rights, until I brought him to the vet last week to get him killed....but he had lots of rights these 13 years he spent with us....he has the rights to do everything I told him to do...EVERYTHING..!!!!

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 361
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 361 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Michael WebbWeLove JessicaDawn AndOthers

Fun fact, while Robert Pickton was feeding hookers to his hogs, I was galavanting around the greater Vancouver area. I worked in Richmond and every Friday after work, I would ride my bike to Chinatown and pick-up 2 pounds of barbequed pork. *shudders*

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 361
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 361 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Laurent VahLaurent VH

thanks for all the replies. what i had in mind when asking this question was not about eating animals ( i eat meat too), but rather is it ok for people to hurt or kill animals like cats and dogs (for profit) just because they are in the way. ( i work in an animal shelter and we would like to close another shelter down because of the non respect towards animal life, like animals in cages that are too small, killing kittens because there are too many, etc...)

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 362
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 362 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Pete Daoust

And then you say: you should only be so proud of eating meat: WHY IS THAT ??...I never associate the word proud with what I eat ? :/

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 363 · cut by a page break
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 363 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export. A page break in the printout cut off the beginning of this comment, with its name.

Shaun Hamer

What I meant when I said you are what you eat, is that the contaminants in the food will be accumulated in the body, And yes, proud was used incorrectly. Perhaps comfortable, (with the reality of contaminated food.) Would have been better. Just to be clear my position is not anti meat eating, as such, it is more an attempt to understand the unnecessary suffering, within the industry, and my intent is to not cause 'any' unnecessary suffering. Certainly not consciously anyway.

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 363
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 363 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Shaun Hamer

I don't know, perhaps you could run some tests. :) The contaminants are present, especially in corporate products. But again, the issue of rights is somewhat seperate, Is the life we take, ours to take, It seems obvious the animal has primary right of use to its body. For nature's purposes anyway. Perhaps vivisection would provide a better morcel to chew this over than meat eating. Survival is survival after all. But when it comes to suffering for vanity or to test weapons etc, do we have the right,? of course we have the choice and the ability, but is it right.?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 363
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 363 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Carl Dunne

What i find flawed with vegetarians saying it is down to contamination is so is the air but you dont stop breathing, the whole world is contaminated in one way another why does not eating meat help that?. Some even drink flouridated water while telling me how evil my bacon sandwich is AND smoke. Delusional is all i can say

Shaun Hamer

Did you read my last comment?. Perhaps the trouble with even debating this is that people defend their own position, more than they debate the actual subject. So, what about vivisection., or even just general cruelty, is it right. Or wrong.?

Printed copy · Anthology Volume 4, page 364
Printed copy of this comment
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 4, page 364 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Tara Duncan

Interesting conversation. The concept of "rights" for animals or humans is largely intangible. Our animals have the rights we grant them. People have rights by societal consent.

Some people are more considerate of their animal's welfare than others. You may face some sort of persecution for kicking your dog; but killing a deer could be considered great for a bar-be-que.

I guess I'll just vote for the rib eye steak.

Back to top