Legislation (S.B. 1734/H.B. 2143) to make cockfighting a felony in
Tennessee is currently being considered in House and Senate
committees. The cockfighters are organizing to defeat this
legislation, and we need lawmakers to know that citizens want to crack
down on crime and animal cruelty.

Cockfighting is an extremely cruel and violent activity. Birds used in
cockfights are forced to fight -- often to the death. It is also
associated with other criminal activity such as illegal drug and
weapons possession, illegal gambling, and assault.

Tennessee has one of the weakest cockfighting laws in the nation.
Please contact your state senator and representative and urge them to
vote YES on S.B. 1734/H.B. 2143.

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/

Faye

"If only I could so live and serve the world that after me there
should never again be birds in cages." --Isak Denison

On Apr 14, 12:55 pm, Faye att.net> wrote:

Cockfighting may be repulsive, but it does NOT rise to the level of
crimes against humans that rightfully deserve to be felonies.

IMO, this sort of legislation is an insult to all the human victims of
crime. We have enough problems coping with criminals who prey on
humans to criminalize activities that do not victimize other humans.

Shall we also criminalize people who poison rats? I'm pretty sure
that internal hemorrhage caused by rat poison is not a pleasant
experience. How about fishing and hunting - shall we mandate that all
fishermen and hunters have inspectors present to make sure the animals
don't suffer too much?

I mean, either causing an animal to suffer is wrong or it isn't.
Either causing an animal to suffer is as wrong as causing a human to
suffer or it isn't.

I will make sure to contact my representatives that I oppose this
bill.

KD wrote:

In article @l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, newsgroups4kd@gmail.com says...

Well, with that logic, let's take _all_ laws against animal abuse off
the books.

As long as fishing, hunting, and poisoning rats are legal, then it
should be legal to make any animal suffer.

--fc

"fiddler crabby" ya-nospam-hoo.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.226dbba78d03b9c59898ec@news.newsguy.com...

On Apr 15, 6:57 am, "Kent Finnell" bellsouth.net> wrote:

Why should such crimes carry "severe" criminal penalties? Because you
and others find such activities morally repugnant? You'd best not
even go there as I'm sure you know where such assumptions logically
lead

The law is not here to provide protection for animals, which have no
"rights." Animals have, historically, been regarded as property. The
law developed and can only be considered in the context of human
"rights" and developed to protect *humans.*

On Apr 15, 6:57 am, "Kent Finnell" bellsouth.net> wrote:

From a recent article in the May / June 2008 issue of Skeptical
Inquirer by Michael Conn and James V. Parker:

"In 2006, alone, PETA killed 2,981 dogs, cats, puppies, kittens, and
other animals - an astonishing 97 percent of the animals left in their
care, according to the group's own records supplied to the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2006). For
comparison, the Virginia Society for the Protection of Animals (which
operates in Norfolk, Virginia, as does PETA) euthanized less than 2.5
percent of the 1,404 animals placed with them in 2006. While PETA
collects tens of millions in donations by claiming to advocate for the
welfare of animals, the group has actually killed 17,400 pets since
1998 (Center for Consumer Freedom 2008)."

-KD

On 2008-04-15 07:46:34 -0500, KD gmail.com> said:

"Boston Blackie (happily ignored by KD the Merciless!)"
mail.com> wrote in message
news:2008041510111216807-bblackie@mailcom...

On Apr 15, 9:11 am, Boston Blackie (happily ignored by KD the
Merciless!) mail.com> wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/ar9g4
http://www.consumerdeception.com/

Human speciocentricism and pathological fear of one's place on the
food chain (literal and financial) are so boring and unattractive,
oui?

FiFi

"Oh rubbish, you have no power here. Be gone before someone drops a
house on you, too." --Glenda