Democrats Vs Chimps: Banning Yet More Freedom on Emotion

[KingCondanomation]

Jesus Christ on a crucifix that is the damndest backward ass logic I have seen in a long long time.

Save the chimps! Make them pets!

Awesome.

Are any LEGAL pets on the endangered list? People do not have pets to kill them, I'm not saying it will save them as a guarantee, I'm saying it helps save them.

 

[charver]

There is another argument to be made for private ownership which is that it helps keep species off the endangered list. When you have more private owners who care about the well being of animals, they have a real incentive to keep them alive and in greater numbers.
With a black market (as this will now create) you get far worse individuals who only care often about getting an animal to kill it for some part of it to use in medicine or what not.
Let's face it there are no LEGAL pets on the endangered list.

What saved the bison and the alligator from being endangered was setting up private ranches and farms where they grow the animals to be used legally for commercial purposes. Private ownership works, government protection does not.

Are you suggesting some kind of commercial chimpanzee farming operation?

 

[Bonestorm]

First it is not overwhelming bipartisan support, as I pointed out MORE Repubs voted against it than voted for it.

You are right that the left got emotional on that incident and passed it faster than the stimulus with even less debate - that is hardly ever a good thing. For example, what about a debate over how almost all other chimp owners have had no problems? There are more dog attacks than chimp attacks I bet, even when looking at per capita. And what about the conservation argument that private owners who care about the well being of their pets help keep the species in higher numbers with more safe from illegal poaching as will happen more in a black market now.

The RUSH to pass it was certainly a knee jerk reaction.

1) 76 Republicans voted for it. That is overwhelming bipartisan support.

2) This bill has been debated and debated and debated since 2005 and previously passed both chambers of Congress. No need to reinvent the whell,

3) The conservation argument is stupid.

4)Sure guy:

Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it's a shame about Ed.

Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was dying for years.

Fletch: Sure, but... the end was very... very sudden.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.

Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Are you suggesting some kind of commercial chimpanzee farming operation?

What would you farm them for? I doubt this would ever work. I would think with chimps in business if there was a use for mass amount of chimps it would be more for entertainment.

Again, do you really think that banning private ownership, you are not going to stop immoral owners of chimps with this bill, just the good moral ones.

My overall point is that with more private ownership, in whatever fashion, like farms, pets, etc..., you have people who have real financial incentive to care that the species persists.

 

[Onceler]

Are any LEGAL pets on the endangered list? People do not have pets to kill them, I'm not saying it will save them as a guarantee, I'm saying it helps save them.

Kind of a weak argument, especially considering that primates can carry a variety of diseases, some of which are deadly.

Wild animals shouldn't be pets. Where does your logic stop? Do you see any wild animal as being acceptable for private citizens to own?

Dogs & cats have been domesticated for centuries.

 

[KingCondanomation]

1) 76 Republicans voted for it. That is overwhelming bipartisan support.

Well I consider the word overwhelming to mean only a few dissented, close to a hundred reps is not a few.

2) This bill has been debated and debated and debated since 2005 and previously passed both chambers of Congress. No need to reinvent the whell,

And what passed it this time and in a hurry was raw emotion off ONE bad owner or hell not even a bad owner, a good owner where you had a very unusual set of circumstances with medicine and a new look for the friend that was attacked.

3) The conservation argument is stupid.

The hell it is, private ownership has proven over and over in whatever fashion, farming, pets or private zoos that they all help toward preserving a species.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Kind of a weak argument, especially considering that primates can carry a variety of diseases, some of which are deadly.

So so humans, you're far more likely to get a disease from humans you encounter in life, even casually like hepatitis B and A for example.

Wild animals shouldn't be pets. Where does your logic stop? Do you see any wild animal as being acceptable for private citizens to own?

Yes. So long as they are legally responsible for the actions of those animals.
I know what you are thinking, that oh ok Joe Blow can have a rhino in his backyard - but consider, it is legal to own bison, does anyone have those as pets or in their backyard?
This becomes a red herring when examining like situations.

Dogs & cats have been domesticated for centuries.

And they had to start somewhere, there are still wild dogs and cats that exist - there would have probably ended up being wild and domestic chimps.
Also don't forget, this chimp was not wild, it was on medication and chimp attacks are incredibly rare.

 

[Onceler]

"Well I consider the word overwhelming to mean only a few dissented, close to a hundred reps is not a few."

You do tend to be a little loose & subjective with this (see: Sarbanes Oxley, Iraq War)

 

[KingCondanomation]

"Well I consider the word overwhelming to mean only a few dissented, close to a hundred reps is not a few."

You do tend to be a little loose & subjective with this (see: Sarbanes Oxley, Iraq War)

With Iraq, you are right, it was not overwhelming amount of Dems who voted for it, mostly just the moderates and those with higher ambition. Kudos to the real principled Liberals on that.

With SOX, yes the vote totals show overwhelming support for it. But why I blame Dems more is that it was the left that pushed for this, while pussy Repubs caved in and didn't want to be seen as protecting corporations. Just like some pussy Dems caved on Iraq, the Repubs should be seen as more to blame (and are).

 

[Onceler]

With Iraq, you are right, it was not overwhelming amount of Dems who voted for it, mostly just the moderates and those with higher ambition. Kudos to the real principled Liberals on that.

With SOX, yes the vote totals show overwhelming support for it. But why I blame Dems more is that it was the left that pushed for this, while pussy Repubs caved in and didn't want to be seen as protecting corporations. Just like some pussy Dems caved on Iraq, the Repubs should be seen as more to blame (and are).

Well, not to get sidetracked on the thread, but with Sarbanes, it was really the entire GOP, save 3. The White House also took credit for spearheading the measure. If there was ever an example of complete unanimity & equal credit between the parties, it's Sarbanes; it's mischaracterizing to try to assign blame to liberals.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well I consider the word overwhelming to mean only a few dissented, close to a hundred reps is not a few.

76 is a lot of Republicans. It was bipartisan. Overwhelmingly so.

And what passed it this time and in a hurry was raw emotion off ONE bad owner or hell not even a bad owner, a good owner where you had a very unusual set of circumstances with medicine and a new look for the friend that was attacked.

See the Fletch quote above.

The hell it is, private ownership has proven over and over in whatever fashion, farming, pets or private zoos that they all help toward preserving a species.

The gray wolf disagrees.

 

[Onceler]

People buy chimps when they are young & cute. I don't count on my neighbors to understand that they can carry disease, live for 50 years, and can often grow to be stronger & much more aggressive than their owners.

The idea that laws should only target "irresponsible" owners is not very reassuring, as it usually doesn't become apparent that an owner is irresponsible until some sort of harm has been done. This is not emotionalism; it is fact.

There is no constitutional right to own wild animals.

 

[Bonestorm]

People buy chimps when they are young & cute. I don't count on my neighbors to understand that they can carry disease, live for 50 years, and can often grow to be stronger & much more aggressive than their owners.

The idea that laws should only target "irresponsible" owners is not very reassuring, as it usually doesn't become apparent that an owner is irresponsible until some sort of harm has been done. This is not emotionalism; it is fact.

There is no constitutional right to own wild animals.

Further, the idea that "responsible" owners can control wild animals is a bit disingenuous. And this is saying nothing about the welfare of the animals.

 

[uscitizen]

Are any LEGAL pets on the endangered list? People do not have pets to kill them, I'm not saying it will save them as a guarantee, I'm saying it helps save them.

Cougars/Panthers I think.

I believe Republicans might be on the endangered list now as well.

 

[uscitizen]

Interesting, the economy in the gutter, etc and far righties concentrate on a sensationalistic monkee story.

No recent Madonna articles?

 

[Damocles]

Interesting, the economy in the gutter, etc and far righties concentrate on a sensationalistic monkee story.

No recent Madonna articles?

Yeah. We're all "focused" on this, you can tell because there is a thread about it on JPP.com...

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah. We're all "focused" on this, you can tell because there is a thread about it on JPP.com...

Umm I don't consider you a far rightie.
But the thread opener ....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

76 is a lot of Republicans. It was bipartisan. Overwhelmingly so.

See the Fletch quote above.

The gray wolf disagrees.

For it to be 'overwhelming' bipartisan support... wouldn't you at least need the MAJORITY of the Reps to support it?

I do agree that is bipartisan and this is simply semantics, but to say it is overwhelming seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[KingCondanomation]

76 is a lot of Republicans. It was bipartisan. Overwhelmingly so.

Overwhelmingly means almost everyone - like the SOX vote. This vote had more Repubs against than for - that is not overwhelming. Perhaps you can call it solid, but not overwhelming.

The gray wolf disagrees.

You don't know what you are talking about. The Gray wolf was listed as vulnerable to extinction from 1982-1994 after they were banned from being owned privately in the 70's.
After this dumb mistake, it was only efforts of banning hunting and reintroduction that brought its numbers back up - efforts that LARGELY would not have been needed had they not banned private ownership to begin with.

I mean how stupid is it to ban private ownership but disregard that they are still going to be hunted? If private owners were allowed wolves and allowed them to be hunted on their own property (similar to elephant operations in some African private game reserves) than the wild ones would never have suffered such a decline.

 

[Bonestorm]

OK, solid support. Feel better?

I also notice that you aren't touching the fact that two Senators with lifetime ACU ratings of 94 sponsored the Senate version of this bill and that this billed passed the Senate by unanimous consent back in 2005.