Jonathan Honeig thinks it's a right to smash a dog's head against a wall
It's time for Part III of The Saturday FOX Stock show segment on C&L starring none other than the always hideous Republican free market–tax cutting—New Deal hating—super hawk and attack-all-things-Democratic rock star from Cashin’ In---Jonathan Hoenig---The CapitalistPig. This week's adventure is his take on animal rights. (Part 1 & Part II)
Download | play 
Download | play
Hoenig: Snacky dog is property. If I want to take Snacky's head and smash it against a brick wall (I'd never do that to you) it's my right to do it!
It's my right to do it....
I couldn't write up any more of the transcript. (Another look into the soul of a FOX wingnut) He actually laughs and lets the dog lick his face as he threatens to murder it. And Terry (host) is just interested in staying on the topic at hand and is not phased in the least by his vicious position.
No comments needed. Speaks for itself.
Oh...and FRIIIIIIIIST.
Wow.. I wish he'd say that to my dogs. He'd be the one getting his head smashed against the wall.
Wow, a new height of republican evil; killing puppies!
Animal abuse is against the law. Factually speaking it is not his right.
Meat is Murder and so is Media
[Deleted]
There are no morals. Only property.
This is what free-market libertarian neo-con capitalists think. Property trumps everything.
If you're his slave, he can morally do what he likes. Just as soon as they can get slavery re-legalized look out.
Jonathan Hoenig you are a DOUCHEBAG.
OK, let's take one step back here.
We're talking about a meat-packing plant being held liable for animal cruelty.
But it's cool if they, y'know, KILL the animals.
I'm no vegan here. But that logic is some deep, deep bullshit.
Some things transcend politics into the truly monstrous. Animal abuse is one of them. Even Republicans love their pets.
The epitomy of libertarianism. Cretins like this are allowed to walk the streets free.
Its no more his right to do that than it is to go out and stab someone to death. You have the ability to do it, but you'll go to jail for it.
So basically, this dick is saying it should be permissible to have cock fights, bear baiting, and dog fights, just because a person owns an animal.
Hoenig is incorrect. Laws against abusing animals are constitutional. He does not have that right.
Frist eviscerated kittens, Bush blew up frogs, and we should be surprised why?
Just about any rancher or farmer would say there's something wrong with that boy.
Bragging that you have the right to smash mans best friend's head against a wall is the sort of thing a serial killer does.
It's like the Ron White joke, "...I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability." Fox should be silent; there is nothing on it worthy of anybody hearing.
Jonathan, just because you are a low life scum bag, and over all waste of space, it doesn't give me the right to bash your head against a wall...
This is what happens when people actually buy into the bullshit of 'rights' existing independently in sentience, as argued by Locke and as accepted by Jefferson. Non-sentience therefore equals non-right-possessing, because rights are taken to be a property of sentience.
Paul @ 8:
Paul...the point is...this MORON uses this extreme statement to avoid having to treat the issue of animal abuse...whether or not the plant is right or wrong is not for me to say...as a legitimate concern.
He doesn't want to have the argument, because the fact is that there are STANDARDS...even in meat packing plants...chicken farms..etc...or at least there WERE.
This isn't about animal abuse...it's about REGULATION...ACCOUNTABILITY. Things that the right wing libertarian capitalists don't want to talk about. And to be fair...in addition to having absconded and perverted conservatism...they have done the same thing to libertarianism.
They use only those aspects of those theories necessary to justify mindless, inimpeded GREED.
What a disgusting little prick he is.
These are the same type of assholes who called for Michael Vick's head. When it was convenient, they tried to cloak their racism against a negro who got all uppity in either law and order or common decency.
How awesome would it have been if that dog had bitten his nose off?
Disgusting. Haven't had my morning coffee yet, so I'm kind of grouchy. Why the fuck is Fox allowed to pollute the airwaves with these imbeciles. And what the fuck is wrong with the brain dead sheeple that watch that crap for their "news"!!!!!!
Save the planet- plant a tree, preferably over the grave of a neocon.
Peanutcat @ 19:
Good summary!
You expected more from this wingnut? He's just living the ultra-right wing mantra of "Mine, mine, mine!!!" His dog survives only because it is HRM Hoenig's pleasure to do so, much as we enjoy what freedoms we have left only at the pleasure of HRM Bush, Cheney et. al.
BTW, "fazed" not "phased." "Fazed" means "unnerved, discomfited, disturbed the composure of." "Phased" means "in stages" or "staged." /smug grammar rant.
Considering the Vicks trial you'd thing this asshole Hoenig would have the brains to keep his mouth shut.
I hope he reaps the whirlwind.
So I just called the number listed on the contact sheet.
"The Capitalist Pig, how may I help you?"
"Yes, I'm calling in regards to Mr. Jonathan Hoenig's appearance on Fox News."
"I can take a message for you."
"I'd just like to say that I'm disgusted by his behavior, though not surprised, as this is typical of libertarian ideology..."
*click*
This isn't a suprise. These are the same people who's mind-set is for the war to spread Christianity at the cost of our brave American soldiers. They don't wish to think about the million or so dead Iraqis. Or the crippling of our military or our diminishing reputation. These people are zealots who only wish to gain power by stangling and smothering all independant thinking and science and common sense. And they will watch people like this idiot because he is so very much like them.
Peanutcat @ 19:
Just another prep school mama's boy who pulled the wings off of flies to get even for having his lunch money stolen every day.
JESUS CHRIST, these neocon fascist turds really are seriously mentally unbalanced.
May Hoenig come face-to-face with a hungry grizzley soon.
He had better be careful where he bashes that "property". In some states that dog is no longer property and he is not an owner. He is a 'guardian' with no rights to harm. In any case the argument here is not one of chattel but of animal cruelty. It's against the law even iif you are a winger.
Having, only two weeks ago, to let my very old and sick dog slip away after almost sixteen years of having him in my life, I find this person's word's reprehensible. Making that decision that day and realizing the kind thing to do for him was to allow his life to end was deeply sad and god awful painful. But in my heart, I knew it was the right thing to do.
How the hell can he even utter those words about his little dog? I cannot imagine that thought even forming in someones head.
Plus like another person said, he cannot harm that dog simply because it is his. I guess he hasn't heard about the Michael Vick story yet.
Paul @ 8:
Here's another one for ya: we can't (legally) torture criminals, but we can put them to death.
Liberal AND Proud @ 18:
pissed off patricia @ 30:
He's a libertardian. They're not fascist socially, but their economic ideology is the very form of corporatism. (This is quite distinct from left-libertarianism, ala social anarchism.)
Animal Services should be contacted...shown the clip...and requested that the animal be removed from a clearly dangerous situation.
This man obviously is not in control of his faculties and is a clear threat to the well being of the dog.
I think we have the right to lobby for a "Vick vs. Honeig" cage match. What could be more enjoyable than watching this little prick crying and begging for mercy?
"Snacky"? His dog's name is "Snacky"?
Will Jonny come out of the closet already? Its a bright world out here!
That was the cutest dog on the planet and he had the audacity to even JOKE about hurting him???!!!!
Where were you when I needed you?
I don't think you can call what he said a joke. I think it shows a disturbing side of him.
The fact he can even own an animal is scary. Does he think women are chattel? Is he married? What do his loved ones have to say? I don't think I would invite them over to dinner, do you? Such outstanding people!
Future (or present, closeted) Serial Killer.
Michael Vick @ 38:
How's the slammer treatin you? When times are bad, remember this: at least you still have your wealth.
Paul @ 8:
Did you see what the employees did to the animals before they were slaughtered? The whole thing is the general lack of oversight (thank you Mr. Bush) and deregulation. The slaughterhouse employees were kicking the cows and using cattle prods to get the cows to move on their own.
Granted, cows aren't smart. However, there's a rule or law that if the cow crosses over a line into the processing plant on its own volition, it can be slaughtered. If it can't, the animal must be destroyed and examined to see if it had any diseases. You see, it's all about money. More cows = more meat = more money. Less cows = less meat + cost to examine the cow = even less money. There's the logic.
The reason the meat was recalled, aside from the abuse before the slaughter (that does sound rather odd, now that you mention it), was because some of those cows were sick and the meat was tainted. I guess that'll happen when you create feed out of the cows that didn't make it.
We had a Dallas Cowboy named Michael Vick, who was sentenced to prison for dog fighting.
Our courts are among the most conservative, and would execute jay-walkers.
I would think jay is old enough to take himself out for a walk.
CD @ 24:
Great Moments in Douchebaggery
I couldn’t write up any more of the transcript. (Another look into the soul of a FOX wingnut) He actually laughs and let’s the dog lick his face as he threatens to murder it.
Thanks, John. Starting the day with a good, dark laugh is one of many things I enjoy in life.
LOL
I don't know if this guy has kids or not, but if he does what must the kids have thought when they heard daddy say that? That's not the casual sort of thing sane people say. It just isn't.
Paul @ 8:
Killing animals humanely takes place every day without charges for animal cruelty. Have you ever heard of an animal shelter?
Animal cruelty refers to torturing a live animal. Processing meat does does not inherently violate legal cruelty standards.
Many disagree with the eating of meat at all, but it is certainly routine to kill animals without violating cruelty laws.
These are truly broken people.
This is what happens when you have about 10K channels going at once. You will always have some sort of jerk that don't know that animal abuse laws are there for a reason. he is taking his blotto mind and going way too far with his own simple reason to trash anything that he may own. Instead of Saying he is going to burn his BMW he says his Dog for some reason.
The man is a jerk. He probably won't do either, he just seems to think that we will pay attention to him. I don't pay too much attention, do you.
ysbaddaden @ 44:
Vick was not a Dallas Cowboy, I believe he played for Atlanta.
So shorter - Agree with me or I'll kill this dog?
Rupublicanism is reducing itself to absurdist t-shirt jingoism?
Bocephus @ 3:
Didn't M C Rove quip about killing puppies, or was it ripping the heads off kittens? Oh well, I guess if it's good even for Rove it's good enough for the whole party!
Actually, the law in most states says that if he smashes his dog's head against the wall, he is guilty of animal cruelty and could, as he would even if he did it in the RED state in which I live, be put away for up to 5 years....in addition to being heavily fined.
Even if you gave this little shithead the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was speaking hypothetically, he's still wrong, because the law doesn't consider his dog to be inanimate propertry, specifically because it foresaw the existence of malignant, malajusted little monsters like Jonathan Hoenig.
I'm not sure where he lives but, here in Florida we had a guy prosecuted for exactly that. I guess the court didn't feel it was his right to do it.
slippytoad @ 6:
A - I would say most libertarians (the real ones, aka anarchist ones) would say that morality stems from property right. So to say that we (libertarians) oppose morality is entirely false. It is on ethical as well as utilitarian grounds that libertarians attack the state (public slavery) and its supporters.
B - libertarians (small "L". again non statist variety or non Libertarian Party libertarians) and neo-cons are concepts that are entirely opposed to one another. Which you woudl know if you you had any clue what either of them were... pick up a book and try again.
C - Men have the ability to reason and therefore to be moral agents. Animals do not. They do not have natural rights as a man does. When a dog approaches me and declares himself sovereign to himself or communicates to me "I wonder what it is like to be _______", I will vigorously fight for the rights of canines. But not a moment sooner will I join that fight.
It may be a personal aesthetic morality that a person should not act violently with animals that you like (dogs and cuddly things seem to receive special treatment over rodents, ants, roaches, wolves, snakes...). Just as when is not a matter of consideration with the right of a woman to her body in the issue of abortion (5 hours after sex or 5 hours before birth) it is of no concern what kind of animal is assumed my property in full.
And If animals are not property then they are sovereign and free as man is. Perhaps I would have more respect for animal rights proponents if they argued to eliminate all forms of subjugation of the animal kingdom. No neutering, no ear clipping, no tail clipping, no wing clipping, no caging, no zoos, no experimentation, no keeping as pets, no purchase or sale of them... So though I disagree completely with ALF, I do at least respect the consistency in their lunacy
The remaining few reich-wingers in the future are going to wonder how their party disappeared, and we'll only have to point to idiots like Honeig for an explanation.
Fox should be well-served by having either Timmy Russert or Chris Matthews to replace this 0-rating CapitalistPig show.
You know, a couple months ago a number of right wing blogs were going nuts about Michael Vick. But I think it has more to do with his race than his cruelty to animals.
I mean, Cheney recklessly shot his friend in the face while trying to maim caged birds, and nobody seemed to be calling for his incraceration.
It's a racial thing, more than anything.
The Quicktime download gives us Bush's press conference again, as if we need to see that twice!
[I've let them know. Thanks for saying something-Sitemonitor]
Paul @ 8:
Native American Indians needed to kill animals for food too. But before they went on hunting parties, they engaged in ceremonies to spiritually connect with their prey and give thanks to them for the sacrifice of their lives...and they never killed more than they could eat.
Further, there are those who believe, and some evidence to support it, that all animals, human beings included, store emotions in their tissues. If an animal is tortured before the slaughter, that horror is recorded in their meat and passed on to those who eat it. Could this be the cause of rampant disease in this country? I guess we will never know until we begin to live spiritually on this planet.
Hoenig's your typical common everyday variety made for TeeVee psychopath.
He doesn't even try to hide it.
Liberal AND Proud @ 34:
That's not his dog, it's just a disposable prop handed to him for a skit. You have to have a heart, and a brain, to care for animals. He, obviously, has neither.
Darrin @ 56:
Unfortunately, your philosophy is almost entirely wrong.
You first start out from the (traditional, Lockean) liberal proposition that to have self-awareness is to have 'rights'. But this is wholly false, for several demonstratable reasons:
1. Our sentience frequently undergoes alterations, e.g. when asleep, intoxicated, when we suffer head trauma, and so forth.
(Thus we can no longer base rights on active sentience, but only on the possibility of sentience. And animals have an evolutionary potential to attain it.)
2. That rights are *extant properties*, rather than socially-created concepts.
3. That morality and moral agency exist objectively and are wholly sufficient to keep men from doing harm.
Furthermore, the subject-object dichotomy has long been rejected in philosophy. Political philosophy, unfortunately, has yet to catch up with this.
Wow. What can you say? You have a pet, a part of your family, a species respected by our country and culture as a companion, and you joke about killing it.
Of course we have laws against animal cruelty. Because we may not treat them as humans (they aren't, I'll be honest), but they are part of our lives, living creatures, so we do afford them some rights and respects. And also, frankly, I'd say because discouraging and punhsing cruelty and sadism is a way to assert our cultural values.
Apparently his values don't include that.
There's literally nothing more to say about the depth of soul-lesness here. There's just a black pit. He sat there discussing killing the dog in his lap without an emotion, without empathy, without shame.
This is honestly one of the reasons I stopped being a conservative in my late teens/early 20's. I saw so much arrogance, cruelty, small-mindendness, ignorance, and disrespect I couldn't be one.
That was in the late 80's and early 90's. They've only gotten worse since then.
Well played, RueMorgue, well played.
of course they would like to get back to the days when children and wifes were property.
I just realized that Jonathan Hoenig is the kind of person who would have sex with a dog.
He does after all consider animals to be property which he can do whatever he wants with.
Anyone know this shitstain's email address? I'm feeling the need to inform him that not every progressive is a little skinny guy with a ponytail who thinks that violence is ALWAYS inappropriate.
I happened to be on a cell phone with someone who witnessed some redneck white trash run over a cat on purpose....I BEGGED her to get me his license plate
V V
Uh....well there's this problem:
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 597
"E]very person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
That's for California....but each state has similar penal codes. Dumbass.
Just remember, women. It wasn't that long ago that all of you were considered "property", by backward hillbillies like this Hoenig. You don't have to dig too deep into the hearts and minds of these vermin to find that they'd also like to see all of YOU "back in your place".
Two words: Asperger's Syndrome.
It can explain so much of neo-conservative (nee neo-liberal) thought and actions.
carefulwiththatAXEeugene @ 67:
You beat me to it...and you are correct.
And let's also not forget--let's not forget, Dude--that keeping wildlife, uh, an amphibious rodent, for uh, you know, domestic, within the city--that ain't legal either.
This isn't Libertarianism or some form of extreme Conservatism. It's an over-stated form of anti-Liberalism. His moral compass spins at "Liberals are for this, therefore it must be stupid and I'm against it."
I gave my cat some righteous catnip last night - she was very happy!
I'm not one of them because he's not worth the trouble but you can bet there's a ton of people who would like to take Hoenigs head and smash it against a brick wall. Especially all the Americans who have been screwed over by his hedge fund racketeering.
My house is property. I can do with it whatever I want. But, if I were to burn it down, I'd be charged with arson.
Duh.
Greed Kills
Typical freeper.
I don't watch Fox, but thanks to Crooksandliars.com I'm kept up-to-date on the latest depths to which Republicans will stoop. Seeing this makes me go right into turret syndrome. Jonathan Honeig, I throw every foul putrid, poisonous word, saying etc. at you. You are an abomination. You are the typical poster child for Republican values. I will spread what you said far and wide.
And way to go DICK C -this is your favorite TV "news". Surprise, surprise. It suits you perfectly.
Regina Perretta @ 81:
I actually agree with this sick bastard. Animals are (or should be) property and he should have the right to smash the dogs head against the wall. With that said...taking that sort of action against and animal who clearly experiences pain and suffering would seem to signal some form of psychosis and I would not want to be 1000 miles within range of any lunatic who would give that behavior any thought outside of the theoretical realm.
Man these people are pathetic.
The Spaniard @ 83:
Why 'should' they be, praytell?
IdahoMoe @ 7:
Oh c'mon..that's an insult to douchebags...they at least serve a purpose! This guy? Not so much.
sr
Paul @ 8:
Yeah. It sort of reminds me of the practice of swabbing a condemned death row inmate's arm with disinfectant before injecting him with something that will kill him in under fifteen seconds. Just one of those things that makes you shake your head.
Having said that-- what really kills me is the shortsightedness of the whole thing. It'd cost more money to recall the meat than it would to put a sick cow or two down, but people seem more interested in immediate profit gains. Crossing one's fingers and hoping that no one gets sick doesn't seem like a sound MORAL practice, to say nothing of a sound business one.
And Honeig is an elitist douchebag who probably believes that most of humanity is comprised of animals that don't have any rights. Then again, I'm sure he pays a dominatrix named Helga three hundred bucks an hour to espouse that very belief where he's concerned, so my point is moot.
RueMorgue @ 64:
Not to mention the strawman question of whether animals have rights.
The Spaniard @ 83:
Could you put that into plain English instead of gobbly gook?
sam @ 2:
He would not say that about your dog. You have the right to smash your dogs' skulls, he does not. If he did so, it would be a property crime.
Children are also property. This is why abortion and infanticide ( by parents ) should be legal.
L.A. Confidential @ 89:
The second part where your attempting to sound like an intellectual.
Rusty Shackleford @ 12:
Laws are silly anachronisms if they get between a man and his property.
Most Americans are still trying to deal with the reality that there are people around them who are also human and deserve the same rights as they expect. Many even see others throughout the world in this regard. Baby steps. It's especially difficult to learn a 2nd, 3rd or 4th language, but it seems possible. I don't speak dog, cow or know anyone who does. Baby steps. This is a BIG leap for people to digest; snacky dog is a novelty and a prop. These 2 things are the convenient backdoors many, but not all, allow in to ease a situation; moral or otherwise. No wonder the fda passed the whole cloning bit.
L.A. Confidential @ 91:
I think he's saying he'd like to smash puppy heads too, but doesn't want to be around people that smash puppy heads?!?
Snacky Man@90
By the transitive property of head-smashing, you are now fair game. Watch out!
Foi (Fox) news is truly a festival of ignorance, even if they misspelled it.
Right wingers, do they understand that we have laws in this country?
Sylvarose @ 86:
How is the vinegar in a douchebag any different than the malted vinegar I love to put on my fish & chips?
Snacky Man @ 90:
Um........have you ever read a law anywhere? Children are property? Where did you purchase your children? Walmart? You don't own living breathing animals or people. Get a grip.
I read in his autobiography Me Alice, that Alice Cooper almost went into a state of shock when he saw some Hell's Angel's stomping on a little dog that was chained up outside a restuarant where the owner was eating.
Bela Lugosi had to be given two weeks of leave from a movie after his favorite dog died, because he was in too much grief to work.
Ofcourse these guys were paid to play evil.
ysbaddaden @ 44:
I grew up around ranchers and farmers in Texas. They are a conservative lot. If they caught him smashing a dogs head against a brick wall, they'd invite him behind the barn for a little boot dancing on his face.
Speaking of property rights, Hoenig used to freeload by putting his stupid old fanzine rag in other peoples' newspaper boxes around the Chicago Board of Trade as did the Free Market Society.
Property Laws are coming before Public laws. And that is a sign of Fascism.
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
Legally I can smack my kid, but if I smacked my neighbour, I'd go to jail. I think that makes them chattel, like dogs and cats. And wives. Who must obey their husbands.
Eric Paulsen @ 52:
Actually, I believe it's more "Agree with me, and I'll kill this dog as an added bonus." Seems more in lockstep with their vile brand of punditry.
To bad slavery is abolished. If Hoenig was my slave...I could then use a pliers to pull his intestines out through his anus. Hypothetically of course.
[Deleted. Off topic and spamming. Please stop posting this in the threads. Thanks for understanding-Sitemonitor]
As far as I am concerned this shows a connection between torture justification and animal cruelty. I am addressing a lack of compassion for life. He will say he was just joking like Vick apologists say he was just a kid from the city who did not know better, but we must connect these things to understand the real issue. It is a pathological inability to feel the pain of another, as far as I am concerned. And if it is humor it is humor of the breed of Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter etc....i.e., mean, cruel, childish, pathological and most importantly, not funny.
Only thing I can think of is Hoenig's never had his nose broken or been knocked out cold for being out of line in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or misses it.
His parents must have been a real pair to have produced this.
God gives me the right to smash his head against a brick wall, because he is an evil person. It is mans law that keeps me from doing it.
FAZED, dammit! Not phased!
Doesn't Jonathan look like the type of guy who's afraid to walk into a men's room alone for fear of getting swirlied?
Republicans are unhealthy for children, animals and all other living things!
This same sick mindset that sees animals as property to be done with as they see fit, rather than entities deserving dignity and respect, is the same mindset that sees women as property, to be controlled in the same manner as animals; how women should breed, work, dress, etc.
Of course it's a repulican mindset, a middle ages mindset, a plantation owner mindset. The mindset of the haves "ordained" to control the have nots. It applies to anyone not wealthy as well as women.
Daddy B @ 110:
No phased works for me.
Their side has the tasers, and our side the phasers.
Am I being too cynical to think that the notion that "property trumps all" isn't a libertarian, liberal, or conservative ideal, but the very bedrock of Capitalism? Hasn't the protection of property and people's right to property always trumped life OR liberty in our country's history? The basis of our founding as a nation, the basis for all of our wars, the basis for the ever-present struggle between the few rich and vast poor, the basis for all empire since the dawn of time?
Let's not forget that, up until very recently (and even now in some parts), you could replace Snacky with "black, woman, child, Indian, foreigner, Jew, poor person, socialist, commie, traitor, etc." and very few would raise an eyebrow with regard to the curtailing of their rights or recognition as beings worthy of rights when set against YOU'RE right to secure and own your property. Yay money...
That said, I abhor this man's stance, just as I abhor a racist, bigot, sexist, or anyone who would strip another of his/her/its dignity and sovereignty for the purpose of ignorant material gain or worse, some (disingenuous) intellectual point.
I've gone through the grief of losing pets many times in my life - dogs, cats, birds, and even my son's rat (sounds strange, I know, but he was a very cool and affectionate rat). This pissant little creep enrages me beyond belief. I say we shoot him in the face and claim we were aiming at the dog...and then make him apologize for putting himself in the line of fire.
While this gentleman is indeed a scumbag, it does highlight an important point. And that is the issue that pet abuses are more readily prosecuted than abuses towards animals that are used as food sources. In fact, there should be nothing wrong with anyone wanting to use dogs as a food source, it is not any more or less cruel than using pigs or cows, however you can bet that the cops would be knocking down your door faster than you can say lickety split. In addition, food source animals are regularly abused and conditions that the industry considers normal would appall animal lovers if you substituted a dog or cat into that position. The bottom line is that respect for all forms of life needs to become an issue of greater importance, all Americans need to stop treating beef and pork as a common commodity and start treating it as a privilege, and abuses in the slaughter industry need to be more closely monitored and prosecuted to the utmost extent of the law.
Darrin @ 56:
Public statements of Libertarians in other contexts (such as the above) seem to indicate that property is always the most important right.
OK. Uh . . . I just walked across the room, picked up a copy of Broca's Brain, and set it down again. My opinion of Libertarians is unchanged. Did you maybe have a specific book in mind, or are you fucking patronizing me?
He starts off with the high and mighty, and then suddenly with a screech takes a hard right turn into the briar patch. Don't go there! Please!
I tried to draw a diagram of that logic. My daughter came along and drew Trogdor wings on it.
Good Lord, are you out of high school yet? You insist that in order for you to NOT behave savagely towards an animal, it must not behave savagely to YOU?
That's funny. I always thought that integrity was measured by how you act when you don't think anyone is looking.
But apparently, it only matters if someone can SEE and REPORT UPON your behavior.
I have a much simpler equation. I'd just as soon not do something that I'd prefer not to have done to me.
And what if we took the dog away and put a deafmute human being with an IQ of 55 in its place? Would you still act like that, since there are no other deafmutes around to champion his rights?
The dog is a living being.
And . . . he sails off the edge of the world and into fantasyland! The question is not whether we like the animal, doofus! The question is, after having gained its trust as a domesticated member of a family, does our OWNERSHIP of the animal mean we can just fucking kill it at a whim?
I would readily argue that an animal is not property. A pet chooses to stay with you unless it cannot escape. Regardless of that, the moral obligation you've entered into with a pet is as important as your property right.
You are rapidly painting yourself into the Stupid Corner, but keep going.
And it drops! The Implied premise. No, I am not a vegetable-munching animal rights crusader. But thanks for trying.
blah blah blah blah blah.
I'm arguing from rather broader moral principles, in that property rights are NOT more important than basic morality. The most important rights that we have are those which protect our dignity.
The right to think freely. The right to speak freely. The right to not be manhandled and mis-treated by those with more power, money, or influence than others. And we demonstrate our moral quality by how we treat the weakest and most helpless members of our society, whether they are intelligent or not. Even a slaughterhouse is (or bloody well should be) humane enough to avoid needless suffering.
But you and Hoenig have catapulted the right of OWNERSHIP so far up there that nothing else matters. It's come out in this ugly way with Hoenig claiming (and you cheerfully and stupidly defending) his right to bash a dog's head in for no good damn reason.
Go right the fuck ahead. You have already made the quality of your character plain to me.
"Hoenig: Snacky dog is property. If I want to take Snacky’s head and smash it against a brick wall (I’d never do that to you) it’s my right to do it!"
How charmingly bourgeoisie.
Funny how "rights" appeal to "capitalist pigs" when the "right" to exploit is the topic.
I assume he feels the right to smash workers heads in are also his prerogative.
"every serial murderer has started out by killing animals"
Didn't george Bush used to blow up frogs with a straw when he was a kiddie ?
What I find really troubling is the fact the so many *rich* people think that spending money to get an animal or to pay a salary to an employee entitles them to do whatever they want. Money gives them the permission to do as they wish. It is the exact opposite of how an equalitarian society works.
ysbaddaden @ 97:
Well by some estimates there are 1001 uses for vinegar and I maintain that's far more uses than there are for Hoenig.
Look...there's a history of a strong correlation between people who torture animals who then later go on to escalate their violence up to people. People who lack empathy for animals will often lack empathy for human beings. Being willing to smash an animal's head in "just because you can" does not show empathy. It shows an scary and sickening level of arrogance.
Just my IMHO.
sr
Eric Almighty @ 20:
I bet it's probably already bitten off his tiny hog!
Well I guess it proves one thing, Dogs can't really understand what people are saying because Snacky would have bitten Jonathan Hoenig's cheek off.
olasky @ 48:
Yea, but animal shelter pets are not bred for the slaughter. End all cruelty based diets.
CD @ 24:
Typically the wider open the mouth, the more likely the brain falls out.
RayC @ 124:
Maybe Snacky prefers chicken to chickenhawk?
Darth_Romney @ 111:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Exactly!
Right the fuck on.
Somebody put that asshat in a room full of pitbulls!
The Spaniard @ 83:
Let's follow the logic of this property argument back to its source: from whom were the first pets purchased?
Nebraska Sex Offender Registry @ 106:
OT
I love that the name sex offender registry links to the NE GOP Web site! Don't know what this person is posting in their threads, but the humor of the name is apropo!
chervilant @ 128:
More like the type of guy who would walk into a men's room for the purpose of getting swirled.
Actually, the funny thing is, the first successful cases against parents abusing their children was based on the prescedence of laws protecting animals.
Oh, I'd just like to add, American history is filled with examples of the government coming down on the side of the Hoenigs. As Huxley said, rights aren't given, they are taken. The government has a history of coming down on the side of protecting the right of property over the rights (including speech, life, liberty, etc.) of dignity and civil liberties; it is only through mass movements of the disenfranchised, won through suffering and courage, that anything at all has changed over time.
Rights are not given. They are taken.
Is it legal for a monkey to own a dog?
On the bright side, if he follows through on his psycho threat that'll be one less right wing maniac on the streets. Animal abuse laws apply even to Fox News commentators.
Matthew 7: 16-20
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
With all the shitting and the incessant barking I'd like to hire him to do a number on my neighbor's dog. I don't know who I find more annoying, free-market asswipes like this guy or animal rights activists.
Paul @ 8:
Not really. Animals don't have to be tortured before they are butchered. I'm not a vegetarian either but I do believe we should respect these animals as living creatures, not treat them as a commodity. We take their lives to sustain our own, that's necessary (unless you are a vegetarian). However, it is not necessary to cause them such suffering on their way to death. The issue is not killing; even veterinarians kill animals. The issue is the cruelty with which they were treated. If someone can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it to them.
He's an Ayn Rand groupie.
Rand was at the top of her game when it came to stroking and manipulating the fragile male egos of her time.
What more proof do you need then to witness the continued slavish, cult like adherence to her flawed dogma. And that in fact it's destroying the world instead of saving it.
In other news, Snacky was later seen shredding a copy of "Mad" magazine. Alfred E. Neuman was barely recognizable after the rampage.
Did this Fox report address why sick animals should not be introduced into the food chain? And that there are laws against this type of thing?
Or was that totally ignored?
Did they address this?
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad-cow disease, is a fatal, neurodegenerative disease in cattle, that causes a spongy degeneration in the brain and spinal cord. A notable feature of such disease is the inability of the infected animal to stand.
I'm mad at that retard for making me agree with Jeanine Pirro. OMG. Wow - he is the worst kind of queen.
L.A. Confidential @ 141:
The Fountainhead was all about adhering to ones principles, not compromising one's standards and railed against "New York Post" type rags that seek to put sports, gossip and entertainment on the front pages to deflect attention away for issues that really affect people lives for the benefit of the talentless super rich and powerful. Rand was pro-capitalism but I doubt she would have been a Republican by today's standards.
What a twerp? I don't believe he meant a word of it, though. Animals are excellent judges of character. If he really was such a bad guy, Snacky the dog would growl and bite. Since seeing the cows abused, I've solved my dilemma about it by foregoing all meat. If animals are abused at one plant, chances are it is happening at others.
Does this douchebag realize what animals give to humans? If you're a meat eater,they give you sustenance.
If you have sheep you would not be able to earn your living without the wonderful Border Collie (my BC passed away last year).
Has he even SEEN what the various breeds of working dogs do for their owners and for humankind? Humankind would not be where we are today if it weren't for the domestication of the dog.
Let's not forget Police dogs, drug sniffing dogs, seeing eye dogs, companion dogs...the list goes on.
Legality of his claim aside, he is just plain nefarious for even thinking this way.
I was going to add something about my chihuahua chewing his balls off...but I'm not going to bring myself down to his level.
slippytoad @ 118:
Honeig represents the same party that nearly had an apoplectic fit over Terri Schiavo's right to life. As it was plain to most of us at the time, the issue was not whether SHE PERSONALLY lived or died, but whether or not they could eventually use it as a stepping stone to attack abortion rights.
The question of whether sentience inherently deserves certain "rights" is unimportant. Empathy is one of the more admirable parts of human nature. This cretin, and all the rest of the theocratic conservative right, have a frightening lack of it.
There is something horribly backwards about people who voraciously defend the life of a vegetative woman or non-sentient fetus... and then casually talk about smashing a dog's head as it cheerfully (and consciously) licks your face.
Ruthless People @ 146:
Well she's dead and gone and the cons are going to destroy her like they do everything else they get their hands on so it can be twisted and rewritten to serve their own agenda.
Comments are closed on this entry