In software testing, the term "boundary case" is used to refer to the behavior of a system when one of its inputs is at or just beyond its maximum or minimum limits. I'm testing my ideology for bugs right now. If it's still functioning when used with boundary cases, it means that it's a good ideology.
In the previous post I asked myself, how can we protect animals without needing the government to do it? I think the answer is advocacy.
Blah, blah, blah, insert text here.
Why do I think that anti animal cruelty laws don't make sense? Well, I believe that it doesn't hold up to boundary cases. I mean, it's kindda silly why it's wrong to maltreat animals but it's perfectly alright to kill them. To me, there's nothing more cruel than killing an animal.
Last year, I saw a documentary that showed how the government rescued a pack of dogs that was about to be turned into dog meat, or "azucena". Guess what happened after the government rescued the poor dogs? They euthanized them. In short, they rescued the dogs in order to kill them.
I love dogs, and I believe that we shouldn't eat them. But hey, it's my belief... Neither I nor the government has the right to impose this belief on others. The best that we can do is to influence others not to eat dogs through advocacy.
Why is an anti animal cruelty law silly? Well, let's test it using boundary cases. Why single out dogs among other animals? What makes them so special? Does this thing that make them special have an objective basis? Why not ban pork or beef meat? If you ban dog meat, it means you need to ban all types of meat as well. Why not ban fish too? They're also animals. Why ban animals only? What makes them so special? Plants are living things too. Why not ban plants too?
I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere, but I'm too sleepy... Weeeeeeee...