I was thinking more along the lines of animals, and animal abuse. Some people don't think animals can be victims, they are just property.

oh right, yeah
humans are really weird when it comes to ethics and animals

Then you have to find the nuance between a farmer and a sociopath that just wants to hurt a thing.

Or a hunter, etc.

what, farmers don't care about animals

they are literally just property to them

some don't. but they also don't usually go out of their way to be cruel either

I'd ask the chickens how they feel about that

To what end?

i'm just saying, farmers will be cruel to animals if it increases their profit

Well, ignoring that there are different types of farmers....You're not wrong.

well even if you draw the line between using animals for practical utilization or not, then maybe that would put horse riding as an entertainment sport in the unethical camp?
i think the lack of consistency when it comes to animal ethics/morals just made me give up on it, so i'm pretty agnostic/apathic

So, would an animal be a victim?

I think animals can be victims

If not, then I couldn't agree to legalizing victimless crimes.

I disagree with your definition animal cruelty.

I don't think horse riding is cruel,
Horse *racing*, you can make an argument for

So, how about drunk driving. Should that be a crime?

it seems the unspoken consensus is kind of like animals doesnt have the right to liberty, but they do have the right to not needlessly suffer

It already is a crime

sure it is a crime, but it's also usually victimless. Should it be a crime?

Crime isn't about always having a victim present

Well it was in our scenario

i think that goes into the topic of exposing innocents to high risks

the guy I started the convo with that you bursted in on

So, you would want to keep it criminal?

Even though it's usually victimless?

maybe if we take that to its extreme, it could be a bit like playing russian roulette against someone
should it be legal every time the chamber happened to be empty?

Does Russian roulette even have a victim?

There was consent

not if you point it towards yourself, but if you point it at bystanders without their consent

Russian roulette itself isn't a crime

Driving drunk is not only a threat to the driver

It's a threat to everyone

Anyway, I don't actually think drunk driving should be a crime. I think the crime is when you get into an accident while drunk driving, when it's caused by your actions.

Drunk driving has to be a crime so that impaired drivers can be removed from their vehicles by police

well i think the core question is probably if it's a violation against your rights to be put at risk without your consent

Following that logic, you would not considering placing human lives in dangerous scenarios a crime?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/manufacturing-posts-best-calendar-year-for-job-gains-since-1997.html

the jobs arne't coming back, there is no magic wand ^

I don't think safety is a right.