• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Animal Abuse Registry

Is a State Animal Abuse Registry a good idea?

  • Total voters
    53
Connery said:
LOL mantra that is your word....and whatever meaning you seem to attach to it.
Click to expand...

Apt description more like it.

Connery said:
Ikari the implications of your statement are unfortunately very clear.
Click to expand...

Humans are better than animals, yes.


Connery said:
I am not in favor of "more government" in favor of how an animal abuse registry can benefit society, as I expressed in many earlier posts, the points of which you have not addressed.
Click to expand...
How could it benefit other than giving noisy people another thing though which they can single others out? There’s no “benefit”, it won’t stop animal abuse. All this comes down to is yet another government list, more monitoring, and more busybodies thinking they should be in everyone’s business. Though I guess that’s what busybodies do.
 
MaggieD said:
The question does serve a purpose if you do abuse animals....if you treat them poorly because you can.
Click to expand...

No it serves no purpose because it is completely unrelated. The majority of animal abuse cases are #1 misdemeanors that means nothing but a fine and #2 most cases involve lack of care, not purposely hurting the animal. I guess you don't eat viel, chicken or beef then? If you do you are indirectly causing the torture of animals and need to be on that list.

MaggieD said:
Most people find animal abuse horrific. You don't.
Click to expand...

No, most people find it sad, not horrific. Horrific would be the slaughter of innocent children in Congo. Priority's are a killer.

MaggieD said:
I wonder why that is. (I doubt you do, btw, but it's an honest question.)
Click to expand...

I absolutely adore animals. I love my parrot Sweetpea very much. This however does not change the fact that she is my pet and has no rights.
 
do we have a national child abuse registry? not sex offender, but child abuse?
 
Blackdog said:
It is trivial and the punishment should fit the crime. Animals are property and have no rights. If an animal harms a human it is killed, not the other way around. Someone who is careless or lazy for whatever reason should not be put on a public list for life and treated like a criminal because of a misdemeanor animal abuse charge, period.




According to that most hunters and fisherman should be on that list as well. Hell they maim, mutilate and wound living animals all the time. That's how ridicules this list is.
Click to expand...
This is not applicable.
Nope try reading the statute that is already ion the books in contecxt



Wow the appeal to common practice fallacy shows how weak your argument really is.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous.
 
Ikari said:
Apt description more like it.
Click to expand...
You still have not spoken with specificity I have no idea what you are talking about.



Humans are better than animals, yes.
Click to expand...
I was addressing your statement as follows:"I would personally beat the **** out of every animal I came across if it could prevent lists like this." as per Ikari


How could it benefit other than giving noisy people another thing though which they can single others out? There’s no “benefit”, it won’t stop animal abuse. All this comes down to is yet another government list, more monitoring, and more busybodies thinking they should be in everyone’s business. Though I guess that’s what busybodies do
Click to expand...

Here are some of the benefits:
Connery said:
This is a great idea not only how it would track those that have a track record of such activity and prevent ownership for such people, but it would effect how animal abuse is perceived. For example in treating those with antisocial behavior or a history of domestic violence. This would be a good tool for those who treat the abusers and help toward a better understanding of the psychology and /or behavioral pattern of the abusers. Not to mention keep these abusive pricks away from animals.

The Connection between Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty

Facts About Animal Abuse & Domestic Violence
Click to expand...
 
Connery said:
This is not applicable.

Nope try reading the statute that is already ion the books in contecxt
Click to expand...

I have no idea what local, state or national law that may or may not be. You posted it without any context. This however is applicable. So if you maim, kill or injure an animal while hunting or in a slaughter house it's OK as long as it is not a pet? Give me a break.

Connery said:
This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Oh it is?

Whether you like it or not just about every facet of society has "list" attached to it, even an internet forum. - Connery

Appeal To Common Practice:

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

Dead on my friend. Yes a weak argument that smacks of fallacy with not a shred of evidence to back up it's validity.
 
Connery said:
This is a great idea not only how it would track those that have a track record of such activity and prevent ownership for such people, but it would effect how animal abuse is perceived. For example in treating those with antisocial behavior or a history of domestic violence. This would be a good tool for those who treat the abusers and help toward a better understanding of the psychology and /or behavioral pattern of the abusers. Not to mention keep these abusive pricks away from animals.

The Connection between Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty

Facts About Animal Abuse & Domestic Violence
Click to expand...

This is thought crime at best. Just because someone may be more likely to do something, it does NOT give anyone including the government the right to spy or track them, or in any way single them out.

So basically you want to single out people for crimes they have not yet commuted based on other disconnected crimes.

Welcome to 1984.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I have no idea what local, state or national law that may or may not be. You posted it without any context. This however is applicable. So if you maim, kill or injure an animal while hunting or in a slaughter house it's OK as long as it is not a pet? Give me a break.
Click to expand...


I agree you do not have any idea what you are talking about . I present law you respond with assumptions.



Oh it is?

Whether you like it or not just about every facet of society has "list" attached to it, even an internet forum. - Connery

Appeal To Common Practice:

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

Dead on my friend. Yes a weak argument that smacks of fallacy with not a shred of evidence to back up it's validity
Click to expand...

This argument does not speak to the issues in this OP. Moreover, it was merely presented to represent custom and practice, of which you tacitly agreed when you became an active member of that society/ organization.



Blackdog said:
This is thought crime at best. Just because someone may be more likely to do something, it does NOT give anyone including the government the right to spy or track them, or in any way single them out.

So basically you want to single out people for crimes they have not yet commuted based on other disconnected crimes.

Welcome to 1984.
Click to expand...


More opinion. When you present authority on which you base your opinion then we can have a discussion on the merits.
 
Connery said:
You still have not spoken with specificity I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You’re little spiel on how great another government enforced list would be.

Connery said:
I was addressing your statement as follows:"I would personally beat the **** out of every animal I came across if it could prevent lists like this." as per Ikari
Click to expand...

Yes, humans are better than animals. The expansion of government in this form against the individual is not warranted. I stand by the comment. If we are talking about aggressive Big Brother databasing of humans for some unproven, perceived, and imagined benefit for the animal; it’s a no brainer. The animal loses. Property loses to humans.


Connery said:
Here are some of the benefits:
Click to expand...
Those are some unproven benefits laid forth by you with no supporting data, yes. But it’s not actually demonstrated “benefit”.
 
Connery said:
I agree you do not have any idea what you are talking about . I present law you respond with assumptions.
Click to expand...

Now you resort to ad hominems and no substance. You present some code from who knows where with no link and expect someone to know where you got it? :lol:

Connery said:
This argument does not speak to the issues in this OP. Moreover, it was merely presented to represent custom and practice, of which you tacitly agreed when you became an active member of that society/ organization.
Click to expand...

In other words... You got nothing.

It is still nothing but a fallacy that proves nothing.

Connery said:
More opinion. When you present authority on which you base your opinion then we can have a discussion on the merits.
Click to expand...

Again you have nothing.

Duly noted.
 
There are many reasons I am opposed to this registry concept but your reasoning is not among them.

I'm old enough to remember when women were held in the same low regard. Beating your wife was an acceptable practice. Killing your wife for unfaithfulness was barely punished. Women were property and were kept at home to produce babies and clean houses.

In time, the attitude that some hold toward animals will change and the mistreatment that is "no big deal" to you will become unacceptable to a civilized society. People like myself, who have taken the time to construct a communicative relationship with our furry partners will ultimately out-influence those of you who view your cat and you Ipod as being in the same category. You will come to learn that animals have emotions, desires, ideals and objectives, just as you do, even if they communicate them in other ways.

Yes, humans are better than animals. The expansion of government in this form against the individual is not warranted. I stand by the comment. If we are talking about aggressive Big Brother databasing of humans for some unproven, perceived, and imagined benefit for the animal; it’s a no brainer. The animal loses. Property loses to humans
Click to expand...
 
Blackdog said:
Now you resort to ad hominems and no substance. You present some code from who knows where with no link and expect someone to know where you got it? :lol:
Click to expand...

No I quoted you. "I have no idea what local, state or national law that may or may not be."



In other words... You got nothing.

It is still nothing but a fallacy that proves nothing.



Again you have nothing.

Duly noted
Click to expand...

This statement has no merit whatsoever.
 
specklebang said:
There are many reasons I am opposed to this registry concept but your reasoning is not among them.

I'm old enough to remember when women were held in the same low regard. Beating your wife was an acceptable practice. Killing your wife for unfaithfulness was barely punished. Women were property and were kept at home to produce babies and clean houses.

In time, the attitude that some hold toward animals will change and the mistreatment that is "no big deal" to you will become unacceptable to a civilized society. People like myself, who have taken the time to construct a communicative relationship with our furry partners will ultimately out-influence those of you who view your cat and you Ipod as being in the same category. You will come to learn that animals have emotions, desires, ideals and objectives, just as you do, even if they communicate them in other ways.
Click to expand...

Animals do not have ideals, and as for desires they amount to eat, sleep, play, procreate and defecate. The only pertinent objective any animal has is purely instinct for the most part. Some animals are very intelligent, but they are not human and never will be. If you own a pet, it is property. Now this does not mean a society should mistreat animals in any way, but they are still property and not in any way human.

No one including Ikari has said a thing about abuse not being a big deal. We are saying it does not justify more government intervention when it is already a public record, and serves no real purpose other than make people targets.

How you came to the conclusion is beyond me.
 
Ikari said:
You’re little spiel on how great another government enforced list would be.

Yes, humans are better than animals. The expansion of government in this form against the individual is not warranted. I stand by the comment. If we are talking about aggressive Big Brother databasing of humans for some unproven, perceived, and imagined benefit for the animal; it’s a no brainer. The animal loses. Property loses to humans.

Those are some unproven benefits laid forth by you with no supporting data, yes. But it’s not actually demonstrated “benefit”.
Click to expand...

You have not studied the resources I have provided.
 
Connery said:
No I quoted you. "I have no idea what local, state or national law that may or may not be."
Click to expand...

No you didn't, you said "I agree you do not have any idea what you are talking about. I present law you respond with assumptions."

Any questions?

Connery said:
This statement has no merit whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It has allot of merit when taken into context with your nonexistent argument.

Oh and I looked up your "code" really? I mean really??? Now I see why you did not want to put up a link. That is the CA penal code. Completely irrelevant to Detroit. :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
No you didn't, you said "I agree you do not have any idea what you are talking about. I present law you respond with assumptions."

Any questions?



It has allot of merit when taken into context with your nonexistent argument.

Oh and I looked up your "code" really? I mean really??? Now I see why you did not want to put up a link. That is the CA penal code. Completely irrelevant to Detroit. :lol:
Click to expand...


You are truly seeking to grab something out of the air.
 
Ikari said:
I read your opinion.
Click to expand...

His "resources" do not in any way justify any kind of animal abuse registry. What his evidence supports is "thought crime."
 
Connery said:
You are truly seeking to grab something out of the air.
Click to expand...

Considering your lack of any coherent argument, or any real rebuttal to questions etc put to you. You make it easy to poke HUGE holes in so far a pretty worthless fallacy filled argument.
 
Connery said:
My opinion is based on resources and application thereof.
Click to expand...

It's certainly based on something. I wouldn't go so far as to call that something "reality".
 
MaggieD said:
And just how would we know it stopped it if it stopped it??
Click to expand...

Pretty much my point, but let me ask another way......

How many known animal cruelty offenders have been turned away by a breeder or pet store or adoption shelter in the two places that this registry is in effect?
 
Ikari said:
It's certainly based on something. I wouldn't go so far as to call that something "reality".
Click to expand...

Not your reality certainly, and that is fine by me. I use those sources that have actually worked or studied in the area, rather than opine on something that I have little or no knowledge of.

As I cited previously, a CORI check would be conducted on those that wish to work/volunteer in the school system of Massachusetts would uncover a person who is an animal abuser. The reason why that is important and would serve society is:

Animal cruelty in childhood, although generally viewed as abnormal or deviant, for years was not considered symptomatic of any particular psychiatric disorder. Although animal cruelty is currently used as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorder, research establishing the diagnostic significance of this behavior is essentially nonexistent. In the current study, investigators tested the hypothesis that a history of substantial animal cruelty is associated with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (APD) and looked for associations with other disorders commonly diagnosed in a population of criminal defendants. Forty-eight subjects, criminal defendants who had histories of substantial animal cruelty, were matched with defendants without this history. Data were systematically obtained from the files by using four specifically designed data retrieval outlines. A history of animal cruelty during childhood was significantly associated with APD, antisocial personality traits, and polysubstance abuse. Mental retardation, psychotic disorders, and alcohol abuse showed no such association.
Click to expand...
see "Animal Cruelty and Psychiatric Disorders" Roman Gleyzer, MD, Alan R. Felthous, MD, and Charles E. Holzer III, PhD http://jaapl.org/content/30/2/257.full.pdf

If I had a school age child, a kindergartner, I would not want this person to be around the students. Word of mouth, a well intentioned comment will do little to reverse the effects of a person who should not be around a certain population of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom