• 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:
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:

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.
Click to expand...

So we throw all these people on a list because maybe they might do something more in the future, possibly. OK. And then you're going to use this list to do exactly what I said would be a downfall of this list. Single out and repress people based on your bigotries and assumptions. So someone acts out, maybe “abuses” an animal, gets on the list. Now what? All of a sudden here comes Connery charging down on his high horse that he somehow balanced on a soap box while charging, which is quite the feat. THAT GUY…HE CAN’T BE NEAR KIDS! Let’s restrict where they can live, let’s restrict where they can work, let’s flip out at every possible probability that has yet to develop because…well we ain’t got anything better to do apparently.

Whatever, you just want this list so you can figure out who to single out so you can throw your mud around. And you pretend that it’s somehow all “for the children”. Why…why does that excuse get used all the time when people want to expand government but know that what they call for is iffy at best?
 
Connery said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...

These are chronic abusers with hefty criminal records to begin with. So how would a registry change this? It wouldn't. Here is the fly in your ointment...

When a person turns 18 the juvenile record is sealed. So even if they had this history, minors cannot be put in a public registry and juvenile records cannot be used in court. So it would make no difference according to this data. The hard core abusers are as the data shows in the system for more than just animal cruelty, so they could not get a job teaching anyway.

All this list would do is make targets of minor offenders and nothing else would really be gained.
 
Blackdog said:
How will this stop abuse???? The death penalty does not stop murder and the sex offender list does not stop sex offenders, so why would this stop anything at all??? Makes no sense. At least the sex offender list helps parents keep an eye out on the children. This animal list is just useless revenge.
Click to expand...

Actually it does make sense if you put aside ideology and look at pragmatics.

We had a recent case here in Lansing where a MSU medical student bought a series of a dozen purebreed greyhound puppies and smashed them against the walls and floor. Sadly, he was not caught until the end. If we had this registry, each time he bought a puppy, a check would be made to see if he was on the registry. Each time a check is made, it would leave a record of that search. Perhaps he would have been discovered with five checks made... or six ....

If it helps save animals it is not useless.
 
Chiefgator said:
Can you show me a single instance where this database has stopped an incident of abuse in the places it has already been enacted?
Click to expand...

This is a brand new idea.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it does make sense if you put aside ideology and look at pragmatics.

We had a recent case here in Lansing where a MSU medical student bought a series of a dozen purebreed greyhound puppies and smashed them against the walls and floor. Sadly, he was not caught until the end. If we had this registry, each time he bought a puppy, a check would be made to see if he was on the registry. Each time a check is made, it would leave a record of that search. Perhaps he would have been discovered with five checks made... or six ....

If it helps save animals it is not useless.
Click to expand...

So any time you buy a pet at the store or from a private owner etc, a check would be made? So I have to now give up private information to my local pet store to by a hamster etc???

Absolutely preposterous.

Why would I change my ideology when I see it as correct? I understand the need to protect animals from abuse, but I am not willing to give up privacy because I want a dog.
 
Your opinion is no more or less valuable than mine.

There was a time when blacks were viewed just as you presently view cats. Property. If you owned one, you could pretty much do as you pleased with them. All they wanted to do was work, eat, sleep and defecate. That was terribly wrong and so (IMHO) is your attitude toward domestic animals. It's convenient to presume that someone that is different is less than "human".

Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Blackdog said:
These are chronic abusers with hefty criminal records to begin with. So how would a registry change this? It wouldn't. Here is the fly in your ointment...

When a person turns 18 the juvenile record is sealed. So even if they had this history, minors cannot be put in a public registry and juvenile records cannot be used in court. So it would make no difference according to this data. The hard core abusers are as the data shows in the system for more than just animal cruelty, so they could not get a job teaching anyway.

All this list would do is make targets of minor offenders and nothing else would really be gained.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation is erroneous and self serving. The study is supportive of the idea that "animal cruelty [during childhood]was significantly associated with APD", this theory is not a stand alone proposition as supported by the several resources I have provided.
 
Ikari said:
So we throw all these people on a list because maybe they might do something more in the future, possibly. OK. And then you're going to use this list to do exactly what I said would be a downfall of this list. Single out and repress people based on your bigotries and assumptions. So someone acts out, maybe “abuses” an animal, gets on the list. Now what? All of a sudden here comes Connery charging down on his high horse that he somehow balanced on a soap box while charging, which is quite the feat. THAT GUY…HE CAN’T BE NEAR KIDS! Let’s restrict where they can live, let’s restrict where they can work, let’s flip out at every possible probability that has yet to develop because…well we ain’t got anything better to do apparently.

Whatever, you just want this list so you can figure out who to single out so you can throw your mud around. And you pretend that it’s somehow all “for the children”. Why…why does that excuse get used all the time when people want to expand government but know that what they call for is iffy at best?
Click to expand...


No not because they "might" do something, but, to look at where they are in their development as people and to see if they have problems or a propensity toward violence.
 
Connery said:
No not because they "might" do something, but, to look at where they are in their development as people and to see if they have problems or a propensity toward violence.
Click to expand...

So they end up on this list and we send them to re-education camp then?
 
Ikari said:
So they end up on this list and we send them to re-education camp then?
Click to expand...

Not at all. People have problems sometimes, good people, people who may been victimized and do not know how to express their anger or process their feelings and abuse animals. Many of them could be helped or have overcome their situations. I cannot condone a situation where another person should be put at risk if there was a way to avoid it. This is a useful way to use that information. If these people have overcome their problems then it should not be held against them. This is no different than a DUI or a domestic violence situation where a TRO was obtained this information is on the CORI as well. These are all indicators of how a person has developed or is a risk to others. I do not think there is anyone who would risk their child's safety for the sake of not categorizing a public record.
 
Connery said:
Not at all. People have problems sometimes, good people, people who may been victimized and do not know how to express their anger or process their feelings and abuse animals. Many of them could be helped or have overcome their situations. I cannot condone a situation where another person should be put at risk if there was a way to avoid it. This is a useful way to use that information. If these people have overcome their problems then it should not be held against them. This is no different than a DUI or a domestic violence situation where a TRO was obtained this information is on the CORI as well. These are all indicators of how a person has developed or is a risk to others. I do not think there is anyone who would risk their child's safety for the sake of not categorizing a public record.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lovejoy. But I don't need you or the government to protect my children. So what are you doing with the list. You already said that people on it shouldn't somehow be allowed near children or some such nonsense. What else are we doing with the list? Restricting where they can live? Maybe we should just Florida this up and make it so they can only live under overpasses. That was a good result from a list. Do we restrict what jobs they can have?

These people may do something in the future, and for the sake of the children we should freak out and expand government force to include lists and what have you. But where exactly are we drawing a line? I mean, this is the lowest form of humanity, yes? And we don't want them near children, yes? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in parks either. Just think about what would happen if one of these people got near a child! Why that child would be throwing cats into a burlap sack and then into a lake if anything of the sort happened! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!
 
Ikari said:
Thanks Lovejoy.
Click to expand...

That is silly. Lovejoy LOL that is actually funny.:lol:

But I don't need you or the government to protect my children. So what are you doing with the list. You already said that people on it shouldn't somehow be allowed near children or some such nonsense. What else are we doing with the list? Restricting where they can live? Maybe we should just Florida this up and make it so they can only live under overpasses. That was a good result from a list. Do we restrict what jobs they can have?

These people may do something in the future, and for the sake of the children we should freak out and expand government force to include lists and what have you. But where exactly are we drawing a line? I mean, this is the lowest form of humanity, yes? And we don't want them near children, yes? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed in parks either. Just think about what would happen if one of these people got near a child! Why that child would be throwing cats into a burlap sack and then into a lake if anything of the sort happened! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!
Click to expand...

I do not recall saying, " that people on it shouldn't somehow be allowed near children or some such nonsense." Other than that your statement is bordering on the histrionic and does not really make any sense.
 
Connery said:
I do not recall saying, " that people on it shouldn't somehow be allowed near children or some such nonsense." Other than that your statement is bordering on the histrionic and does not really make any sense.
Click to expand...

So when you said

Connery said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...

You're not saying that this list should be available as a search for those wishing to work/volunteer at a school. And that furthermore the added benefit of the list is to know about these people because you wouldn't want them to be around studends and that certain people should not be around a certain population of society?
 
Ikari said:
So when you said



You're not saying that this list should be available as a search for those wishing to work/volunteer at a school. And that furthermore the added benefit of the list is to know about these people because you wouldn't want them to be around studends and that certain people should not be around a certain population of society?
Click to expand...

It should be and there are those who should not be around a certain population, not because they have been convicted of a certain offense, but because they have not overcome their problems.
Connery said:
Not at all. People have problems sometimes, good people, people who may been victimized and do not know how to express their anger or process their feelings and abuse animals. Many of them could be helped or have overcome their situations. I cannot condone a situation where another person should be put at risk if there was a way to avoid it. This is a useful way to use that information. If these people have overcome their problems then it should not be held against them. This is no different than a DUI or a domestic violence situation where a TRO was obtained this information is on the CORI as well. These are all indicators of how a person has developed or is a risk to others. I do not think there is anyone who would risk their child's safety for the sake of not categorizing a public record.
Click to expand...
 
Chiefgator said:
Earlier you stated that it had been enacted in two other places already. You made that claim to refute the possibility that PETA would target the people on this list.
Click to expand...

It has been enacted in Rockland County and Suffolk County, NY. And it is relatively new there also. Michigan would be the first state with a state wide registry. The PETA thing seems to be your version of the boogey man.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So any time you buy a pet at the store or from a private owner etc, a check would be made? So I have to now give up private information to my local pet store to by a hamster etc???

Absolutely preposterous.

Why would I change my ideology when I see it as correct? I understand the need to protect animals from abuse, but I am not willing to give up privacy because I want a dog.
Click to expand...

You would not be giving them any more private information that you would on a check for payment or showing a drivers license to buy booze or smokes.
 
Connery said:
It should be and there are those who should not be around a certain population, not because they have been convicted of a certain offense, but because they have not overcome their problems.
Click to expand...

So this list that you're using lets you know if someone has overcome their problems?
 
haymarket said:
You would not be giving them any more private information that you would on a check for payment or showing a drivers license to buy booze or smokes.
Click to expand...

Who uses checks anymore? As for drivers license, it's not like they memorize it. Sorry this law or whatever is an incredibly bad idea. My name and address does not need to be tracked because I buy a pet.
 
specklebang said:
Your opinion is no more or less valuable than mine.

There was a time when blacks were viewed just as you presently view cats. Property. If you owned one, you could pretty much do as you pleased with them. All they wanted to do was work, eat, sleep and defecate. That was terribly wrong and so (IMHO) is your attitude toward domestic animals. It's convenient to presume that someone that is different is less than "human".
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding? Now animal cruelty is on the same level as human slavery??? I am not assuming "someone" that is different is less than human. I am saying as a scientific verifiable fact that an animal is not human.
 
Connery said:
Your interpretation is erroneous and self serving. The study is supportive of the idea that "animal cruelty [during childhood]was significantly associated with APD", this theory is not a stand alone proposition as supported by the several resources I have provided.
Click to expand...

My interpretation as it apply's to YOUR example and evidence is dead on.
 
Yes, I believe human slavery and animal abuse are both evil, despicable, disgusting behaviors. I also believe that there are many humans that are not "human" and many animals that are "human".

There is still quite a lot of slavery (of humans) in the world. It took America a long time to figure out how wrong that was and even then blacks were essentially treated as "sub-human" until 1965. There are many people that recognize that animals have rights and personalities that deserve the protection of law. That's what triggered this thread.


Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding? Now animal cruelty is on the same level as human slavery??? I am not assuming "someone" that is different is less than human. I am saying as a scientific verifiable fact that an animal is not human.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Yes, I believe human slavery and animal abuse are both evil, despicable, disgusting behaviors. I also believe that there are many humans that are not "human" and many animals that are "human".
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Maybe you need to be on Connery's re-education list. I am just kidding, lol. Could not resist.

Well I will have to say... hell how do you answer that? You think some animals are human?????????

specklebang said:
There is still quite a lot of slavery (of humans) in the world. It took America a long time to figure out how wrong that was and even then blacks were essentially treated as "sub-human" until 1965. There are many people that recognize that animals have rights and personalities that deserve the protection of law. That's what triggered this thread.
Click to expand...

Animals deserve protection, this does not give them rights. Again animals are not human.

Good thing I joined PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.
 
My cats do exhibit human qualities. Now, I've invested thousands of hours learning their language and teaching them mine. I would say that they are about 2 years to 3 year old (in human equivalency - see, you win) and they are as important to me as any child would be.

So, yes, I believe that animals, particularly the domestics (pets) have the same rights to protection as small children. Small children can't vote, drink or go outside unsupervised, but they do have the right to be fed, comforted, receive medical care as if they were human. If there is an active God (separate topic ;-), they are his creations also and have as much "soul" as we do.

That does not mean that I approve of this REGISTRY process. I do not approve.
:kitty::2dance::



Blackdog said:
Hmmm... Maybe you need to be on Connery's re-education list. I am just kidding, lol. Could not resist.

Well I will have to say... hell how do you answer that? You think some animals are human?????????



Animals deserve protection, this does not give them rights. Again animals are not human.

Good thing I joined PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
................
So, yes, I believe that animals, particularly the domestics (pets) have the same rights to protection as small children. Small children can't vote, drink or go outside unsupervised, but they do have the right to be fed, comforted, receive medical care as if they were human. If there is an active God (separate topic ;-), they are his creations also and have as much "soul" as we do.
.................
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom