• 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
Really? Well, if that is the case then if someone came to your house, called to your adult pets and your pets went to them it would be safe to assume that you would let that person take them home? After all the cats went willingly...

Same idea applies to humans? Pets are companions, pets are adopted. Yes you must pay some money, even when you adopt from a shelter, but you must also pay money to have a child or adopt a child. A pet is no more your property than your child.

Even though sometimes I think they are more intelligent than some humans I know, the fact is they are not, an "adult" pet is purely a description of a passage of time.
 
Same idea applies to humans? Pets are companions, pets are adopted. Yes you must pay some money, even when you adopt from a shelter, but you must also pay money to have a child or adopt a child. A pet is no more your property than your child.

Pets are property, you own them. Children are not, you don't own them. No comparison here.

Even though sometimes I think they are more intelligent than some humans I know, the fact is they are not, an "adult" pet is purely a description of a passage of time.

Did you read that back to yourself? I weep for the future.
 
Pets are property, you own them. Children are not, you don't own them. No comparison here.



Did you read that back to yourself? I weep for the future.

As I mentioned a few posts back, women, children and slaves used to be property. How can you "own" something you can "adopt"?

referring to something / someone as an adult is indicative of the passage of time, not a mental state.
 
As I mentioned a few posts back, women, children and slaves used to be property. How can you "own" something you can "adopt"?

That was then, animals are not and will never be a human, period. It has absolutely no bearing.

referring to something / someone as an adult is indicative of the passage of time, not a mental state.

Animals that are adults of their species are not children because they are not human.

You are desperately trying to give human understanding and feelings to an animal. It is not the same.

In fact I have more respect for people who are against all animal cruelty over people who just want to protect the cute and fuzzy one.
 
Last edited:
That was then, animals are not and will never be a human, period. It has absolutely no bearing.



Animals that are adults of their species are not children because they are not human.

You are desperately trying to give human understanding and feelings to an animal. It is not the same.

In fact I have more respect for people who are against all animal cruelty over people who just want to protect the cute and fuzzy one.

I don't want to just protect the cute and fuzzy one. Animals have emotions, is you want to claim they are chemical reactions etc.. then the same is true of humans. Just because they do not have opposable thumbs and have not dictated a book does not mean that they can't think. All animals learn. Some learn to open doors and drawers, some learn to help people cross the street and provide love. Some humans will never learn those things.

Animals learn their own language, they learn some words from our language. Animals do have feelings and thought and can "figure" out how to do things, including how to trick us humans who have larger IQ's than they do.
 
I don't want to just protect the cute and fuzzy one. Animals have emotions, is you want to claim they are chemical reactions etc.. then the same is true of humans. Just because they do not have opposable thumbs and have not dictated a book does not mean that they can't think. All animals learn. Some learn to open doors and drawers, some learn to help people cross the street and provide love. Some humans will never learn those things.

So what? This does not make them human. It also does not give them human emotion and understanding.

Then I assume you are a vegetarian? Including no dairy?

Animals learn their own language, they learn some words from our language. Animals do have feelings and thought and can "figure" out how to do things, including how to trick us humans who have larger IQ's than they do.

Animals communicate, they do not have "language," humans have many languages, not animals. Animals have rudimentary feelings yes, this is not human emotion which is far more complex.

The rest again is trying to attribute human thought etc onto an animal. Sorry, it does not float.
 
Same idea applies to humans? Pets are companions, pets are adopted. Yes you must pay some money, even when you adopt from a shelter, but you must also pay money to have a child or adopt a child. A pet is no more your property than your child.

Where do I start?

One: You do not HAVE to pay money to have a child. If you have sex and get pregnant then whether you have money or not, have that child in a back alley or a hospital that child is coming. (assuming its not miscarried or aborted of course). You WILL have that child.

Two: You may pay an adoption agency to get a child but you are not paying them for the child. You are paying them for the legal fees, the time and effort they put into making sure you are a fit parent, etc etc. It is not legal to sell human beings, child or adult. The ones that are sold are called slaves...and yes, property. However if you go into a pet shop you literally buy an animal. There are no legal fees, no time and effort made to make sure you are a fit owner (note that is what people that have animals are called...owners) fees.

Three: Yes, pets can be considered companions. But not all pets are. You can raise pets to be eaten later on in life. Cows, chickens, pigs can all be considered pets and even companions. Doesn't mean you still can't shoot em and eat em. Or heck...even just shoot em period.

Even though sometimes I think they are more intelligent than some humans I know, the fact is they are not, an "adult" pet is purely a description of a passage of time.

Actually an "adult" is not "purely a description of a passage of time". It is also a biological distinction. A human adult is a great deal different from that of a human child. Now I do admit that for humans the "legal age" at which someone "becomes" an adult is arbritrary. But ultimately all of this is just getting into semantics and I'm sure that you know that. So let me rephrase the question for you so as to try and avoid the semantics game....

Considering my previous scenario would you, or would you not, let your cat who is the equivalent biological age of a human adult of say...50, go home with someone besides you if they went willingly?

BTW, I do agree with you about the intelligence of animals. In fact some dolphins have shown to have just as high of an IQ as your average human. I have also seen it for myself with other pets that we have owned over the years. I also believe that pets have an instinct when it comes to people. I've seen cats hiss at people who I know are not good and I've also seen them jump into peoples laps who I know are good...even if the cat had never seen them before in both cases. Hell, we once had a cat that every time my mother went to do laundry in the laundry room that cat would purposely jump up and shut off the lights on my mother (our cat was one HELL of a jumper). And you could tell that she (the cat) was doing it to tease my mom, for the simple fact that after she shut off the lights she would hide and watch for my mom to turn the light back on and redo it all again.
 
I don't want to just protect the cute and fuzzy one. Animals have emotions, is you want to claim they are chemical reactions etc.. then the same is true of humans. Just because they do not have opposable thumbs and have not dictated a book does not mean that they can't think. All animals learn. Some learn to open doors and drawers, some learn to help people cross the street and provide love. Some humans will never learn those things.

Animals learn their own language, they learn some words from our language. Animals do have feelings and thought and can "figure" out how to do things, including how to trick us humans who have larger IQ's than they do.

As such you really can't use the idea that you wouldn't let them willingly go home with someone else because they are " like children" now can you? After all if they are THAT much like humans then shouldn't they be able to make their own decisions as an adult of their species? Please keep in mind that this response is all geared towards the question that I have posed to you.
 
So what? This does not make them human. It also does not give them human emotion and understanding.

Then I assume you are a vegetarian? Including no dairy?



Animals communicate, they do not have "language," humans have many languages, not animals. Animals have rudimentary feelings yes, this is not human emotion which is far more complex.

The rest again is trying to attribute human thought etc onto an animal. Sorry, it does not float.
If animals do not think how do they learn?
If they do not have feelings what makes them console an upset human?
Researchers and even your average joe have noted the vocal responses between animals. They do have a language, if you are more comfortable with it then how about a system of symbols, those symbols being noises.

I never said it makes them human, they do have similarities and they have differences, as do all living creatures. I think you might better understand what I mean when thinking of feral children (I'm not talking about the Tarzan movies).

See how different Genie is from other humans and how having no socialization affected her We accept social norms being forced upon almost without question, but Genie and other like her (yes there have been more -- even in the "wild"). I am not saying Genie is an animal or reducing her competence to equal that of a dog. Much human behavior is learned, as it is in animals, socialization is learned, emotions exist, socialization puts a name to them.

I just now thought that there are many places we can take this thread -- maybe we should start one on this instead of the registry --? just a thought.

It is past my bedtime and I would like to go snuggle with my companions Dora and Butters (before you even say it as a joke -- yes I have a human companion as well).:giggle:
 
We can get as near to perfection as is possible even if we can't actually achieve it.



Hyperbolic? That's rich considering you keep bringing up the whole "perfection" thing when I have not once demanded it.

First I would love to see statistics showing that people mainly obtain pets via those methods. The majority of pet procurements are actually done via private sales around where I live. In fact there is 1 animal store 35 miles from where I live and 3 animal shelters in the whole of 2 counties. Yet you go to the local newspaper and you will see at least half a dozen people offering up free animals and another half a dozen offering to sell you an animal.

BTW...got a revised bill for us yet? One that addresses our concerns?

Yes - you have demanded perfection from the start. Your claim is set upon the assumption that some people will fall through the cracks and be able to obtain an animal through sources outside breeders, shelters, pounds, humane societies and pet stores. And because of this you then assume that no good will be done with this law. At the core of your case is a continued onslaught built around the tactic that if it does not prevent even a single abuser from obtaining an animal to abuse - then it is a failure. Yes - you make the perfect the enemy of the good.

You fail to realize that
1 - many will be prevented by going through these normal channels
2- even normal citizens not in the business will be able to check the registry to see if a person wanting to adopt or buy their pet is on the list and thus some of those will also be prevented.

The bill is being worked on as I have told you. Our work group spent many hours on it this week. We then turned it over to the legal office - LSB - for final revisions - and we hope to have it this week. When we have it, it will be formally introduced as a substitute for the old bill. It will then be placed up on the State website and I will provide a link to it.

In the meantime, I will try to look for the stats on how animals are obtained.
 
Don't need clairvoyance to know this. Simple knowledge of they way humans are will tell you it. Ask any criminal psychologist.

Actually you do. And it is YOU who are making a claim that certain bad things will happen. You should ask the criminal psychologist and report back your findings.

But again - you continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
 
I understand this. But the same can be done via a normal background check. Which also takes just a few minuets. As such a public registry is useless.

Such a "normal background check" mechanism does not now exist.

If I am a breeder or a pet shop and a convicted abuser comes in to obtain an animal, there is not a mechanism available for me to do any check upon them. This registry will provide that.
 
Agreed since it is a public record anyway. Like I said it is nothing but feel better revenge legislation and nothing more.

Revenge? How is this getting revenge on anyone?
 
Your ability to predict the future is amazing in the extreme.

But just so we know this ability is credible, could you provide the winning lottery numbers in next weeks Power Ball?

You accuse Kal of hyperbole and then drop this out, again I call you the Pot and the Kettle.

The reason I can predict the future in this case is because I have historical data to support the predictions.
I own a cabin in Jackson county NC. It is a dry county. Guess what? Every one of my neighbors has a well stocked liquor cabinet. The county ordinance did nothing to stop drinking. It just changed the behavior a bit.
In Alabama, adult sex toys are illegal to sell. Enter the Internet and mail order before that. Again, just alter the behavior a bit.

I fully support your intent. My blood boils when I hear about animal cruelty. But... This legislation will not do anything to stop it.
It will alter the behavior of an abuser slightly.

Additionally, I suspect (no data here, just a suspicion on my part) that the majority of abuse cases are not "intentional" they are "neglectful". How many of the abusers go out to purchase a puppy to torture it? Sure you have Mike Vick and the Greyhound guy you mentioned before. But I would assume that majority go into pet ownership with the best of intentions and something alters their lifestyle and they begin to neglect their animals. Work, school, kids, money, whatever happened and they begin to ignore the animal. This is not an apologist stance on my part by any stretch. There is no excuse, if you cannot take care of the animal find someone who can. You accepted the responsibility of the animal, see it thru.
The reason I bring this up is that I am wondering about repeat offenders. How many people neglect/abuse animals repeatedly? I would assume that the hard core abusive types would be more likely to be a multiple offender and the neglectful types to be less likely.
 
Last edited:
I think the difference here is when you say a sweeping statement like

This legislation will not do anything to stop it.

I think it is reasonable to assume that it will have an impact and it will help to prevent some animal abuse. But there is but one way to find out.
 
I think the difference here is when you say a sweeping statement like



I think it is reasonable to assume that it will have an impact and it will help to prevent some animal abuse. But there is but one way to find out.

I agree it will have an impact. But the impact will be an alteration at best. And you are also correct that there is a way to find out... Watch the two counties that have the registry to see if it actually does anything.
They are the litmus test. Do cases of abuse go down in those counties? Do the shelters find themselves turning away multiple abusers in a year?
Observing and studying the results is the scientific method to approach any problem.
I will admit that the county system may be too small to give an accurate sample size. Maybe your statewide proposal is large enough. If the animal abuse cases drop dramatically over the first year after the law is in place, I will gladly admit I was wrong and buy you a frosty beverage. I truly believe that will not be the case tho.
 
I agree it will have an impact. But the impact will be an alteration at best. And you are also correct that there is a way to find out... Watch the two counties that have the registry to see if it actually does anything.
They are the litmus test. Do cases of abuse go down in those counties? Do the shelters find themselves turning away multiple abusers in a year?
Observing and studying the results is the scientific method to approach any problem.
I will admit that the county system may be too small to give an accurate sample size. Maybe your statewide proposal is large enough. If the animal abuse cases drop dramatically over the first year after the law is in place, I will gladly admit I was wrong and buy you a frosty beverage. I truly believe that will not be the case tho.

The counties are limited at best. Michigan - being the first state - is a better test lab for results. Glad to see you on board with at least that concept.

One thing we did kick around this past week was some sort of sunset provision so that results can be judged down the road in three to five years. Would you support that?
 
The counties are limited at best. Michigan - being the first state - is a better test lab for results. Glad to see you on board with at least that concept.

One thing we did kick around this past week was some sort of sunset provision so that results can be judged down the road in three to five years. Would you support that?

Absolutely. Writing in a sunset provision would make the whole thing easier to swallow.
 
If animals do not think how do they learn?

I would appreciate it if you could point out where I said anything about animals not thinking? Most animals operate on instinct but the higher forms do indeed think. Not on any kind of human level though.

If they do not have feelings what makes them console an upset human?

Well a dog can tell when you are scared etc. Has nothing to do with feelings. Please point out where I said animals don't feel? I said like humans. You need to stop generalizing.

Researchers and even your average joe have noted the vocal responses between animals. They do have a language, if you are more comfortable with it then how about a system of symbols, those symbols being noises.

Language is not a simple set of sounds or gestures, that is communication, not language. Language is a more advanced and human form of communication. Has nothing to do with me being comfortable and more to do with scientific fact.

I never said it makes them human, they do have similarities and they have differences, as do all living creatures. I think you might better understand what I mean when thinking of feral children (I'm not talking about the Tarzan movies).

I never said anything about you think they are human. I said you are trying (and you still are) to apply human attributes and making emotional appeals that fly in the face of logic.

See how different Genie is from other humans and how having no socialization affected her We accept social norms being forced upon almost without question, but Genie and other like her (yes there have been more -- even in the "wild"). I am not saying Genie is an animal or reducing her competence to equal that of a dog. Much human behavior is learned, as it is in animals, socialization is learned, emotions exist, socialization puts a name to them.

Irrelevant. It does not in any way make animals human.

I just now thought that there are many places we can take this thread -- maybe we should start one on this instead of the registry --? just a thought.

It is past my bedtime and I would like to go snuggle with my companions Dora and Butters (before you even say it as a joke -- yes I have a human companion as well).:giggle:

Why? You have no real argument. Science says you are just making stuff up based on your perceptions and ignoring fact as presented by years of research.

So it would be pointless.
 
Yes - you have demanded perfection from the start. Your claim is set upon the assumption that some people will fall through the cracks and be able to obtain an animal through sources outside breeders, shelters, pounds, humane societies and pet stores. And because of this you then assume that no good will be done with this law. At the core of your case is a continued onslaught built around the tactic that if it does not prevent even a single abuser from obtaining an animal to abuse - then it is a failure. Yes - you make the perfect the enemy of the good.

No I have not and I would challenge you to show otherwise. All that I have demanded is that something else be tried. Find something to actually fix the problem instead of just treating the problem. Is that really too much to ask for? Is it really asking for "perfection" to actually want a solution instead of just duck tape? Tell me, has your state even tried counsuling for these animal abusers? Psych evals? Anything beyond punishment?

The reason that it ultimately will not stop pet abusers has already been told to you. Those that want to abuse animals will just get them some other way. You actually don't have to believe me on this. Just look at the prohibition of drugs. Has the prohibition on drugs stopped people from getting em? The answer of course is a sound and resounding NO! Prohibiting people from buying animals because they were convicted of abusing an animal will not stop that person from getting an animal. If they can't get em through those stores then they will get them in other ways.

Another problem with your registry is that animal abusers can also abuse other peoples animals, or just strays in general. After all, you don't need to take an animal home in order to abuse it. Heck, Michigan has beaches...how many seagulls you got flying around there? Know what alka seltzer does to a seagull that swallows it? Get my over all drift with this paragraph?

You fail to realize that
1 - many will be prevented by going through these normal channels
2- even normal citizens not in the business will be able to check the registry to see if a person wanting to adopt or buy their pet is on the list and thus some of those will also be prevented.

No, they won't be prevented. As has been told to you many times now...they will just alter their behavior a bit.

The bill is being worked on as I have told you. Our work group spent many hours on it this week. We then turned it over to the legal office - LSB - for final revisions - and we hope to have it this week. When we have it, it will be formally introduced as a substitute for the old bill. It will then be placed up on the State website and I will provide a link to it.

In the meantime, I will try to look for the stats on how animals are obtained.

Ok.
 
Last edited:
Actually you do. And it is YOU who are making a claim that certain bad things will happen. You should ask the criminal psychologist and report back your findings.

But again - you continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Three words for ya...

War on Drugs.
 
Such a "normal background check" mechanism does not now exist.

If I am a breeder or a pet shop and a convicted abuser comes in to obtain an animal, there is not a mechanism available for me to do any check upon them. This registry will provide that.

Yes there is. It is available to anyone and everyone that has a computer and the internet. I could get one right now on anyone with their permission and a little bit of info on em and 5 mins.

Backgroundchecks.com
 
Yes, and women and children and slaves were once property as well.

Women and children are humans, they ultimately have the same set of human rights as all humans. Cats are not human, they do not possess rights. For all legal purposes; you OWN your cat.
 
Absolutely. Writing in a sunset provision would make the whole thing easier to swallow.

Thanks for that advice. I will bring it up again when we meet on this on Tuesday.
 
Back
Top Bottom