• 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!

Should selling 'Gothic Kittens' be a crime?

Should piercing the ears of kittens and selling them as 'Gothic Kittens' be a crime?


  • Total voters
    40
Because all cats are different, some how piercing makes them unstable. I have shown in the case of MOST cats, this is just not true.

Uh-huh. Where did you get your veterinarian's license and exactly how many pierced cats have you examined? Can we review your patient records?

:roll:

Sorry, pal. You've "shown" nothing of the sort.

My argument is more relevant than anything you have posted. Your argument is nothing but "Oh cats were tortured so its wrong" that is your argument.

And your argument is nothing but "It was not torture in my opinion." (Oh yeah, and "I can abuse my pets as much as I like, because they're my property, just like my kitchen table.")

No objectivity, no logic. I mean lets face it, torture in this case is subjective. End of story, like most moral issues.

Right. Subjective. Like my opinion that piercing cats because it makes them "pretty" is torture.

If you don't like it, too bad for you. :2wave:
 
Maybe that is the problem?

You don't understand the US Constitution, or property rights. It is the most basic of principals this country was founded on. In fact all other rights come from the idea of property and ownership.

YouTube- Michael Badnarik Rights, Privileges, and Property

I understand it quite well. I know that the U.S. Constitution does not, nor any other law or principle, gives you ABSOLUTE property rights. In fact, the Constitution specifically mentions the pre-existing power of the government to take away your property (the 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and no taking without due process, which means taking IS perfectly okay with due process.)

The government can regulate the use of your property and take some of it in the form of taxes. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to property. Even staunch conservatives acknowledge this.
 
Last edited:
Uh-huh. Where did you get your veterinarian's license and exactly how many pierced cats have you examined? Can we review your patient records?

Sorry, pal. You've "shown" nothing of the sort.

So I must be a vet to have an opinion on this?

That sort of sinks your whole argument doesn't it? Your not a vet?

Yes I have. I showed a video with cats carrying and walking around with things mounted to them and they were in no distress.

Now if you can show me your license and a video showing cats collapsing under the weight of a towel, you may have something.

And your argument is nothing but "It was not torture in my opinion." (Oh yeah, and "I can abuse my pets as much as I like, because they're my property, just like my kitchen table.")

According to our supposed property laws this would be true. Unfortunately is is only true if you make allot of money.

Right. Subjective. Like my opinion that piercing cats because it makes them "pretty" is torture.

So in your opinion burning a Chimpanzee to death to test hair spray is OK to be legal? But piercing a cats ear should be illegal? Even though we can crop birds wings, crop cats and dogs tails purely in the interest of fashion?

If you don't like it, too bad for you. :2wave:

Well so far your argument is lacking.
 
Lynx please.

img05481.jpg


img05331.jpg



Note extra toes... ;)
 
I understand it quite well. I know that the U.S. Constitution does not, nor any other law or principle, gives you ABSOLUTE property rights. In fact, the Constitution specifically mentions the pre-existing power of the government to take away your property (the 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and no taking without due process, which means taking IS perfectly okay with due process.)

With due process for PUBLIC use as in land etc. They can't just take it.

The government can regulate the use of your property and take some of it in the form of taxes. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to property. Even staunch conservatives acknowledge this.

And this is a perfect example of our rights being eroded.

Thanks again.
 
With due process for PUBLIC use as in land etc. They can't just take it.

Right. So if they need it for public use, they can take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.
 
Right. So if they need it for public use, they can take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.

Not without due process and proper compensation. Huge difference than just being able to take something. You are still trying to ignore the complete picture.
 
Not without due process and proper compensation. Huge difference than just being able to take something. You are still trying to ignore the complete picture.

Right. But they can still take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.

There are limits, obviously, to what the government can do and how it can do it. But it can still take your property, or regulate how you use it.
 
So I must be a vet to have an opinion on this? That sort of sinks your whole argument doesn't it? Your not a vet?

Of course not. However, you claimed that:

some how piercing makes them unstable. I have shown in the case of MOST cats, this is just not true.

You haven't produced any evidence about pierced cats.

Yes I have. I showed a video with cats carrying and walking around with things mounted to them and they were in no distress.

Still waiting for you to tell us about the pierced cats you have had experience with, which "shows" that piercing does not make cats unstable. If you cannot provide us with documentation that said piercings have no negative impact on a cat's balance or movement, you'll have proven your assertion. Until that point, we have nothing but your worthless declaration that you know more than a vet does about the matter. Sorry, but I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training.

So in your opinion burning a Chimpanzee to death to test hair spray is OK to be legal?

I'm fairly certain I never said, nor implied that.

Well so far your argument is lacking.

Again, I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training. :roll:
 
Right. But they can still take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.

Actually it is, hence the "due process" clause. It's mainly because of technology. If a highway needs to go through, it needs to go through. They still can't just take it. They have to prove why the highway has to go through. And then you must be FAIRLY compensated, so in actuality you lose nothing. Your property is basically capital at that point.

There are limits, obviously, to what the government can do and how it can do it. But it can still take your property, or regulate how you use it.

Again it shows our eroding property rights.
 
Actually it is, hence the "due process" clause. It's mainly because of technology. If a highway needs to go through, it needs to go through. They still can't just take it. They have to prove why the highway has to go through. And then you must be FAIRLY compensated, so in actuality you lose nothing. Your property is basically capital at that point.

If your property rights were absolute, you could decide not to sell to the government for any price. But you can't.

Also, the government can tax you, regulate the use of your property through zoning and other regulation, regulate your business, etc.

Again it shows our eroding property rights.

How?

Are you talking about the recent takings like the New London case? I agree with you on that, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
 
Of course not. However, you claimed that:
You haven't produced any evidence about pierced cats.

Don't have to. I showed cats in a similar condition. Or at least a reasonable facsimile.

It also completely flies in the face of your statements and the vets.

Still waiting for you to tell us about the pierced cats you have had experience with, which "shows" that piercing does not make cats unstable. If you cannot provide us with documentation that said piercings have no negative impact on a cat's balance or movement, you'll have proven your assertion. Until that point, we have nothing but your worthless declaration that you know more than a vet does about the matter. Sorry, but I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training.

The vet has not even proved it and yet you accept her at her word. I have shown tangible evidence to the contrary.

I'm fairly certain I never said, nor implied that.

I never said you did. Notice the question mark. Are you going to answer the question?

"So in your opinion burning a Chimpanzee to death to test hair spray is OK to be legal? But piercing a cats ear should be illegal? Even though we can crop birds wings, crop cats and dogs tails purely in the interest of fashion?"

Or are you going to crop the rest out again?

Again, I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training. :roll:

You do that.
 
Last edited:
If your property rights were absolute, you could decide not to sell to the government for any price. But you can't.

And you are fairly compensated. So you are not losing anything.

Also, the government can tax you, regulate the use of your property through zoning and other regulation, regulate your business, etc.

You keep giving me great examples of the rights to property we have lost over the years.

How?

Are you talking about the recent takings like the New London case? I agree with you on that, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

It is relevant. We are letting the government do whatever they want without a peep or even a whimper.

Our government was never in the founders wildest dreams supposed to have this much power over us.

And we just let it happen.
 
Its a "legal" crime when people disfigure themselves, worse when they do it to animals.
But, what about branding?
It seems as if we have too many in law enforcement, or that they are in the wrong place.
 
And you are fairly compensated. So you are not losing anything.

But you don't have a right not to sell it.

You keep giving me great examples of the rights to property we have lost over the years.

That's absurd. None of these rights ever existed.
 
It is relevant. We are letting the government do whatever they want without a peep or even a whimper.

Our government was never in the founders wildest dreams supposed to have this much power over us.

And we just let it happen.

yeah yeah yeah.

No, it's not relevant to peircing kittens. But I said I agree with you that the New London case went too far.
 
But you don't have a right not to sell it.

Yes you do. Then they have to use due process. They have to win or show need. So yes you do have a right not to.

That's absurd. None of these rights ever existed.

You really need to pick up a history book. Or at the very minimum watch the video I posted.

Since you are not going to, I guess we are done.
 
yeah yeah yeah.

No, it's not relevant to peircing kittens. But I said I agree with you that the New London case went too far.

Yes it is. It is a system that creates a class of people above the law. This very much applies.
 
While I find the premise entirely stupid, I don't think there was anything illegal done there. The cats are her property and it wasn't a form of "abuse". I don't think tail docking is considered abuse, and it's worse than piercing a kitten's ears.
Sheer meanness and stupidity, to oneself or others, cannot be a crime, should not be a crime...
The jury was wrong, the entire process is wrong, and wasteful.
Have they nothing better to do?
We simply need better people, this will not happen for a long time..
 
Yes you do. Then they have to use due process. They have to win or show need. So yes you do have a right not to.

Yes, but they can take it without your permission.

You really need to pick up a history book. Or at the very minimum watch the video I posted.

Since you are not going to, I guess we are done.

Give it a rest, dude. If you want to bow out, just do it.
 
Yes, but they can take it without your permission.

No they can't. They have to sue you. Many times the government has lost these cases and guess what? Nothing happened.

Give it a rest, dude. If you want to bow out, just do it.

Has nothing to do with bowing out. At this point we are just repeating our selfs.
 
No they can't. They have to sue you. Many times the government has lost these cases and guess what? Nothing happened.

Yet many times they took property, without the permission of the owners.

How many times are you going to deny this obvious fact?
 
Look, here are some ways your property rights aren't absolute, and never have been:

- you can't refuse to sell to the government for public use (eminent domain).
- you have to pay taxes
- you can be regulated or zoned
- you can't abuse or torture animals.

That's just the way it is.
 
Yet many times they took property, without the permission of the owners.

How many times are you going to deny this obvious fact?

How many times are you going to deny they did not just take it? They had to go to court. Sometimes they won, sometimes they did not.

You absolutely have the RIGHT to say no, and defend your position in court.
 
Back
Top Bottom