• 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
Blackdog said:
No it is not. You want to tack on another fine and penalty.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has said otherwise.

You have said nothing to refute. Your last several posts have been rants using over the top hyperbole and gross exaggeration.
 
Blackdog said:
No it has not. It has in the case of sex offenders.



I rest my case. :lamo
Click to expand...

You never had a case to begin with. Every practical objection you had I refuted and overcame. Now, its simple right wing ideology that is all you have left.

A registry is a registry is a registry. Shakespeare may have said that. If he didn't - he should have. The principle is the same.
 
haymarket said:
You never had a case to begin with. Every practical objection you had I refuted and overcame. Now, its simple right wing ideology that is all you have left.
Click to expand...

You have not refuted ****. You have given half answers and ignored others. You have answered some, but that is not the equivalent of refuting anything.

haymarket said:
A registry is a registry is a registry. Shakespeare may have said that. If he didn't - he should have. The principle is the same.
Click to expand...

No they are not even remotely the same thing. Notice we don't have murderer registry's or mugger registry's etc. Hell they would be allot more useful than an animal abuse registry.
 
The poll reads sarcastically when one looks at the options available and how it obviously derides those against the registry, but abuse is abuse: all living creatures have feelings of happiness and pain, and one does not need to be human to experience life.

People capable of inflicting pain on creates that are assigned as family by society have an anger management issue. This should be dealt with, and a registry would do precisely that.

Ants, caterpillars, and the like, regardless of life, are not identified with humanity on a universal scale as mammals are classified. I do not condone this, but I accept the current limitations of humanity and it's inability to universally value life outside of itself. Humans are naturally more drawn to mammals than non-mammals due to their likeness to us. Humanity best identifies itself with mammals naturally, and a person capable of inflicting pain on mammals is one who is capable of harming other mammals, including humans.

Mammalian abuse is resultant of a psychological and individualistic propensity to physically violent outbursts in general. This should obviously be contained, and a registry would accomplish such a feat.

(This is to view a registry as something the police should have as a tool to follow violent acts not unlike a registry for pedophilia, for both are specific to a type of abuse, i.e., animal and child, and, therefore, are unlike murder, which can be circumstantial; however, serial killers are the exception by definition, for they have a repeated behaviour type not unlike people who abuse animals and underage people. But how often are serial killers released back into the public to make a serial killer registry probable? And if this is a problem, I certainly support a serial killer registry.)
 
Last edited:
shelphs said:
The poll reads sarcastically when one looks at the options available and how it obviously derides those against the registry, but abuse is abuse: all living creatures have feelings of happiness and pain, and one does not need to be human to experience life.

People capable of inflicting pain on creates that are assigned as family by society have an anger management issue. This should be dealt with, and a registry would do precisely that.

Ants, caterpillars, and the like, regardless of life, cannot be identified with humanity on a universal scale as mammals are classified. I do not condone this, but I accept the current limitations of humanity and it's capacity to value life outside of itselfy. Universally, people are naturally more drawn to mammals than non-mammals. Humanity best identifies itself with mammals naturally, and a person capable of inflicting pain on mammals is one who is capable of harming other mammals, including humans.

Mammalian abuse is resultant of a psychological and individualistic propensity to physically violent outbursts in general. This should obviously be contained, and a registry would accomplish such a feat.
Click to expand...

So I guess avian's and reptiles which are also very popular pets don't deserve any more protection than cows, pigs or deer etc? Right?

The argument is just another like "it's for the children" bull**** liberal argument. That is all this is. It is a waist of time and tax payers money.

PS: Avian's are actually smarter than most mammals.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
If I see you starve your child or kick your cat, I will call the cops on you. Evil is evil. The news is just a capitalistic way of disseminating information, regardless of priority, accuracy or value.
Click to expand...

Yep. Evil capitalists starving the children and kicking the kitties.

I am sorry but I have priorities. My father is a veternarian and I love animals. I have had dogs all my life. A human life will ALWAYS be more valuable than an animals, and it bothers me when people waste their time on issues that really are not relevant (like excessive worry over animal abuse when people still put cigs out on children).
 
haymarket said:
But it will not be. Serving ones prison time, serving ones parole time, being placed on a registry is perfectly part of the court system.
Click to expand...

A registry is not a part of the court system. You are put on one automatically when convicted. Not to mention you are charging the people to be put on it when they have no choice in the matter.
 
Blackdog said:
So I guess avian's and reptiles which are also very popular pets don't deserve any more protection that cows, pigs or deer etc? Right?

The argument is just another like "it's for the children" bull**** liberal argument. That is all this is. It is a waist of time and tax payers money.
Click to expand...

You are being hyperbolic in your assumptions. Birds and reptiles, though popular pets, are not as universally accepted as mammalian pets. And I specifically commented on how this is cultural and human in nature - that humanity is for greater sympathetic toward that which portrays and displays human characteristics.

My argument was based on human safety, which I believe animal cruelty is loosely connected, but more important is physical abuse toward a living creature. As a society, humanity should not tolerate such a thing. Society should combat pain consciously inflicted on sentient beings by other sentient beings.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Can you explain how ranting and raving about non existent rights bolsters any point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...

So the 4th amendment and the 8th amendment are non-existent rights to you? Again, you show your disdain for peoples rights.

Yep, sounds like a politician to me.

And you still have not explained how this is going to stop people from abusing animals.
 
shelphs said:
You are being hyperbolic in your assumptions. Birds and reptiles, though popular pets, are not as universally accepted as mammalian pets. And I specifically commented on how this is cultural and human in nature - that humanity be for greater sympathetic toward that which portrays and displays human characteristics.

My argument was based on human safety, which I believe animal cruelty is loosely connected, but more important is physical abuse toward a living creature. As a society, that should not be tolerated. Society should combat pain consciously inflicted on sentient beings by other sentient beings.
Click to expand...

An animal is not sentient.
 
I love how 5-6% voted for the last two choices. No, we don't need this, at this point. However, if it works effectively and not too costly, I'd revisit it in a few years, see how it works out in Michigan. Let them be the test.
 
shelphs said:
You are being hyperbolic in your assumptions. Birds and reptiles, though popular pets, are not as universally accepted as mammalian pets. And I specifically commented on how this is cultural and human in nature - that humanity is for greater sympathetic toward that which portrays and displays human characteristics.

My argument was based on human safety, which I believe animal cruelty is loosely connected, but more important is physical abuse toward a living creature. As a society, humanity should not tolerate such a thing. Society should combat pain consciously inflicted on sentient beings by other sentient beings.
Click to expand...

More liberal "it's for the children" bull****. Nothing else. Anyone who wants to remove more of our rights for useless legislation that amounts to branding people and revenge, is a waist of space really. You can cry hyperbole all you like, but that is how serious the erosion of our rights are.
 
Rosie1 said:
I love how 5-6% voted for the last two choices. No, we don't need this, at this point. However, if it works effectively and not too costly, I'd revisit it in a few years, see how it works out in Michigan. Let them be the test.
Click to expand...

What's even funnier is that the majority of people that have voted are against this "law" and yet Haymarket still insists that it is a good law. Despite him wanting to know how The People" feel about it. Another indication that he is a typical politician. Go against what the people actually want.
 
Blackdog said:
More liberal "it's for the children" bull****. Nothing else. Anyone who wants to remove more of our rights for useless legislation that amounts to branding people and revenge, is a waist of space really. You can cry hyperbole all you like, but that is how serious the erosion of our rights are.
Click to expand...

Please correct me, but I interpret this as pro-abuse to non-human animals. Now, I'm sure that assessment is hyperbolic, and I'd appreciate a clarification in words as to how the two are mutually exclusive. And I make the previous statement b/c I assume you do not disagree with the registry for pedophiles.

I can understand that you do not award pets the same rights as human children, but the position you express is seemingly based in an "us VS them" mentality, which I must object to. That is a slippery slope and one predicated on humanity being the center of the universe; that is, so long as humans are not abused, nothing is abused.

(I make the above statement for clarification. NOTE: I am not accusing you of taking this position, but I now cannot see past it. Please clarify your position with direct reference to what's been written above).
 
shelphs said:
Please correct me, but I interpret this as pro-abuse to non-human animals. Now, I'm sure that assessment is hyperbolic, and I'd appreciate a clarification in words as to how the two are mutually exclusive. And I make the previous statement b/c I assume you do not disagree with the registry for pedophiles.

I can understand that you do not award pets the same rights as human children, but the position you express is seemingly based in an "us VS them" mentality, which I must object to. That is a slippery slope and one predicated on humanity being the center of the universe; that is, so long as humans are not abused, nothing is abused.

(I make the above statement for clarification. NOTE: I am not accusing you of taking this position, but I now cannot see past it. Please clarify your position with direct reference to what's been written above).
Click to expand...

I don't know about Blackdog but I am against the pedophile registry also for the simple fact that it is not being used in the way that it was intended to be used. They are putting people on there that should not be put on there. Ex: 2 sixteen year olds that are dating and one of them happens to send the other a picture of themselves nude. I don't know about others but personally when I was a teenager I remember playing truth or dare quite a bit with the fairer sex and we always included taking off clothes. Its just what kids do.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't know about Blackdog but I am against the pedophile registry also for the simple fact that it is not being used in the way that it was intended to be used. They are putting people on there that should not be put on there. Ex: 2 sixteen year olds that are dating and one of them happens to send the other a picture of themselves nude. I don't know about others but personally when I was a teenager I remember playing truth or dare quite a bit with the fairer sex and we always included taking off clothes. Its just what kids do.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is an abuse of the law - an illogical one. It's a means to control youths' behaviour unfairly under the guise of pedophilia, which is something all are against. It's a meager attempt to clump kid impropriety with adult impropriety - pedophilia. Same-aged sexual exploration is clearly not pedophilia. pedophilia by definition requires old and young. This is abuse of an existing law to control youth unjustly. It is an abuse of power and resources.

That being said, the pedophile registry, as it was intended, is a good law, for such a predilection as pedophilia is prone to repeat offenses if an initial offense is committed.

But to be against a law b/c the law is abused is odd. Why not be against the abuse of the law?
 
Last edited:
shelphs said:
Please correct me, but I interpret this as pro-abuse to non-human animals. Now, I'm sure that assessment is hyperbolic, and I'd appreciate a clarification in words as to how the two are mutually exclusive. And I make the previous statement b/c I assume you do not disagree with the registry for pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Well I love animals allot, I can't even kill a bug or fish anymore. I used to hunt, can't do that anymore either. I scuba with a camera because I believe in live and let live. I still like to eat though, lol. This law however well intended is not about justice, or so that is how it appears on the surface and from the words that Haymarket posted. I also can't see it making any real difference. I mean anyone can grab a stray etc if they really want to torture something. They can buy from a private owner etc. What I am worried about is the person charged with abuse who lost a job, ran out of money and had to decide to feed themselves or the dog etc. Now this person is convicted and will be punished above and beyond what the law has decided is reasonable. I cannot and will not support that. Humans and our rights to privacy and freedom from persecution from a mistake in some cases has to come first.

If I thought this law would be even remotely useful, I mite give it a chance, but I don't see any good at all coming out of it. Much like the sex offenders data base. I see it as a waist of time. effort and money.

shelphs said:
I can understand that you do not award pets the same rights as human children, but the position you express is seemingly based in an "us VS them" mentality, which I must object to. That is a slippery slope and one predicated on humanity being the center of the universe; that is, so long as humans are not abused, nothing is abused.
Click to expand...

Just tired of repeating myself over and over when no one is really listening. You on the other hand got my attention with this post. It was well thought out and reasonable even in response to my hyperbole. I figure you earned a dignified and respectful answer.

shelphs said:
(I make the above statement for clarification. NOTE: I am not accusing you of taking this position, but I now cannot see past it. Please clarify your position with direct reference to what's been written above).
Click to expand...

No problem. I was going to put a simile face here, but that just seems so South Park gay, lol.
 
shelphs said:
I agree. That is an abuse of the law - an illogical one. It's a means to control youth behaviour unfairly under the guise us pedophilia. Same-aged sexual exploration is clearly not pedophilia. pedophilia by definition requires old and young. This is abuse of an existing law to control youth unjustly. It is an abuse of power and resources.

That being said, the pedophile registry, as it was intended, is a good law, for such a predilection as pedophilia is prone to repeat offenses if an initial offense is committed.

But to be against a law b/c the law is abused is odd. Why not be against the abuse of the law?
Click to expand...

No its not really a good law. It opens up things like vigilantism, prejudice, bigotry.

Our whole justice system is based on the idea that once a person serves their time and paid their dues then they are suppose to be free. How can they be free when they are not allowed the same rights as other people? The right to be safe and secure. The right to privacy. The right to not be harrassed.

I fully believe that instead of further punishing these people, be they truely pedophiles, animal abusers, theifs or whatever then you need to treat the actual problem. Not make life harder on them after they have paid their dues while totally ignoring the problem.
 
Blackdog said:
Well I love animals allot, I can't even kill a bug or fish anymore. I used to hunt, can't do that anymore either. I scuba with a camera because I believe in live and let live. I still like to eat though, lol. This law however well intended is not about justice, or so that is how it appears on the surface and from the words that Haymarket posted. I also can't see it making any real difference. I mean anyone can grab a stray etc if they really want to torture something. They can buy from a private owner etc. What I am worried about is the person charged with abuse who lost a job, ran out of money and had to decide to feed themselves or the dog etc. Now this person is convicted and will be punished above and beyond what the law has decided is reasonable. I cannot and will not support that. Humans and our rights to privacy and freedom from persecution from a mistake in some cases has to come first.

If I thought this law would be even remotely useful, I mite give it a chance, but I don't see any good at all coming out of it. Much like the sex offenders data base. I see it as a waist of time. effort and money.



Just tired of repeating myself over and over when no one is really listening. You on the other hand got my attention with this post. It was well thought out and reasonable even in response to my hyperbole. I figure you earned a dignified and respectful answer.



No problem. I was going to put a simile face here, but that just seems so South Park gay, lol.
Click to expand...


You go back to very limited specifics. Should a starving person be criminalized for killing a stray cat/dog? That was clearly not what was originally discussed and argued against. You have changed the circumstances significantly. You have now shifted the discussion from animal cruelty to issues of poverty.

As to the law making a societal difference, my previous posts have commented on the societal connection of mammalian abuse and human abuse. A connection exists.

You have, not unlike another, focused on an abuse of the law, i.e., criminalizing the poor, to discredit a registry on animal cruelty. Why not focus on the abuse of the law rather than the law itself?
 
Last edited:
shelphs said:
You go back to very limited specifics. Should a starving person be criminalized for killing a stray cat/dog? That was clearly not what was originally discussed and argued against. You have changed the circumstances significantly. You have now shifted the discussion from animal cruelty to issues of poverty.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. I am done. You can't even get past one ****ing example with closing your ****ing ears.

shelphs said:
As to the law making a societal different, my previous posts have commented on the societal connection of mammalian abuse and human abuse. A connection exists.

You have, not unlike another, focused on an abuse of the law, i.e., criminalizing the poor, to discredit a registry on animal cruelty. Why not focus on the abuse of the law rather than the law itself?
Click to expand...

We are done. Have a good night. Enjoy the eroding of our rights, and the poll pretty much show how people with intelligence feel about it. :2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
This is exactly what I mean. I am done. You can't even get past one ****ing example with closing your ****ing ears.



We are done. Have a good night. Enjoy the eroding of our rights, and the poll pretty much show how people with intelligence feel about it. :2wave:
Click to expand...


Very right. The masses justify justice, which is to suggest that slavery, women's rights, and the like have never been a concern; that the rights of people haven't been unjustly suppressed by mass perception. Progress is the re-adjustment of mass perception.

(If you want to continue this discussion, you know where I can be privately contacted. I did appreciate your opinion and civility. I still do appreciate your opinion, though, and want to better understand the foundation of you position. If you care to, contact me)
 
Kal'Stang said:
No its not really a good law. It opens up things like vigilantism, prejudice, bigotry.

Our whole justice system is based on the idea that once a person serves their time and paid their dues then they are suppose to be free. How can they be free when they are not allowed the same rights as other people? The right to be safe and secure. The right to privacy. The right to not be harrassed.

I fully believe that instead of further punishing these people, be they truly pedophiles, animal abusers, theifs or whatever then you need to treat the actual problem. Not make life harder on them after they have paid their dues while totally ignoring the problem.
Click to expand...

The system also proclaims that religion and government are separate, but that is clearly a fallacy (look on money, political candidacy and law based on Christian values, i.e., the Bible - gay marriage). Also, once a convicted criminal in Kentucky or Virginia, voting rights are forever suspended. What you describe does not exist.

I don't agree with it, but the justice system is obviously not based on "once a person serves their time and paid their dues then they are suppose to be free" in the most free interpretation of it.

Again, however, this is not an argument against your point so much as it is a look at the unrealistic nature of it on several levels. The country you describe doesn't exist for many reasons, for one example, law on a pedophile registry.

Serial repeat offenders are a danger. Stereotypes that prohibit freedom should not be advanced, but stereotypes that predict repeat offense should be taken seriously. Rather than keeping such people locked up, societal measures, precautions are taken to allow for their freedom but also allow for the protection of those in the same community as those who serial offend others.

I do not disagree with this sort of policy.

However, which you are perhaps arguing, it would be better to fully address the addiction/attraction and the solution for pedophilia might be CGI pornography.

I go back to repeat offenders, which serial killers are. If such a person is released, I don't think it unfair to have them registered. But it is difficult to imagine a serial killer being released in general.

The discussion we are having would perhaps be more properly focuses on degree of badness, i.e., serial killing and pedophilia or sexual abuse. Both are not equally heinous in accordance with the law and they possibly should be.

[how do you mean "treat the problem"]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom