• 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
Piercing cat's ears and putting big dangly things in them: Bad idea.
Piercing cat's necks and putting stud things on the scruff of the neck, the "submission bite spot": probably not good either.
Six months house arrest for doing these things? Priceless. :mrgreen:


Seriously, though, if we were talking about someone who with malice aforethought, deliberately and willfully tortured animals with needless and unnecessary suffering, then yeah they need a big smack down.

This woman was not malicious; her purpose was not to inflict needless suffering. It wasn't deliberate, it wasn't done because she is Dr. Evil.

She just didn't think it through very well and do her due dilligence in finding out if this sort of thing was a problem for the kittehs.

If I was the judge? "Take the piercings out of the Kittehs, and cease and desist from Gothicization of further kittehs, 'cuz they don't like it. Case closed."

Six months house arrest is too much for someone who simply made an error in judgement at worst. I likes the kittehs, but even so kittehs are not peoples.
 
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.

Yes - sometimes they did not.

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

The right to object in court isn't a property right, it's a right to due process. You can say no, but the government can overrule you and force you to sell it.

If your right to property were absolute, the government couldn't force you to sell it. Yet it can.
 
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).

Yes you can.

- you have to pay taxes

The government has to have money to operate. Without it we have nothing to support the Constitution.

Originally there were no taxes. Then they realized that would not work for any government.

- you can be regulated or zoned

Not until 1916, in New York.

- you can't abuse or torture animals.

That's just the way it is.

That was in 1966 with the animal welfare act, so again no, it was not always this way.

History is your friend.
 
Last edited:
Yes - sometimes they did not.

The right to object in court isn't a property right, it's a right to due process. You can say no, but the government can overrule you and force you to sell it.

If your right to property were absolute, the government couldn't force you to sell it. Yet it can.

They were absolute up until the last 100 years or so. What part of my talk of eroding are you missing?
 
Yes you can.

When you lose your case, no, you can't.

The government has to have money to operate. Without it we have nothing to support the Constitution.

Right. So there's another way property rights aren't absolute. Glad you agree this is necessary.

Originally there were no taxes. Then they realized that would not work for any government.

Again, yes.

Not until 1916, in New York.

Okay.

That was in 1966 with the animal welfare act, so again no, it was not always this way.

True.

History is your friend.

Yep. Oh, another property right that's been lost - slavery.
 
They were absolute up until the last 100 years or so. What part of my talk of eroding are you missing?

No, they weren't. Taxes have existed since pretty much the dawn of history. Eminent domain goes back to the earliest days of English common law.
 
No, they weren't. Taxes have existed since pretty much the dawn of history. Eminent domain goes back to the earliest days of English common law.

Had very little to do with the initial government set up in the US. AGAIN get a history book.

Next!
 
OK Mr. Fallacy argument, we are done here. :roll:

Nope.

My point was that property rights change, and sometimes that's a good thing. The idea that we are entitled to every property right simply because we once had it is not valid.

History is your friend.
 
Had very little to do with the initial government set up in the US. AGAIN get a history book.

Next!

Had EVERYTHING to do with it. It is acknowledged in the 5th amendment. And English common law is the basis for OUR legal system - we didn't change that. The police powers of the government come from it. They are assumed. That's why the Constitution doesn't even bother to state that eminent domain exists, only that it must involve just compensation. It is assumed.
 
Nope.

My point was that property rights change, and sometimes that's a good thing. The idea that we are entitled to every property right simply because we once had it is not valid.

History is your friend.

No. This was not your argument. That would be false. Your argument was...

"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.) - misterman

My point was it is being eroded and you have just proved YET AGAIN my point.

Quite well I mite add.

Thank you, and good night. :thanks
 
Last edited:
No. This was not your argument. That would be false. Your argument was...

My argument was BOTH. They don't conflict.

I was responding to your point about history.

You can't see to keep up. I think you think you know more about this than you think. You don't even seem to understand that English common law is the basis for our American legal system and basic powers of our state governments.
 
Had EVERYTHING to do with it. It is acknowledged in the 5th amendment. And English common law is the basis for OUR legal system - we didn't change that. The police powers of the government come from it. They are assumed. That's why the Constitution doesn't even bother to state that eminent domain exists, only that it must involve just compensation. It is assumed.

And this has what to do with anything we were discussing? It protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. That's it. So because our system of law is based on an older system this does what? Has nothing to do with property rights or the eroding of our rights.

Again, goodnight. :2wave:
 
And this has what to do with anything we were discussing? It protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. That's it.

Right. Government authority. To take your property sometimes, without your consent.

So because our system of law is based on an older system this does what? Has nothing to do with property rights or the eroding of our rights.

Exactly. This government authority has always existed. It did not appear by "erosion" of our rights. Though I do agree that the New London case amounted to that.
 
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.
- you can't have an abortion after "viability" with out a solid medical reason.

That's just the way it is.

Fixed it for you :2wave:
 
Better get PETA on the phone!

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals? Lolcat-in-a-can, yum, I'll take some pickled Calico to dip my 6pc Kentucky Fried Fetus in :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom