• 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?

  • Yes, it's animal cruelty and exploitive of innocent kittens

    Votes: 20 50.0%

  • It seems less cruel than docking tails and ears

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • No, unless silliness is a crime

    Votes: 13 32.5%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ear croppin, tail docking, de-clawing, branding, tatooing, tagging.....
Click to expand...

Piercing ears, etc, circumcizing. Same for humans. We get used to certain mutilations, so they're fine. The ones we're not used to we freak out about. Nothing rational about it.
 
Other body modifications have a purpose besides ear cropping. Ear cropping is for cosmetic "breed standards". I think the cosmetic ones like the goth kittehs is stupid.
 
Blackdog said:
Does not make them human.

And I don't care if it ticked you off. Get a grip and recognize they are NOT human. They are property.
Click to expand...

Maybe we need a 3/5ths compromise! :shock:

Seriously, they're property, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them.
 
Blackdog said:
Now people are trying to say piercing or cropping etc an animal is cruelty? It's my freaking animal. If I want to put it down, I will. If I want it cropped or pierced a certain way that is my business, not the government. It is my property.
Click to expand...

Bull****. You will not subject an animal to cruelty, and the government will decide what that means, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. Try it and see.
 
Gina said:
This is what you said:







You're going around and around saying the animal won't hurt itself and if it does it's retarded and needs to be put down.

That is just not true.

Bringing in dog clothes and the other nonsense, only muddied your point.

If you agree, the earrings can cause the animal to harm itself and that is a natural behavior, then there is nothing to debate.




No, none of that is cruel and I was instructed to make a similar move when one of my dogs, long since passed, would snap at me as I tried to clean up the trash she dumped on the floor. It worked.

Safety for the pet and the family is of prime concern and it's the ignorant pet owner who usually has a tragedy on their hands or abuses a pet because they don't understand animal behavior.

We are in complete agreement.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said in full context. If you where to comprehend the entirety of my posts you would realize that I was saying they might be easily and instantly acclimated to something costmetic (whatever it is) at an early age. And if you are trying something out with your animal it is your responsability to observe and know it it going to be a hinderance and wrong for the animal. Understand animals is very easy for the most part. Since my dog was a puppy and my cat was a kitten they have been used to being dressed up and taking a shower with me every once in a while.

To put them in the shower and put some animal clothes on them hinders them and bothers them none what so ever. I know my dog really well and would be able to tell if it did. I've attempted to give my aunts dog a bath who hasn't been acclimated to such conditions since a puppy. I will never try again bucause it was easy to tell very fast that it wasn't happening and I would totally have to dominate the dog for even a chance. The fact of it is some cats would be ok with little tiny earings. Some cats it would be abuse if you left them in and they rejected it.

And what don't you get about me simply stating it wouldn't rip it out playing with it most likely. It is more likely to get it snagged playing with something else and rejecting it.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Maybe we need a 3/5ths compromise! :shock:

Seriously, they're property, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them.
Click to expand...

Why? Big business does whatever they want? Until you can say why, you have no argument.

This woman should not have been charged.
 
misterman said:
Bull****. You will not subject an animal to cruelty, and the government will decide what that means, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. Try it and see.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Or are you being sarcastic?

If you are serious, I am done with you.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Are you serious? Or are you being sarcastic?

If you are serious, I am done with you.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to say it, you do have a good point (not in this post, in your previous one). You are able to kill animal if you so chose. You are not able to torture one to death though. Do you agree with that?
 
Kelzie said:
As much as I hate to say it, you do have a good point (not in this post, in your previous one). You are able to kill animal if you so chose. You are not able to torture one to death though. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...

No.

Company's torture animals by the thousands every day until they die. Why are they not subject to the same laws of property as we are? Hmmm...

Farmers torture animals every day as well. Why can companys do it in the name of hair spray and fir coats? This is garbage. So far no one has given me a legitimate and legal reason why this woman was charged when much worse go's on unpunished.

As I said this has nothing to do with animal cruelty. If it did, people by the thousands would be arrested. It is about feel good bull**** and our eroding property rights. And people are so worried about the animals, they can't even see the loss of freedom and fairness under the law
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No.

Company's torture animals by the thousands every day until they die. Why are they not subject to the same laws of property as we are? Hmmm...

Farmers torture animals every day as well. Why can companys do it in the name of hair spray and fir coats? This is garbage. So far no one has given me a legitimate and legal reason why this woman was charged when much worse go's on unpunished.

As I said this has nothing to do with animal cruelty. If it did, people by the thousands would be arrested. It is about feel good bull**** and our eroding property rights. And people are so worried about the animals, they can't even see the loss of freedom and fairness under the law
Click to expand...

Farmers will stick calfs in a little 5 foot by 5 foot box so that their muscles stay soft for the eatin. That should be animal cruelty.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Farmers will stick calfs in a little 5 foot by 5 foot box so that their muscles stay soft for the eatin. That should be animal cruelty.
Click to expand...

The laws should be enforced evenly or not at all, period.

Thanks Jallman. :thumbs:

So if we allow all this other so called "cruelty" this woman should NOT have been charged or arrested.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't be a crime, but I think her community can act in the interest of the animal by simply having the earrings removed or placed more appropriately.
 
1984 said:
It shouldn't be a crime, but I think her community can act in the interest of the animal by simply having the earrings removed or placed more appropriately.
Click to expand...

Either the law has to apply or it does not. The animal does not have any rights. The community would be infringing on the right of this woman by trying to force her to change the piercings. It is her property and not the community's. Unless she is infringing on someone else's rights (and she is not) it is no one else's business.

No one is telling dog breeders where to snip? Why does she need to be told? No one is telling the fir farms how to treat the animals they have, why does she have to submit?
 
Blackdog said:
Either the law has to apply or it does not. The animal does not have any rights. The community would be infringing on the right of this woman by trying to force her to change the piercings. It is her property and not the community's. Unless she is infringing on someone else's rights (and she is not) it is no one else's business.

No one is telling dog breeders where to snip? Why does she need to be told? No one is telling the fir farms how to treat the animals they have, why does she have to submit?
Click to expand...

because kittens are cuter, and therefore more emotionally appealing, who cares about a cow, but teh kittehs are cute, and must be saved from the bad woman
 
Blackdog said:
Did you bother to read what I said and understand it in context. Let me answer that for you....

NO

We do much worse to many more animals in the name of fashion, science etc. And that is not abuse. Why would this be????

I don't see any of the fashion company's who test on animals going to jail? Oh I guess lip gloss is a valuable service to humanity?

Get a grip. They are animals, and that is that. They are not human and have not rights.



And dogs eat cat ****, and my Parrot craps on anything and everything, they are animals. No matter how much we love and care for them they are NOT humans and are not afforded any rights.

What happens when a dog bites someone? No trial, no excuse, they are put down, period. When a racing dog can't be adopted, they are put down. If an animal is at most shelters to long, they are put down.

No judge, jury or trial. They have no natural rights other than the ones we as the masters give them.

They were her property and being charged with animal cruelty for piercing considering the rest that goes on, is just stupid.



Take it to a vet.

Wow that was hard. :roll:

PS If my parrot (whom I love dearly) messed up and I decided I did not want it any more, I could just kill it, period. No cruelty charges, no police. Just a dead animal to bury. It is an animal.
Click to expand...

I read what you wrote:

Blackdog said:
This is stupid. This is not abuse of an animal. We do much worse in the name of fashion, science and food etc.

The animal is her property, she is not putting the animal in any danger or abusing it. The rings do not affect the cat one way or the other.

The people crying about it being abuse in my opinion need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

Again, YES she is. I cut and pasted the portion where the veterinarian said their hearing was effected and their ability to jump. There were also infections.

Melinda Merck, an animal cruelty investigator and veterinarian, said the ear piercings altered the cats’ hearing.

The piercings at the back of their necks and base of tails hampered balance and jumping, local media quoted her as saying.

'They were maimed and disfigured,' she said, adding that if infections had become severe, the three-month-old kittens could have died.

Dr Merck said piercing the kittens' necks produced a feeling of submission that would linger with the silver metal jewellery.

Mother cats pick up their young from the scruff of the neck, she said, because pressure on the sensitive nerves there leads to submissive action.

'No matter what they tried, they could not escape from this,' she said. 'It would make them feel as if they were constantly being bitten.'
Click to expand...

Just because animals are ill used in the cosmetic industry, which I object to BTW, doesn't mean we can overlook abuse in the home.
 
Blackdog said:
Either the law has to apply or it does not. The animal does not have any rights. The community would be infringing on the right of this woman by trying to force her to change the piercings. It is her property and not the community's. Unless she is infringing on someone else's rights (and she is not) it is no one else's business.

No one is telling dog breeders where to snip? Why does she need to be told? No one is telling the fir farms how to treat the animals they have, why does she have to submit?
Click to expand...

Well... I would think one should be able to argue that a non industrial animal maybe shouldn't be placed in harms way with alterations that may harm it if it does something that is undeniably going to hurt it do to instinct or common sense.

Example: If these huge ass earings (the cat in the picture) where instead at the very bottom nape of the ears its only possible dammage would be if it happened to snag and very unprobable. But if a flea were to get in this cats ear or water with the way it is, it would shake its head in self defense. These giant pendelum of earings are obviously swinging hammers that might batter this cats eyes due to instinct/ the only means of defense against water and bugs. This is neglagance due to ignorance of the basic physics and common sense. And only that.
 
Gina said:
I read what you wrote:
Click to expand...

Not according to what I posted.

Gina said:
Again, YES she is. I cut and pasted the portion where the veterinarian said their hearing was effected and their ability to jump. There were also infections.
Click to expand...

There is no proof her hearing was affected, other than the word of one vet. Who is active with PETA, sorry I will not give her any credibility. And none of the cats at the time were infected. She said there could be a danger from infection. Plenty of cats around with no tails. They jump just fine, I own one or did years ago. So I know her comments for the most part are dramatic bull**** to justify an over reaction by people.

Did you know there is a pet store in Bossier City, Louisiana called the "Critter Company" been around since 94. It is known for $25.00 ear piercings for dogs & cats, and the price includes a pair of earrings. Don't see any cops from the SPCA or PETA Reading there store. I wonder shy?

In the end it just does not matter. This woman should not have been arrested or charged.

So far you have offered nothing to counter my argument.

Gina said:
Just because animals are ill used in the cosmetic industry, which I object to BTW, doesn't mean we can overlook abuse in the home.
Click to expand...

OK I see. You think favoritism under the law is OK. You think infringing on one persons rights is OK under certain circumstances.

Not a problem. ;)
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
Well... I would think one should be able to argue that a non industrial animal maybe shouldn't be placed in harms way with alterations that may harm it if it does something that is undeniably going to hurt it do to instinct or common sense.
Click to expand...

Why? So a corporate entity has more rights than we as individuals? So our property rights are trumped by any industrial complex? Hmmm?

dirtpoorchris said:
Example: If these huge ass earings (the cat in the picture) where instead at the very bottom nape of the ears its only possible dammage would be if it happened to snag and very unprobable. But if a flea were to get in this cats ear or water with the way it is, it would shake its head in self defense. These giant pendelum of earings are obviously swinging hammers that might batter this cats eyes due to instinct/ the only means of defense against water and bugs. This is neglagance due to ignorance of the basic physics and common sense. And only that.
Click to expand...

Ignorance does not trump our supposed property rights.
 
Blackdog said:
Why? So a corporate entity has more rights than we as individuals? So our property rights are trumped by any industrial complex? Hmmm?



Ignorance does not trump our supposed property rights.
Click to expand...

After chewing it through for longer than I should have.... The only right awnser is to leave the owner the final choice and it is still wrong to leave those earing as they are. But the owners choice is final.
 
Blackdog said:
No.

Company's torture animals by the thousands every day until they die. Why are they not subject to the same laws of property as we are? Hmmm...

Farmers torture animals every day as well. Why can companys do it in the name of hair spray and fir coats? This is garbage. So far no one has given me a legitimate and legal reason why this woman was charged when much worse go's on unpunished.

As I said this has nothing to do with animal cruelty. If it did, people by the thousands would be arrested. It is about feel good bull**** and our eroding property rights. And people are so worried about the animals, they can't even see the loss of freedom and fairness under the law
Click to expand...

That is not true. They have to kill the animal quickly and painlessly. While like any industry, animals "slip through the cracks," that does not change what they are required to do. We do kill animals to maintain our lifestyle. We do not allow meat packers, etc to be cruel about it.
 
Kelzie said:
That is not true. They have to kill the animal quickly and painlessly. While like any industry, animals "slip through the cracks," that does not change what they are required to do. We do kill animals to maintain our lifestyle. We do not allow meat packers, etc to be cruel about it.
Click to expand...

Yes we do....

LAND O LAKES: LAND OF COW CRUELTY-LIVING & SUFFERING IN FILTH | Change.org

Cruelty-Free Testing?Why Are Some Cosmetic Companies Still Testing On Animals? | Cinco Vidas

Fur Farms | Mercy For Animals

The Endless Torture of Animal Experimentation :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Do I need to even mention the clubing of baby seals?

We most certainly do allow it by law, for some. That is of course unless it is a cute kitten or puppy.

The only thing not true here? Your statement.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Yes we do....

LAND O LAKES: LAND OF COW CRUELTY-LIVING & SUFFERING IN FILTH | Change.org

Cruelty-Free Testing?Why Are Some Cosmetic Companies Still Testing On Animals? | Cinco Vidas

Fur Farms | Mercy For Animals

The Endless Torture of Animal Experimentation :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Do I need to even mention the clubing of baby seals?

We most certainly do allow it buy law, for some. That is of course unless it is a cute kitten or puppy.
Click to expand...

If you ain't killin chickens and cows YA AINT RIGHT!

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fOaCTddlng&feature=related"]YouTube- eff You CHicken and COW![/nomedia]

(anyone who has seen the whole episode will more than likely get it.)
 
Blackdog said:
Yes we do....

LAND O LAKES: LAND OF COW CRUELTY-LIVING & SUFFERING IN FILTH | Change.org

Cruelty-Free Testing?Why Are Some Cosmetic Companies Still Testing On Animals? | Cinco Vidas

Fur Farms | Mercy For Animals

The Endless Torture of Animal Experimentation :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Do I need to even mention the clubing of baby seals?

We most certainly do allow it buy law, for some. That is of course unless it is a cute kitten or puppy.

The only thing not true here? Your statement.
Click to expand...

No need to get snippy with me. I've killed animals I've eaten. I see no objective difference between the dog that is licking my foot right now and the pork tenderloin I had for dinner.

That doesn't mean either my dog or a pig should face torture. The clubbing of baby seals is not torture, it is death. Killing an animal for fur is not torture. Medical testing is an instance where you have to weigh the pros against the cons. The benefits are outweighed by the pain it causes. No one really benefits by torturing a pig to death.
 
Kelzie said:
No need to get snippy with me. I've killed animals I've eaten. I see no objective difference between the dog that is licking my foot right now and the pork tenderloin I had for dinner.
Click to expand...

Who's getting snippy? You were wrong and your statement is not true. Don't think because I type matter of fact I am getting snippy.

Kelzie said:
That doesn't mean either my dog or a pig should face torture. The clubbing of baby seals is not torture, it is death.
Click to expand...

So if I hit your dog over and over to crack it's skull, that is not torture?

Kelzie said:
Killing an animal for fur is not torture.
Click to expand...

Keeping animals locked in tiny pens in there own feces until they are killed is not torture?

Kelzie said:
Medical testing is an instance where you have to weigh the pros against the cons. The benefits are outweighed by the pain it causes.
Click to expand...

Burning monkeys with bleaching products for hair etc is not torture? Heck we need hair care products more than the monkeys.

Kelzie said:
No one really benefits by torturing a pig to death.
Click to expand...

And yet you justify all the rest?

Please tell me why this woman should have been arrested again?

Again no one has offered any evidence at all as to why this woman should have been arrested for animal cruelty. Yet our own farms and company's do much worse on a daily bases and no arrests.

Yea for personal property rights being ignored! It's a great day for America!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom