• 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
Blackdog said:
And yet you justify all the rest?
Click to expand...

The problem with your position, is that just because some people handle animals cruelly means we all can treat animals cruelly. There are rules and regulations which are meant to stop animal cruelty, and torture, but obviously there are loop-holes.

And then, of course, is your "they're only animals" thing, which is fundamentally the same as "they're only slaves."
 
repeter said:
The problem with your position, is that just because some people handle animals cruelly means we all can treat animals cruelly. There are rules and regulations which are meant to stop animal cruelty, and torture, but obviously there are loop-holes.
Click to expand...

Not loop holes. Unenforced, 2 completely different things. If someone treated animals the way the fir industry does in a private home, what would happen?

It is a double standard and flies in the face of property laws. If it is my property, I own it. What right does the government have to tell me I can not do with it what I wish? You are a libertarian, or so it says and yet you reject one of their most fundamental beliefs???

repeter said:
And then, of course, is your "they're only animals" thing, which is fundamentally the same as "they're only slaves."
Click to expand...

We lock them in cages or force them to race until they can't anymore. We lock them in our homes and we control every aspect of that animals life. What would you call them? They are in reality salves. A better term which is more relevant would be, property.

Not to mention that is a totally irrelevant fallacy argument.

Still waiting for some one to address this....

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:
Blackdog said:
Not loop holes. Unenforced, 2 completely different things. If someone treated animals the way the fir industry does in a private home, what would happen?

It is a double standard and flies in the face of property laws. If it is my property, I own it. What right does the government have to tell me I can not do with it what I wish? You are a libertarian, or so it says and yet you reject one of their most fundamental beliefs???



We lock them in cages or force them to race until they can't anymore. We lock them in our homes and we control every aspect of that animals life. What would you call them? They are in reality salves. A better term which is more relevant would be, property.

Not to mention that is a totally irrelevant fallacy argument.

Still waiting for some one to address this....

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!
Click to expand...

How do you stand on the matter of free speech and the possibility of a people's led really making it into a political hot spot on national TV?

Say alternate reality. Last DNC convention the vets of Iraq convicned the police to let them through and question the presidental candidates. The people's mob pushed through without violence and convinced the guards who take money to stifle speach to guard them instead. National blackout on the media event. GO.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
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!
Click to expand...

she should have been arrested because she broke the law, animal cruelty laws, while sporadically enforced, are still the law, and whilst pets are property, the laws that separate them from your average kitchen table are in place because your average kitchen table can't feel pain, and pets can, and what this woman did has been ruled animal cruelty.
 
spud_meister said:
she should have been arrested because she broke the law, animal cruelty laws, while sporadically enforced, are still the law, and whilst pets are property, the laws that separate them from your average kitchen table are in place because your average kitchen table can't feel pain, and pets can, and what this woman did has been ruled animal cruelty.
Click to expand...

Ok I see. So because it is the law, it is OK only for some? :lol:

So I guess it would be OK for me to come into someone else's home and kill an animal to eat (because it now feels no pain) and this should be acceptable?

I mean that is literally what you are saying.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
How do you stand on the matter of free speech and the possibility of a people's led really making it into a political hot spot on national TV?
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you just said here?

dirtpoorchris said:
Say alternate reality. Last DNC convention the vets of Iraq convicned the police to let them through and question the presidental candidates. The people's mob pushed through without violence and convinced the guards who take money to stifle speach to guard them instead. National blackout on the media event. GO.
Click to expand...

Fallacy and has nothing at all to do with this.
 
Blackdog said:
Ok I see. So because it is the law, it is OK only for some? :lol:

So I guess it would be OK for me to come into someone else's home and kill an animal to eat (because it now feels no pain) and this should be acceptable?

I mean that is literally what you are saying.
Click to expand...

well i didn't express agreement with how the laws are enforced, and you asked why she was arrested, and it was 'cause she broke the law:2razz:
 
spud_meister said:
well i didn't express agreement with how the laws are enforced, and you asked why she was arrested, and it was 'cause she broke the law:2razz:
Click to expand...

Hehehehehe good answer.

But not what I was asking. :lol:
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Very interesting.
Click to expand...

Please point out what an alter reality meeting of people at the DNC have to do with "Gothic Kittens" being a crime?

Being obtuse is no way to get your point across. Fallacy arguments are even worse.
 
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...

That's a really nasty way to think of the pet versus the lab animal. I can't believe someone of your philosophy of predestination would honestly forego the rights of a creature not named in the constitution. What I know of you on this forum is that you are a man of compassion and diligent disgust for the maltreatment of the weak. How can you halt your compassion when it comes to a creature solely on the basis that it doesn't share your morphology or genetics? It just doesn't make sense to me.

And I am not attacking your philosophy. I just don't understand it.
 
jallman said:
That's a really nasty way to think of the pet versus the lab animal. I can't believe someone of your philosophy of predestination would honestly forego the rights of a creature not named in the constitution. What I know of you on this forum is that you are a man of compassion and diligent disgust for the maltreatment of the weak. How can you halt your compassion when it comes to a creature solely on the basis that it doesn't share your morphology or genetics? It just doesn't make sense to me.

And I am not attacking your philosophy. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Jall this is your fault. ;)

You showed me or convinced me about the equality of the law in the children as adult case. I am certain you remember. No difference here.

This woman right or wrong owned the animals, they are her property. If a multi-million dollar corporation can torture and kill animals for hair spray or fir, why can't this woman Perice a cat? For $25.00 a shop in Louisiana will do it. I don't see anyone rushing in to arrest them or anyone from the fir or cosmetic industry?

As I mentioned before and people seem to be missing. This is not about fairness to an animal. This is about property and the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my property when others are able to with no repercussions.

I would never hurt my bird, I love Sweet Pea. I will say if she was lager and hurt my grand daughter, her days would be numbered. In the end she is still an animal and not human. It is MY property as is my body and anything else I own.
 
Blackdog said:
Jall this is your fault. ;)

You showed me or convinced me about the equality of the law in the children as adult case. I am certain you remember. No difference here.

This woman right or wrong owned the animals, they are her property. If a multi-million dollar corporation can torture and kill animals for hair spray or fir, why can't this woman Perice a cat? For $25.00 a shop in Louisiana will do it. I don't see anyone rushing in to arrest them or anyone from the fir or cosmetic industry?

As I mentioned before and people seem to be missing. This is not about fairness to an animal. This is about property and the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my property when others are able to with no repercussions.

I would never hurt my bird, I love Sweet Pea. I will say if she was lager and hurt my grand daughter, her days would be numbered. In the end she is still an animal and not human. It is MY property as is my body and anything else I own.
Click to expand...

Please do not take offense...but I am about to be offensive...

You make arguments that reflect the disgust the nation had for the black man. And yeah, you are going to protest that these arguments stand against the man and not the beast but...really...think about it...is it really right for the woman to shear the cat's ears through for the sole purpose of her vanity? And was it right for the cotton farmer to shear the dignity of the black man, seen as an animal, for the sole purpose of his prosperity?
 
jallman said:
Please do not take offense...but I am about to be offensive...
Click to expand...

None taken.

jallman said:
You make arguments that reflect the disgust the nation had for the black man. And yeah, you are going to protest that these arguments stand against the man and not the beast but...really...think about it...is it really right for the woman to shear the cat's ears through for the sole purpose of her vanity? And was it right for the cotton farmer to shear the dignity of the black man, seen as an animal, for the sole purpose of his prosperity?
Click to expand...

Animals are not humans and have no rights. If this were the case as I have explained before, they would have rights, they don't. The only rights animals have are the rights we give them, and so far that is none.

Your argument is nothing but a red herring. Humans are always animals, animals are never humans, ever. If a dog bites a man and kills him even in self defense, what happens to the dog? It is killed every time, no exceptions. It is not a human and is under the law property.

Go and read my other posts. I have already covered all of this. It would save me having to type it all over again.

PS why is the pet any more special than the lab animal or farm animal? They are not, they are just as much animals as the pet. We just don't get so attached to them as we torture them for food, clothing and cosmetics etc.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Please do not take offense...but I am about to be offensive...

You make arguments that reflect the disgust the nation had for the black man. And yeah, you are going to protest that these arguments stand against the man and not the beast but...really...think about it...is it really right for the woman to shear the cat's ears through for the sole purpose of her vanity? And was it right for the cotton farmer to shear the dignity of the black man, seen as an animal, for the sole purpose of his prosperity?
Click to expand...

A slave = one who earns product for you for free. An animal of comfort = Something that you are constantly paying your time of some sort to keep around.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
A slave = one who earns product for you for free. An animal of comfort = Something that you are constantly paying your time of some sort to keep around.
Click to expand...

why is the pet any more special than the lab animal or farm animal? They are not, they are just as much animals as the pet. We just don't get so attached to them as we torture them for food, clothing and cosmetics etc. :2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
why is the pet any more special than the lab animal or farm animal? They are not, they are just as much animals as the pet. We just don't get so attached to them as we torture them for food, clothing and cosmetics etc. :2wave:
Click to expand...

They are more special by the normal standard in our world. They are more special due to luck. Due to observance. Why is something permited in one country but not the other? One house but not the other? One law applicable to one man but not the other?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
They are more special by the normal standard in our world. They are more special due to luck. Due to observance. Why is something permited in one country but not the other? One house but not the other? One law applicable to one man but not the other?
Click to expand...

Moral relativity, I see what you are saying. No South Park pun intended.

The real question is... Is this reasonable or fair? Or are our rights frivolous and mean nothing?

And this applies only to the US and law. Not "house rules" or anything of that nature.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
None taken.



Animals are not humans and have no rights. If this were the case as I have explained before, they would have rights, they don't. The only rights animals have are the rights we give them, and so far that is none.

Your argument is nothing but a red herring. Humans are always animals, animals are never humans, ever. If a dog bites a man and kills him even in self defense, what happens to the dog? It is killed every time, no exceptions. It is not a human and is under the law property.

Go and read my other posts. I have already covered all of this. It would save me having to type it all over again.

PS why is the pet any more special than the lab animal or farm animal? They are not, they are just as much animals as the pet. We just don't get so attached to them as we torture them for food, clothing and cosmetics etc.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand all that but...doesn't ownership of the animal confer certain rights to the animal? I mean, to you and to me, property ownership is pretty sacred so why would you occlude the pet from those property rights of the owner?
 
jallman said:
OK, I understand all that but...doesn't ownership of the animal confer certain rights to the animal? I mean, to you and to me, property ownership is pretty sacred so why would you occlude the pet from those property rights of the owner?
Click to expand...

I am not certain I am following, but lets see.

If I own a table, I infer no rights to that table other than the rights I as the owner infer to it. The government cannot and should not do this. This would be no different for animals. So I am not certain what rights the animal would have by me owning it?

By owning the animal, since it is an investment into my own happiness it would make sense for me to take care of it and treat it well. The problem is we allow breeders to crop tails and ears, even Peirce as I mentioned before. We allow inhuman conditions for cows and fir animals, but this woman gets charged for piercing?

Like you said for the child being charged as an adult, the law needs to be enforced objectively, or not at all.

This subjective prosecution for feel good laws and choosing what to call abuse in one case and good grooming procedures in another is wrong.

I don't think animal cruelty laws should exist either way outside of maybe a fine, because in the end, they are still property. But you can tell allot about a person by the way they treat an animal. This goes for our society as a whole as well.
 
Blackdog said:
I am not certain I am following, but lets see.

If I own a table, I infer no rights to that table other than the rights I as the owner infer to it. The government cannot and should not do this. This would be no different for animals. So I am not certain what rights the animal would have by me owning it?

By owning the animal, since it is an investment into my own happiness it would make sense for me to take care of it and treat it well. The problem is we allow breeders to crop tails and ears, even Peirce as I mentioned before. We allow inhuman conditions for cows and fir animals, but this woman gets charged for piercing?

Like you said for the child being charged as an adult, the law needs to be enforced objectively, or not at all.

This subjective prosecution for feel good laws and choosing what to call abuse in one case and good grooming procedures in another is wrong.

I don't think animal cruelty laws should exist either way outside of maybe a fine, because in the end, they are still property. But you can tell allot about a person by the way they treat an animal. This goes for our society as a whole as well.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think where we part company on this issue is that I think by virtue of the fact that the pet is a life and a personality unto itself, society has an obligation to protect the well being of the pet and to defend against unneccessary cruelties perpetrated against it. I don't think the pet should be endowed with full legal personhood, but I think certain moral and ethical boundaries should be enforced when it comes to the treatment of the animal kept as a pet.

Now what those boundaries are is open to debate.
 
jallman said:
Fair enough. I think where we part company on this issue is that I think by virtue of the fact that the pet is a life and a personality unto itself, society has an obligation to protect the well being of the pet and to defend against unneccessary cruelties perpetrated against it. I don't think the pet should be endowed with full legal personhood, but I think certain moral and ethical boundaries should be enforced when it comes to the treatment of the animal kept as a pet.

Now what those boundaries are is open to debate.
Click to expand...

This is the part I am not understanding. What makes a "pet" more important than a work animal? The work animal also has a life and personality.

I guess maybe it is as you said and comes down to where the line needs to be drawn.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
This is the part I am not understanding. What makes a "pet" more important than a work animal? The work animal also has a life and personality.

I guess maybe it is as you said and comes down to where the line needs to be drawn.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that animals should be used for work when machines can accomplish the same task. I just have a compassion for the life of the creature that I think the law does not share. I accept that.
 
Blackdog, would you support letting people abandon their dog with no food or water in a place that wouldn't cause a nuisance to other people?
 
With rights come responsibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom