Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal law is silly and needs revising

motorola
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 8:29:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Luckily, abusive parents are free to create serial killers free of government molestation.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 8:34:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

Animals are in fact property. I own my dog, he is my property!
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 8:34:28 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

Animals are in fact property. I own my dog, he is my property!

Under that line of reasoning, humans are property, too.

They're certainly trafficked and held under possession like property.
motorola
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Franz_Reynard:
No, humans can never be made to anyone's property, only species other than humans can be made to properties of human, and human only. no other species may own property.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:23:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:13:14 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:34:28 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

Animals are in fact property. I own my dog, he is my property!

Under that line of reasoning, humans are property, too.

They're certainly trafficked and held under possession like property.

And those who partake in human trafficking treat and view their goods as property, and would kill them before releasing them.

The vast majority of people disagree with this view, therefore, it is a valid line of thought to say if you own something, it is property.
My work here is, finally, done.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

This.

Many serial killers actually start out as animal abusers so it's certainly cause for concern, and prosecution. I'm willing to go as far as saying animal abuse is no different than child abuse.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:20:29 PM, motorola wrote:
@Franz_Reynard:
No, humans can never be made to anyone's property, only species other than humans can be made to properties of human, and human only. no other species may own property.

Making up our own rules as we go along must be so fun...

...until we encounter reality, of course.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:25:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

This.

Many serial killers actually start out as animal abusers so it's certainly cause for concern, and prosecution. I'm willing to go as far as saying animal abuse is no different than child abuse.

Agreed.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:23:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And those who partake in human trafficking treat and view their goods as property, and would kill them before releasing them.

The vast majority of people disagree with this view, therefore, it is a valid line of thought to say if you own something, it is property.

Of course I question ownership. Humans have never owned any animals. The best they can do is become responsible for them.

Property is a greed-born human fallacy. Possession is a statement that indicates a human will defend something they've established control over.

But, the thousands of missing pet posters in every city sing of the degree to which humans "own" animals.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:39:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:13:14 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:34:28 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

Animals are in fact property. I own my dog, he is my property!

Under that line of reasoning, humans are property, too.

They're certainly trafficked and held under possession like property.

Under the law, nonhuman animal are considered the property of human being. This creates odd conflicts in the law because, in reality, we don't truly regard some animals (e.g., cats and dogs) as mere things - and the local laws often reflect that. Additionally, the most abused species, farmed animals, receive nominal legal protection (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (which in reality, amounts to nothing).

So some species of animal receive varying levels of protection from their abusers. That, however, doesn't negate the plain truth that they are legal property.

The philosopher of law, Gary Francione, is perhaps the most articulate writer on this subject. From Wikipedia:

Property status of animals

In Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), Francione argues that because animals are the property of humans, laws that supposedly require their "humane" treatment and prohibit the infliction of "unnecessary" harm do not provide a significant level of protection for animal interests. For the most part, these laws and regulations require only that animals receive that level of protection that is required for their use as human property. Animals only have value as commodities and their interests do not matter in any moral sense. As a result, despite having laws that supposedly protect them, Francione contends that we treat animals in ways that would be regarded as torture if humans were involved. He argues that we could choose to provide greater protection to animals even if they were to remain our property, but legal, social, and economic forces militate strongly against recognizing animal interests unless there is an economic benefit to humans.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If slavery were legal, would you have no problem with physical and sexual abuse of slaves because legally they are property?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:42:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:34:51 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:23:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And those who partake in human trafficking treat and view their goods as property, and would kill them before releasing them.

The vast majority of people disagree with this view, therefore, it is a valid line of thought to say if you own something, it is property.

Of course I question ownership. Humans have never owned any animals. The best they can do is become responsible for them.

Property is a greed-born human fallacy. Possession is a statement that indicates a human will defend something they've established control over.

But, the thousands of missing pet posters in every city sing of the degree to which humans "own" animals.

Ownership is debatable, as you suggest there is no control. However, the line of reasoning "because animals are owned they are property", if valid, stands.

Of course, if no one can control them, why should I be responsible for their actions?
My work here is, finally, done.
motorola
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?
abused children tend to become serial killer/rapist, why don't we lock up those children ?
the argument where something is a crime because it would lead to a crime is ridiculous because a crime is a crime, not because it may lead to a crime. as you said, this is reality, not the movie Minority Report where you'll get arrested for something you're about to do, and that's not even 100% probability.

being responsible for your animal simply means you don't let your dog to bite someone, or let your pet spread disease or you clean after your dog poop in the park. that's what being responsible means.
property ownership is not false concept. anyone who thinks it's a false concept is a communist and you should live in Russia or China. Humans work, and the work must be rewarded, with money or other things which becomes theirs (property).
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:42:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:34:51 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:23:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

And those who partake in human trafficking treat and view their goods as property, and would kill them before releasing them.

The vast majority of people disagree with this view, therefore, it is a valid line of thought to say if you own something, it is property.

Of course I question ownership. Humans have never owned any animals. The best they can do is become responsible for them.

Property is a greed-born human fallacy. Possession is a statement that indicates a human will defend something they've established control over.

But, the thousands of missing pet posters in every city sing of the degree to which humans "own" animals.

Ownership is debatable, as you suggest there is no control. However, the line of reasoning "because animals are owned they are property", if valid, stands.

Of course, if no one can control them, why should I be responsible for their actions?

Yes, I agree, technically, the statement is valid.

When I asserted responsibility, I meant for their well-being after confining them in homes. Humans are responsible for the behavior of the animals they live with to the extent that they influenced that behavior. I do not believe that a malfeasance by a well cared-for animal should result in any criminal charges whatsoever.
motorola
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:49:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Wnope:
your question is moot because humans can never be made to property. humans are free, and therefore humans who enslave other humans must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:50:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:25:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/2/2013 8:31:30 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

Animals aren't property; furniture and backyards aren't conscious; animal abuse is a predictor of human abuse.

This.

Many serial killers actually start out as animal abusers so it's certainly cause for concern, and prosecution. I'm willing to go as far as saying animal abuse is no different than child abuse.

I don't think most people, even myself, wouldn't be concerned with animal cruelty or abuse. If my child abused, tortured, and killed the family dog, you can bet two things:
1. He would be in counceling of some sort
2. I would not be buying another dog.

The fact that many serial killers abuse animals is not relevant for legal reprecussions, though. Concern, absolutely.
My work here is, finally, done.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM, motorola wrote:
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?

Vagrancy is a crime...

abused children tend to become serial killer/rapist, why don't we lock up those children ?

They are usually incarcerated after they commit the crime.

the argument where something is a crime because it would lead to a crime is ridiculous because a crime is a crime, not because it may lead to a crime. as you said, this is reality, not the movie Minority Report where you'll get arrested for something you're about to do, and that's not even 100% probability.

My point wasn't that a potential crime should be a crime. My point was that a lack of compassion should be a crime.

being responsible for your animal simply means you don't let your dog to bite someone, or let your pet spread disease or you clean after your dog poop in the park. that's what being responsible means.

No, that's what asserting authority means. Being responsible means caring for the animal.

property ownership is not false concept. anyone who thinks it's a false concept is a communist and you should live in Russia or China. Humans work, and the work must be rewarded, with money or other things which becomes theirs (property).

Communists, as do all humans, accept the concept of ownership.

Why should work be rewarded? The purpose of work is to achieve an end, not to receive a reward.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 10:20:55 PM, motorola wrote:
Prosecuting animal abuser is very silly.

there are however, certain conditions when animal abusers should be prosecuted, and those conditions are:
1. abusing someone else's pet. This is the same like vandalism on private property and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
2. abusing in public places or in places where others can see or hear clearly without any effort (like in your front yard where your neighbors or passerby can see clearly when passing by). this is the same to inappropriate public display like public nudity
3. failure to quarantine or incarcerate animals that carry diseases or known to be carnivorous that may bring DIRECT harm to humans or human's property (for example, birds that has SARS, dog poop on neighbor's lawn or dogs that are aggresive)

those are the only conditions where humans should be prosecuted for animal abuse. everybody has the right to smash their own furniture or cook their own pet (like ducks, fish or perhaps some unorthodox people, cats), provided it's theirs and they do it in their own backyard where nobody would be bothered by the smashing sound or the pieces that would fly and may directly harm others.
I also heard the argument where animal abusers are prosecuted because they tend to escalate to abusing humans. well, poor people also have very strong tendency to commit crime like murder or robbery or theft and drugs, but there's no law to prosecute poor people now is there? also children who experienced child abuse tend to grow up as serial killers or rapists, but surely we don't have law that will incarcerate abused children right? we wait until they become a serial killer / rapist before we prosecute them, not because of some statistical tendencies.

Omg, totally dude. It's like, if animals don't want to be hurt by humans why don't they just, like, say so or something?

That's why I punch my baby in the face every day- so that it will learn how to stand up for itself. It hasn't quite learned yet.... I'm thinking it might be the lacking capacity for language and reason, but NO MATTER! If it don't speak sh1t, I beats it.

Eh hem, so from this OP I've learned that prosecuting animal abusers is "silly." I have yet to hear why besides something along the lines of "the law says animals are property." But you know what else the law says? "Don't abuse animals."

So, do you have any GOOD reasons for why animal abusers should not be prosecuted?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:53:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:49:44 PM, motorola wrote:
@Wnope:
your question is moot because humans can never be made to property. humans are free, and therefore humans who enslave other humans must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What is this "free" and where did it come from?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM, motorola wrote:
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?
abused children tend to become serial killer/rapist, why don't we lock up those children ?
the argument where something is a crime because it would lead to a crime is ridiculous because a crime is a crime, not because it may lead to a crime. as you said, this is reality, not the movie Minority Report where you'll get arrested for something you're about to do, and that's not even 100% probability.

being responsible for your animal simply means you don't let your dog to bite someone, or let your pet spread disease or you clean after your dog poop in the park. that's what being responsible means.
property ownership is not false concept. anyone who thinks it's a false concept is a communist and you should live in Russia or China. Humans work, and the work must be rewarded, with money or other things which becomes theirs (property).

The difference between your examples and insertnamehere's is that animal abuse is an action, while the others are statuses. The argument insertname may be making is, by incarcerating these people, they may learn from their actions, thus prevent a worse fate for others.

Similar to a man who talks with his fists due to his quick temper, learning from anger management, to prevent further assualts.
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:58:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
its not as if farmers don't slaughter animals in the masses. Its not as if animals don't suffer when humans destroy animal habits. Under this justification, there's no reason why these acts would be permissible but harming animals wouldn't. Although animal cruelty is more likely to be a signal that a person is a sociopath, which is why one would want to lock them up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:59:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:52:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM, motorola wrote:
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?

Vagrancy is a crime...
Wrong, loitering is a crime. Vagrancy is a status. People used to be arrested for it, but not sense the 1970s or so.

abused children tend to become serial killer/rapist, why don't we lock up those children ?

They are usually incarcerated after they commit the crime.

the argument where something is a crime because it would lead to a crime is ridiculous because a crime is a crime, not because it may lead to a crime. as you said, this is reality, not the movie Minority Report where you'll get arrested for something you're about to do, and that's not even 100% probability.

My point wasn't that a potential crime should be a crime. My point was that a lack of compassion should be a crime.

being responsible for your animal simply means you don't let your dog to bite someone, or let your pet spread disease or you clean after your dog poop in the park. that's what being responsible means.

No, that's what asserting authority means. Being responsible means caring for the animal.

property ownership is not false concept. anyone who thinks it's a false concept is a communist and you should live in Russia or China. Humans work, and the work must be rewarded, with money or other things which becomes theirs (property).

Communists, as do all humans, accept the concept of ownership.

Why should work be rewarded? The purpose of work is to achieve an end, not to receive a reward.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:49:44 PM, motorola wrote:
@Wnope:
your question is moot because humans can never be made to property. humans are free, and therefore humans who enslave other humans must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Animals can be born free in the wild before being captured. How is that different?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:58:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
its not as if farmers don't slaughter animals in the masses. Its not as if animals don't suffer when humans destroy animal habits. Under this justification, there's no reason why these acts would be permissible but harming animals wouldn't.

Exactly, if animals are to be free, then who am I to eat them? And certainly they ought to be punished for trying to eat me.

Although animal cruelty is more likely to be a signal that a person is a sociopath, which is why one would want to lock them up.

True, but a child abusing an animal can just be cruel for the sake of being cruel, too. The first time a child truly has dominion over another is with the family pet, and this power-trip may lead down a bad road. However, I am sure this behavior can be corrected without jail, in most cases. After all, assuming ALL sociopaths have abused animals, how many animal abusers have killed another man at all?
My work here is, finally, done.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:07:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 9:59:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:52:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM, motorola wrote:
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?

Vagrancy is a crime...
Wrong, loitering is a crime. Vagrancy is a status. People used to be arrested for it, but not sense the 1970s or so.

I think this is something which might be enforced differently in different places. I remember living in Denver and knowing a lot of homeless people who were arrested for basically being homeless... I suppose the charge could have been loitering but since when was that an arrestable offense? Could be wrong though.
abused children tend to become serial killer/rapist, why don't we lock up those children ?

They are usually incarcerated after they commit the crime.

the argument where something is a crime because it would lead to a crime is ridiculous because a crime is a crime, not because it may lead to a crime. as you said, this is reality, not the movie Minority Report where you'll get arrested for something you're about to do, and that's not even 100% probability.

My point wasn't that a potential crime should be a crime. My point was that a lack of compassion should be a crime.

being responsible for your animal simply means you don't let your dog to bite someone, or let your pet spread disease or you clean after your dog poop in the park. that's what being responsible means.

No, that's what asserting authority means. Being responsible means caring for the animal.

property ownership is not false concept. anyone who thinks it's a false concept is a communist and you should live in Russia or China. Humans work, and the work must be rewarded, with money or other things which becomes theirs (property).

Communists, as do all humans, accept the concept of ownership.

Why should work be rewarded? The purpose of work is to achieve an end, not to receive a reward.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:07:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If animals weren't conscious, I might agree with you. But at least some of them are, and that entails that they have self-ownership. I may partially own my pets, but they still have their have their rights. Why on earth would you have more rights over their body than they do themselves?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:05:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:58:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
its not as if farmers don't slaughter animals in the masses. Its not as if animals don't suffer when humans destroy animal habits. Under this justification, there's no reason why these acts would be permissible but harming animals wouldn't.

Exactly, if animals are to be free, then who am I to eat them? And certainly they ought to be punished for trying to eat me.

I'm pretty sure that no members of the Donner Party were prosecuted.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 10:13:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 10:07:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:59:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:52:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 9:46:25 PM, motorola wrote:
animal abuser TEND to become human abuser. and therefore, animal abuse must be considered a crime. what a joke!
poor people also tend to commit crime, why don't we consider poverty a crime?

Vagrancy is a crime...
Wrong, loitering is a crime. Vagrancy is a status. People used to be arrested for it, but not sense the 1970s or so.

I think this is something which might be enforced differently in different places. I remember living in Denver and knowing a lot of homeless people who were arrested for basically being homeless... I suppose the charge could have been loitering but since when was that an arrestable offense? Could be wrong though.

In America, since around the 70s, it is a crime. Perhaps not in the Bahamas, though.

Loitering, I think, has always been a crime; it is a form of trespassing. You can't just stand in front of my storefront for hours, assuming I own/lease the property.

In respect to public areas, the issue is if one does not leave, then it is hardly open to the public. This is why Occupy Wall Street kids are arrested at times, because if they occupy the public square, I cannot use it, thus restricting my right to assemble. This can be translated to a park bench, but I know not if these people are often arrested for sleeping there, or if simply woken up and told to move along.
My work here is, finally, done.