# Animal cruelty a felony?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 2, 2001, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614 "2001-08-02T06:24:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/41 "2001-08-08T20:57:53Z")

</div>

pldennsion

> [@](#):
>
> If you do not understand the difference between a person who has committed an act of violence and a person who has been a victim of violence, you may want to recuse yourself from the discussion and put a moist towel on your head.

If you’re going to accuse me of something, how about coming out and saying it (and actually backing it up) rather than making insinuations through syllogisms?

FallenAngle

> [@](#):
>
> If you actually distinguish between “murder” and “homocide” the only difference is a matter of sensibility. It’s against our social sensibilites to take a life without a valid reason, but when a valid reason applies (self-defense almost universally, the death penalty for a percentage of the society, etc.) our sensibilities aren’t offended, and no crime exists even though the act is the same.

No, the circumstances surrounding an act fundamentally alter the nature of the act. To say, simply because the end result is the same, that the only difference between accidentally hitting a child who ran into the road on one hand, and intentionally running over a child on the other, is our sensibilities, is to miss the fundamental principles of justice.

Beadalin

> [@](#):
>
> …The abuse, torture and needless killing of animals? Beyond the pale … I refuse to subscribe to the notion that humans have no obligation to value anything but themselves… To violate that trust and to do so with such deliberate malice is inhumane…I cannot in good conscience support legislation that treats them merely as property… they feel pain and pleasure and that fact alone should allow them to transcend the status of mere property

You took an awful long time to say what amounts to “This should be illegal because I don’t like it”. While I respect your right to not like certain things, I do not feel at all obligated to avoid those things.

Gaspode

> [@](#):
>
> Having said that I will agree The Ryan’s reasoning seems flawed. In this country we have laws telling people what colour they can paint heritage listed buildings, laws telling us that we can’t appear naked in public, laws saying you can’t masturbate in the frozen foods section of the supermarket and laws against the use of offensive language.

Fallacy of _argumentum ad antiquitatem_. Just because society has followed a principle in the past, that does not mena it’s right.

> [@](#):
>
> Clearing forests is a crime of necessity, we need to eat, make money, build houses etc. It is not a crime for the same reason homicide in war is not a crime.

That seems like rather strange reasoning to me. Does this mean that you think that stealing to keep from starving shouldn’t be illegal?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2001, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/42 "2001-08-09T20:33:23Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> \*\*pldennsion
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > If you do not understand the difference between a person who has committed an act of violence and a person who has been a victim of violence, you may want to recuse yourself from the discussion and put a moist towel on your head.
> 
> If you’re going to accuse me of something, how about coming out and saying it (and actually backing it up) rather than making insinuations through syllogisms?  
> \*\*

You know, at times like this, I really have to question whether you are a real, literate person or an extremely sophisticated Turing program called “Confrontation.” Let me quote your own words back to you. The ellipses indicate snips that IMO do not affect the context or meaning:

> [@](#):
>
> I really don’t see why animal cruelty is a crime at all. The only argument[s] against it . . . [has been that] it is an indicator for violent behavior. And if something being an indicator for violence means that it should be illegal, shouldn’t we lock up victims of child abuse, since they are more likely to be violent?

[Person committing] animal cruelty (your words)=person who has committed an act of violence (my words)

Victim of child abuse (your words) = person who has been victim of violence (my words)

If your own words are not sufficient explanation (or “backing up” :rolleyes:), I would be happy to use hand puppets, charcoal drawings, a Telestrator, or semaphore.

Here’s a syllogism for you: We lock up people who have committed crimes. Since poverty is positively correlated with crime, why don’t we just lock up poor people?

Do you see now why it’s stupid statement? Animal cruelty isn’t an **indicator** of violence. It’s an **act** of violence, _as well as_ a possible indicator of future violence. It means they’re likely to commit **further** violence. Being a child abuse victim is not an act of violence.

> [@](#):
>
> No, the circumstances surrounding an act fundamentally alter the nature of the act.

So then why don’t you appear to understand the difference between livestock slaughter and sticking a firecracker up a dog’s ass?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2001, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/43 "2001-08-10T00:49:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pldennison \*  
> You know, at times like this, I really have to question whether you are a real, literate person or an extremely sophisticated Turing program called “Confrontation.”

Hell yeah, **the ryan** , he just said you were a **debating machine!** 🆒

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/44 "2001-08-13T00:01:34Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pldennison \*  
> If your own words are not sufficient explanation (or “backing up” :rolleyes:), I would be happy to use hand puppets, charcoal drawings, a Telestrator, or semaphore.

Seeing as how “my own words” did not include the phrase “I do not understand the difference between a person who has committed an act of violence and a person who has been a victim of violence” nor anything of the sort, I am still at a loss as to how you came to your conclusion.

> [@](#):
>
> Here’s a syllogism for you: We lock up people who have committed crimes. Since poverty is positively correlated with crime, why don’t we just lock up poor people?

So you don’t understand the difference between poor people and criminals? Oh, wait. I get it. You were trying to show the absurdity of a position by making a statement that imitates the logic in the original statement, weren’t you? I’m sure the irony is lost on you.

> [@](#):
>
> Do you see now why it’s stupid statement?

What is “it”?

> [@](#):
>
> Animal cruelty isn’t an **indicator** of violence. It’s an **act** of violence, _as well as_ a possible indicator of future violence.

If it is an act of violence as well as an idicator of future violence, then it is an indicator of violence. I guess that settles the question of whether **you** are a Touring machine. No programmer would fail to include such an obvious statement as “If A and B, then B”. Let me know when you finally decide whether or not animal cruelty is an indicator of violence, mmmkay? It’s kind of hard to respond to someone’s argument when their argument keeps changing within the same paragraph.

> [@](#):
>
> So then why don’t you appear to understand the difference between livestock slaughter and sticking a firecracker up a dog’s ass?

Oh, dear lord. You aren’t going to try to get me to go through the same thing **again** are you? Does your entire rhetorical reportoire consist of implying that your opponent doesn’t understand the difference between X and Y?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/45 "2001-08-13T10:47:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> **Seeing as how “my own words” did not include the phrase “I do not understand the difference between a person who has committed an act of violence and a person who has been a victim of violence” nor anything of the sort, I am still at a loss as to how you came to your conclusion.**

“I really don’t see why animal cruelty is a crime at all . . .if something being an indicator for violence means that it should be illegal, shouldn’t we lock up victims of child abuse, since they are more likely to be violent?”  
{QUOTE}

> [@](#):
>
> Animal cruelty isn’t an **indicator** of violence. It’s an **act** of violence, _as well as_ a possible indicator of future violence.

If it is an act of violence as well as an idicator of future violence, then it is an indicator of violence. I guess that settles the question of whether **you** are a Touring machine. No programmer would fail to include such an obvious statement as “If A and B, then B”.  
[/QUOTE]

[possible](http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=possible)

_adj._

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

I can only conclude here that not only don’t you read what you write, you don’t read what anyone else writes, either. If you’re just going to eliminate words from other people’s posts at your whimsy, why bother responding at all?

Here’s a clue, Sherlock: **It doesn’t matter whether someone who hsa committed a violent act ever commits another one for the initial act to be criminal.** They’ve _already_ committed an act of violence. Potential future acts are irrelevant to punishing them for the one they’ve already committed.

Throwing in red herrings about victims of child abuse, who have **not** committed acts of violence, is the mark of someone who just really does not understand the topic at hand. Not that I’d expect that to stop you, as it never has before.

[B}

> [@](#):
>
> Does your entire rhetorical reportoire consist of implying that your opponent doesn’t understand the difference between X and Y? \*\*

[Coming from you, this is nothing short of hilarious.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57376)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/46 "2001-08-13T19:58:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pldennison \*  
> “I really don’t see why animal cruelty is a crime at all . . .if something being an indicator for violence means that it should be illegal, shouldn’t we lock up victims of child abuse, since they are more likely to be violent?”

I am already aware that you think that this indicates a lack of understanding of the difference between a preson that has committed an act of violence and someone that is the victim of one, and repeating what you have already quoted gives no insight into your reasons for your conclusion, so I really don’t see what you’re trying to accomplish.

> [@](#):
>
> I can only conclude here that not only don’t you read what you write, you don’t read what anyone else writes, either. If you’re just going to eliminate words from other people’s posts at your whimsy, why bother responding at all?

My conscious mind did not notice the word “possible”, probably because it has **absolutely no meaning** in that sentence. To say that A is an indicator of B is to say that P(A|B)\>P(A). Either this inequality is true or it is not. Saying that this inequality is “possible” is not saying anything. Besides which, when you said that “animal cruelty isn’t an indicator of violence” that means that “it is not possible for animal cruelty to be an indicator”. Your statements do not contradict each other any less because of the qualifier “possible”. “A and possibly B, but not B” is just as false as “A and B, but not B”. But if you really want me to pay attention to minutae in your posts, you might to try actually phrasing them in a polite and reasonable manner. If you’re going to make ridiculous accusations, it is rather strange to expect me to spend a long time studying just what exactly your ridiculous accusation consists of.

> [@](#):
>
> Here’s a clue, Sherlock: **It doesn’t matter whether someone who hsa committed a violent act ever commits another one for the initial act to be criminal.** They’ve _already_ committed an act of violence.

Unless I’m misreading you intent, you seem to be confusing “violent” and “criminal”. Not all violent acts are criminal, and not all criminal acts are violent. (Did you notice how I didn’t claim to have psychic abilities that allow me to **know** that you’re confusing the two concepts? How I left open the possibility that your use of the two terms in a similar manner doesn’t mean that you think they mean the same thing? I have this vain hope that you might actually be able to learn by example.)

> [@](#):
>
> Potential future acts are irrelevant to punishing them for the one they’ve already committed.

Duh! That’s my whole point! Someone implied that people who abuse animals should be punished because it’s an indicator of future violence, and in an effort to show the fallacy of that reasoning, I pointed out that under that logic child abuse victims should be prosecuted. So you spent all this time arguing against me after I took a position **you agree with?** Wow, you’re even more irrational than I thought.

> [@](#):
>
> Throwing in red herrings about victims of child abuse, who have **not** committed acts of violence, is the mark of someone who just really does not understand the topic at hand.

The fact that you don’t understand “A implies B, and I think we can all agree that B is absurd, so A is false” shows that **you** are the one that is lacking understanding. Simply because you don’t understand the purpose of some point does not make it a red herring.

> [@](#):
>
> [Coming from you, this is nothing short of hilarious.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57376)

Okay, apparently your rhetorical reportoire is slightly larger than I thought. It also includes posting links without showing any relevance to the issue at hand.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/47 "2001-08-13T20:33:36Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by JCHeckler \*  
> In the meantime, there was a case recently in my town where some A-holes caught and cruelly killed some of the geese that frequent the ponds because they wanted to see what killing was like. IMHO, future serial killers if ever there were. Be that as it may, it’s only a misdemeanor here and they got off quite easy with a $10 fine each or something. But the judge set bail at $50,000, meaning that at least one of them had to come up with 5K to get out before trial.

Yeah, and we all know how well making murder illegal was at stopping serial killers.

The whole serial killer ploy is incorrectly applied logic used to arouse emotional response. As if killing animals for the sheer unadulterated hell of it isn’t bad enough, now we need to compare them to serial killers?

Does anyone here really support that train of thought? If so, please explain it to me.

I am still uneasy about making this crime a felony. It is disturbing that someone would want to do such a thing, but I’m not going to lose sleep over some guy putting his cat in a microwave because it sprayed the couch. The guy isn’t a dnager to society by torturing animals; thus, no felony. The end, moral sensabilities or not.

Setting monster bails for petty crimes is a terrible tactic, too. Sorta guilty-until-proven-innocent, wouldn’t you say? Afraid he’s gonna go rampaging at the local zoo so we gotta’ keep 'im locked up?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/48 "2001-08-13T21:02:33Z")

</div>

Whether or not being cruel to animals should be a felony is a matter of opinion. Whether or not any given act should be a felony is a matter of opinion. With respect to that fact this argument is an exercise in futility. Nonetheless, I’d like to clear up a few points.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by erislover_  
> Animals are below people.

Would you mind taking a look at a phylogeny chart or a dictionary or something and cite exactly where humans are defined as being above animals?

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by erislover_  
> Its a fucking animal.

You’re a fucking animal. I’m a fucking animal. People are fucking animals. It’s part of the definition.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by The Ryan_  
> The fact that you don’t understand “A implies B, and I think we can all agree that B is absurd, so A is false” shows that **you** are the one that is lacking understanding.

The old _modus ponens_ argument doesn’t work that way.

If A -\> B  
A  
ergo B

The above argument is logically sound.

If A -\> B  
-B  
ergo -A

The above argument (the argument from your post) is not logically sound. In that regard, anyone’s lack of understanding is understandable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/49 "2001-08-13T21:34:00Z")

</div>

Thanks, but biology doesn’t involve the use of “shoulds” so I cannot, of course, point to any taxonomy based structure and show you why we are thus better than animals. Even looking at an evolutionary progression chart won’t show you that one is “better” than another. I don’t think better has a meaning in there apart from “not dead and/or extinct.”

> [@](#):
>
> You’re a fucking animal. I’m a fucking animal. People are fucking animals. It’s part of the definition.

Very well, then. I am species-centric. I like my own species most because I am a member of it, and for no other reason than because I am a part of it. I do not feel that any other species comes _before_ my species, and that potential harm to my species is worse than real harm to another, _unless that harm to another actually harms us_. I do not feel that any individual member of another species is more important, or even equally important, as a member of my own.

If I need to chop one’s head off to eat, so be it. If I need to raise it in the dark in a cramped wooden crate for a better tasting product, so be it. If I have to chop its head off for fun, so be it.

If chopping its head off for fun bothers enough people, then I will compromise and consider the matter a misdemeanor… that is, you haven’t really done anything to harm the species or a member of the species but you offended our sensabilities. So, here’s your fine, community service, and see ya later.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/50 "2001-08-13T21:36:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> If A -\> B  
> A  
> ergo B
> 
> The above argument is logically sound.
> 
> If A -\> B  
> -B  
> ergo -A
> 
> The above argument (the argument from your post) is not logically sound. In that regard, anyone’s lack of understanding is understandable.

I take it those two arguments were meant to be

1. If A then B
2. A
3. Therefore B

and

1. If A then B
2. Not B
3. Therefore not A

?

If so, you are quite mistaken. The argument that I used goes by such various names as “argumentum ad absurdum” “indirect reasoning”, “proof by contradiction” and “proceding from the converse”. Whatever you call it, it is a perfectly valid method, regardless of Marilyn von Savant’s protestations. But hey, don’t take my word for it. How about you think up an A and B such that “If A then B” is true, “not B” is true, and “not A” is not true? If you can think of such a counterexample, I will agree that there is something wrong with my logic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/51 "2001-08-13T21:56:18Z")

</div>

**arl** :

> [@](#):
>
> potential harm to my species is worse than real harm to another, _unless that harm to another actually harms us_

So then, if it is established that those who harm animals for fun are detrimental to humanity in any way, you’ll agree that it’s a bad thing?

> [@](#):
>
> If I **have to** chop its head off for fun, so be it.

Is that really what you meant to say?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/52 "2001-08-13T22:17:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> My conscious mind did not notice the word “possible”, probably because it has **absolutely no meaning** in that sentence.

Oh, horsefeathers.

> [@](#):
>
> Besides which, when you said that “animal cruelty isn’t an indicator of violence” that means that “it is not possible for animal cruelty to be an indicator”.

No. You are going to have to learn to read English if you are going to continue this. You were **directly comparing** animal cruelty – something done _by_ someone – to abused children – something done _to_ someone. When I say, “animal cruelty isn’t an _indicator_ of violence, it’s an _act_ of violence” I do not mean that it is not possible for it to be so . I mean exactly what I bloody well said–that an act of animal cruelty that has already occurred **is** an act of violence. That person has already acted violently. He has done something violent. An abused child has _not_ done something violent. They have had something violent done to them. I was pointing out, and am continuing to point out, the rather crucial difference between something done by someone and something done to someone.

Also, to state flatly that, “X isn’t a B” means “It is impossible for X to be a B” shows such a monumental lack of understanding of the English language that the mind reels.

> [@](#):
>
> But if you really want me to pay attention to minutae in your posts, you might to try actually phrasing them in a polite and reasonable manner

Is everything that you forget to read “minutae”? That sure gives you an easy out.

> [@](#):
>
> Unless I’m misreading you intent, you seem to be confusing “violent” and “criminal”.

You’re misreading me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/53 "2001-08-13T22:39:18Z")

</div>

Acrually, **TR** , ignore my last post. We are arguing two different points and arguing them past each other. My actual response to your post to which I responded originally, as to why animal cruelty should be a crime at all, is better answered by my post to **ARL** later in the thread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/54 "2001-08-13T22:52:12Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pldennison \*  
> No. You are going to have to learn to read English if you are going to continue this. You were **directly comparing** animal cruelty – something done _by_ someone – to abused children – something done _to_ someone.

You’re the one with the English comprehension problem. Just where did I say “animal cruelty is like being an abused child”? I was comparing a **position** regarding animal cruelty to a **position** regarding abused children. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

> [@](#):
>
> When I say, “animal cruelty isn’t an _indicator_ of violence, it’s an _act_ of violence” I do not mean that it is not possible for it to be so .

When you say “A isn’t B” that means that A being B is inconsistent with reality. Yet your very first definition of “possible” reads “Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.” If “A is not B” is a proven fact, then “A is B” contradicts a proven fact, and so “A is possibly B” is false. Perhaps you meant something other than what your statements means, but I can hardly be blamed for not knowing that.

> [@](#):
>
> I was pointing out, and am continuing to point out, the rather crucial difference between something done by someone and something done to someone.

Well thank you Mr. Obvious. What you have **not** pointed out is how this is at all relevant.

> [@](#):
>
> Also, to state flatly that, “X isn’t a B” means “It is impossible for X to be a B” shows such a monumental lack of understanding of the English language that the mind reels.

So you see nothing wrong with the statement “Al Gore is not the president of the US. He is a possible president of the US”? A year ago, when we didn’t know that Bush would win, it would reasonable to refer to Gore as a “possible” president. But now that we know the results of the election, he is no longer a possible president, at least not for this term. Similarly, once you know that being abused is not an indicator of violence (how you know I don’t have any idea), then it is not a possible indicator. This is how English is used by normal people.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Seraphim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Seraphim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seraphim)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/55 "2001-08-13T22:57:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Nen \*  
> The old _modus ponens_ argument doesn’t work that way.
> 
> If A -\> B  
> A  
> ergo B
> 
> The above argument is logically sound.
> 
> If A -\> B  
> -B  
> ergo -A
> 
> The above argument (the argument from your post) is not logically sound. In that regard, anyone’s lack of understanding is understandable.

Here’s your truth table for implications:

```auto

Premise Conclusion Inference
  A B A->B

false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true

```

The argument Ryan gave:

If A then B, not B, therefore not A

Is referred to as _modus tollens_ or Denying the Consequent, and is perfectly valid.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/56 "2001-08-13T23:17:09Z")

</div>

**andros** , oh certainly, if someone could show me why torturing animals has, as a consequence, harm to humans then I would strongly agree that it should be a felony.

* * *

As far as the whole inference thing goes, there’s a little difference between A implies B and B implies A (or their negated forms) without further understanding.

One is a conditional sentence, and another is a biconditional. Not following the argument closely, I leave it for interested parties to figure out which one was meant to be used, and which one was actually used, and whether those two were the same 🙂 In a conditional, the state of one affects the other bu the state of the other says noting about the state of one. In a biconditional, by knowing the state of either you can find the state of the remainder.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/57 "2001-08-13T23:52:40Z")

</div>

**erislover** , the lack of offense of your sensibilities where my sensibilities are offended is precisely why this issue is a matter of opinion rather than fact. I simply disputed your statement that humans are above animals and the implication that humans are not animals. Humans are animals. The species chauvinism you exhibit is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then my lack of species chauvinism would be equally relevant. Thus, it should be permissible for me to chop the heads of humans, pave over their homes or do whatever I wish toward them while only committing a misdemeanor offense.

**The Ryan** , as soon as I hit the ‘submit reply’ button, I almost slapped my forehead and cursed myself. I’ll retract my assertion and you have my apologies. Nonetheless, you wanted an example. Here’s some mental masturbation for you.

With respect to use-mention distinction, a word is mentioned if encapsulated by quotation marks, i.e., to mention ‘mention’ one would write ‘mention’. See the example below.

1. The cat is white.
2. The last word of (1) is ‘white’.

In (1) the word ‘black’ is used. In (2) the word ‘black’ is mentioned. Given a list of expressions, they may be true, false or senseless. Pertaining to false or senseless expressions, adding or removing quotation marks may yield a true sentence. Consider the following:

1. The last word of (1) is white.

This statement is false. The color of the last word of (1) is black. Yet, if one adds quotation marks such that (2) is the result, a true sentence is formed. If adding or removing quotation marks does not yield a true sentence but yields a senseless expression, the expression is incorrigible.

Consider the following:

1. The last word of (4) is meaningless.
2. The last word of (4) is meaningless.

Clearly, (4) is incorrigible but (5) is not incorrigible. Therefore, we have (4) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’ = (5). But consider the following argument:

1. (4) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’.
2. (5) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’.
3. (4) = (5)
4. (4) is incorrigible.
5. (5) is not incorrigible.
6. (4) does not equal (5).

Note here that we have a contradiction between the indiscernibility and identicals or the transitivity of identity. Despite that dilemma, let’s compound the sentences a bit.

1. (4) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’ and (5) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’.  
Now, consider _modus tollens_ of the form:

If A then B.  
Not B.  
Therefore, not A.

Substitute A for (12) and B for (8), yielding:

If (4) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’ and (5) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’ then (4) = (5).  
Not (4) = (5)……………………{i.e., (11)}  
Therefore, not (4) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’ and (5) = ‘The last word of (4) is meaningless’……{which is absurd}

So, here’s your long-winded example of a true value for “If A then B”, a true value for “not B” and an untrue value for “not A”. I realize that this example exploits the apparent contradiction between the indiscernability of identicals and the transitivity of identity. That is why I retract my statement and submit my apologies. Carry on and have fun with the puzzle.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/58 "2001-08-14T00:00:09Z")

</div>

One last thing **erislover** :

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by erislover \*  
> If chopping its head off for fun bothers enough people, then I will compromise and consider the matter a misdemeanor… that is, you haven’t really done anything to harm the species or a member of the species but you offended our sensabilities.

How is it that chopping the head off an animal isn’t considered harm to a member of the species? Personally, I would think that chopping off a head is harmful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/59 "2001-08-14T00:04:45Z")

</div>

I apoligize in advance, but given the topic, I just had to add this. Police officer takes a report from a young woman and her daughter who were walking in an alley in Chicago. The daughter points to a man who is, how to say this?, humping a dog. The mother screams at the man to stop and tells him it’s disgusting. His response:

“It’s my dog and she don’t mind.”

Go on about your business.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614/60 "2001-08-14T15:00:47Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Nen \*  
> How is it that chopping the head off an animal isn’t considered harm to a member of the species? Personally, I would think that chopping off a head is harmful.

Given my species-centric view, I thought the answer was obvious.

I am saying that, quite simply, our species is the most important to me, and that it _should_ be the most important to us. No species, as a rule, has even equal precidence.

If a dog and a man were in a sinking boat, who here would hesitate and wonder, “Which of these two should I save?” If a rabid dog was attacking people, would we jail it in a kennel for life or put it to sleep? And would it have a trial to show it wasn’t competent?

Who here actually feels that other species are _equal_ in value to man? And why?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-cruelty-a-felony/74614.md?page=4)