Animal cruelty a felony?

Great Debates
41

pldennsion

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

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

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

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

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

42

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:

[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.

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

43

Hell yeah, the ryan, he just said you were a debating machine! :cool:

44

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.

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.

What is “it”?

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.

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?

45

“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}

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

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}

Coming from you, this is nothing short of hilarious.

46

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

47

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?

48

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.

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?

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

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.

49

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.”

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.

50

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.

51

arl:

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?

Is that really what you meant to say?

52

Oh, horsefeathers.

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.

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

You’re misreading me.

53

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.

54

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 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.

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

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.

55

Here’s your truth table for implications:


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.

56

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 :slight_smile: 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.

57

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.

58

One last thing erislover:

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.

59

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.

60

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?