Because all cats are different, some how piercing makes them unstable. I have shown in the case of MOST cats, this is just not true.
My argument is more relevant than anything you have posted. Your argument is nothing but "Oh cats were tortured so its wrong" that is your argument.
No objectivity, no logic. I mean lets face it, torture in this case is subjective. End of story, like most moral issues.
Maybe that is the problem?
You don't understand the US Constitution, or property rights. It is the most basic of principals this country was founded on. In fact all other rights come from the idea of property and ownership.
YouTube- Michael Badnarik Rights, Privileges, and Property
Uh-huh. Where did you get your veterinarian's license and exactly how many pierced cats have you examined? Can we review your patient records?
Sorry, pal. You've "shown" nothing of the sort.
And your argument is nothing but "It was not torture in my opinion." (Oh yeah, and "I can abuse my pets as much as I like, because they're my property, just like my kitchen table.")
Right. Subjective. Like my opinion that piercing cats because it makes them "pretty" is torture.
If you don't like it, too bad for you. :2wave:
I understand it quite well. I know that the U.S. Constitution does not, nor any other law or principle, gives you ABSOLUTE property rights. In fact, the Constitution specifically mentions the pre-existing power of the government to take away your property (the 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and no taking without due process, which means taking IS perfectly okay with due process.)
The government can regulate the use of your property and take some of it in the form of taxes. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to property. Even staunch conservatives acknowledge this.
With due process for PUBLIC use as in land etc. They can't just take it.
Right. So if they need it for public use, they can take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.
Not without due process and proper compensation. Huge difference than just being able to take something. You are still trying to ignore the complete picture.
So I must be a vet to have an opinion on this? That sort of sinks your whole argument doesn't it? Your not a vet?
some how piercing makes them unstable. I have shown in the case of MOST cats, this is just not true.
Yes I have. I showed a video with cats carrying and walking around with things mounted to them and they were in no distress.
So in your opinion burning a Chimpanzee to death to test hair spray is OK to be legal?
Well so far your argument is lacking.
Right. But they can still take it. So your right to it isn't absolute.
There are limits, obviously, to what the government can do and how it can do it. But it can still take your property, or regulate how you use it.
Actually it is, hence the "due process" clause. It's mainly because of technology. If a highway needs to go through, it needs to go through. They still can't just take it. They have to prove why the highway has to go through. And then you must be FAIRLY compensated, so in actuality you lose nothing. Your property is basically capital at that point.
Again it shows our eroding property rights.
Of course not. However, you claimed that:
You haven't produced any evidence about pierced cats.
Still waiting for you to tell us about the pierced cats you have had experience with, which "shows" that piercing does not make cats unstable. If you cannot provide us with documentation that said piercings have no negative impact on a cat's balance or movement, you'll have proven your assertion. Until that point, we have nothing but your worthless declaration that you know more than a vet does about the matter. Sorry, but I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training.
I'm fairly certain I never said, nor implied that.
Again, I'll go with the vet's professional knowledge, observations, and training. :roll:
If your property rights were absolute, you could decide not to sell to the government for any price. But you can't.
Also, the government can tax you, regulate the use of your property through zoning and other regulation, regulate your business, etc.
How?
Are you talking about the recent takings like the New London case? I agree with you on that, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
And you are fairly compensated. So you are not losing anything.
You keep giving me great examples of the rights to property we have lost over the years.
It is relevant. We are letting the government do whatever they want without a peep or even a whimper.
Our government was never in the founders wildest dreams supposed to have this much power over us.
And we just let it happen.
But you don't have a right not to sell it.
That's absurd. None of these rights ever existed.
yeah yeah yeah.
No, it's not relevant to peircing kittens. But I said I agree with you that the New London case went too far.
Sheer meanness and stupidity, to oneself or others, cannot be a crime, should not be a crime...While I find the premise entirely stupid, I don't think there was anything illegal done there. The cats are her property and it wasn't a form of "abuse". I don't think tail docking is considered abuse, and it's worse than piercing a kitten's ears.
Yes you do. Then they have to use due process. They have to win or show need. So yes you do have a right not to.
You really need to pick up a history book. Or at the very minimum watch the video I posted.
Since you are not going to, I guess we are done.
Yes, but they can take it without your permission.
Give it a rest, dude. If you want to bow out, just do it.
No they can't. They have to sue you. Many times the government has lost these cases and guess what? Nothing happened.
Yet many times they took property, without the permission of the owners.
How many times are you going to deny this obvious fact?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?