http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7798745/

Quote :

"N.C. Senate votes to stiffen penalty for animal cruelty Raleigh, N.C. — The state Senate on Wednesday gave final and unanimous approval to a bill that would increase the penalty – from a misdemeanor to a felony – for a person who intentionally starves an animal to death from a misdemeanor to a felony. Torturing, mutilating or disfiguring an animal would also be a felony under the measure, called Susie's Law. The bill was named after an 8-week-old puppy that was tortured and burned and left to die in Greensboro. The suspect in that case received probation, despite pleading guilty to felony animal cruelty. "The bill before you today raises the bar," Sen. Don Vaughan, D-Guilford, said. "Susie has created an awareness that those who torture animals ought to receive jail time, and that's just what this bill does." The bill, which must be ratified by the state House before Gov. Bev Perdue signs it into law, will become effective Dec. 1. Susie is now a year old and living a happy, full life with her adoptive owner."

Here is an earlier story about efforts to pass the law:

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/while_susie_wags_tail_senate_moves_her_bill

Quote :

"While Susie wags tail, Senate moves her bill Susie is about as effective a lobbyist as there is. Susie is a 1-year-old pit bull-German Shepherd mix whose body still has the scars the horrific assault she endured. When she was eight-weeks old, Susie was burned beaten and left for dead. She was found two weeks later. The animal shelter was able to determine when she was assaulted by the age of the maggots covering her body. The man who assaulted her was sentenced to probation. The law named after Susie would make such abuse a felony and give judges the option of jail time. On Tuesday, a Senate committee sent the bill on for a final vote before it would become law. Susie lay on the floor during the vote. "People across the state, concerned citizens, want a judge to have the ability to give jail time," said Roberta Wall, who fostered Susie after she was found."

I'm happy to see this.

6/16/2010 6:33:43 PM

fuck the asshole for getting just probation

(actually, fuck the system for that, fuck him for being a sadist)

6/16/2010 6:38:48 PM

6/16/2010 6:38:56 PM

Does this mean I can't eat them any more?

6/16/2010 6:57:51 PM

Nah, eating animals is still fine, as long as it's done on a farm somewhere and you don't personally have anything to do with it. Torturing animals is also fine, as long as it's done on said farm.

6/16/2010 7:07:10 PM

I guess that means I have to hit them on the head with a hammer before the throat-slitting. Hogs certainly squeal less that way, until they wake up.

6/16/2010 7:09:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm happy to see this."

Me too. I would be even happier if the former "owner" got tortured, set on fire, and left for dead. But thats just me.

Sorry for the rant, I think the lowest forms of people abuse children and/or animals.

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 9:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2010 9:49:10 PM

Here's another site that people who follow animal welfare issues might be interested in:
http://ncvaw.org/

The action alerts tab on the right has those e-mail your state representative options (which are slightly less useless than e-mailing federal ones).

6/16/2010 11:25:49 PM

It's just a dog.

6/17/2010 12:16:39 AM

I support it.

I'd much rather have animal abusers in prison than weed smokers.

6/17/2010 12:25:22 AM

Isn't assault against a human just a misdemeanor?

6/17/2010 12:32:35 AM

^
Usually, but it should always be a felony.
However, starving, torturing, mutilating and disfiguring are worse than simple assault, anyway.

Quote :

"It's just a dog."

You do agree that animal property > non-animal property?
It's one thing to vandalize my house, but it's far different to harm my pet. You get that, right?

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

6/17/2010 12:51:58 AM

I think many animal lovers would deny that they're really property at all. This law certainly doesn't only apply to animals that are properly owned, it protects them based on a moral standard. Interestingly, this moral standard(protecting animal life as precious) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently. Liberals/atheists/progressives may deny they impose their religious views on others, but this law is proof otherwise. Just another blue law as far as I'm concerned. I don't oppose(or support) this law, but I will abide by it for the same reason I don't sell alcohol before noon on sunday: it's become a cultural norm and I would be punished otherwise.

But to a cattle farmer, yeah, they're property. Stealing one is the same as(not greater than) stealing a tractor.

There is a legitimate line of reasoning that suggests that since we are superior creatures to dogs, they are ours to do with as we please...eat, torture, exterminate, utilize. The bible echos this sentiment verbatim in the creation story. Nature has produced them helpless to defend themselves otherwise, it is therefore their lot to be subjugated or destroyed. This is still the unopposed opinion in regards to simpler organisms. In fact, it's still the opinion of dog owners...they have certain expectations of their animals(not biting children, not eating the furniture, herd the sheep) and they will destroy their pet without hesitation if these thresholds are crossed. Or, they will deny their pet breeding rights, which in terms of evolution is equivalent to murder. And all of that is OK, according to this viewpoint, because we are superior and know what's best. Nay, it's our duty to impose punishment and control the population. The nazis applied identical logic to humans...they viewed it as their duty to destroy weaker elements in their society...because they were stronger and they could. Respected 20th century physicians held similar views as proponents of eugenics which were also enacted into NC law in the form of involuntary sterilizations of "promiscuous" low-income and minority individuals well into the 1970's. So yes it is indeed possible to arrive at varying opinions of acceptability of animal torture based entirely on rational argument, western scientific sensibilities, or religious zealousness. Especially the latter...everyone loves a good lamb sacrifice.



[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:45 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 1:23:39 AM

Whoa, whoa. Slow down on the straw-man stuff -- at least let the "Liberals/atheists/progressives" say shit before you argue it.
...Sure that some would choose not to view animals as property at all, but start with:
"You do agree that animal property > non-animal property?
It's one thing to vandalize my house, but it's far different to harm my pet. You get that, right?"


Also, and not to get ahead, but...

Quote :

"Interestingly, this moral standard(protecting animal life as precious) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently."

That doesn't hold water. Plenty of other moral standards (humans not being property, genders being equal, homosexuality not being wrong, etc.) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently. OMG WHEN WILL THE SOCIALLY LIBERAL AGENDA END?
(go to hell, republican.)

Quote :

"There is a legitimate line of reasoning that suggests that since we are superior creatures to dogs, they are ours to do with as we please...eat, torture, exterminate, utilize. The bible echos this sentiment verbatim in the creation story. Nature has produced them helpless to defend themselves otherwise, it is therefore their lot to be subjugated or destroyed. This is still the unopposed opinion in regards to simpler organisms. In fact, it's still the opinion of dog owners...they have certain expectations of their animals(not biting children, not eating the furniture, herd the sheep) and they destroy their pet without hesitation if these thresholds are crossed. Or, they will deny their pet breeding rights, which in terms of evolution is equivalent to murder. And all of that is OK, according to this viewpoint, because we are superior and know what's best. Nay, it's our duty to impose punishment and control the population. The nazis applied identical logic to humans...they viewed it as their duty to destroy weaker elements in their society...because they were stronger and they could. Respected 20th century physicians held similar views as proponents of eugenics which were also enacted into NC law in the form of involuntary sterilizations of "promiscuous" low-income and minority individuals well into the 1970's. So yes it is indeed possible to arrive at varying opinions of acceptability of animal torture based entirely on rational argument, western scientific sensibilities, or religious zealousness."

nevermind.
You are fucking nuts.
Cling on to your old anthropocentric world, son. Perhaps you won't even live long enough to see it end.
Go read you bible and go to bed -- there's no hope for a worthless being like you. (please die.)



[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:47 AM. Reason : ]

6/17/2010 1:40:35 AM

Ad hominem...I win.


Also, you infer far too much about my political leanings. My specific concern in regard to animal abuse and child abuse hysteria(and the laws it generates) is that the wave of negative extremism building will ultimately result in witch hunts and non-apt punishments that rational men will come to regret. I see a clear parallel between this movement and muslim countries that sentence couples to death for kissing in public.

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 1:46:27 AM

What ad hominem? I'm not addressing your argument -- it's a fine argument, albeit one I disagree with.
I'm addressing you. You are shit. (seriously, please die.)

6/17/2010 1:49:17 AM

Quote :

"What ad hominem? I'm not addressing your argument ...I'm addressing you. "

That one goes on my wall of fame. You've made my evening.

6/17/2010 1:53:30 AM

Quote :

"Interestingly, this moral standard(protecting animal life as precious) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently"

Buddhists would disagree.

6/17/2010 1:56:42 AM

Indeed. I wonder why Buddhists haven't conquered the world.

6/17/2010 1:59:07 AM

^^^
You do know what ad hominem is, right? It has to do with the validity of one's argument based on the validity of their person, not the other way around. I'm not saying "your argument is crap because you are crap", I'm saying, "Your argument is crap, therefore you are crap."

You're drunk or something... "child abuse hysteria" what? What are you even talking about?
(never mind, I don't care.)

Quote :

" I wonder why Buddhists haven't conquered the world."

BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT CONQUERING THE WORLD IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF SUPERIOR MORALITY.
(you really are fucking nuts.)

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 2:03 AM. Reason : ]

6/17/2010 1:59:22 AM

The conquerors are the arbitrators of morality.

And besides, my mother says I'm a very lovely person.

6/17/2010 2:04:23 AM

^
lol... hence the phrase "only a mother could love...."









---------------------------------------
























[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 2:33 AM. Reason : ]

6/17/2010 2:09:55 AM

Quote :

"Interestingly, this moral standard(protecting animal life as precious) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently."

It's actually quite amazing how much we used to revel in seeing animals suffer only a few hundred years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodsport

But it's tough for me to be that concerned with the welfare of very specific breeds of animals we attribute human like qualities to when there are actual humans that suffer far worse around the world.

6/17/2010 9:27:24 AM

Quote :

"But it's tough for me to be that concerned with the welfare of very specific breeds of animals we attribute human like qualities to when there are actual humans that suffer far worse around the world."

QFT

6/17/2010 9:32:06 AM

Whenever suffering is not deserved or warranted, I am concerned. Humans are in control of their lives, so their suffering is most often deserved. Thus, it is easy for me to be concerned with the suffering of domestic animals.

6/17/2010 10:00:15 AM

Yeah that's the difference there.

Human suffering is largely caused by humans. They're (and I'm speaking as a species here, not individually) the cause of their own suffering.

Domestic animal suffering is also caused by humans.

I think you can see the problem element here.

6/17/2010 10:14:23 AM

Certain types of animal cruelty are signs of mental disorders that are dangers to humans as well as animals.

6/17/2010 10:21:59 AM

Quote :

"Yeah that's the difference there. Human suffering is largely caused by humans. They're (and I'm speaking as a species here, not individually) the cause of their own suffering. Domestic animal suffering is also caused by humans. I think you can see the problem element here."

BINGO.

Great news to see this pass the Senate.

6/17/2010 10:49:25 AM

Still not sure how I feel about sending people to jail for abusing animals. Are animals property, or are they people, or just "really valuable" property?

You don't have people championing the rights of ants, snakes, or squirrels. Those animals die horrible deaths every day because of the actions of humans, and no one really cares. We don't care how many thousands of animals have to die and suffer for us to stuff our faces, or what conditions they're raised in. But when it comes to dogs and cats, which are commonly kept as pets, we suddenly become outraged.

Pets have more personality, so humans naturally form emotional connections to them. Their faces are also closer to human faces than say, a snake, so we empathize with them. In this thread, for instance, a bunch of baby animals with cute little baby animal faces are shown. If you're going to support this law, though, you should be supporting a much broader range of legislation that increases regulation on cattle raising, or just altogether makes eating meat illegal. Not saying I support that, but if you want to be consistent, I think that's a conclusion you could come to.

6/17/2010 11:30:27 AM

We don't torture farm animals because we like it, it's a byproduct of how we have to raise them to produce the food at the prices we demand. It would be wonderful if we could cause as little pain as we could to these animals, but capitalism is a motherfucker. Maybe one day we can have the technology to have all organic, cage-free, pain-free, etc. farms.

Torturing pets (the cute ones) is unnecessary, and therefore it should be illegal. I don't have any problem with it being a felony either because someone who would do that intentionally should probably be in state custody anyway.

Quote :

"ants, snakes, or squirrels"

I don't think ants have much capacity to experience pain, so I'm not as concerned with them. But yes, torturing snakes or squirrels for no reason should be illegal also. Killing them because they are a danger to you is different than torturing them.


[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 11:41:02 AM

^^
I think you're really trying to understand, so I won't quote bomb you,
but really -- do you see some straw-man and either-or fallacies in what you just said? Yeah?
(You're logic is almost as bad as the "science" speaker that told one of my high-school freshman classes, "either you're 100% okay with all instances of killing or experimenting on animals for science, or you're some kind of animals rights nut that doesn't eat meat and thinks it's wrong to even have a pet." She got called out by three of us and we wouldn't let it go. She had to end her speech early.)

Quote :

"I'd much rather have animal abusers in prison than weed smokers"

I agree, but prison is almost too good for an animal abuser. I'd personally like for them to be executed.

6/17/2010 11:42:40 AM

Quote :

"There is a legitimate line of reasoning that suggests that since we are superior creatures... they are ours to do with as we please...eat"

Keep your kids and elderly away from this guy when he's hungry!

6/17/2010 11:57:19 AM

^
I would've quoted him this way:

Quote :

"There is a legitimate line of reasoning that suggests.....The bible echos this sentiment verbatim in....."

6/17/2010 12:01:34 PM

My point was that whether you're a religious man or a steadfast rationalist you could(as in "it's possible") reach the same conclusion that it was okay to beat your puppy.

The way I see it, in the giant scheme of things there's remarkably little difference in the overall biological complexity between dogs and pest animals like rats and snakes, or humans for that matter. We're all made of the same stuff. You can either be against the suffering of all organisms, or for(unopposed and indifferent to) it. Sure there is middle ground, but it's not intellectually sound, strictly speaking, and will ultimately lead you to a crisis of "faith".

[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 12:44:43 PM

Right, so why not eat people?

6/17/2010 12:53:50 PM

I realized that smc was crazy when I read through this thread a couple of days ago

message_topic.aspx?topic=596667

6/17/2010 1:01:57 PM

Quote :

"I'd personally like for them to be executed"

yep

6/17/2010 1:10:49 PM

I'm not sure this bill is going to precent any animal cruelty, but it will certainly feel better to see the person behind bars that decided it was fun to chain the dog out back and forget about it.

6/17/2010 1:15:34 PM

^^^


[Edited on June 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2010 1:16:36 PM

Quote :

"I agree, but prison is almost too good for an animal abuser. I'd personally like for them to be executed."

I don't even know that we should be executing people for killing other people, but for abusing animals? Sounds pretty extreme.

6/17/2010 1:22:27 PM

^
Yeah, I don't think we actually should -- that would be a fucked up legal precedent.
I'd just like to for it to happen on a personal, albeit unrealistic, level.

6/17/2010 1:46:07 PM

All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy. All work and no play makes smc a dull boy.

6/17/2010 1:52:50 PM

why do you think we are superior creatures to dogs?

6/17/2010 2:00:14 PM

Haha you think I believe what I say.

Maybe I do.

6/17/2010 2:01:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTsWjbjQ8E

6/17/2010 9:41:06 PM

The thread title mentioned it passed the senate, which was the only real potential hurdle left.

But just as a follow up/update, it was signed into law today. It doesn't officially go into effect until Dec 1 of this year, which isn't uncommon for new legislation to not start immediately, but now the only hurdle left is a small amount of time.

6/24/2010 12:17:47 AM

There is, I think, a reasonable argument to made for a difference between "killing animals to eat them" and "killing them for our own entertainment or out of negligence." In the same sense, the law makes a distinction between killing a person in self defense and killing them for some other reason.

There is also an (admittedly less defensible) argument for a difference between an animal that has coexisted with us for 40,000 years as a helper in various capacities, and one that we domesticated in a much, much more recent timespan as a food source and little else.

Beyond even that there's the strong connection between cruelty towards animals and future violent crimes against humans.

I like the law. This shit is disgusting.

6/24/2010 2:43:34 AM

Quote :

"Bill would regulate puppy mills Darla sat quietly, panting on her owner's lap at the General Assembly on Tuesday, seeking attention from anyone looking her way. Just a year ago, Darla weighed about six pounds, only half what she does now. Her hair was so matted that she had to be almost completely shorn, whiskers and all. "She was pregnant, but her babies were all dead because her teeth were so rotted that she couldn't eat," says Denise Austin, a Raleigh resident who adopted Darla from Saving Grace, a nonprofit rescue agency. Darla was one of almost 200 dogs living in dingy, crowded, substandard conditions in a Wilson County puppy mill that was shut down last year. The owner now faces 13 charges of animal cruelty. Stories like Darla's led to Tuesday's press conference, during which state Sen. Don Davis, D-Wayne, continued his push to pass stricter rules against operating puppy mills. ... But Henri McClees, an N.C. Sporting Dog Association lobbyist, thinks existing animal cruelty laws are sufficient, noting that dogs like Darla have been rescued without the bill Davis is promoting. "Every version (of the bill) I've seen has been a complete morass of regulation on top of existing regulation. It would cause confusion," she says. McClees went on to say that this is not a matter of animal rights. "We love our dogs. My people hunt with dogs. We spend a lot of money on our dogs. We are very proud of our dogs, but our dogs are our property," she says. "We don't believe in animal rights. People have rights.""

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/bill-would-regulate-puppy-mills/Content?oid=1495658

6/24/2010 8:36:29 AM

^^
Well put.


^
Fuck McClees with a rusty spoon.

6/24/2010 9:48:07 AM

Quote :

"Interestingly, this moral standard(protecting animal life as precious) didn't really exist in all of human history until very recently"

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Good grief. Having a connection and an understanding for the necessity for balance (thus protection) in nature is as fundamental to human evolution as it gets. See nature religions which are far older than any of the piddly sky daddy religions of today.

6/24/2010 10:28:06 AM