Comments on: Save the Dogs, Screw the Children? IN Rep. Lawson & Barnes’ idea of good policy?

By: AR_HR

AR_HR — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:40:41 +0000

Hello Angelo,

Please note that approval of comments does not necessarily indicate agreement with the comments made. There is a fairly narrow spectrum of comments that I do not approve. (Major profanity, racism, outright craziness. I even receive comments that combine all 3 categories)

Personally, I don't see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue which is why I do not use such language in my articles. However, consider that statements equating animal abuse to child abuse are made with regularity as justification for legislation and accepted as legitimate. In that light, how is it unfair or 'riling up' to look at the same issue from the exact opposite perspective? If a person says animal abuse is as bad as child abuse, they are equally stating that child abuse is as bad as animal abuse. It is like a mathematical statement a = b therefore b = a

As much as anything, my writings are often examinations and reversals of 'spin' as much as examinations of legislation, political and law enforcement activity. Thank you for reading and commenting. Feedback is always appreciated.

Erica Saunders

By: Angelo

Angelo — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:24:03 +0000

What I find interesting about Tom's post is the fact that it makes no sense. Why would 'liberals' or 'conservatives' have an agenda to put children and animals on the same level in regard to punishment? Even if they did, how would that create a 'new voter base'? It's sensationalist writing like this article and over-the-top responses like Tom's that create such an issue here.

It's also quite interesting that everyone seems to make this into some sort of punishment 'pissing contest', as if what one person perceives as a less serious crime having equal punishment as another makes the weight of the original crime less. That is a logical falacy. What I see is a writer who is more interested in riling people up than fairly portraying the truth and readers who are more interested in being riled up than being subjective.

By: MDurham

MDurham — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:44:38 +0000

While I agree with much of what you say, Tom, I strongly disagree with your labeling these actions as "liberal". This is not about party, and legislators on both sides of the aisle are susceptible to this agenda. This MINDSET that is pushed is that animals should be equal to people in the law. It's exactly what the lobbyists for H$U$, et al, are doing from local to state to federal levels, and it has to STOP. The best ways to do that, IMO, are for MANY constituents to educate these legislators and demand that they stop listening to the AR industry lobbyists, and if they don't listen, vote them out of office, PERIOD. If they are that willing to eliminate constitutional rights of their citizen constituents, then they don't need to be getting our votes.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:43:49 +0000

OH TOM I believe you NAILED IT!

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:14:45 +0000

To me, this is absolutely typical of a liberal. The reason things like this are proposed is because they want to appease their liberal constituents in return for their votes. Point blank. The fact is, everyone thinks any crime committed upon a child is heinous and laws are already in place for such offenses and there aren't many people out there screaming for harder punishments for these crimes. However, you're liberal quacks do not feel that the current laws against dog fighting suffice. They want to put children and animals on the same level and therefore, demand equal punishment for crimes against animals. Therefore, this creates a new voter base. Hence, stricter laws against animal abuse which equate to the severity of child abuse and they often excede in severity. These politicians aren't trying to stop animal abuse. They just want votes and they will ignore their morals and ethics to get them.