Hot/New interview topic!

[No Imagination]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I just saw this a few weeks ago, and meant to post it, if its already been posted, please disregard.

Anyway, apparently a few cities in (yeah, you guessed it, California) have decided that Vets should not be allowed to perform declaws. Now, whats the big deal - there are many procedures that vets are 'not' allowed to do. What is a big deal, is this is the first time (and I believe a higher court has upheld the lower court ruling) a CITY has been able to stipulate what a STATE licensed vet CAN and CANNOT do.

Now, supposedly, if a state specifically gives rights to a vet to perform that procedure in the licensing (legalese) language, that that would supersede a cities rights, but how often are specific procedures spelled out?

This is a big deal in my opinion - Vets are not supported the same way doctors are, and if this catches on outside CA, it could the first step of a slippery slope for vets.

Just something to think about while you prepare for your interviews. I know at MSU, they love throwing current events at you

One of many links - http://www.newser.com/story/74282/beverly-hills-la-ban-cat-declawing.html

 

[sumstorm]

I thought CA's governor just declared that it wsan't a viable restriction on vets? I may have misread that (it was during finals, so my focus was off!)

There is another case going on where a city is trying to enforce licensing through vets. Vets either have to issue a license or report offenders. I think Houston is the city.

 

[PicklePie]

Oh those wacky Californians! Banning a procedure just because it's overused and owners are often left in the dark about the actual process and potential complications?

They are banning it now because of pressure from the state, which passed a ban on banning that will go into effect somewhat soon. It's complicated, but if they can't pass a ban soon, they lose the ability to. It doesn't solve the problem of vets that do not properly inform their clients about what they are doing to their pets, which is unfortunate. I'm not heartbroken about the idea of banning it in more cities, I highly doubt that this is a "slippery slope" towards Orwellian regulation of veterinary clinics. The docking/cropping bans in the UK haven't led to the apocalypse, it's a pretty analogous situation. Declawing should be a last resort procedure, not just for convenience. If the situation is bad enough to warrant declawing, it is bad enough to warrant a trip to the next town.

 

[sumstorm]

http://blogs.denverpost.com/fetch/2009/11/15/a-california-battle-royale-over-cat-declawing/

I think I read about it in DVM 360 or vet econ, but what I read was the same, that the state, in 2010 will make it illegal for cities to ban the procedure.

One of the big issues (much like assisted suicide and same sex marriage) is that this will not really work....one can still go outside of the area to have the procedure done. This happens routinely in NJ where debarking is illegal. For vets, what is their obligation? And much like ear cropping, I have no doubts that someone somewhere will decide they can do it on their own, for their pets and others.

 

[sumstorm]

The docking/cropping bans in the UK haven't led to the apocalypse, it's a pretty analogous situation. Declawing should be a last resort procedure, not just for convenience. If the situation is bad enough to warrant declawing, it is bad enough to warrant a trip to the next town.

Actually, this would be like a county/city/town banning it in the UK, despite it being legal by the standards of the country, so it isn't analogous. Part of the issue is that jurisdiction issues can come into play. Is jurisdiction by where the pet/client lives or the vet clinic operates? Does it matter who oversees the clinic on a government level? If this is a criminal act, who enforces it and how? If it is a civil matter, who has a right beyond the client and the vet?

And as you said, it will just move the business elsewhere.

 

[No Imagination]

My problem Inst the (or any) procedure in question, it is the authority of a city to dictate what a STATE licensed vet can and cannot do.

What exactly is the point of the AVMA anyway?

 

[nyanko]

Well, making an analogy that obviously isn't quite the same, but you get your drivers license through the state, yeah? Individual jurisdictions can set traffic laws that are more restrictive than what's allowed by state law, but not less restrictive. So a minorly related precedent is still there. And then there are rabies laws, which apply to the way state-licensed veterinarians practice medicine and are legislated at all kinds of weird levels (counties in some places, cities in others, etc).

I'm not saying I think it's right or wrong that a city has the power to legislate in this way in general. However, I think it has to be about the procedure when we discuss it. Basically, the discussion should really be about what the breaking point is for this. The problem I see is that they are legislating something that in my opinion should not be legislated.

 

[critterfixer]

nyanko has it right. State law supersedes local law only when state law has more restrictive language. An individual city is allowed to make a law that is even more stringent than state law as long as it does not violate the state constitution.

For an easy to understand example, there are many cities that ban smoking in all restaurants, but that does not mean the state forbids smoking in restaurants. However, if the state made a law banning smoking in restaurants, an individual city could not allow it. So the state can indeed decide to ban de-clawing. The only way they could not do it is if Federal law granted a constitutional right to veterinarians to de-claw cats. And likewise, a city could ban de-clawing, even if the state allows it, unless the state constitution guarantees the right to de-claw.

 

[sumstorm]

My understanding is that there are limitations on what a city can restrict. IE a city can't declare speed limits on interstates even going through their city. Or, if you have an accident on an exit from an interstate, that is a state issue, not a city or county one (at least in my experience of being rear ended on exit ramps in NJ and LA.)

Also, a city can't ban medical treatments (excepting euthanasia), at least not in the human medicine. I am not even sure they can ban optional/cosmetic procedures. I realize vet med is different...but how different may be the question.

 

[No Imagination]

Basically, the discussion should really be about what the breaking point is for this. The problem I see is that they are legislating something that in my opinion should not be legislated.

Couldn't agree more - I do not know anything about how state licensing works for veterinarians, but I find this trend of cities legislating how and what a vet can and cannot do troubling - and the beginning of a possibly long and steep slippery slope.

 

[PicklePie]

Sorry for the spastic reaction guys! It was a long awful day so I was way too touchy.

However, I stand by my comparison to the bans on cropping and docking. The procedure itself needs to be considered in the equation, it isn't just an issue of state vs city regulation of vets. If they were trying to place bans on vital procedures, yes this would be a huge problem. But the slippery slope argument is a falacy, not a valid argument. Unless there is a distinct trend, one legislative act does not mean much beyond what it actually legislates. It's the same argument used to say that gay marriage rights = men marrying dogs/cars/trees.

If you are going to argue against the bans, it needs to be based on something more concrete. It's perfectly valid to say you do not feel that it is right for the cities to meddle in a state licensed vet's business, but your reasoning shouldn't rely on doom and gloom. I'm not too concerned with the ban because of the small scale; if it is a procedure that is absolutely necessary for the cat, you can go out of the city to have it preformed. It is a discouraging measure but does not outright eliminate the surgery. Lack of enforceability isn't a terrible thing in this case.

 

[nyanko]

I don't think it's fallacious to argue that a city being able to ban a veterinary procedure means that the city could ban other veterinary procedures.

 

[PicklePie]

It's not fallacious to argue that it sets a precedent for regulating veterinary procedures. But saying that it is "the beginning of a possibly long and steep slippery slope" is the textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy. There is an important difference between recognizing that there is the potential for further legislation and assuming that any future legislation will be bad.

 

[No Imagination]

It's not fallacious to argue that it sets a precedent for regulating veterinary procedures. But saying that it is "the beginning of a possibly long and steep slippery slope" is the textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy.

A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy - It is only a fallacy if you imply that said slippery slope WILL lead to something else.

Example: Cities passing laws banning declawing will result in cities banning neuters and spays (as in Sweden and Norway). <-- That is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

I standby what I said, it is the beginning of a slippery slope. Never said it WOULD lead to anything. Hell, I even put in the qualifier "Possibly"

There is an important difference between recognizing that there is the potential for further legislation and assuming that any future legislation will be bad.

... and I am saying just that - I don't care what the legislation is (perhaps its a law that is 100% agreed upon and good) - I don't think it is up the the CITIES to do that - For state licensed veterinarians. So I am saying that any further legislation WILL BE BAD. If a law curtailing what a vet cannot do is needed, it should be at the state or preferably the federal level.

 

[PicklePie]

A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy - It is only a fallacy if you imply that said slippery slope WILL lead to something else.
...
I standby what I said, it is the beginning of a slippery slope. Never said it WOULD lead to anything. Hell, I even put in the qualifier "Possibly"

Stating that it is "the beginning of a slippery slope" is the fallacy, no matter how vague you are about where the bottom is. You said that it was possibly steep and long, that "possibly" doesn't change the fact that the fallacy itself is flawed logic. Out of curiosity, have you taken philosophy courses?

... and I am saying just that - I don't care what the legislation is (perhaps its a law that is 100% agreed upon and good) - I don't think it is up the the CITIES to do that - For state licensed veterinarians. So I am saying that any further legislation WILL BE BAD. If a law curtailing what a vet cannot do is needed, it should be at the state or preferably the federal level.

And that is a perfectly fine position to have, as long as any arguments you make to support it are based in logic. Personally I think that good ideas can come from any level of government, I am not saying that this is one of them I'm just responding to the idea that a good 100% agreed upon law is still bad, so it is beneficial if something good can be enacted on a local level while the state legislation jumps through all the necessary hoops. Though I suppose reducing the argument to the legislative aspect of it and ignoring the actual procedure makes it have more to do with political ideology than veterinary ethics. 🙂

 

[nyanko]

It's not fallacious to argue that it sets a precedent for regulating veterinary procedures. But saying that it is "the beginning of a possibly long and steep slippery slope" is the textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy. There is an important difference between recognizing that there is the potential for further legislation and assuming that any future legislation will be bad.

If a person argues that cities legislating veterinary procedures is a bad thing, then any further legislation would be assumed to be bad in the person's argument. Just because a person says the words "slippery slope" doesn't mean that's it's necessarily a fallacy, just poor word choice.

So if NI says:

1) The CVMA does not ban declawing.
2) The CVMA board consists of veterinarians.
3) Veterinarians are more educated in veterinary procedures (including declawing) than city council members who are not veterinarians.

Then logically, if city council members and the CVMA are at odds about whether declawing should be an available procedure, the CVMA's views should supercede those of the local government.

In this case, the CVMA is not considered to be infallible, only more knowledgeable than a second group, so it is not an appeal to authority, in case you were thinking about throwing that out there.

 

[sumstorm]

ok....rather than calling it a slippery slope, call it a tipping point.

Banning of procedures at a local level that are legal medical procedures at the state level may be a tipping point to other procedures being banned at the local level, or for other legislation restricting the rights of animal owners to the management and care of their personal animal. If we can't declaw a cat, why should we be able to debud cattle, or declaw/debeak poultry? What makes it ok in one owned animal but not in the other? Is one not owned? is one not an animal?

 

[PicklePie]

If a person argues that cities legislating veterinary procedures is a bad thing, then any further legislation would be assumed to be bad in the person's argument. Just because a person says the words "slippery slope" doesn't mean that's it's necessarily a fallacy, just poor word choice.

So if NI says:

1) The CVMA does not ban declawing.
2) The CVMA board consists of veterinarians.
3) Veterinarians are more educated in veterinary procedures (including declawing) than city council members who are not veterinarians.

Then logically, if city council members and the CVMA are at odds about whether declawing should be an available procedure, the CVMA's views should supercede those of the local government.

In this case, the CVMA is not considered to be infallible, only more knowledgeable than a second group, so it is not an appeal to authority, in case you were thinking about throwing that out there.

Yep, that would be a well thought out argument! His position was arguable, it is just that using a fallacy to defend it is self defeating. Word choice is everything when you are dealing with charged issues. Which is why my first post was so awful despite some reasonable points hidden in there. 😳 You're in the Davis thread, right? If we both end up going I would love to have a friendly chat/debate sometime. I don't mean anything by picking at people's arguments, it's a bad habit I suppose.


sumstorm, calling it a tipping point does not change the fact that you are stating A leads to B leads to C leads to D, so A leads to D without having any evidence that that those middle steps are correct. It is the same fallacy.

 

[nyanko]

Banning of procedures at a local level that are legal medical procedures at the state level may be a tipping point to other procedures being banned at the local level

Valid:

1) City bans veterinarians from declawing.

Conclusion: City can ban veterinarians from performing routine dental cleanings.

Invalid:

1) City bans veterinarians from declawing.
2) City can ban veterinarians from performing routine dental cleanings.
3) Banning veterinarians from performing routine dental cleanings is bad.

Conclusion: Banning veterinarians from declawing is bad.

Keyword making it invalid is "can."

I think that was what PicklePie was alluding to. Fallacious arguments don't necessarily negate the truth of the conclusion, but they don't strengthen it either. The "spirit" of the argument is that local governments barring veterinarians from performing any procedure is bad, so a good argument needs to add premises that illustrate why veterinarians should not be banned from performing any procedure within the scope of their practice by a non-veterinary entity (and there are plenty of good reasons IMO). It can't make conclusions about one procedure in particular the way that it is currently set up. But I don't think that No Imagination was trying to do that.

or for other legislation restricting the rights of animal owners to the management and care of their personal animal.

And this is just fallacious no matter what, considering that in this particular case owners are not being legislated and are free to have their pets declawed outside of city limits. Regardless of the inconvenience or hardship that may be associated with this in some circumstances, it is still an option and there is absolutely no direct effect of the legislation on a pet owner. You'd have more of an argument if you approached that particular conclusion from a breed banning standpoint, though.

I like picking apart arguments too, but it's seldom productive outside of an academic context to point out the flaws in others' arguments without making one of your own (which I am obviously guilty of doing here - I agree with sumstorm and No Imagination on the issue, actually). It is good for practice for the analytical writing portion of the GRE or writing newspaper editorials though. 😉

By the way, this is the only place I've been on the internet where people are automatically assumed to be female (and it's usually right!). No Imagination is one of the few males among us....

 

[Caninerepro]

Valid:

By the way, this is the only place I've been on the internet where people are automatically assumed to be female (and it's usually right!). No Imagination is one of the few males among us....

So what does that make me ML? 😕

 

[PicklePie]

I think that was what PicklePie was alluding to. Fallacious arguments don't necessarily negate the truth of the conclusion, but they don't strengthen it either.

...

By the way, this is the only place I've been on the internet where people are automatically assumed to be female (and it's usually right!). No Imagination is one of the few males among us....

Exactly! I really should stop posting when I'm tired or stressed, I get lazy with my rebuttals. But I suppose if I did that I wouldn't be seen for years 😀 Maybe once I'm done with my capstone presentation I'll be a little better with following my own rules and being coherent.

It figures my first use of pronouns on here would be totally wrong, sorry dude!

 

[No Imagination]

Out of curiosity, have you taken philosophy courses?

Yes - I minored, almost got a BA in it (if they offered a BS I would have gotten a 2x major).

Its late, and I have my parasitology final in the morning - I will have to come back to this another time, and re-re-reread what everyone is posting. I still don't understand how stating something can lead to a slippery slope is a fallacy - only when you use a slippery slope argument to say "if we do this, then X will happen" (on bottom of slope).

I am going to assume for now that I am missing something in the terminology and you guys are right and just fall back on Godwin's Law, and say that "this is what Hitler and the Nazi's would have done".

 

[nyanko]

Its late, and I have my parasitology final in the morning - I will have to come back to this another time, and re-re-reread what everyone is posting. I still don't understand how stating something can lead to a slippery slope is a fallacy - only when you use a slippery slope argument to say "if we do this, then X will happen" (on bottom of slope).

You DO need to pay more attention. I said that it was poor word choice... 😉

 

[PicklePie]

Yes - I minored, almost got a BA in it (if they offered a BS I would have gotten a 2x major).

I still don't understand how stating something can lead to a slippery slope is a fallacy - only when you use a slippery slope argument to say "if we do this, then X will happen" (on bottom of slope).

I am going to assume for now that I am missing something in the terminology and you guys are right and just fall back on Godwin's Law, and say that "this is what Hitler and the Nazi's would have done".

Ha, I knew it!

The problem is that it is not a valid argument unless you can specifically state and prove the intermediate steps. By not specifying what is at the bottom other than implying that it is a bad thing, there is no way to prove that the starting step leads to it. Saying that something is a slippery slope without any statements to support the assertion doesn't accomplish anything. For it to be valid, you would need to show conclusively:

A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
So, A causes D

The steps must be clear without any wobble words like maybe/might/possibly. Also, it is important to take into account the probability of the steps actually happening. It's possible that skateboarding could be a small step that leads to a broken neck, but obviously that is not always the case. I think part of the reason it is not spotted as a fallacy as often as it should be is that politicians use it so damn much that it has become accepted. It was a little depressing going through the debate transcripts from last year's election and finding fallacies everywhere.

 

[nyanko]

So what does that make me ML? 😕

Do you really want an answer to that? 😉

 

[twelvetigers]

 

[sumstorm]

sumstorm, calling it a tipping point does not change the fact that you are stating A leads to B leads to C leads to D, so A leads to D without having any evidence that that those middle steps are correct. It is the same fallacy.

I am not calling it a tipping point just to change the name. If you don't know tipping point theory, then how can you even argue about it?

Tipping point:

an increase in some societal factor results in a cascade of changes that alters society.

an increase in local bans results in a cascade of changes that alters the role of personal pets in society.

It is kind of like 80/20 theory..... just because it doesn't make logical sense doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Society, of all things, isn't logical.

 

[PicklePie]

I am not calling it a tipping point just to change the name. If you don't know tipping point theory, then how can you even argue about it?

Tipping point:

an increase in some societal factor results in a cascade of changes that alters society.

an increase in local bans results in a cascade of changes that alters the role of personal pets in society.

It is kind of like 80/20 theory..... just because it doesn't make logical sense doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Society, of all things, isn't logical.

Well, first of all you did not present it as the theory. You just said, "ok....rather than calling it a slippery slope, call it a tipping point" which made it seem like you were just arguing semantics rather than presenting a different idea.

Second, a tipping point does not occur at the very first step. That point is reached as momentum builds and a movement becomes self-propelled. You should know that, if you are going to try and argue about it. This legislation is the first step, there could be a tipping point at some step in the future but that cannot be predicted without a logical argument.

For example, have you ever played Pandemic 2? It's loads of fun and is a simplified model for the spread of disease. Once your virus or bacteria or parasite has infected enough people, there is a tipping point where transmission skyrockets. That tipping point is somewhere down the line and it can be somewhat predictable. But even so, you cannot say at the very beginning that it will indeed happen and the world is doomed.

Just because it is sociological does not mean that logic does not apply. Arguments/debates are completely useless without logic, declaring it irrelevant is equivalent to giving up.

 

[sumstorm]

Tipping points still have to have instigation points. My sincere apologies for being so incredibly busy in the research labs here to write extremly clearly on every single post. Unfortunatly, when I am only home for half a dozen hours a day and stuck isolating proteins endlessly in a lab, my brain isn't the clearest.

Ignoring the fallacy that logic will not explain society is just at problematic. If logic worked, we wouldn't, by logic, have excess pet animal populations, because logicly we would understand that it is a huge waste of resources at every level. We can argue the logic of how to deal with those excesses, but expecting logic to explain them doesn't make sense.

I am not declaring it irrelevant...I am saying that we can argue it logically but that does not mean the logical conclusion will be the actual conclusion. If that were the case (logic always applying) life would be far simpler.

Either way, I am against having to keep up with additional restrictions at the county and local level, beyond those at the federal, and state level that would restrict the procedures that vets could perform. Especially since local restrictions may change with little notice. I will have enough to keep up with in hiring and business practices and if I go in zoo med, all the changes internationally and nationally in that arena. I believe that there is a potential for a lot of issues to occur...and for laws to go on the books that are then not enforced for long periods until someone is targeted, or someone has a special interest in enforcement. I don't want to pay for that monitoring as a tax payer, nor do I want to deal with it as a vet. I believe medical treatments are between a vet and the client and patient.

I do believe that there are opportunities to then argue that if the procedure is illegal to perform, it should be illegal to obtain...and I am well aware that laws are often written very poorly. Even if this one is crafted perfectly, I do not like the precedent that it sets. And logic doesn't apply very much to precendent (if it did, Indiana wouldn't have an erection law.)

Again, my apologies for my extreme failures in communications. I have a couple more presentations and a couple of papers to finish this weekend, and apparently I shouldn't be distracted on forums.

 

[No Imagination]

Second, a tipping point does not occur at the very first step. That point is reached as momentum builds and a movement becomes self-propelled. You should know that, if you are going to try and argue about it. This legislation is the first step, there could be a tipping point at some step in the future but that cannot be predicted without a logical argument.

I still think you have not seen my point - Call it a tipping point, or beginning of a slippery slope, whatever 'PicklePie'. The First step - the Tipping Point for the problem was the SECOND that state legislature said it was OK for cities to pass ordinances that curtailed what vets could do.

I don't care what follows - its all bad from hear on (unless the ruling is appealed or federal law over turns it)

I don't know how else to say it.