Michael Vick

[SmitEvo]

Yep I hate Michael Vick even more now, killing dogs by drowning them, electrocuting them, and body slamming them is just plain brutal.

[thurmanmerman]

What and asshat. I hope he gets jail time and never plays football ever again.

[thrash]

I hesitate to bring this up, but I am going to anyway just to see if there's any intelligent discussion possible.

Firstly, i think this guy's behavior is reprehensible, and can't fathom how someone could do what he's done.

Now, all of that said...

Why are animals more protected than other types of property? If he's the legal owner of the dogs, why can't he do whatever he wants to to them?

My impression is that people's views on animals are emotional and societally grounded, and not in any real rational framework.

Evidence of this is obvious when you look at what people eat. In other cultures eating dogs and horse is common. In some places eating chimpanzee or other ape species is common. Those creaturs can be taught sign language and communicate meaningfully with humans, and some gorillas have even kept pets of their own. Why do we love eating fish, deer, etc, but dont think it's ok to eat dolphins, horse, apes?

Adventerous Americans, and almost all pacific rim countries, eat octopus as a dietary staple... yet the octopus is argued to be as intelligent as a dog.

More on the topic of animal killing/torture.. how many people step on insects when they see them? What about people that cut off lizard tails? (This mostly applies in the South). What about setting anthills on fire? At what point does this go from "no big deal" to "sadistic", and is that point rationally defensible or just what some people "feel like" ?

I guess I'm saying... do our animal "rights" or animal abuse laws make sense? When you're talking about locking up someone for what they did to an animal, I'm not sure that's necessarily valid. IMO, the rights of any human are more imporant than the rights of any/all animals, but in this case, society is prepared to remove this guys rights and freedoms because of what he did to some of his own animals, on his own property.

Like I said - this guy is fucked in the head. But I'm not convinced I'd put him in jail for it. No people were hurt, and nobody else's property was damaged...

[HandoEX]

thrash;177728 wrote:
I hesitate to bring this up, but I am going to anyway just to see if there's any intelligent discussion possible.

Firstly, i think this guy's behavior is reprehensible, and can't fathom how someone could do what he's done.

Now, all of that said...

Why are animals more protected than other types of property? If he's the legal owner of the dogs, why can't he do whatever he wants to to them?

My impression is that people's views on animals are emotional and societally grounded, and not in any real rational framework.

Evidence of this is obvious when you look at what people eat. In other cultures eating dogs and horse is common. In some places eating chimpanzee or other ape species is common. Those creaturs can be taught sign language and communicate meaningfully with humans, and some gorillas have even kept pets of their own. Why do we love eating fish, deer, etc, but dont think it's ok to eat dolphins, horse, apes?

Adventerous Americans, and almost all pacific rim countries, eat octopus as a dietary staple... yet the octopus is argued to be as intelligent as a dog.

More on the topic of animal killing/torture.. how many people step on insects when they see them? What about people that cut off lizard tails? (This mostly applies in the South). What about setting anthills on fire? At what point does this go from "no big deal" to "sadistic", and is that point rationally defensible or just what some people "feel like" ?

I guess I'm saying... do our animal "rights" or animal abuse laws make sense? When you're talking about locking up someone for what they did to an animal, I'm not sure that's necessarily valid. IMO, the rights of any human are more imporant than the rights of any/all animals, but in this case, society is prepared to remove this guys rights and freedoms because of what he did to some of his own animals, on his own property.

Like I said - this guy is fucked in the head. But I'm not convinced I'd put him in jail for it. No people were hurt, and nobody else's property was damaged...

Holy shit balls you make some really good points! I had never really considered the fact that if you get caught hurting a dog, you may go to jail but if you get caught killing a different animal, you may get off free.

[Guest]

I'd have had no problems with him eating his dogs, if they were killed humanely (quick w/o torture/combat first).

Basically, I have no problem with killing for food or varmint/insect/etc.. control, but for sport I find it to be cruel. Maybe I'm a hypocrite, but so be it.

[Irish]

You do make some good points but in the "Land of the Free" we have come up with a set of laws to govern against such acts. I just dont see how pitting dogs against eachother for sport till one dies is somthing that needs to happen in 2007. Its not the same as some guy eatting a dog thats just weird, dog fights are barbaric. I find them to be 2 different arenas of debate.

[thurmanmerman]

There is a big difference between domesticated animals and wild animals. How man wild poodles or labs do you see. So then wtf are hunting licenses for? I guess they were for permission to harvest that kind of animal. He killed dogs because they wouldn't make him money but yet more than likely they were still healthy dogs. Thats just wrong.

[Guest]

thurmanmerman;177735 wrote:
There is a big difference between domesticated animals and wild animals. How man wild poodles or labs do you see. So then wtf are hunting licenses for? I guess they were for permission to harvest that kind of animal. He killed dogs because they wouldn't make him money but yet more than likely they were still healthy dogs. Thats just wrong.

But you don't need a license to shoot a cow which is semi-domesticated as well. I see thrashes points, but I still stand by my thought that if it is for food/animal control purposes it is acceptable.

[weshole]

Not to mention that the dogs are supposed to be pets. The animals in question relied on the owners to support, feed them and house them. They are not wild animals and the fucking piece of shit should hang for it. If you don't see the legal and moral problems with that then, you should definately re-evaluate your look on life. Anyone with such little compassion for life.... Dog, human, or otherwise obviously needs to have his or her head examined.

[Irish]

weshole;177742 wrote:
Not to mention that the dogs are supposed to be pets. The animals in question relied on the owners to support, feed them and house them. They are not wild animals and the fucking piece of shit should hang for it. If you don't see the legal and moral problems with that then, you should definately re-evaluate your look on life. Anyone with such little compassion for life.... Dog, human, or otherwise obviously needs to have his or her head examined.

+1 well said

[STiSchucky]

thrash;177728 wrote:
I hesitate to bring this up, but I am going to anyway just to see if there's any intelligent discussion possible.

Firstly, i think this guy's behavior is reprehensible, and can't fathom how someone could do what he's done.

Now, all of that said...

Why are animals more protected than other types of property? If he's the legal owner of the dogs, why can't he do whatever he wants to to them?

My impression is that people's views on animals are emotional and societally grounded, and not in any real rational framework.

Evidence of this is obvious when you look at what people eat. In other cultures eating dogs and horse is common. In some places eating chimpanzee or other ape species is common. Those creaturs can be taught sign language and communicate meaningfully with humans, and some gorillas have even kept pets of their own. Why do we love eating fish, deer, etc, but dont think it's ok to eat dolphins, horse, apes?

Adventerous Americans, and almost all pacific rim countries, eat octopus as a dietary staple... yet the octopus is argued to be as intelligent as a dog.

More on the topic of animal killing/torture.. how many people step on insects when they see them? What about people that cut off lizard tails? (This mostly applies in the South). What about setting anthills on fire? At what point does this go from "no big deal" to "sadistic", and is that point rationally defensible or just what some people "feel like" ?

I guess I'm saying... do our animal "rights" or animal abuse laws make sense? When you're talking about locking up someone for what they did to an animal, I'm not sure that's necessarily valid. IMO, the rights of any human are more imporant than the rights of any/all animals, but in this case, society is prepared to remove this guys rights and freedoms because of what he did to some of his own animals, on his own property.

Like I said - this guy is fucked in the head. But I'm not convinced I'd put him in jail for it. No people were hurt, and nobody else's property was damaged...
Some good points, but the fact that tens of thousands of dollars, per fight are being bet on these fights is what really seperates what I believe animal cruelty+illegal gambling. Dude come on, I know you said that he's fucked in the head, well so are rapists, murderers and thieves. Why should this guy get off while the others don't then? Now that the facts are out on whats taken place, those dogs didnt deserve what they had coming to them, and definately didn't deserve the harsh cruelty they went through.

I'm not saying this effects my everday life and I dont even mourn over the dogs, but my opinion on it is that its just a tasteless, gross sick crime that has to be taken seriously. That and the fact that he's a thug anyways for chucking water bottles, flicking off his own fans at a game and spreading STD's under a false name...this guys got to be taught a lesson before he really really screws up. I think 6 years as said is just fine. I wont miss him one bit

[thurmanmerman]

tjamz;177740 wrote:
But you don't need a license to shoot a cow which is semi-domesticated as well. I see thrashes points, but I still stand by my thought that if it is for food/animal control purposes it is acceptable.

Killing a cow can be justified. It provides PLENTY of food for a family plus the leather can be used. Not to mention the milk that they produce can be used.

[killer69penguin]

the only reason any of this happened was because its michael vick i have been keeping updated on this story and have read probally 30-40 articles since this has come to attention, the case was treated much much differently then it would be if it was any normal person, wether he did it or not its not fair to treat him differntly because of who he is, personally i think it is rediclious

[D S ohM]

killer69penguin;177755 wrote:
the only reason any of this happened was because its michael vick i have been keeping updated on this story and have read probally 30-40 articles since this has come to attention, the case was treated much much differently then it would be if it was any normal person, wether he did it or not its not fair to treat him differntly because of who he is, personally i think it is rediclious

Vick is a dumbass, and because he's famous he's going to get off a lot easier than if it was any regular(non-famous) person. What I think is really sick is that this fucker is probably getting off on all of the attention he is getting. He doesn't even care that it is negative publicity and that he may not be able to play pro ball anymore. He probably figures he's got enough bank to last him the rest of his life. He needs to have his ass kicked, big time. ME>:nuts:<VICK

[STiSchucky]

killer69penguin;177755 wrote:
the only reason any of this happened was because its michael vick i have been keeping updated on this story and have read probally 30-40 articles since this has come to attention, the case was treated much much differently then it would be if it was any normal person, wether he did it or not its not fair to treat him differntly because of who he is, personally i think it is rediclious
Dude, its a felony.

If anything, your average joe would be getting off a lot worst then what Vick probably will, just because he's got the fame and the money

[thrash]

weshole;177742 wrote:
Not to mention that the dogs are supposed to be pets. The animals in question relied on the owners to support, feed them and house them. They are not wild animals and the fucking piece of shit should hang for it. If you don't see the legal and moral problems with that then, you should definately re-evaluate your look on life.

What should happen to someone that doesn't clean their fishtank often enough?
What if someone with an ant farm just stops feeding them ? What if someone with an ant farm shakes the crap out of it and ruins their home?

I'm trying to understand where the "line" is between what's acceptable to do to an animal and what isn't, and why people think that's where the line is. I think that in this case, in the US we just like dogs/cats and many of us pet owners (i've got a dog and 2 cats) anthropomophize them until they're like family members, which makes something like this seems barbaric. But is this really so different from boiling a lobster or frog alive, or setting an anthill on fire? What about bullfighting, or rodeos ?

[RidinRails]

killing the dogs by drowning them, electrocuting them and shit like that is barbaric...

Letting dogs fight each other isnt....people do it all the time.

pitbulls were bread practically bread for that.

[Guest]

thrash;177820 wrote:
What should happen to someone that doesn't clean their fishtank often enough?
What if someone with an ant farm just stops feeding them ? What if someone with an ant farm shakes the crap out of it and ruins their home?

Not sure what my feeling is on fish tanks...I guess if I have to take a stance, if a kid gets a goldfish from his parents and neglects to clean it enough it should be considered a one time offense, no biggie, its not like he was trying to kill them, just too lazy. If someone intentionally buys fish for the purpose of killing them w/ their own filth, animal abuse laws could be brought in.

Ant farm...see above in regards to the no feeding thing. As for shaking them and they have to rebuild...nature does that to them daily. I have no problem with nuisance ants being killed with a pesticide/shoe/etc. however

[thrash]

Really? I don't even consider fish relevant, or even pets. They're like a painting that moves and at the same time converts money into poop and chores. People flush fish down the toilet all the time. The idea of a "kid" committing an offense over not cleaing a fish tank sounds ridiculous to me.

Instead of asking what you'd say in specific cases, how would you word a general rule on what is or isn't acceptable?

IMO, animal protection in this country is ludicrous. Not discounting how screwed up this Vick guy is, I can't imagine putting my wife in prison because she tortured our dog or something like that. I'd be pretty pissed off about it, but putting the well being of animals ahead of the well being of humans is fucked up and backwards.

[STiSchucky]

I think you're forgetting one small minor detail.

Michael Vick is doing this to the dogs because he can and it was his choice to, hell he may even be the ring leader of it all.

I dont think the painting can be any more clearer then whats been known so far. He doesnt deserve any of his money, his fame etc. He's just a thug like any other thug out there that needs his life straightened out if he's found guilty, which all signs are pointing towards right now or else it wouldn't be a federal case.