Michael Vick

[DaveH]

The guy is a sadist, plain and simple. Yes animals tear each other up in the wild, usually for survival. But to set up a senario where you have animals tear each other up for your own enjoyment is sadistic.

edit*** oh, and I have no idea who this guy is, football or basketball player or whatever... he is just a sad piece of crap.

[weshole]

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?

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 ?

I'll tell what.... Sit down and actually watch footage of the cruelty being inflicted upon a pet and then make a decision. I have seen just that happen before (by a neighbor) and can say that it's very disturbing to see and hear it happen. It's easy to sit there and say that we shouldn't be so harsh on people for doing such things. As far as seeing my wife go to prison for doing such things.... I know my wife would never do that. If she were that demented, then she wouldn't be my wife. So I think prison/jail would be fine in this case.

[thrash]

STiSchucky;177845 wrote:
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.

Who he is isn't supposed to have any bearing on wether he broke the law or not, or what constitutes appropriate punishment.

I don't think i was forgetting anything about him intentionally doing this etc, infact, if that wasn't the allegation would there even be a case against him?

We're supposed to live under the rule of law, that is, you're supposed to be guilty based on what the written law says, not what popular opinion says about the merits of the case or the specific person in question.

People being judged by the court of public opinion, "according to the merits of the case", is essentially mob rule.

Obviously most people disagree with me on the relative importance of human freedom vs animal comfort -- what I'm trying to do is get people to explain that in a way that is rules based and rational.. to form a logically consistent basis for their beleifs. I think it's important to think hard about why you feel strongly about what should and shouldn't be allowed... since its going to send someobdy to prison.

Like I said originally - there's no doubt in my mind that this dude has some sort of mental issues, and I am well aware of the relationship between serial killers and animal torturers. What is ... disturbing is that a link between one behavior and some other behavior cannot ever be sufficient to put someone away.. as that constitutes "thoughtcrime". And so people have sought to criminalize animal cruelty for other reasons.. reasons which i don't fully grasp.

[thrash]

weshole;177853 wrote:
I'll tell what.... Sit down and actually watch footage of the cruelty being inflicted upon a pet and then make a decision. I have seen just that happen before (by a neighbor) and can say that it's very disturbing to see and hear it happen.

No way. That would be disgusting and uncomfortable to watch. That much was never under debate.

It's easy to sit there and say that we shouldn't be so harsh on people for doing such things.

Isn't it easier to say we should be harsh on "other people", especially famous or wealthy people?

As far as seeing my wife go to prison for doing such things.... I know my wife would never do that. If she were that demented, then she wouldn't be my wife. So I think prison/jail would be fine in this case.

This sounds a little too much like 'people that don't have anything to hide don't need to worry'

What one person thinks is cruel, obviously someone else doesn't. Anyone that lives in town surely has a problem with squirrels (like I do). Squirrels are a rodent, a pest, etc. In a different town not too far from here, I know a guy that was reported by his neighbors because he was humanely trapping squirrels and releasing them far away from his house. He was told he couldn't do it any more -- even though they were chewing holes in his roof, etc. So now he traps them secretly and drowns them. Is it sick? Sadistic? I don't think the guy enjoys it, but you can be sure that if squirrels were chewing holes in my house (instead of just my garage), I'd be taking corrective actions irrespective of anyone else's feelings on the matter.

Yet, it only takes one jackass neighbor and one jackass in the right spot in government and you're in a bad spot if someone gets wise to what you're doing.

[Guest]

thrash;177854 wrote:
We're supposed to live under the rule of law, that is, you're supposed to be guilty based on what the written law says, not what popular opinion says about the merits of the case or the specific person in question.

People being judged by the court of public opinion, "according to the merits of the case", is essentially mob rule.

Obviously most people disagree with me on the relative importance of human freedom vs animal comfort -- what I'm trying to do is get people to explain that in a way that is rules based and rational.. to form a logically consistent basis for their beleifs. I think it's important to think hard about why you feel strongly about what should and shouldn't be allowed... since its going to send someobdy to prison.

There are federal laws against animal cruelty as well as state laws against dog fights, etc... He allegedly broke those laws and should be punished (fairly) for his actions.

[thrash]

tjamz;177858 wrote:
There are federal laws against animal cruelty as well as state laws against dog fights, etc... He allegedly broke those laws and should be punished (fairly) for his actions.

Well sure. Just like there are laws against tint, loud exhausts, front plates, speeding, wheel spin, and all kinds of other stuff that we think is generally ok and are always bitching about.

Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is applied fairly, or that everyone is happy about it, etc etc. We all know this.

I happen to think that it is ridiculous to go to prison for torturing dogs. I think the guy is disgusting, but I'm not so full of myself that I pretend that what I think is disgusting should be the standard by which others have their freedoms removed. they're not my dogs, and it's not happening at my house. There are a lot of things that I think are disgusting but that I wouldn't put somebody in jail over.

[STiSchucky]

thrash;177860 wrote:
Well sure. Just like there are laws against tint, loud exhausts, front plates, speeding, wheel spin, and all kinds of other stuff that we think is generally ok and are always bitching about.

Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it is applied fairly, or that everyone is happy about it, etc etc. We all know this.

I happen to think that it is ridiculous to go to prison for torturing dogs. I think the guy is disgusting, but I'm not so full of myself that I pretend that what I think is disgusting should be the standard by which others have their freedoms removed. **they're not my dogs, and it's not happening at my house. **There are a lot of things that I think are disgusting but that I wouldn't put somebody in jail over.
Yea but its a felony. What don't you get?

The bolded parts is what I wanted to see. Yes if he gets convicted of it, he's a felon. If you were holding these ILLEGAL fights, while putting 10's of thousands of dollars on each fight, do you think you should goto jail if you were caught?

[SmitEvo]

Thrash you are being ridiculous......I am sure you can argue anything at any angle.

[thrash]

SmitEvo;177864 wrote:
Thrash you are being ridiculous......

That is not my intent.

I am sure you can argue anything at any angle.

I beg to differ.. i will demonstrate via reasoning that this statement is false :icon_rabbit:

More seriously though.. what I'm trying to get at is why people think animal cruelty should be illegal. "It's sick" isn't sufficient, since there are plenty of things i find sick that are perfectly legal.

Murder is illegal because we beleive that humans have inalienable rights (life being one of them.. and note that murder isn't the same as "killing someone".. murder has a specific legal definition).

Do you think animals have the same rights as people? If so, why? If not all animals, which animals? Should plants have those rights also?

If the best anyone can come up with is "it's disgusting when someone hurts puppies, so it should be illegal", that's ... well that's about what I'm expecting, but i am curious if anyone has any more reasoned justification for it.

I appreciate everyone being patient and not flaming me.

[weshole]

thrash;177855 wrote:
Anyone that lives in town surely has a problem with squirrels (like I do). Squirrels are a rodent, a pest, etc. In a different town not too far from here, I know a guy that was reported by his neighbors because he was humanely trapping squirrels and releasing them far away from his house. He was told he couldn't do it any more -- even though they were chewing holes in his roof, etc. So now he traps them secretly and drowns them. Is it sick? Sadistic? I don't think the guy enjoys it, but you can be sure that if squirrels were chewing holes in my house (instead of just my garage), I'd be taking corrective actions irrespective of anyone else's feelings on the matter.

Yet, it only takes one jackass neighbor and one jackass in the right spot in government and you're in a bad spot if someone gets wise to what you're doing.

There again, squirrles are wild animals. The dogs in question are domestic dogs. (domesticated for pets). Now it almost seems the argumaent is just for arguments sake. I FIRMLY stand by the fact that I THINK he should be punished harshly for his actions.

[D S ohM]

Torturing animals is wrong. People who do need to be punished. End of story.

[Guest]

Do animals have the same rights as people? Not all of the same rights, but some of them.

A better analogy to show why your reasoning is flawed is this:

I own my house, I can do what I want with it regardless of what others think. I should be able to burn it down at any time and collect insurance on it since I own it and insurance is there to cover me in the event of fire. Now just because a bunch of lawyers/insurance companies think it is wrong doesn't mean it should be insurance fraud. I didn't hurt anyone. I owned the property. Why is the man always holding me down?!?!?! Just because others think it is immoral to burn down a dwelling for the sole purpose of collecting a check? BS I say!

[STiSchucky]

well thrash, thats 2 times ive pointed out its a felony, and 2 times you danced around it.

please dont ask why I think it should be a felony. I dont even care about the dogs, i dont mourn their deaths every day. I feel bad for them, but I dont stop my day to say a prayor for them.

But still, it's a felony, the guys going to federal court...what more do you need?

[Guest]

(fwiw, I like this thrash guy, he puts up a good fight)

[STiSchucky]

Chuck a typical 2 year old could make this argument. 'Why should dogs be let off easy when humans kill ants every day'

lol wow. its a pretty dumb argument.

[Guest]

but he is asking where/how to draw the line and why animals have the rights they do....I like being able to answer the same question 100 different ways, all saying the same thing...why do you think I like to argue about Bush so much?

[D S ohM]

Im not sure who this thrash guy is, but i'm actually getting pissed off reading the shit that he is saying. Im sorry but dogs shouldnt be tortured. There is no fucking justification. Vick should be locked the fuck up. Then he can see what it is like to be tortured when hes in prison getting his fucking ass kicked...and violated.

[thrash]

STiSchucky;177889 wrote:
well thrash, thats 2 times ive pointed out its a felony, and 2 times you danced around it.

That's because what the law says is irrelevant regarding what is moral, ethical, or just. It's nice when they intersect, but you shouldn't take for granted that they do. Without getting into it, i think we can all agree that just because something is legal or illegal today, doesn't mean that's what the law should say or that it's the right law.

please dont ask why I think it should be a felony.

But that's the whole point of my questions!! Obviously the easy answer to "why should he go to jail?" is "because he broke the law". Duh. But why is that the law in the first place? That's the question I'm trying to get people to talk about.

[thrash]

D S ohM;177896 wrote:
Im not sure who this thrash guy is,

I'm and old fart with libertarian / quasi-anarchistic political leanings. I think we have too many laws and rules in society, and am willing to question any of them, even if i generally agree with what they're trying to accomplish.

but i'm actually getting pissed off reading the shit that he is saying.

That's not my intent. Please see above. I can separate my own feelings from what should or shoult not be law for the purposes of discussion.

Im sorry but dogs shouldnt be tortured.

Agreed. Which is a big reason why I don't torture them.

There is no fucking justification.

Agreed. But, does everything in life have to be justified? There's no justification for us driving most of the cars we drive...(thankfully its not illegal yet)

Vick should be locked the fuck up

Why? You and I agree that dogs shouldn't be tortured. What I'm wondering is, if its not your dog or my dog, why does that mean we're going to tell other people not to torture dogs either? Why aren't our feelings on this matter simply limited to us not torturing our own dogs? Why do our beleifs about dog torture usurp the property rights of dog owners?

Then he can see what it is like to be tortured when hes in prison getting his fucking ass kicked...and violated.

Wishing torture and who knows what else on a person because of what he did to his own dogs sort of weakens the moral purity of your position

[STiSchucky]

all youre going to get from me is that its an inhumane, sick, cruel act to what is considered a domestic, house held animal. If they werent domestic they wouldnt have laws made for them. There are hunting laws I know, but their made for animals that aren't considered pets, another thing you dont seem to grasp.

Btw, I've never heard of anyone drowning, electrocuting or hanging a deer to death, have you?