Michael Vick

[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.

[Guest]

Nearly all serial killers started off by torturing animals. Not saying everyone who tortures animals is going to start killing people. I'll agree that there is a bit of a fine line in what is/isn't a punishable offense. With regards to the fish, I said I don't think a child should be punished for neglecting a fish, but if you continually buy fish for the sole purpose of watching them starve to death and/or see how long it takes them to attack each other I think there is something wrong with that...jail punishable? maybe not, but still something wrong with it.

[Guest]

holy lots of "invisible" people viewing this thread...

[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.