Vick Indicted!

[DaBruinz]

Geez, fighting in the arena was called a sport as well. Not that forcing people to fight to the death was any less repulsive, but it was called a sport. Don't take my use of the term to imply any legitimacy to dogfighting.

Next, you are going to compare dog-fighting to Boxing. Man, you really know how to stretch things... I mean, talking about the Ancient Roman Civilization and the things they used to do more than a few thousand years ago.

Man, next you are going to try and sell everyone on the idea that slavery really wasn't bad....

 

[unoriginal]

First of all, you threw in the word "morally" which is kinda key to this whole situation. You can't legislate morals because we all have different sets of them. Many here would frown at butchering and eating dogs and cats while others, well, eat dogs and cats.

We legislate morals all the time. What society at large thinks is right plays a large part in the legislation, execution, and adjudication of the law. Lawmakers write law ostensibly in accordance with public will, executives of the law enforce according to social norms, and judges consider precedence together with current attitudes and circumstances. The US is founded on a common law system and in that sense the laws are the common morals of society.

Where you are correct is that a large part of the morality of the law dictates that things like privacy, property, free speech, and other fundamental rights, along with both fair and just treatment before law, are more important than the tyranny of the majority.

I also did not "throw" the word "morally" in there. The moral paragraph is clearly separate from the "legal" paragraph, where I discuss only the law itself as codified. I merely state that, of the two opinions you mention, "pet them" would win out over "eat them" by a great majority in this country.

Secondly, the different classifications of animals is exactly why it is so difficult to make laws governing their treatment. Also, you haven't stated why these classifications justify the preferential treatment of canines.

This is beside the point. The different classifications of animals are inherent to any method of legislation any of them. A law describing "animals excepting humans" would be vague and overbroad, irrelevant either through its simplicity or through the byzantine exceptions that would be necessary to properly address the differences society at large makes between all the members of that kingdom. Calling the value, and recognized rights, of a zebra in a zoo equal to that of a rat in a sewer would be like treating a giant sequoia the same as an azalea bush.

 

[DaBruinz]

And that's the problem. The law cannot, or should not, discriminate (we saw how that worked in the past ) between different kinds of animals on this issue, mainly because the act of cruelty does not depend on who or what is on the receiving end, just as kindness to a worm isn't different from kindness to a dog.

Next you are going to say that we shouldn't shoot deer or spray for mosquitoes or put out mouse traps in our homes.

DUDE, you are seriously out of your gourd.

 

[Gwedd]

First of all, you threw in the word "morally" which is kinda key to this whole situation. You can't legislate morals because we all have different sets of them.

My dear friend,

That statement is refuted handily in every morals & ethics 101 class. The concept of "moral relativity" or, in the vernacular, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" is patently false. Regardless of culture, time period, geographic location, whatever, there are certain moral absolutes which may always be found. Among these are prohibitions on murder, rape, lying, etc. Yes, there may be subjective shading of one point or another, but throughout history, these sorts of "moral standards" may be found, and easily.

Animal cruelty laws are indeed discriminatory based upon species. You will find that, the closer that species is to humankind, the more the law(s) will protect it. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc, all come in for far more protection than reptiles and inscets, or even fish. Mammals are always more protected than anything else because WE are mammals.

Vivk is a jerk. He's also a football fraud. He can show flashes of "WOW" but as often, he botches the situation, and the great disappointment of this is how the Falcons Ownership has covered for him, has shielded him from having to take any responsibility for his actions.

When Vick scr@ws up, it's always someone else's fault. The play wasn't executed correctly. The guard pulled too quickly. The turf was poor. The ball was slippery. You NEVER EVER see Vick say :Hey. It's on me. I messed up".

Well, this time he messed up and he's going to be out of football pretty quickly and wearing a whole new wardrobe. I hope he likes stripes.

The Atlanta fans deserve better than Vick. They also deserve a better club owner, one who won't letter blind loyalty to a player cloud their professional judgement.

Respects,

 

[DaBruinz]

First of all, you threw in the word "morally" which is kinda key to this whole situation. You can't legislate morals because we all have different sets of them. Many here would frown at butchering and eating dogs and cats while others, well, eat dogs and cats.

Secondly, the different classifications of animals is exactly why it is so difficult to make laws governing their treatment. Also, you haven't stated why these classifications justify the preferential treatment of canines.

Unfortunately, you CAN legislate morals and you are ignorant for thinking otherwise. The federal government has been doing so since its foundation.

From the legalization of slaves, to making slavery illegal, to women's rights, to Prohibition, to Equal Rights for all. To making bigamy illegal. To making poligamy (sp?) illegal. To making sex with minors illegal.

I can site NUMEROUS MORAL issues that the Law has RULED on. HELL, MURDER is a MORAL issue.

Most LAWS are the legalization of MORAL codes.

 

[patriot lifer]

i compare it to animal testing. you can test with flies and mice all you want, but don't touch chimps. Some animals must be treated better than others. not all animals are created equal.

 

[patriot lifer]

PFT brought up a good point. Whether or not Vick gets into trouble legally, Goodell can ban him from the league for up to life on the grounds of the NFL's gambling policy.

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

As a dog-owner I wish Vick nothing but the worst. Good riddance Vick you sack of sh!t.

Well.....after reading through this entire thread and seeing numerous well thought out and errudite arguments for the Vick indictment, and some ill thought out arguments against, it is my humble opinon that the quote above best reflects my feeling on this situation.

 

[DaBruinz]

Worm? Fish? You bet species is relevant.

You are seriously out of your gourd. Y

And aren't we being a tad facetious, seeing that we willfully castrate pets, put them to sleep when they're old/frail/sick, breed them to such a state that they become completely dependent on us, destroy them if we think they're too violent... things we would never do to our own, yet we rail on others for doing the same in a less humane manner? "Oh yes, I love my dog, but if he started acting like his ancestor, the wolf, I'd be forced to kill him. Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk..."

No, we aren't being facetious. Nor are we being hypocritical (you really should learn the definitions of the words you want to use so you don't look foolish).

1) Dogs and cats are domesticated animals. They are castrated and neutered to prevent over-population. Over-population that can lead to the spread of disease such as the plague.

2) Cats and dogs are put to sleep when they are injured beyond their ability to heal so that they aren't living a life mired in agony.

3) We kill dogs that have shown to be a menace to society. This is to protect society as a WHOLE.

4) People have been killing animals that were sick for GENERATIONS. Whether they were their own or someone else's. You clearly don't know history.

Once again, I'm not saying Vick shouldn't be punished for breeding dogs for dogfighting and profiting from it, but we're cruel to animals everyday, even if we make excuses for it (see eating, clothing, domestication). If the legal system was actually capable of handling this issue, it would be a crime to own a teacup chihuahua. But the legal system already has its hands full.

Vick wasn't just BREEDING dogs for dogfighting. HE was PARTAKING in the ACTIVITY.

Man, you are way out there with all your garbage. You are totally delusional and truly have no concept. Humans are Omnivores. They are designed to eat MEAT and Vegetation. NOT solely one or the OTHER. But a combination of both. People have been eating meat since the dawn of time or damn near close. People have also been "domesticating" animals for nearly that long. Its not a CRIME. Its not morally WRONG. What is morally WRONG is using an animal for something it was never meant for. Dogs were never meant to be half-starved, thrown into a pit and made to fight another dog. One of their many functions was for herding animals and announcing the presence of danger. And protection from a clear threat.

 

[PaulNEPats]

You guys forgot the rest of the groundbreaking news...

When did Ron Mexico change his name to Ookie?

 

[Snowangel]

You are seriously out of your gourd. Y
Dogs were never meant to be half-starved, thrown into a pit and made to fight another dog. One of their many functions was for herding animals and announcing the presence of danger. And protection from a clear threat.

Hmmm... uh, actually-- in this particular case they WERE made that way.

Using your "logic" that makes it okay, I guess...

But seriously folks, "animal cruelty" is a little like the "obscenity" laws-- hard to define, and subject to change at the whim of a politician-- or a "logically-challenged" voter.

On that note, fry the basterd (Vick, that is)-- and may the Falcons and their apologist fans enjoy many, many years of Joey Harrington!

MV makes a Pats fan really appreciate Tom and his "superior-swimming" sperm even more!

 

[Kdo5]

Well.....after reading through this entire thread and seeing numerous well thought out and errudite arguments for the Vick indictment, and some ill thought out arguments against, it is my humble opinon that the quote above best reflects my feeling on this situation.

I agree. As a dog lover I hope Vick rots in jail and is suspended for life. To hear what he has done is sickening.

 

[Tunescribe]

I agree. As a dog lover I hope Vick rots in jail and is suspended for life. To hear what he has done is sickening.

But it goes even beyond being a dog lover. It's just plain evil to torture, maim and kill ANY living thing for the sake of "enjoyment." I can't personally comprehend it, and it scares me to know there is an element of our society so horribly lacking in social conscience/sense of compassion/humanity. I'm wondering, is there a connection here to the whole hip-hop/gangsta cultural orbit?

I could tell Vick was a narcissistic scumbag from day one. What sealed it for me was that night game in Chicago a couple years ago when it was pathetically obvious that Vick was more worried about keeping warm than playing football. Of course, Atlanta didn't score a point.

 

[Snowangel]

...and it scares me to know there is an element of our society so horribly lacking in social conscience/sense of compassion/humanity. I'm wondering, is there a connection here to the whole hip-hop/gangsta cultural orbit?

Correct answer: Yes.

Politically correct answer: No.

 

[PatsSteve1]

I was surprised to hear Vick got indicted. I kept hearing he wouldn't. I don't like to convict someone before they have thier trial no matter how it sounds. Remember the Duke lacrosse team. But if he's eventually found guilty, then he should get the appropriate sentence. In the mean time I'n not for him getting suspended. It's like getting sentenced before the trial.

 

[Tunescribe]

In the mean time I'n not for him getting suspended. It's like getting sentenced before the trial.

Read the indictment and THEN tell us what you think. After you've lost your lunch, that is. The more I think about it, there is no way Vick plays this year. Every stadium he enters will be full of people hoisting signs and going crazy, it will be a sideshow of the like we've not seen before. The league won't allow that sort of horrible PR to unfold.

 

[Aqua4Ever04]

Great pic:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/bewareofvick.jpg

Absolutley love it. I saw this pick of him that said coach killer but coach was crossed out and it read dog just above it, can't find it though.

 

[Gwedd]

Yea,

Ya gotta know that Coach Mora is just sitting back with a cold one saying "I told you so..."

Heh...

Respects,

 

[AirForcePatFan]

Remix? Hullo?

You misread my post. I think participants in dogfighting should be fined, but not necessarily sent to jail. The real issue is how to legislate cruelty to animals that we already legally kill for food and clothing. By making mistreatment of animals into any more than a minor offense, you create an imbalance of crime and punishment in the system.

In America, dogs aren't killed for food... In America, dogfighting is illegal and a felony in 48 states to include Virginia and Georgia. I could give a rats ass about being fined, I want him behind bars and away from football, you obviously haven't seen how sick a dog fight is or you wouldn't be talking out of your ass...

 

[shmessy]

Dear FarScapeR:

Yes, in our society, we do kill cows, etc for food.

But do we make a sport of them gouging each other to death?

Do we drown or electrocute them for failing to win a fight?

Your argument is simply bankrupt.