Wow, in one series of posts, we have seen nearly the whole spectrum of specious arguments that are the hallmark of modern "progressive" thought:
Moral relativism:
FarScapeR said:
You can't legislate morals because we all have different sets of them.
(What else are laws, but the codified rules of society as to what is moral or not ? Seems obvious, but the concept of morality is antithetical to "progressive" ideals)
Moral equivalence:
FarScapeR said:
he 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.
(something remotely superficially similar is OK, so the ****ed up thing in question is OK)
The System: It's not his/my fault, its the "system"
Why are people trying to argue using the very same laws whose gross ineptitude I'm trying to point out. .... If the legal system was actually capable of handling this issue, it would be a crime to own a teacup chihuahua.
(after all, the "system" is wrong by default", proof by inspection)
Denigrate: And when all fails, just make fun of the opposing position:
I still think this whole thing is ridiculous.
It's too bad Vick isn't from Colombian or Argentina, or he could use this powerful defense:
Multiculturalism: All other cultures values are just as valid and worthy of respect (or adoption, as it is usually used) as the ones here in this country.
(Dogfighting is OK somewhere in the world, so obviously punishing someone here is unjust)
Oh, and as an aside, my favorite part was where the reporter conatced the hick local DA, Poindexter, who was "unaware" of the indictments and didn't know where that left his "investigation".
R
