"My entire life I grew up with a pet in my house. The last few years were the first that I haven't had one. My daughter is used to it, my son is used to it. It's just different. I feel bad for them and the entire situation, what I did. It could be part of my rehabilitation process showing people I do care about animals sincerely and genuinely... Whatever animal I'd have would live a happy life.... I know that."
१६ डिसेंबर, २०१०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४१ टिप्पण्या:
It's for the CHILDREN!!!
Here's an idea if your kids want a dog and you can't get one because of something you've done in the past: A lesson in responsible behavior and consequences of doing the wrong thing.
You need to add "Yes - Because Whoopi said it's cultural bigotry to vote No"
The Vicks need to buy an acquarium? Then stock it with fish. How about piranhas? Then the Vick household could stand around the tank and drop goldfish in it.
Where's "Hell, no!" on that list?
No matter how remorseful a former pedophile may be, nobody in their right mind will hire one as a day care worker. Same logic applies here.
If he misses dogs, he can volunteer to go clean pens at a local animal shelter where he'll be supervised and video recorded. But no unsupervised dogs for him.
Let him have a dog already. He's done his time. If he again abuses dogs let them again put him in jail.
The only thing worse than a lawyer or a politician is a professional football player.
So...no good, honest, charitable, caring people included in the entire set of professional football players?
Skip the first ?
MadisonMan wrote:
A lesson in responsible behavior and consequences of doing the wrong thing.
Isn't jail time also a lesson in responsible behavior of doing the wrong thing? And dindn't he already serve that time?
Martin Shoemaker wrote:
No matter how remorseful a former pedophile may be, nobody in their right mind will hire one as a day care worker. Same logic applies here.
No actually the same logic shoulndt apply. Dongs aren't the same as human children, as much as we all like dogs.
And pedophiles have a compulsion to continue to have sex with kids. As far as I know there is no compulsion to continue to run dog fighting rings. In Vick's case, if he has a compulsion to gamble, there are plenty of other avenues to explore that wont involve dogs.
"I feel bad for them and the entire situation, what I did."
What you did? How about reviewing for us what exactly you "did."
jr565 said...Dongs aren't the same as human children
No shit.
Dongs aren't the same as human children, as much as we all like dogs.
...paging Dr. Freud...
@jr565, so let's get this straight. He was let out of jail on the condition that he stay away from dogs, he throws a few touchdown passes, so now it's all wink-wink, nudge-nudge about the agreement?
One does get tired of athletes being above the rules and above the law, and even more tired of their enablers. Like you, for instance.
This whole thing is absurd. A dog is chattel. Putting someone in jail because they used their chattel in a way that offends others is a good example of why our gov't costs so stinking much. How much money was spent investigating, convicting and housing him of misusing his own property?
What he did was stupid and shameful. But it should not criminal.
Yes, but make him start with a Chihuahua.
Start him with a cockroach for a few years and let him work his way up.
An attorney's job is to enable his clients, so thanks for the job well done complements. People with knives and forks on their table and who need to cut something are out in force today.
Hmmm . . . President Obama says folks have been treating him like a dog . . . maybe . . . it could be a two-fer.
Superdad said...
How much money was spent investigating, convicting and housing him of misusing his own property?
Property that was a living, breathing animal with a semblance of intelligence and self-awareness. To be used for the sole purposes of fighting for money and then killed when no longer valuable. There has to be some point when you look at mans best friend and allow yourself to soften to the idea that they are not deserving of such treatment. They are the first animal to bond with man and 40k years later they are still with us and I sincerely believe that without them, we wouldn't have civilization as we know it. A romantic view of dogs? Perhaps, but then again, I'm a dog guy.
Dogs are not humans. I'm seeing a lot of "conservatives" who say that the govt should get out of peoples lives and even making people go through a scanner is a violation of liberty, yet apparently have no problem with cops invadidng someone's home to catch them abusing their pets.
This sounds like something PETA would advocate, but since when did conservatives become PETA?
This is not to say that I would ever personally be involved in a dog fighting ring myself.
It's a condition of his probation. Once he is off probation he can get a dog.
Isn't jail time also a lesson in responsible behavior of doing the wrong thing? And dindn't he already serve that time?
Jail time is not the only part of his sentence.
I agree with Martin -- if Vick and his kids want to interact with dogs, volunteer at a dog shelter. They can have their fill of walking, scooping dog shit, and dog slobber there. Where they will be supervised.
Methadras wrote:
Property that was a living, breathing animal with a semblance of intelligence and self-awareness. To be used for the sole purposes of fighting for money and then killed when no longer valuable.
Suppose I have a lobster in a fish tank which I'm keeping for a family dinner I have planned. And on the day of the dinner I boil the lobster. Or say I own a farm and have cattle which I use as a food source (or a chicken). You got a problem with those "murders"?
They all have sentience and I'm simply using them for my gratification.
The Vicks need to buy an acquarium? Then stock it with fish. How about piranhas?
Siamese fighting fish.
bada bum!
cont-
I might even have hundreds of cattle, kill them all and ship off the excess meat that I don't use for food to McDonald's for a profit.
So I'm killing animals and then making money off of their deaths. As Morrisey wrote: "A death for no reason is murder. No,no,no It's Murder. Do you know how animals die?"
The Vicks need to buy an acquarium? Then stock it with fish. How about piranhas?
Siamese fighting fish.
bada bum!
I was wondering, due to his conviction, is Vick prohibited from being with 500 feet of a PetSmart or bark park?
wv: unfunis
I don't know...I thought it was funny.
Methadras wrote:
They are the first animal to bond with man and 40k years later they are still with us and I sincerely believe that without them, we wouldn't have civilization as we know it. A romantic view of dogs? Perhaps, but then again, I'm a dog guy.
And cows provide us with the milk we need,and sheep provide us with wool which we use to warm our bodies. Why kill them and eat them too? If you have no problem with killing those animals then you are a hypocrite. Should we start jailing farmers? Because they've killed off a lot more cows then Vick ever killed dogs.
People get all up in arms about the dolphins caught in the tuna nets, but what about the tunas? Are they not deserving of consideration?
Even if Vick is sincere and he is a changed guy, he best avoid it until the animal rights fanatics have cooled down.
If he has a pet, he will always be at risk of animal rights activists gunning for him by lodging false charges of cruelty - that have to be investigated and are sure to make the media.
At a certain point though, unless we wish to double our taxes to ensure life imprisonment without parole for all crooks or lifetime 2nd class citizenship under probation and living restrictions - we have to allow those who were in past trouble and paid for it to move on with their lives.
And convicted child rapists should be allowed to fraternize with children...you know...as therapy to help them grow (no pun intended).
I understand the first Yes - Ann's innate compassion and belief in her fellow man coming out - and I can see her point, but, sorry, the guy had his shot.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust him with a wife, let alone kids or dogs (or cats or fish or parakeets...)
...It could be part of my rehabilitation process showing people I do care about animals sincerely and genuinely...
He seems to be confusing rehabilitating himself with rehabilitating his image.
So no, no dog for him.
I think Michael Vick needs more time.
I am normally skeptical of "changes" like his, but it seems there's something else going on with him that seems positive.
So -- my opinion is that this is a wait and see thing, and that a family pet (I don't think he had any illusions that those dogs were family pets') in the future is not out of the question.
wv induree
One who endures.
Sixty grit wrote:
The love of death is always lurking beneath the surface of liberalism, whether it is dogs killed by thugs, millions of unborn children aborted for the sake of convenience or millions killed by socialist dictators.
Actually a lot of liberals would have no consideration for an aborted fetus, but would equate the death of an animal to the same level as the death of a human. Dogs are actually higher in their consideration than a human would be.
Dogs are actually higher in their consideration than a human would be.
This fact is not lost on many of us knuckle-draggers.
Meade wrote:
What you did? How about reviewing for us what exactly you "did."
What he did was be callous towards an animal that many view with special consideration. If he was a bullfighter or lived in France and ate a horse, or Thailand and ate his dog, there would be no problems. Meanwhile, the same people up in arms about Vick mistreating his dog probably go to restaurants and eat meat, or go to zoos and look at animals in cages. Even the president of the US gets in on the fun and pardons a turkey. The remainder of turkeys get slaughtered and eaten on thanksgiving. Why is Vick being punished when all you turkey murderers get off scot free?
Sixty Grit wrote:
Vick was not killing the dogs for food
So? Would you have been happier if he used the dogs for a dog fighting ring and then ate them?
Michael Vick should have been chemically castrated for what he did.
"Suppose I have a lobster in a fish tank which I'm keeping for a family dinner I have planned. And on the day of the dinner I boil the lobster. Or say I own a farm and have cattle which I use as a food source (or a chicken). You got a problem with those "murders"?"
No, nor do I have a problem with eating dog. I do have a problem with torturing dogs. And cattle for that matter. Lobsters? I could go either way.
Original Mike wrote:
No, nor do I have a problem with eating dog. I do have a problem with torturing dogs. And cattle for that matter.
Is it torture to let a dog behave like a dog? Dogs seem to have an innate drive to fight other dogs. And is it not torture to slice the throat of a cow? I would think the act of killing an animals would also constitute a torture.
Why is Vick being punished when all you turkey murderers get off scot free?
The most simple answer is that there are laws against what he did and he was prosecuted under them.
You acknowledge the difference between Americans and their dogs vs Thailan citizens and their dogs.
And cows provide us with the milk we need,and sheep provide us with wool which we use to warm our bodies. Why kill them and eat them too? If you have no problem with killing those animals then you are a hypocrite.
Killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves is necessary for survival. Dog fighting isn't necssary for survival so epic fail there.
Sixty Grit wrote:
There are laws that control how food animals are raised and killed and laws against gambling on animals which are forced to fight to the death.
Back in my college days one of my roomates had a big fish tank. And one day he bought two siamese fighting fish and threw them in the tank just to see what would happen. Sure enough, they attacked each other and one died. No one bet on it. But was that torture, or was that simply watching nature take effect? We didn't torture the animals, they fought each other out of some innate drive for fighitng fish to kill one another. Should the state get involved and jail people who buy two siamese fighting fish with the purpose of watching them fight?
My friend had a snake and had to buy mice to feed the snake. And inevitably the mouse would be eaten by the snake. Is that torture? or is that simply providing a food source to an animal and letting the animal eat? To the mouse, I'm sure it's a battle of lfe and death.
Hoosier daddy wrote:
Killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves is necessary for survival.
You could be a vegetarian and not kill any animals.
To the mouse, I'm sure it's a battle of lfe and death.
You can look at any tree line and see the same thing. Hell, you don't have to go any further than your backyard grass.
The point is that we don't have laws against cutting grass due to cruelty. If you're set against having anti-dog fighting legislation, you, as an American citizen, know what to do.
He can get a fish.
That would win the poll.
Scott M wrote:
The most simple answer is that there are laws against what he did and he was prosecuted under them.
You acknowledge the difference between Americans and their dogs vs Thailan citizens and their dogs.
That's fine. And you can acknowledge that there are rules set up for certain animals that aren't for other animals, which might amount to a bias. And which allow people to behave like scolds while they go about and murder the animals they are allowed to murder. Even if you can say the law allows you to murder or kill certain animals, it doesn't make you less of a hypocrite when you eat those animals but then condemn other people for treating animals you like in a bad light. Becuase YOU by killing and eating the animals that are ok to eat, are still killing animals.
I thought the dog fighting thing was about gambling, not a compulsion to hurt dogs.
Left to their own devices to go feral, dogs aren't very nice.
That's not to excuse what Vick did, which was very cruel and thoughtless, but perhaps there should be a check on romanticizing the innate sweetness of dogs.
Freeman wrote:
That's not to excuse what Vick did, which was very cruel and thoughtless, but perhaps there should be a check on romanticizing the innate sweetness of dogs.
exactly! Dogs naturally fight other dogs. So Vick didn't actually torture them, he just set up a situation whereby they would fight one another and torture each other, as it were. If dogs had a problem with fighting one another, then there wouldnt be dog fighting rings.
And if he then euthanized some of these dogs afterwards, they were now hurt. When the ASPCA got to them they ended up euthanizing them anyway.
And lets not forget dog lovers who abandon their dogs, which get picked up by an animal shelter, and if they aren't adopted in time get euthanized. Should we not hold those owners to the same standard we hold Vick?
What if Vick adopted these dogs but said he would use them in a dog fighting ring, but if they were not adopted they would be euthanized. Which is worse?
Wrong, jr. I would only be a hypocrite if I sent one person to jail for using a dog for dog-fighting and held up another person that used a dog for dog-fighting as a pillar of the community.
Anything outside that is no an apt comparison. One animal != another animal despite what PETA says.
God, it's a f'ing dog. We don't sterilize people that abuse children, we don't even prevent the remarriage of people that have killed their spouses, but heaven forbid that a guy that killed some dogs have another one.
No matter how remorseful a former pedophile may be, nobody in their right mind will hire one as a day care worker. Same logic applies here. Not really. He's not asking to run a kennel, i.e. care for other people's dogs. And we don't by and large prevent pedophiles from procreating.
Left to their own devices to go feral, dogs aren't very nice.
Hell Freeman, you can say the same thing about kids. I always said the best book that any parent of a newborn can pick up is Lord of the Flies.
We don't sterilize people that abuse children...
Damn shame too.
"And if he then euthanized some of these dogs afterwards, they were now hurt. When the ASPCA got to them they ended up euthanizing them anyway"
You realize "euthanasia" comes from Greek for "good death." How did Mr. Vick euthanize his dogs?
Putting Freeman and JAL together, I'd agree with that. It was fighting for sport, not a compulsion or addiction to harm pets. This request sounds very different. With time, I don't thinks it's something that couldn't be reconsidered.
According to The Smoking Gun, "Vick twice placed family pets into the ring with pit bulls because he and his cohorts 'thought it was funny to watch the pit bulls...injure or kill the other dogs.'"
Sure, give the guy some more family pets. That's probably fantastic for the kids.
Some of you are missing the point here. He wasn't charged with killing dogs. He was charged with dogfighting, which is against the law. If you want to make the case that dogfighting should be legal and is comparable to eating a steak, go ahead. I'd love to hear that. But, comparing executing underperforming dogs and killing animals for meat is not only moronic, it's completely irrelevant.
Besides, given the choice between being electrically stunned then having my throat slit or being drowned in a five gallon bucket or hung from a nylon cord nailed to a tree, I'm pretty clear on what my choice would be. Not that that's relevant.
Scott M wrote:
You can look at any tree line and see the same thing. Hell, you don't have to go any further than your backyard grass.
The point is that we don't have laws against cutting grass due to cruelty. If you're set against having anti-dog fighting legislation, you, as an American citizen, know what to do.
What if we bought a bunch of mice and threw them all in the cage of a snake and bet on which mouse the snake would eat first?
Would Vick go to jail for that?
When I was a kid I had gerbils as pets but also I had mice. And mice are very dear to me. Almost as much as dogs and cats (the little mice babies are SOOO cute, and you can hold the little mouse in your hand and pet it and they are SOO smart).
"Vick twice placed family pets into the ring with pit bulls because he and his cohorts 'thought it was funny to watch the pit bulls...injure or kill the other dogs.'"
Well, that sounds more like a compulsion to hurt dogs. I withdraw my earlier comment in that case.
I wouldn't let him have a dog.
But then, I wouldn't let convicted pedophiles so much as live. (Consistency according to arguments appearing on this thread.)
If you're set against having anti-dog fighting legislation, you, as an American citizen, know what to do.
Yes, just sit tight. Already on the books. As demonstrated in the case of Michael Vick.
I had two pet gerbils at one time. One night they decided to try and fight to the death. I had to take one of them to the vet.
My mother loves to put out food for birds. There is a hawk that perches on a branch overlooking her feeders. He is not there to eat the seeds.
Animals aren't very nice when left to their own devices.
Hmmm. I should have read more about the details of his crimes before commenting. Lesson learned. (And what a weirdo!)
What if we bought a bunch of mice and threw them all in the cage of a snake and bet on which mouse the snake would eat first?
Would Vick go to jail for that?
Probably not because there are no anti-snake feeding laws involving the use of mice legally available for that specific purpose.
I'm not sure why this is difficult for you.
Scott M wrote:
Anything outside that is no an apt comparison. One animal != another animal despite what PETA says.
Suppose I figured out a way to get pigs to fight one another. Would it be wrong of me to run a pig fighting ring? since they are acceptable animals to kill anyway?
And woulnd't you find someone to be a hypocrite who went out fox hunting one day, and then condemned someone who was involved with a cock fighting ring?
Or someone who ate a chicken, but then got outraged that people would watch the same animals fight to the death? If you're eating the chicken, which requires killing it don't lecture anyone on the morality or immorality of how to treat animals. You kill them.
If you hunt deer and shoot them with rifles, wich may be for your dinner plate but is also for sport then don't get angry when someone else finds an animal they can use for sport and treats them accordingy. And in the case of dog fighting rings versus hunting, I'll not that it's hunters that kill their prey. In dog fighting it's the dogs themselves. All the dog fighting person is doing is putting two animals in the same room together and letting nature take it's course.
So wouldn't we hold the hunter of animals in more contempt than the Michael Vick's of the world, since they are actively huntning and kiling animals, versus letting animals be animals and do what they do naturally?
Suppose I figured out a way to get pigs to fight one another. Would it be wrong of me to run a pig fighting ring? since they are acceptable animals to kill anyway?
Not that I can see, but I'm not aware of any anti pig-fighting laws on the books. I'm sure someone with a horse in the race (pun) visa vi animal cruelty would eventually try to stop you through the courts.
And woulnd't you find someone to be a hypocrite who went out fox hunting one day, and then condemned someone who was involved with a cock fighting ring?
Is fox hunting legal in the locality this happened? Is dog fighting illegal? If fox hunting is legal and dog-fighting illegal, then no. If both were illegal then yes.
Or someone who ate a chicken, but then got outraged that people would watch the same animals fight to the death? If you're eating the chicken, which requires killing it don't lecture anyone on the morality or immorality of how to treat animals. You kill them.
Killing and eating a chicken is a legal activity, however heavily regulated. Chicken-fighting, to my best knowledge is illegal.
If you hunt deer and shoot them with rifles, wich may be for your dinner plate but is also for sport then don't get angry when someone else finds an animal they can use for sport and treats them accordingy.
Deer hunting is legal and regulated regardless of the hunters eventual use of the carcass. Dog-fighting is illegal.
So wouldn't we hold the hunter of animals in more contempt than the Michael Vick's of the world, since they are actively huntning and kiling animals, versus letting animals be animals and do what they do naturally?
See above.
jr you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept that dogfighting is illegal. Pig fighting is not illegal, probably because there isn't organized illicit pigfighting. Dogfighting like cockfighting is illegal because society at large has deemed it so. If you don't like it I suggest you write your legislator.
However you need to find a better argument by analogy than 'You're a hypocrite because you oppose cockfighting because I saw you at KFC yesterday!' Cause one does not equal the other.
Scott M wrote:
Probably not because there are no anti-snake feeding laws involving the use of mice legally available for that specific purpose.
I'm not sure why this is difficult for you.
I'm just showing that you're a hypocrite. In the case of mice you would have no problem if Vick threw the mice to their deaths or stomped on them or if he bet on which woudl live or die. And are simpy falling back on the old it's not against the law trope.
So if Michael Vick gave up dog fighting rings and instead bet on killing mice you would be ok with that? Would you say because there isn't a law on the books that you COULD kill mice (by throwing them into a snake pit) and betting on which one lives and dies? It would be the legality of it that would determine the morality of it right?
But me, as an outsider, why would I hold the Michael Vicks of the world in the lowest contempt, yet withhold judgement of those who abuse mice? I'd think that the fact that it was abuse of animals that would be the reason to hold someone in contempt, but then there are an awful lot of people who abuse animals, but are allowed to under law, so we should view them with nothing but respect.
I guess the key for Michael Vick is to look at the books really closely ,find the animals that aren't protected under law, and then set up rings where he can bet on their survival right? and noone would have a problem with that.
Hoosier daddy wrote:
jr you seem to have some difficulty grasping the concept that dogfighting is illegal. Pig fighting is not illegal, probably because there isn't organized illicit pigfighting. Dogfighting like cockfighting is illegal because society at large has deemed it so. If you don't like it I suggest you write your legislator.
So if Michael Vick instead had a pig fighting ring, and abused pigs the same way he abused dogs, beause there wasn't a law against it you would have no moral objections to it right?
Steeeeretch!
So if Michael Vick instead had a pig fighting ring, and abused pigs the same way he abused dogs, beause there wasn't a law against it you would have no moral objections to it right?
You can check Georgia statutes, but I'm betting those are two different charges.
I guess the key for Michael Vick is to look at the books really closely ,find the animals that aren't protected under law, and then set up rings where he can bet on their survival right? and noone would have a problem with that.
I'm willing to bet that quite a few people would have a problem with that and would eventually (as history seems to point to) find leverage enough to get laws passed against that activity.
. And are simpy falling back on the old it's not against the law trope.
Given that you're trying to call me a hypocrite while all I'm doing is pointing out what's legal and illegal, currently, I'd have to say you're arguing against yourself at this point.
Let me see if I can make your head 'splode, just for giggles.
I love my dog. He's a member of the family for all his pluses and minuses. If there were packs of feral dogs out in the wilderness and it was legal to hunt them, like deer, I would have zero problems with doing so. I'm not sure what the laws would have to say about killing feral vs domestic dogs, but I'm sure someone's lawsuit would settle it.
Hoosier - "Killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves is necessary for survival. Dog fighting isn't necssary for survival so epic fail there."
Animals have many uses other than as food or "useful parts".
Even more in the days before internal combustion engines and home security systems.
As PETA never fails to remind us, no animal killing is necessary in modern times or even in most ancient cultures - for survival.
Look on our animal interactions only as "enhancing" our lives, from hamburgers to horse races to whale-watching.
Dog fighting, equestrian events, rodeos, cockfighting, having cats, farming turkeys,animal acts in circuses, cockfighting..none is really "necessary".
But all are engaging to certain segments of the population.
"I'm not sure why this is difficult for you."
It seems to be Jr's mission in life to make everything difficult.
Scott M wrote:
Deer hunting is legal and regulated regardless of the hunters eventual use of the carcass. Dog-fighting is illegal.
So you don't have a problem with cruelty to animals per se. You just want to fall back on the old it's not against the law. And if Michael Vick had his dog fighting ring established before there was an ordinance saying such activities were illegal, you would similarly have no moral objection to it right?? So it's not the cruelty to animals that bothers you it's the non adherence to the law. But if there were no law, then abuse away. Right?
Everything that is illegal was legal at one time. So during that time I guess noone outraged at Michael Vick would be outraged at Michael Vick. And similarly, something that is legal now could later be made illegal. Would those eating turkey now suddenly be monsters were it dtermined that eating turkey is something that shouldn't be done (because killing turkeys is cruel and unusual and because turkeys are beatuful animals)
He threw the dogs to the ground to kill them. He stomped on them to kill them. He electrocuted them. Those were the ones that weren't willing to fight to the death or were deemed unworthy of the fighting ring.
I'm scarcely comfortable with the notion of someone with rage and impulse management issues as manifestly profound as these even being allowed unrestricted access to children, much less defenseless animals... so the scumbag can comfort himself with the thought that he's already coming out ahead on the deal, so far as that goes.
I don't personally abuse animals, jr565, so I'm obviously outside the realm of your example. Vik was prosecuted under the weight of existing statutes and paid the price for it.
I find what he did to the dogs he owned extremely distasteful, but that's more because of his complete breech of trust in regards to the dogs that looked to him for their care. Of course, that's pure projection on my part, because I don't see dogs as livestock.
I might even have hundreds of cattle, kill them all and ship off the excess meat that I don't use for food to McDonald's for a profit
Raising animals for meat and human consumption is legal and has been an accepted pratice in society. Torturing and mutilating the animals for fun and kicks before killing them is illegal in most places. It is also a moral issue of which perhaps you lack.
Torturing and abusing animals is not an accepted practice in our society. In other societies, it is tolerated. Unfortunately for Vick we wasn't torturing and mutilating his dogs in those cultures.
Gambling, torturing your dogs and mutilating them is illegal.
Vick was busted for breaking the law.
Then there is the moral repugnance that 'normal' people feel about his activities. This part isn't necessarily punished by legal means.....shunning and avoidance by 'normal' society is the usual means.
My friend's parents had a pet pig, named "Piggy". We used to go to her pen, and dare each other to see who could grab and hang onto the top of her neck the longest. Never hurt her by any means, but that pig would erupt into the most hellacious shrieking squeal imaginable. I think the longest might have been 2 seconds. Good times.
What's up with this jr character? I was trying to remember what subject he went off on before. It was just like now. jr, do you realize that you're not making a lot of sense? What if this? What if that? Just like last time.
My friend's parents had a pet pig, named "Piggy". We used to go to her pen, and dare each other to see who could grab and hang onto the top of her neck the longest. Never hurt her by any means, but that pig would erupt into the most hellacious shrieking squeal imaginable. I think the longest might have been 2 seconds. Good times.
Garage...I have to admit...that explains a whole helluva lot :)
So if Michael Vick instead had a pig fighting ring, and abused pigs the same way he abused dogs, beause there wasn't a law against it you would have no moral objections to it right?
Actually I would. I personally am not big on killing animals for the sake of killing them. Sorry but I don't see the thrill in watching two animals maul each other to death and wonder about the psychological make up of people who do.
Hunting or killing animals to put food on the table isn't even remotely close to throwing them in a pen for the purpose of mauling each other in order to gratify some sick sense or to make a few bucks.
Garage...I have to admit...that explains a whole helluva lot :)
Insert Deliverance reference here__________
Now everytime I see a garage post I'm going hear Dueling Banjos.
Great.
Then again it will be a change from seeing a garage post and hearing the anthem to The International.
And if he then euthanized some of these dogs afterwards, they were now hurt
Does it hurt to have your head stuff so far up your ass?
Euthanized. Nice word for hanging them up and beating dogs to death. Drowning, stomping, electrocuting and laughing about it.
Not quite the same thing as taking Fluffy to the Vet for a goodnight shot is it.
jr565 said...
Dogs are not humans. I'm seeing a lot of "conservatives" who say that the govt should get out of peoples lives and even making people go through a scanner is a violation of liberty, yet apparently have no problem with cops invadidng someone's home to catch them abusing their pets.
This sounds like something PETA would advocate, but since when did conservatives become PETA?
This is not to say that I would ever personally be involved in a dog fighting ring myself.
Do you enjoy being a dumbfuck? You must because you exhibit the logic of a 2 year old. Look moron, dogs are not human, but they are living, breathing, intelligent animals that are protected and should be protected. Not because government says so, but because, I as a conservative, it is the duty to protect that which cannot protect itself. We protect our children, we protect our property. You can't use a broad brush to paint conservatives as anti-government intrusion and then try to strawman us into saying that we should allow law enforcement to enforce such laws while you inarticulately try to paint an comparative to airport scanners.
You are a fucking idiot. Shut up.
Insert Deliverance
Never, EVER use those two words in the same sentence together.
scottm wrote:
don't personally abuse animals, jr565, so I'm obviously outside the realm of your example. Vik was prosecuted under the weight of existing statutes and paid the price for it.
I dont abuse animals either, and wouldn't put my dogs (if I owned them) into dog fighting rings.
Yet, putting dogs into dog fighting rings is but one of the cruelties that humans force animals to undergo, and in each case the animals are defenseless.
Kent writes:
I'm scarcely comfortable with the notion of someone with rage and impulse management issues as manifestly profound as these even being allowed unrestricted access to children, much less defenseless animals...
Again, since all animals are defenseless and we stil kill them or put them in cages or make them perform at circuses, should we hold anyone who mistreats defenseless animals to the standard that kent wants (ie they shoulnd't be allowed near kids let alone defenseless animals). What makes dogs so special?
So people can decapitate their chickens and turkeys and cut the throats of their cows then turn around and say that Michael Vick needs to go to jail because of how he treats dogs. I don't care what the law says, I'm simply talking about consistency of action. The same exact argument could be made of cows or pigs that could be made for dogs. They are smart animals. They are defenseless when killed. they've served us well.
It reminds me of the joke about the special pig who resuces the family from a fire and then runs to the sheriff when there is a robber at the house. The following year a guest notices that the pig is missing one leg and asks what happened. The farmer replies "A special pig like that you don't eat all at once."
I guess pigs just aren't as cute as dogs. So when we kill them, they feel no pain.
Methadras wrote:
, I as a conservative, it is the duty to protect that which cannot protect itself. We protect our children, we protect our property.
Are cows and pigs not property? Can they protect themselves from the slaughterhouse? Woulnd't your logic therefore dictate that we shouldn't slaughter pigs or cows?
What makes dogs so special?
I have no idea if this will have any impact on you at all, but as you admitted you don't have a dog, then it's likely it's impossible for you to understand.
Dogs have been sitting with humans, staring out into the darkness with us, since we learned how to build fires. No other animal can make that claim.
"I'm just showing that you're a hypocrite."
That's what you think you're doing, but nobody is buying your argument.
Allen, Jr. when on and on over airport scanners.
I'm scarcely comfortable with the notion of someone with rage and impulse management issues as manifestly profound as these even being allowed unrestricted access to children, much less defenseless animals...
What makes dogs so special?
I'm having some difficulty finding the spot in my statement, above (specifically cited by you) where I argued that dogs were somehow "special" insofar as observing and diagnosing rage/impulse control issues in others might be concerned. Point to it, please.
Scott M wrote:
I find what he did to the dogs he owned extremely distasteful, but that's more because of his complete breech of trust in regards to the dogs that looked to him for their care. Of course, that's pure projection on my part, because I don't see dogs as livestock.
Do you thin that cows and pigs expect to be slaughtered at the end of the day? Isn't it similarly a breach of trust to kill them? They're simply grazing on grass and the next thing they know they're getting killed. Is that not an abuse of hteir trust and are they not lookng to their handlers for care? They ceritnaly aren't looking to get their throast slit that day.
Hey if OJ can get married again?
original mike wrote:
"That's what you think you're doing, but nobody is buying your argument."
Hypocrites often don't notice their own hypocricy.
I've stated already, jr565, that I put dogs in a different plane than other animals. The only hypocrisy would be, as I've also already said, treating two people that treated dogs different (poorly vs well) the same.
Outside of that, I'm not sure what hypocrisy charge you can logically level at me. I put dogs in a special place, so my stance on that subject does not extend to other animals. Or insects. Or fish.
Many here are missing the point. The difference is not between animals such as dogs and cattle. The difference is between professional athletes and the rest of the human race. I doubt very much if any here could survive even the first quarter of an NFL game, and yet these same people have the nerve to pass moral judgement on Michael Vicks. Michael Vicks is a successful quarterback. Does that mean nothing to you?....These nanny rules against dog fighting, rape, drunken driving, and murdering your ex wife's lover clearly are not applicable professional athletes. "One rule for the lion and the lamb is oppression." Commenters here should just absorb the fact that professional athletes make our lives meaningful and deserve a little extra latitude.
So people can decapitate their chickens and turkeys and cut the throats of their cows then turn around and say that Michael Vick needs to go to jail because of how he treats dogs
Are you just being deliberately this obtuse or are you truly this stupid?
Slaughtering your animals that were raised for food by cutting the throats of the chicken is NOT the same thing as torturing the animal by plucking it alive or breaking all of its bones before killing it.
Hunters and farmers have respect for life and generally (with the exception of mass produced factory farm types) treat their livestock in humane ways or in the case of hunters, make the kill as quickly as possible.
People who raise animals for food or who hunt generally feel regret at the death. However, the death is a necessary part of living, eating.
Torturing animals for fun is not normal or necessary. Hence the illegality in our culture.
There is no comparison between dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting and farming.
Vick has paid his debt to society, but not to dogs.
Plus he owes so much money to so many people that he can't afford a dog.
Scott M wrote:
I have no idea if this will have any impact on you at all, but as you admitted you don't have a dog, then it's likely it's impossible for you to understand.
I don't have a dog now, but I've had a dog in the past. And I woudn't ever make my dog fight in a dog fighting ring.
Right now I have a cat, and similarly woudn't want to subject my cat to any harm.
If I had a farm and owned a cow, I dont think I would kill my cows. Id simply milk them and let them live. paul mccartney does that. He has a farm and refuses to kill them. He simply doesn't eat meat. Now, for all the other farmers that DO have cows and do in fact slaughter them, shouldn't we hold them to the same standard that we are holding Vick? They don't have to kill their livestock, but they do. and they do so in gruesome ways, those beautiful innocent creatures who are helpless. Simply for money and profit. How heartless.
Having people who eat meat turning around and condeming Vick for abusing animals is like an alcoholic lecturing a heroin addict about addiction issues. Just because booze is legal and heroin isn't doesn't mean that the alcoholic isn't still an addict.
Torturing animals for fun is not normal or necessary. Hence the illegality in our culture.
The FBI has long recognized such freakishly sadistic behavior as being reliably indicative of the probable tendency or desire to engage in other, grislier offenses, as well.
Yeah, that was it, Mike. This thread is over for me. I'm outta here.
Having people who eat meat turning around and condeming Vick for abusing animals is like an alcoholic lecturing a heroin addict about addiction issues.
If the beef rancher in question kills his cattle like Vik did his dogs, I guess you'd have a point. Outside that, you're wrong. Just realize it and get on with your life.
WV (I shit you not) - "demboy"
Kent wrote:
Torturing animals for fun is not normal or necessary. Hence the illegality in our culture.
How do we know that those slicing the throats of cows aren't getting gratification by it? If a cow killer finds what he's doing fun what then? What if as he's slicing the throats of cows he gets a boner?
I'd miagine a serial killer could similarly ply his trade killing animals in the neighborhood or working at a slaughter house.
Kent wrote:
Torturing animals for fun is not normal or necessary. Hence the illegality in our culture.
No, he did not. (Although he certainly does not materially disagree with said statement.)
You seem to be having a spirited bit of back-and-forth with the imaginary "Kent" residing within your head. Best of luck with that.
ScottM wrote:
If the beef rancher in question kills his cattle like Vik did his dogs, I guess you'd have a point. Outside that, you're wrong. Just realize it and get on with your life.
Have you ever watched those PETA propaganda films where they go inside the slaughterhouses to show what really happens there? It isn't pretty. Maybe you are ok with it because you want meat on your table, but a sliced throat is still a sliced throat. I'm sure the cow isn't elated to have all his blood drained out of him because his head is almost cut off. One could make an argument that how a rancher kills his cows is in fact as bad or worse than how Vick treats his dogs.Did Vick kill hs dogs by slicing their necks or wringing their necks. Which one is more humane and how are we determining that?
ScottM wrote:
I've stated already, jr565, that I put dogs in a different plane than other animals. The only hypocrisy would be, as I've also already said, treating two people that treated dogs different (poorly vs well) the same.
So you put dogs higher than other animals and hence have less problems with fighting rings of animals that aren't dogs. Yet what about someone who puts a cow on as high a level as a dog, or even higher. Then if you consistently eat hamburger aren't you as much of a moral monster as Michael Vick to that person?
The only way I want Vick associating with any dog is to be on the wrong end of something like this.
He served his time. I think it will help to get a pet that he can love and will show how evil his acts against animals were.
Here's a link to PETA. Watch the video "Meet Your Meet" where you get to see how cows, chicken and pigs are treated by the meat industry. And then show me how it's all that different than how Vick treated his dogs.
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/default.aspx
and here's their commentary on ..Cruelty to Animals
"Farmed animals are every bit as intelligent and capable of feeling pain as the dogs and cats we cherish as our companions. They are inquisitive, interesting individuals who value their lives, solve problems, experience fear and pain, and are capable of using tools.
Yet the more than 16 billion animals who are killed for food every year in the U.S. have little legal protection from cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on companion dogs or cats. They are neglected, mutilated, genetically manipulated, put on drug regimens that cause chronic pain and crippling, transported through all weather extremes, and killed in gruesome and violent ways.
Even so-called "free-range" animals are often mutilated without the benefit of painkillers; kept in filthy, disease-ridden sheds; forced to endure long trips to the slaughterhouse without food or water; and killed in the same ways as animals from factory farms. Going vegan is the best way to stop these atrocities."
Are they in fact wrong? I know most people have a negative opinion of PETA, but seriously, the people talking about cruelty to dogs sound an awful lot like PETA. It's nice that you have empathy for the poor dogs. But why no empathy for the poor cows? You don't HAVE to eat meat yet do so anyway, despite knowing what cows endure.
Sorry. My even paying any attention at all to PETA ended with my question to their official website about cruelty to unborn humans. Their answer, which I believe is still on their official site, was that since the pro-choice movement didn't have any official statements about PETA, they didn't have any official statements about abortion rights. Fail.
Methdras wrote ...about when "a living, breathing animal with a semblance of intelligence and self awareness, is used for the sole purposes of fighting for money and then killed when no longer valuable" and my heart went out again to the Marines and Airborne guys in Afghanistan this winter fighting to make Obama look tough until he abandons Afghanistan next July.
So based on what's laid out by PETA and how farm animals are treated I guess the stance of those saying dogs should be treated special, but that cows should be tortured is "Yes, we are for cruelty to animals, but only when they are singled out by law that we can be cruel to them. For those animals we can be as cruel as Michael Vick, but if anyone dares touch a dog they are evil incarnate". And I guess Vick's crime was he dind't get the memo that he coudlnt' treat his dogs like he could treat his cows.
Why has it taken you so long to finally get it?
Scott M wrote:
Sorry. My even paying any attention at all to PETA ended with my question to their official website about cruelty to unborn humans. Their answer, which I believe is still on their official site, was that since the pro-choice movement didn't have any official statements about PETA, they didn't have any official statements about abortion rights. Fail.
I dind't post PETA's site because Im a member of PETA. But they do have a point about how farm animals are treated. If you watch the video, that is how farm animals are treated. Many people are ok with such treatment becuase cows are our food supply. But it doesn't change the fact that were the exactt same things done to a dog that we routinely do to a cow that people doing such things would go to jail. So it's not a question of people having a problem with mistreatement of animals, only certain animals. Michael Vick simply treated his dog that way a farmer would treat his cow.
ScottM wrote:
Why has it taken you so long to finally get it?
Well why can't we hold you to the same standard for treating cows the way farmers do, that we hold Vick for treating his dog the way he did. You have no problem abusing animals either.
In regards to the legality of things, take PETA's statement: "gOing vegan is the best way to stop these atrocities."
What if PETA and PETA sympathizers get enough sway to pass a law that under a cruelty to animals statute it is immoral to slaughter, or commit atrociites on cows. And make it illegal to eat meat.
What are the people who eat meat now going to say? Should we jail them for committing atrocities against cows and chickens? Or are people who now support killing cows for food going to say get out of our business and let us eat what we want, even though it means to get that food on the plate you have to commit atrocities on cows.
jr565
Isn't jail time also a lesson in responsible behavior of doing the wrong thing?
The left's long held position is that incarceration isn't a deterrent, so the answer would be no.
Vick's not sorry about the dogs, like all criminals, he's sorry he got caught.
jr565
What if PETA and PETA sympathizers get enough sway to pass a law that under a cruelty to animals statute it is immoral to slaughter, or commit atrociites on cows. And make it illegal to eat meat.
It's already illegal to commit atrocities on cows, or any animal and slaughterhouses are regulated and inspected by the FDA as well as state and county officials. So if animals are being maltreated in slaughterhouse and feedlots then there are legal remedies in place.
Perhaps if the FDA wasn't so busy setting up drug death panels they could perform better oversight on the meat industry.
btw-most farmers/ranchers don't mistreat their animals. The buyers look very carefully at the condition of the animals before they are weighed, tagged and loaded onto transportation at the ranch or farm. A similar inspection and weighing takes place when the animals are unloaded and the price docked accordingly. So it doesn't pay for the farmer to weaken an animal. Perhaps if you had a clue about farming you could actually speak intelligently on livestock?
PETA focuses a great deal on infirm animals that are sent to the slaughterhouse for euthanasia. They become pet food and by-products, not human food and, yes, it is heartrending.
What do you think happens to the tens of thousands of dairy cows once they can no longer be bred?
If rights are not given to companion animals, they will not be given to farm animals. I think jr565 would make more sales on his vegan pitch at a dog show than at a dog fight.....I would support measures that ensure the merciful slaughter of animals. Awareness of the intelligence and sensitivity of animals increases with owning a dog. I would guess that dog fights, cock fights, etc. brutalizes not just the animal but his owner and the spectators of such a sport. A good steak, however, increases my well being and kindness.....The evolutionary advantage of a chicken consists precisely in tasting good. If the chicken tasted like the dodo bird, he would have long since become extinct.
I read Vick's statements and I just think he has a screw loose. I don't think we've seen the last of Mr. Vick's problems.
jr565 said...
Are cows and pigs not property? Can they protect themselves from the slaughterhouse? Woulnd't your logic therefore dictate that we shouldn't slaughter pigs or cows?
No, you fucking simpleton. Cows and pigs are relegated as livestock to used as stock for human consumption. Each animal has it's own classification, it's own catergory, and they are not of the same species. Jesus, how fucking dense are you. All animals, like people are not equal. We treat them all differently, under different circumstances. Some people have pigs as pets. Some people have cows as pets too and never slaughter them for their meat. But nowhere are we to treat our animals poorly or abusively, to deliberately hurt them for the sheer pleasure of it. Do you understand the meaning of context and distinctions you stupid motherfucker?
jr565 said...
How do we know that those slicing the throats of cows aren't getting gratification by it? If a cow killer finds what he's doing fun what then? What if as he's slicing the throats of cows he gets a boner?
I'd miagine a serial killer could similarly ply his trade killing animals in the neighborhood or working at a slaughter house.
So that's your criteria now, that a slaughterhouse worker is really nothing more than a quiet serial killer who gets silent gratification from slicing the necks of cows in the fastest most humane way to slaughter such an animal for food. Have you ever been to a slaughter house? Ever slaughter an animal for food? I have and while I didn't enjoy the act because it is not in me to hurt animals, I understood the nature of such an act and understood the role that this animal provides to sustain me and my family and multitudes of others.
You reveal how truly fucking stupid you are in these postings. Your feeble attempt at trying to guilt and shame people for their choices in eating meet is only worthy of the derision you deserve here. You've shown that you are nothing more than a simpleton propagandist who neither understands what your talking about nor has the slightest clue about the larger scope and distinctions amongst the roles that different animals play in not only their survival and successes, but for ours as well.
You are a stupid dipshit on the level of AlphaLiar and you are no longer worthy of me expending another iota of thought towards you or the sheer stupidity that are your posts.
wv = jr565 is a dumbfuck.
BJM wrote:
It's already illegal to commit atrocities on cows, or any animal and slaughterhouses are regulated and inspected by the FDA as well as state and county officials. So if animals are being maltreated in slaughterhouse and feedlots then there are legal remedies in place.
even if there are regulations in place the point PETA is making is that animals are stil being mistreated, despite the regulations. If you applied those same regulations to a dog and then treated the dog the way you treated livestock you would be put in jail.
Methadras wrote:
So that's your criteria now, that a slaughterhouse worker is really nothing more than a quiet serial killer who gets silent gratification from slicing the necks of cows in the fastest most humane way to slaughter such an animal for food. Have you ever been to a slaughter house? Ever slaughter an animal for food?
Well you certainly were wililng to sugest that all TSA workers were out to molest your kids.So why not make a blanket statement about all slaughter house workers? I figure you'd appreciate blanket statements.
But regardless the point I made was in reference to someone else saying that serial killers kill small animals (which was a dig at Vick's killing of dogs as if he were on the path of becoming a serial killer). I was merely suggesting that serial killers could also hone their craft by becoming slaughter house workers, as killing animals would be sanctioned and they could also get into the habit of slicing things with knives and not have to worry about society coming down on them for killing animals. They aren't animals they are livestock. Not suggesting that sluaghterhouse workers are in fact all serial killers.
Methadras wrote:
Cows and pigs are relegated as livestock to used as stock for human consumption. Each animal has it's own classification, it's own catergory, and they are not of the same species. Jesus, how fucking dense are you. All animals, like people are not equal. We treat them all differently, under different circumstances. Some people have pigs as pets. Some people have cows as pets too and never slaughter them for their meat. But nowhere are we to treat our animals poorly or abusively, to deliberately hurt them for the sheer pleasure of it. Do you understand the meaning of context and distinctions you stupid motherfucker?
You are treating animals poorly when you slaughter them dipshit. Yes it's for a noble purpose but you're still slaughtering them. And you get around the problem by simply calling the animals you feel it's ok to slaughter livestock. So therefore you're not mistreating them when you slice their necks open. That's simply their role.
Ever slaughter an animal for food? I have and while I didn't enjoy the act because it is not in me to hurt animals, I understood the nature of such an act and understood the role that this animal provides to sustain me and my family and multitudes of others Here you're acknowleding the fact that you do feel bad for slaughtering animals. So I would suggest that it is in you to slaughter animals if you think there's a noble purpose behind it. The fact that you and your family want to eat means that you will designate the animals you want to slaughter to the role of livestock and thus you can kill them in rather gruesome ways. Would you ever treat a dog the way you treat a cow? They're both animals? The difference is not that one is an animal and one is not, the difference is that you think you can slaughter one and not the other. You're placing added value on one and lesser value on the other.
The only difference between you and Vick is that he isn't placing the added value on dogs. He thinks they are simiarly lower animals and property for him to do as he wishes, just as he can do with a cow as he wishes. I think he's wrong to treat a dog that way, but his attitude isn't all that different than how you treat cows.
And you damn Vick for being so heartless for treating dogs/animals so poorly. Similarly PETA would damn you for treating cows/animals so poorly. So why shouldn't you be damned for your mistreatment of cows or pigs? You dont' have to eat meat. You choose to. And your selfishness designates that you can choose the animlas to make pets and ones who you can classify as livestock. They're still animals though. If someone who ate dog culturally decided to eat a dog and you got on him for being a heartless bastard for eating a dog, and he retorted "but you eat cow what's the difference? meat is meat" what would you say? Because a dog is an animal as is a cow.
As for me, I'm not arguing this as a PETA member. I eat meat. And I wouldn't use a dog in a dogfighting rign. BUT, I'm simply pointing out that we as meat eaters do not have clean hands. There's an awful lot of slaughtering of animals in gruesome ways, and livestock and cows are mistreated all along the process, before being killed. A whole lot more animals die (and whether you want to call them livestock they are still animals that have to be slaughtered) becuase of our need to eat meat (when we could go Vegan as PETA suggests)than because Vick beat and killed his dogs. So, lets not get holier than thou about how Vick mistreats his animals. So do we. If PETA applied your standard for Vicks crimes to us, we are by far the bigger mistreater of animals. And the only difference between you and PETA is that you are elevating one animal to a protective status. they are elevating the animal you like to a protective status but also the cows you feel it's ok to slaughter.
Methadras wrote:
No, you fucking simpleton. Cows and pigs are relegated as livestock to used as stock for human consumption. Each animal has it's own classification, it's own catergory, and they are not of the same species.
Who's making the classification? The people who want to eat cows and pigs. Cows and pigs are mammals just like dogs. how is Vick saying dogs are to be used for his edification any different than you saying animal x y and z are to be classified as livestock and can therefore be used for your edification?
Why is Vick the bad guy and why are you not similarly the bad guy?
Hey why doesn't he keep Cliff Lee as a pet?
You can't get a bigger dog and he is already living in Philly.
I'm just glad that Hitler was a non-smoking veganist. It really mellowed him out. You are what you eat.
If Vick wants his kids to experience the joy of owning a dog, why not let someone else raise them?
Methadras wrote:
But nowhere are we to treat our animals poorly or abusively, to deliberately hurt them for the sheer pleasure of it.
IF you are killing your property you are treating it poorly and are in fact deliberatly hurting them. Just beause you label a cow livestock doesn't negate the fact that you are kiling it. Killing a cow is the same as killing a dog. If someone sliced a dogs throat with a knife you'd probably advocate castratingt hat person (as you would if that person dated a 21 year old and was in his 40's or 50s.).
While we may think that we are justified in klling cows and pigs because they are livestock and not deserving of any real consideration (unlike dogs say) it's hilarious that you don't even think slaughtering cows is not abusive or isn't deliberately harming them. You're klling htem, they're dead. They die violently they are your property. They are living creatures. Using your own logic you are as bad as Vick.
Hey why doesn't he keep Cliff Lee as a pet?
You can't get a bigger dog and he is already living in Philly.
Trooper, as a Rangers fan, my only consolation regarding Lee going back to Philly was that your Yankees didn't get him. I'm sure the converse is true for you.
wv: house (the first time I've gotten an actual word for this, I think!)
I think that Morrissey said it best: Meat is Murder.
Or maybe it was KRS-One:
Let us begin now with the cow
The way it gets to your plate and how
The cow doesn't grow fast enough for man
So through his greed he makes a faster plan
He has drugs to make the cow grow quicker
Through the stress the cow gets sicker
Twenty-one different drugs are pumped
Into the cow in one big lump
So just before it dies, it cries
In the slaughterhouse full of germs and flies
Off with the head, they pack it, drain it, and cart it
And there it is, in your local supermarket
Red and bloody, a corpse, neatly packed
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा