Ben_n_austin;1832037 said:
Now I digress to the issue at hand, and respond to you post:
I'm saying the killing other animals equates to killing other animals, regardless of their species (unless we're talking fish
)... now, there is the issue of food vs. sport. And I do recognize that. I'm also not advocating killing dogs. I really LIKE dogs... not so much cats (but I wouldn't kill one personally--don't worry).
So all killing of animals is created equal, except for fish, and killing for food... so I guess when you boil it all down, all killing of animals is NOT equal, in your eyes...
And in my eyes, too... killing an animal for FUN is just plain wrong...
So you and I part company practically from the start... but y'know, though I disagree with you, your argument doesn't offend me... what DOES offend me is Fuzzy's argument, that dogs are your property, and you ought to be able to do whatever you want to your property... he even says flatly that as far as he's concerned, dogfighting ought to be legal...
And that's just plain wrong, indeed it's outrageous... it's also a load of crap, the government tells us all the time what we can or can't do with our property... one example of that will suffice-- you can't legally operate your automobile in Virginia unless it has passed an annual safety inspection... that's my property, same as my dog, and the state places limits on what I can do with it... in fact, government does that all the time... a farmer can't grow coca leaves or opium poppy on his farm land, y'know...
I'm talking about the injustice here within the law. I'm not saying that Vick should be punished. I am, however, saying that this society is punishing Vick for something that takes place every day--animals, plural, die for the cause of human consumption and sport!
But they are not TORTURED to death... they are not set to fight each other, and if the loser survives, it is then drowned, hung, electrocuted, or simply thrown to the ground repeatedly until it dies...
It's the wanton BRUTALITY of dogfighting that makes it against societal mores, and thus against the law...
The hunters have the NRA to lobby for them, and can fight back against PETA. I agree. It's the law that you can't kill dogs; and to do so is breaking it--no argument there. My point is that there are no dog fighting groups lobbying for rights to fight dogs,
Because in this society, that practice is held in contempt...
which boils down, equally, to the same thing as far as cause in fact in regards to people killing deer. The result is animals die from people killing them.
It's only equal if they were to wound the deer, then torture it for a while before it dies... an honorable hunter always strives for the clean, quick kill, and if he fails, he gets to the deer just as quickly as he can to put it out of its misery... those who do not do that are held in contempt by honorable hunters...
I'm sorry, I can't accept your premise that deer hunting is morally as offensive as dog fighting is... I mean, I personally hate the thought of killing ANYTHING, to the point where I was upset for a couple-three days when a freakin' cat ran out under the wheels of my car last summer (and like you, I don't care much for cats)...
So I would never hunt anything, I would never shoot at anything that didn't shoot at me first... oh, I might make (and have) make an exception for a copperhead that wanders onto my property, just to make sure my dog doesn't end up tangling with it... but a black snake, a non-venomous snake, I just get my 1-iron out, pick the rascal up and escort him off my property, 'cause snakes give me the willies...
But I don't lump hunters in with dogfighters... bullfighters, yes, I can't begin to justify that... and though the animals don't often die in a rodeo, knowing that they have to hurt them to get them to perform ensures I'll never attend another rodeo (I went to a few with the family when I was a kid, before I realized what they did to them)...
And I HATE the thought of testing freakin' COSMETICS on animals... for medical research, OK, though that still bothers me I can see some good that comes from that...
Basically, not all killing of animals is created equal in my eyes...
If a deer runs off and bleeds for a day or two and then dies, is that humane?
No, it's not... but no honorable hunter would do that... my Dad was as big a hunting fan as ever lived, we used to call him Bwana Bob, the Great White Hunter... he even had kennels beside the house to keep his bird dogs... that was his thing, bird hunting more than deer hunting... and he had nothing but contempt for any hunter that did not follow his code of the hunter, which called for killing the animal cleanly, causing as little suffering as you possibly can...
He also ate everything he killed, or gave it to folks who would...
Personally, do you really care about THAT.. equally as much as you care about dogs? Or is it that dog's have a special special place in your heart because you've been exposed to them and they've made an intimate impression on you?
A little of both, to be quite honest... dogs are very special to me, I've always had one in my house (but only one at a time, unlike my Dad, who sometimes had upwards of a dozen around the house)... but I also loathe those who call themselves hunters who don't care about the clean kill... they're no better than dog fighters...
After all, dogs are "man's best friend". Now that's where I think Vick has a problem. I think a lot of people must not have friends like I do. But I'd take a bullet for a GOOD friend... my dog would be crap out of luck, if you know what I mean.
I don't see this as a "legal" issue. I see it as a "political" issue, thus it's even more important. We throw a first time offender who kills dogs in jail for nearly 2 years of his life, which will almost certainly ruin his career.
But a Ford Motors executive gets OFF THE HOOK with a fine, and is able to KEEP his job, for knowingly stalling a recall on tires that they knew were killing people in Saudi Arabi and China (because they were recalling them there), but allowed them to remain on the streets, here, resulting in 200 lost lives....
That's quite wrong, but again, the fact that other wrongs exist in the world in no way means we should ignore, or condone, THIS wrong...
The big picture is clear. The elite are in charge. But they like to make examples out of people like Mike Vick and Martha Stewart every once in a while to keep the people from figuring out that crime in the "suites" goes unpunished, while crime in the "streets" is seen as a threat to the small number elite in power, so they "get tough on crime" due to "public outcry"
in order to maintain their positions without the threat of being exposed by the "public outcry" themselves, which could result in their loss of power during election.... Not to mention, the government owns the media. Do you not find it odd the attention that the public has given the Mike Vick ordeal in comparison with the war?
Nope, celebrities in trouble draw the public's attention... you're right that it's not right, but that's the way it is... of course, as I've noted already, celebrities sometimes use that celebrity to their advantage in the judicial system; do you think OJ would have skated if he'd been a nobody??
So I won't argue with you that Vick got made an example of because of his celebrity, except to note that he would have received a lesser sentence if he had lived up to the terms set at the time of his guilty plea... if he had been truthful with the investigators, and stayed away from the weed, he would have gotten the same sentence as his non-celebrity co-conspirators did...
But he arrogantly thumbed his nose at the court, and paid a price for his stupidity... that had nothing to do with his being a celebrity, and everything to do with his being a fool...
[quoteIt boils down to inequality and injustice. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be punishment for crime in the streets. There definitely should. But Vick made a mistake. Someone in this post admitted to doing the same thing, at one time. What are the odds that many people have done this, too?[/quote]
Many people?? I seriously doubt it... but anybody who does, and gets caught doing it, deserves to be punished severely...
I'm not arguing from that standpoint. I'm saying that we all do things that are devious and not normal.
'Tis true, but my Dad drummed it into my head from the time I was a little kid that a man's actions have consequences... and if you're not willing to accept the consequences of your actions, you shouldn't do that deed... it was being raised that way that led to me trying to be a law-abiding citizen, not some deep moral superiority on my part; I just believed what my Dad told me... so if you choose to participate in dogfighting, you risk going to jail... and you shouldn't come to me looking for sympathy if that happens...
My opinion, and this is my opinion, but I do think that it is a logical one, is that the notion of "equality" is lost on most people here.
And my opinion is that your notion of equality-- in this specific case-- is misguided... killing dogs for fun is worse than hunting deer for sport because of the wanton cruetly of the former, compared to the latter...
Collectively, we have yet to take a look as to how WE, also, contribute to these cruelties. That would take a certain level of introspection of self(s)
, which is what I think PETA wanted.
Well, it got its wish....
Y'know, you keep blaming this on PETA, and that's kinda silly... they're not the reason that Vick got prosecuted... there are a LOT of people who are not PETA members, and never have been, who are outraged by what Vick did... I personally think that many of the folks at PETA are fanatics, and therefore fools...
Nope, it was society in general that got outraged at what Michael Vick did...
My logic is, something doesn't seem right about the MAGNITUDE in which Mike Vick is being punished and the slap on the wrist in which the Ford executive received for knowingly allowing a faulty product to cause the loss of hundreds of lives in the name of profit.
Does that seem righteous to you, in the sense of "equality"?
No.. absolutely not... but the answer is to punish that corporate fat cat more severely, not to give Michael Vick a lesser sentence...
Mike vick gets 2 years in the pokey for killing does,
Killing dogs is only part of the reason Vick is in jail, there's also the illegal gambling issue... and yes, bookies go to jail when caught...
I know your what your rebuttal is: "It's the law".
But that's really not substantial.
The problem is, you're wrong about the rebuttal... yes, it's the law, and that's why Vick was convicted and jailed... but as I've said repeatedly, just because some crimes are punished too lightly, it doesn't make sense to argue that Vick has been punished too harshly... if you want to make things equal, the solution is more severe punishment for those corporate fat cats...
The issue is social injustice within the law
Actually, that was not the issue at the start of this thread, but since you wanted to make it the issue, and approached me calmly, I decided to indulge you, and make it the issue... I have now fully addressed your arguments, and explained to you where I disagree with them, and why...
It was even interesting doing so...
