hboy: Let's try to set some of you straight. I doubt it's very successful judging by the strong opinions in the thread. But I think somewhere in one of these 18 threads on dogfighting, we got off track.
waaay to complicated to explain, but that as a blanket statement is completely wrong. I'll explain further a little later on.
Law 1 there is a misdemeanor (Class C typically in Texas). Not unusual to break that law, but if you are egregiously doing so, expect to get caught and be punished.
Law 2 is small potatoes. Tax evasion, while a serious offense, will typically only get you in trouble if you make a lot of money or are again egregious in breaking the law.
Law 3 is barely enforced. Doesn't make it any less illegal. But you wouldn't be the one breaking the law. The illegal immigrant and the employer would.
Law 4 is not illegal in and of itself. And it wouldn't be illegal for you to know of sodomy and not report it.
There's an "economic benefit" to selling drugs and prostitution, yet they are illegal.
And there are lots of things that are legal in other countries, and accepted practices that are illegal here. They used to kill most baby girls in China, that doesn't mean we should have been doing so here.
Would never happen, because Americans are too attached to dogs to eat them or wear their fur. However you feel about that, thems the facts. That industry would fold.
But since you asked, if dogs were not domesticated pets and they were useful in that way, then yes, it probably would be acceptable in society.
because you're looking at it backwards. Generally, laws are in place BECAUSE the practice is morally unacceptable in society. If you tweak you're thinking just ever so slightly in taht direction, you should see the light.
Acceptable to break the law?? Slight overgeneralization there. It's not "acceptable" to break all laws. Some laws are enforced more fervently than others, but it's rarely "acceptable" to break a law. I may break a law every day, and think nothing of it. However if I get stopped for doing so, and I know I did it, I expect to be punished.
Americans have no little to no emotional attachments to cows, goats, chickens, minks (or other animals killed for furs), lab rats, wild animals housed in zoos, etc. The fact that dogs and cats are domesticated, and are protected by certain laws, is only further evidence that laws are created by morals. That's how a democratic society works. If enough voters think some action is morally reprehensible, there will likely be a law passed outlawing it.
Ever wonder why most of the Ten Commandments parallel laws in American Society?
You're right. that's why you can get multiple years to life in prison to death for committing those crimes. Obviously all laws aren't equal. Some are more reprehensible, and thus the perpetrators are punished more stringently.
If Vick is bragging about being at a dog fight, that is not hearsay. Generally if evidence is offered about what a defendant said, that falls into an exception under the hearsay rule. You can almost always get in admissions by a party against their own interest.
Like I said, you have it backwards. Legality is not the basis for morality. generally morality is the basis for legality. So in that vein, Americans in general base their morality on what is and what is not illegal. That is generally the starting point at least.
And illegal and sentimental is all you need. Actually illegal is all you need. Generally if a law is reviled in society enough, lawmakers will catch up and repeal it. If it's not illegal, yet the majority of society feels it should be, for sentimental or other reasons, lawmakers will catch up and make it so.
One of the questions that is often asked in a Jury Panel Voir Dire (Jury selection phase) is whether the Juror will put his personal feelings on an issue aside and uphold the law. One common example is marijuana. You may feel it's perfectly acceptable to smoke marijuana, you may do it once a day and get away with it. However, it is illegal. And when you are on a jury, if the state proves their case, you have to swear to uphold the law, no matter what you may think personally.
Fuzzy, you may personally think that dog fighting should be legal. I don't think you do, but you are arguing as if you do. Devil's advocate, I guess, I don't know. But if you were on a jury panel in the Vick case and evidence is brought that proves he was there beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be under oath to uphold the law.
I haven't formed an opinion one way or another, but it doesn't look good for Vick. In the court of Public Opinion, it is often guilty until proven innocent, but in a court of law it is innocent until proven guilty. If we were on a jury, i would also expect everyone in here to uphold the oath they would take to not determine Vick's guilt until they heard all the evidence. However, since we are not on a jury, we can form our own opinions whenever we feel we have enough evidence to sway our opinion.
ouch
