Source: Vick 'one of the heavyweights' in dogfighting

[peplaw06]

morality is not always the basis for legality. greed for one comes to mind. you can not say that because something is illegal it is immoral.

You're gonna have to give an example there. I'm not getting that point. And 90% of the time if something is illegal I can point to a moral reason why it is so.

do you apply utilitarianism to determine your morals? Other forms of torture are more useful to humans and as such acceptable?

I'm not well-versed in utilitarianistic theories, but I can get the gist by the word. But torture is not the crux of the matter. It's the attachment society has to these animals. Cows and chickens generally don't enamor themselves to most humans. Like it or not, it's the truth.

I've been to rodeos and felt sorry for calves being roped. But I didn't feel the need to act. Had I been attached... say if they were roping dogs or horses... it would have definitely felt more reprehensible. I'm betting thats society's general sentiment, and the reason you don't see that.

If torture were the issue, I would be more outraged when enemy combatants are tortured. As a baseline principal, I am against torture of humans. But I generally have disdain for enemy combatants... no attachment. Therefore I am not outraged by their torture.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're gonna have to give an example there. I'm not getting that point. And 90% of the time if something is illegal I can point to a moral reason why it is so.


I'm not well-versed in utilitarianistic theories, but I can get the gist by the word. But torture is not the crux of the matter. It's the attachment society has to these animals. Cows and chickens generally don't enamor themselves to most humans. Like it or not, it's the truth.

I've been to rodeos and felt sorry for calves being roped. But I didn't feel the need to act. Had I been attached... say if they were roping dogs or horses... it would have definitely felt more reprehensible. I'm betting thats society's general sentiment, and the reason you don't see that.

If torture were the issue, I would be more outraged when enemy combatants are tortured. As a baseline principal, I am against torture of humans. But I generally have disdain for enemy combatants... no attachment. Therefore I am not outraged by their torture.

tax laws, all the laws governing tradeskills, the subsidizing of farmers, and grants to major industry all come to mind. you yourself give a figure of 90% that i would happen to disagree with but by that statement you grant that not all laws are based on morals. as such because something illegal does not make it immoral.

morals are not objective. what i consider moral is different than what others do. neither of us are wrong or right.

as i have said before i dont believe that emotional appeal is a good basis for sound laws.

 

[peplaw06]

I would say that it had more to do with wrath and bloodlust. the fur trade vanity. the meat packing industry would be gluttony. they all incorporate greed.

See, now you're confusing me. A law can be passed for any number of reasons, but they're typically moral reasons. However, just because some industry is not illegal does not mean it is a completely moral industry.

Society as a whole has weighed the pros and cons of certain industries and determined what is and what is not acceptable. For example, the fur trade, while maybe tickling your vanity bone, accomplishes a purpose of providing warmth to humans.

Capitalism breeds greed. But we live in a capitalist society. We're not going to outlaw the business sector simply because the perversion is abhorrent.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

tax laws

granted there are some greedy motives for tax laws, such as building football stadiums, and a Govenor's personal airport, but alot of taxes go to Medicare, the building of schools, the US defense, highways, office building, banks, libraries, memorials and a host of other projects that better a country

all the laws governing tradeskills

can't really speak on that

the subsidizing of farmers

or that

and grants to major industry all come to mind.

a grant is not a law

morals are not objective. what i consider moral is different than what others do. neither of us are wrong or right.

as i have said before i dont believe that emotional appeal is a good basis for sound laws.

fair enough, but that doesn't mean you should condone, or worse yet, participate in the breaking of said laws that don't suit you and that you find arbitrary

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See, now you're confusing me. A law can be passed for any number of reasons, but they're typically moral reasons. However, just because some industry is not illegal does not mean it is a completely moral industry.

Society as a whole has weighed the pros and cons of certain industries and determined what is and what is not acceptable. For example, the fur trade, while maybe tickling your vanity bone, accomplishes a purpose of providing warmth to humans.

Capitalism breeds greed. But we live in a capitalist society. We're not going to outlaw the business sector simply because the perversion is abhorrent.

this is a very naive way of viewing things. we dont elect officials on the basis of the pros and cons of particular industries. you may very well do that but most people do not. it is the very reason that I have zero respect for many laws in this country beyond the fact that I have legal reprecussions if i do not follow them.

some people got pissed about dogfighting and the legislators found it easier to screw over a small industry predominantly in southern states than it was to manipulate the ranching, cosmetic or pharmaceutical industry.

dogfighting not being high enough in the american aristocracy is why dogfighting is illegal.

 

[peplaw06]

tax laws, all the laws governing tradeskills, the subsidizing of farmers, and grants to major industry all come to mind. you yourself give a figure of 90% that i would happen to disagree with but by that statement you grant that not all laws are based on morals. as such because something illegal does not make it immoral.

morals are not objective. what i consider moral is different than what others do. neither of us are wrong or right.

as i have said before i dont believe that emotional appeal is a good basis for sound laws.

Tax laws weren't created out of morality. They were created out of necessity... a country needs funding. You may argue that the perversion is greed, but like I said earlier, you don't do away with the practice simply because of the perversion.

So because tax laws are in place, a large portion of society feels it immoral to break those laws. There is a verse in the Bible, I forget where, but in the gospels... Jesus says something to the effect of, "Give to God what is God's, and give to Caesar what is Caesars." This verse, I was taught, is the basis of the immorality of refusal to pay taxes.

I would wager that most laws I can find a moral correlation. That's where my 90% figure came from. I would state it as more likely, but I am not an absolutist. There are plenty of laws that I disagree with, and for those I typically have a moral reason NOT to support. Doesn't mean I break those laws, or expect them not to be enforced.

You're definitely right that morals are subjective. I would posit though that the large majority (again probably above 90%) of the laws enacted in our society, society as a whole has a moral reason for doing so. Just because they don't line up with YOUR morals doesn't mean they don't line up with the COUNTRY'S morals.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

fair enough, but that doesn't mean you should condone, or worse yet, participate in the breaking of said laws that don't suit you and that you find arbitrary

It sure as heck does if i do not think they were generated in a representative fashion. This is going to turn political if we continue but basically the power is not with the people in this country.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It sure as heck does if i do not think they were generated in a representative fashion. This is going to turn political if we continue but basically the power is not with the people in this country.

this is why there are lawbreakers in this country, this attitude of, "If I don't agree w/ it, I'm not going to follow it", I feel sad for you

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tax laws weren't created out of morality. They were created out of necessity... a country needs funding. You may argue that the perversion is greed, but like I said earlier, you don't do away with the practice simply because of the perversion.

So because tax laws are in place, a large portion of society feels it immoral to break those laws. There is a verse in the Bible, I forget where, but in the gospels... Jesus says something to the effect of, "Give to God what is God's, and give to Caesar what is Caesars." This verse, I was taught, is the basis of the immorality of refusal to pay taxes.

I would wager that most laws I can find a moral correlation. That's where my 90% figure came from. I would state it as more likely, but I am not an absolutist. There are plenty of laws that I disagree with, and for those I typically have a moral reason NOT to support. Doesn't mean I break those laws, or expect them not to be enforced.

You're definitely right that morals are subjective. I would posit though that the large majority (again probably above 90%) of the laws enacted in our society, society as a whole has a moral reason for doing so. Just because they don't line up with YOUR morals doesn't mean they don't line up with the COUNTRY'S morals.

Many laws may be felt by you to fit in with the 'countrys' morals but that makes no difference to me as long as you understand illegal does not equal immoral. people may feel that it does and good for them but I am not them.

i would actualy say that 90% of the laws in this country that do not pertain to violence are economic in basis but that is just a difference in opinion.

As for the bible quotes, i dont put any stock into dogma, much less an inconsistent one.

 

[peplaw06]

this is a very naive way of viewing things. we dont elect officials on the basis of the pros and cons of particular industries. you may very well do that but most people do not. it is the very reason that I have zero respect for many laws in this country beyond the fact that I have legal reprecussions if i do not follow them.

Some people elect officials only because of what they will do in an industry... especially if they are a part of that industry. Again, just because YOU don't doesn't mean people don't. And elected officials, no matter what the conspiracy theorist in you would say, are not free to act without feeling the repercussions from their constituents. Politicians, while you can't say much good about them, what you can say about them is generally they listen to the people who voted them in. Their livelihood depends on it. If they want to stay in office, they generally have to please their constituents. They rarely make decisions based on their morals, they do it based on what will get them re-elected. How is that naive?

some people got pissed about dogfighting and the legislators found it easier to screw over a small industry predominantly in southern states than it was to manipulate the ranching, cosmetic or pharmaceutical industry.

dogfighting not being high enough in the american aristocracy is why dogfighting is illegal.

Ahhhh, now we see what really is behind this. I still think you're wrong. It wasn't SOME people. In a forum full of thousands of men from the south, you are one of a choice few people who doesn't see what's so bad about dog fighting. Sound like only "some people" to you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this is why there are lawbreakers in this country, this attitude of, "If I don't agree w/ it, I'm not going to follow it", I feel sad for you

You keep doing that. i feel sad for you for an entirely different reason. Read some Locke or the Fedrealist papers and get back to me. i do not feel that the government upholds its social contract.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You keep doing that. i feel sad for you for an entirely different reason. Read some Locke or the Fedrealist papers and get back to me. i do not feel that the government upholds its social contract.

since you don't know what habeus corpus is, or why there are taxes, I suggest you chill on the condenscending attitude pertaining to the law and government

 

[peplaw06]

Many laws may be felt by you to fit in with the 'countrys' morals but that makes no difference to me as long as you understand illegal does not equal immoral. people may feel that it does and good for them but I am not them.

Fine, as long as you understand that this country bases it's laws in morality. i still think you're stating your hypothesis backwards.

i would actualy say that 90% of the laws in this country that do not pertain to violence are economic in basis but that is just a difference in opinion.

I'm assuming you're speaking of drug laws, prostitution, etc. If you take out tax laws, you're losing most of the economic laws. You're right, difference of opinion.

As for the bible quotes, i dont put any stock into dogma, much less an inconsistent one.

Not getting into a religious debate with you, I figure we don't see eye to eye there either. I was simply stating that there is a moral basis, even in adhering to tax laws.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some people elect officials only because of what they will do in an industry... especially if they are a part of that industry. Again, just because YOU don't doesn't mean people don't. And elected officials, no matter what the conspiracy theorist in you would say, are not free to act without feeling the repercussions from their constituents. Politicians, while you can't say much good about them, what you can say about them is generally they listen to the people who voted them in. Their livelihood depends on it. If they want to stay in office, they generally have to please their constituents. They rarely make decisions based on their morals, they do it based on what will get them re-elected. How is that naive?


Ahhhh, now we see what really is behind this. I still think you're wrong. It wasn't SOME people. In a forum full of thousands of men from the south, you are one of a choice few people who doesn't see what's so bad about dog fighting. Sound like only "some people" to you?

Im not pulling the race card. i see things in terms of money. The dogfighting industry wasnt a big enough fish in the pond to merit protection.

And whther or not representatives are legally obligated to give a damn aobut their constituents has no bearing on whether or not they should.

 

[peplaw06]

Fuzz, did your gf pass the bar?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And whther or not representatives are legally obligated to give a damn aobut their constituents has no bearing on whether or not they should.

wow, you totally missed his point, it's not about obligation, it's about needing to give a damn unless they don't want to see another term in office

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fine, as long as you understand that this country bases it's laws in morality. i still think you're stating your hypothesis backwards.

I'm assuming you're speaking of drug laws, prostitution, etc. If you take out tax laws, you're losing most of the economic laws. You're right, difference of opinion.

Not getting into a religious debate with you, I figure we don't see eye to eye there either. I was simply stating that there is a moral basis, even in adhering to tax laws.

no i would say outside of violent crimes this country bases their laws on economics. Tax laws, zoning laws, property laws, etc.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wow, you totally missed his point, it's not about obligation, it's about needing to give a damn unless they don't want to see another term in office

posit something or go away. you seldom bring anything worthwhile to the table.

 

[peplaw06]

Im not pulling the race card. i see things in terms of money. The dogfighting industry wasnt a big enough fish in the pond to merit protection.

Well who put the pressure on the legislature to put the kibash on the industry? It wouldn't be people who felt morally compelled to act against it would it? hmmmm?

And whther or not representatives are legally obligated to give a damn aobut their constituents has no bearing on whether or not they should.

I don't care if they're legally obligated to do so. Legality is only one small portion of their concern. it's mostly about their livelihood... or as you'd put it, money.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

posit something or go away. you seldom bring anything worthwhile to the table.

I've posted plenty in which you've yet to find a suitable argument to counter w/