Vick's holding out for one year

[Ben_n_austin]

I don't know, largely because this is the first time you've expressed THAT opinion... to date, all you've done is attacked those of us criticizing him for our "hypocrisy"...

I might even have a little sympathy with that argument, though I personally think that what's he's reported to be getting is a little on the low side... I'd prefer to see him get the 5 years that is reportedly the max for the crimes to which he's pleading... but that, combined with whatever suspension from the NFL that Goodell deemed appropriate ( even including a lifetime ban) would be good enough for me... I don't think he should spend the rest of his life in jail or anything ridiculous like that... and if all he gets is 18 months and a suspension from the NFL, I can live with it...

That's because I clearly view animal abuse as a deeper and more insidious crime than you do... those who do such things are sociopaths at the deepest level, and studies of serial killers have told us that those types almost always get their start by torturing animals... throw in the guns, drugs and illegal gambling that are ALWAYS found at a dogfight, and I certainly think that those who engage in such activities should be punished by jail time... I think society is better off if those sadists are kept out of society, so that they can't harm it...

Just to quote you properly, and to apply your own reasoning:

1) (Premise)You think that Mike Vick is virtually a certifiable sadist based on (VERY limited) psychological studies and outdated scholastic thought (not much thought is put into the study of serial killers).

2) (Premise) By your own admittance, "sadistic serial killer types should be kept out of society"....

3)(Conclusion) But it's ok that he gets a minimal (by your standards; not mine) sentence.

Ding Dong, I hear a knock on the door. You're chasing you're tail on this one.


*yap yap yap*

 

[Ben_n_austin]

You do know that he's looking at a substantial fine as well as jail time, don't you??

Besides, are you arguing that Vick shouldn't go to jail because it costs us too much?? Couldn't that same argument be applied to EVERYBODY in prison??

Eh, the tax money isn't the crux of my argument. But I really don't want to pay any money to feed a spoiled, rich wanna be NFL quarterback's 3 hots and a cot for a law that I think is fallible. Whether it be the law or not; it's a stupid one. And I hate to keep harping on it, but you don't seem to be able to see that it is simply what I'm saying.

The things that we do today; Hence, the example that you've given yourself about the inhumane treatment of animals, is, my friend, no difference in terms of results.

In the end, we're left with the same result.

Are you suggesting we should just open up the penitentiaries, send all the felons home, to save some money??

I'll gladly take back the money spent on housing, guarding, insuring and feeding the prisoner's who have not committed direct or intentional crimes against humans in exchange for the supposed and alleged societal impact that I'd be "suffering".

Of course, that's just how I'd spend my tax money. I don't have a choice. But note that a wise man once said, that "neither your property nor your liberties are safe while the legislation is in session".

Nope, it couldn't... some crimes deserve PUNISHMENT... asking a rich guy to contribute money is no punishment at all, and absolutely no deterrent for him going out and doing it all over again...

So, let's get out the ropes like the reactionary, hypocritical, meat eating, blood sucking public would have us do.

Besides, he looks like a "punk"...

It's like those companies fined for dumping toxic waste, the fines are a pittance to them, and they're back dumping the next day...

No it's not. You're drifting off into topics of environmental issues when we're talking about issues of humaneness.

I'd rather we stay on the topic at hand.

So, you WOULDN'T want to see those responsible for stealing your dog, and causing it to die a lingering, suffering death, go to jail??

Not really, I'd rather see that person's action be met with an equal positive reaction, rather than an equal negative one. At least we have some balance with the former. With the latter, we have double jeopardy (I believe).

That just makes you a contrarian, without a logical limb to climb out on... excuse me if I have no respect for your inability to grasp such a basic difference...

No it doesn't. If you want to put a label on it, you might try utilitarian. But even that would be an unsuited label. You're really not making a whole lot of sense here.

I find that stance completely idiotic... sorry, no other way to say it... of course, that's the fundamental flaw in your "I'm more morally pure than you are" argument...

The blow that you've just dealt yourself has great impact. You're crumbling at the knees with hypocrisy.

"We're gonna hang that boy!!"

Yeah, we sure will... I'm not in favor of giving sadists a slap on the wrist... if you were a judge, you'd be a felon's wet dream, not to mention a defense attorney... you'd make Judge Ito look competent...

If you say so.

Bear in mind the level of justice. OJ didn't serve a day in jail, as far as sentencing goes, for his murders.

I would hope a judge would see things with more clearness in relation to actuality. You want Mike Vick to serve more time than OJ.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

No, he's not... he's saying your argument is on a moral and intellectual par with those who do such things... there is a significant difference...

Interesting that you have the similar and comparable mental fortitude of such provoking and compelling thinkers.

Sigh - I'm off to bed.

 

[silverbear]

Interesting that you have the similar and comparable mental fortitude of such provoking and compelling thinkers.

Sigh - I'm off to bed.

Hey, did I say I agreed with what he wrote?? Nope, all I did was point out you'd misinterpreted what he wrote...

While pondering your "mental fortitude", you might want to also ponder the concept of "reading comprehension"...

 

[silverbear]

Just to quote you properly, and to apply your own reasoning:

1) (Premise)You think that Mike Vick is virtually a certifiable sadist based on (VERY limited) psychological studies and outdated scholastic thought (not much thought is put into the study of serial killers).

Wrong... I think Vick is a sadist based on his involvement in the abuse of animals for fun and profit... those who enjoy seeing animals or humans get hurt are, by definition, sadists...

Now, are you going to try to deny that most serial killers have been documented to have gotten their start torturing small animals as children??

Consider the words of Keith Hunter Jesperson, aka The Happy Face Killer, who murdered 8 people:

We shoud stop the cruelty to anything, before it develops into a bigger problem, LIKE ME (emphasis added). Violence and aggression may cause bigger problems than just the beating of a cat

The Los Angeles Times magazine reported:

About a third [of serial killers] said they killed and tortured animals as children, and about half said they did it as adolescents

These are the serial killers who ADMITTED they got their start torturing animals...

# Pearl, Mississippi's sixteen year-old Luke Woodham tortured and set fire to his own dog, Sparkle. Later, he stabbed his mother to death, then went to school, shooting fellow students.
# Springfield, Oregon's fifteen-year old Kipland Kinkel murdered his parents, then opened fire on his school cafeteria, killing 4 and wounding 22 students. He had often bragged of torturing and killing small animals, including his cat.
# San Diego, California's Brenda Spencer had a history of setting the tails of dogs and cats on fire, fired shots at a school, killing two children and injuring nine others.

http://www.theminx.com/iss4vol2/cruelty2.htm

# Mass-murderer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer killed neighbors' pets and impaled a dog's head on a stick.
# Patrick Sherril, who murdered 14 co-workers and then killed himself, stole pets, then tied them up and allowed his own dog to mutilate them.
# David Berkowitz, the so-called "Son of Sam," shot his neighbor's labrador retriever.
# Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler," shot arrows into boxes of trapped cats and dogs.
# Brenda Spencer, who fired 40 shots into a crowd of children, murdering 2 and wounding 9, had a history of setting the tails of neighborhood cats and dogs on fire.
# Edmund Emil Kemper III, who murdered his mother and 7 other women, used to abuse cats and dogs.
# Carol Edmund Cole, who murdered 35 people, admitted that his first violent act was strangling a puppy.

But I was really wrong to limit the argument to just serial killers, all manner of violent criminals got their rocks off abusing animals at some point in their lives... seems that families where child abuse occur also often have animal abusers in the household:

Studies of prison inmates reveal that as many as 75% of violent offenders had early records of animal cruelty. There is also a high correlation between family violence and animal cruelty. A study in 1983 of New Jersey families referred to youth and family services for reasons of child abuse reported that 88% of cases had at least one member of the household who physically abused animals.

Immanuel Kant said it well:

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."

http://www.arkonline.com/violence.html

2) (Premise) By your own admittance, "sadistic serial killer types should be kept out of society"....

3)(Conclusion) But it's ok that he gets a minimal (by your standards; not mine) sentence.

At this point, there is no evidence that Vick has graduated past animal abuse, so there's no case to be made for locking him away forever...

Once again, you miss the point, in a most obtuse way... the point is that animal abuse is a serious crime because it often-- not ALWAYS, OFTEN-- leads to violence against people, which is your standard for when somebody ought to be punished...

I'm merely showing you the undeniable link between the abuse of animals and violence perpetrated on humans... those who care nothing about the lives of animals often care nothing about the lives of their fellow man...

 

[silverbear]

Eh, the tax money isn't the crux of my argument.

And yet, you brought it up... seems that you're trying the shotgun approach to arguing, throw out everything you think of... which would be OK, if you bothered to THINK about the argument you're making before you try making it...

But I really don't want to pay any money to feed a spoiled, rich wanna be NFL quarterback's 3 hots and a cot for a law that I think is fallible. Whether it be the law or not; it's a stupid one.

Perhaps it's YOUR intelligence that's the problem here... you seem to have a problem with a law that NOBODY else I've encountered on ANY message board over these past few weeks has a problem with... once again, if you're completely out of step with the rest of mainstream society, much as you might want to tell yourself that everybody else is wrong and you're right, the plain truth is it's your thinking that's warped...

I'll gladly take back the money spent on housing, guarding, insuring and feeding the prisoner's who have not committed direct or intentional crimes against humans in exchange for the supposed and alleged societal impact that I'd be "suffering".

Thank God you don't dictate societal mores...

Of course, that's just how I'd spend my tax money.

Tax money wasn't the crux of your argument, you say, yet here you are, right back to it... and once again, I'll respond that with the amount of time Vick will likely spend in jail compared to the amount of his fine, the government's actually gonna turn a PROFIT on his incarceration...

So, where's your tax money argument now??

I don't have a choice. But note that a wise man once said, that "neither your property nor your liberties are safe while the legislation is in session".

Ahhh, so now you're an anarchist...

The only good thing in all this is the longer I keep you talking on this subject, the more you reveal how far out there you are on this subject...

So, let's get out the ropes like the reactionary, hypocritical, meat eating, blood sucking public would have us do.

Spare me the melodrama, nobody's getting out any ropes... we just want to see Vick put in jail for the sick and twisted things he's done... apparently, you'd prefer to have the sick and twisted walking around among us...

Besides, he looks like a "punk"...

Once again, with the shotgun approach to arguing-- have I even once mentioned how he looks?? Frankly, he doesn't look like anything to me, he looks pretty normal...

In fact, over on the Ranch somebody made a comment about him and his cornrows (which he no longer has), saying that he was thug for wearing them, we should have known he was a thug, and I ripped that post a new anal orifice for being so bigoted... so now you're reduced to trying to portray me as something I profoundly loathe, and all because you're desperate to score some points in a stupid online debate...

Seems you're willing to trash your own integrity, you're so desperate... I can tell you that I don't appreciate your attempts to stereotype me, and would much prefer you'd stick to what I'M arguing, so long as you're set on arguing with me...

I haven't done anything like that to you... I have stuck strictly to the direct assertions you've made...

No it's not. You're drifting off into topics of environmental issues when we're talking about issues of humaneness.

I'd rather we stay on the topic at hand.

Pointing out that fining rich people is no deterrent is directly relevant to your argument, and you know it...

Not really, I'd rather see that person's action be met with an equal positive reaction, rather than an equal negative one.

Oh, do tell me what "equal positive reaction" there could be in this situation... this should be really funny...

Bear in mind the level of justice. OJ didn't serve a day in jail, as far as sentencing goes, for his murders.

So, because OJ got away with murder, because our legal system failed, this somehow justifies not punishing Mike Vick??

And you say I'M not making any sense here?? Once again, you drag up something completely irrelevant, in your desperate attempt to make something resembling a legitimate point... your problem is, these little attempts at peripheral arguments (like your tax money tangent) only make you look profoundly foolish... when you go off on tangents like that, it only proves that you can't sustain your argument by sticking to the facts...

I would hope a judge would see things with more clearness in relation to actuality. You want Mike Vick to serve more time than OJ.

You bet I do... but not because what he did is worse than what OJ did, but rather because OJ literally got away with murder...

Using your logic, NOBODY should EVER go to jail, unless they're convicted of doing worse than what OJ did, i.e., commit multiple homicides...

Yeah, I want to live in a society where only the mass murderers are imprisoned...

Your argument is that of an idiot... I honestly expected better of you...

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Your argument is that of an idiot... I honestly expected better of you...

:cry:


Ah--the most fallible of all logical arguments, Ad hominem.

I like how you saved that for your conclusive statement. It really drives home the substance behind what you say....

Wait a minute, that's not substance. That's an extremely opinionated, fragmented, once again, bumbling train of thought that you present.

And while I haven't the time to respond or retort to the full extent at the present moment; I will respond, soon, because you do seemed to be quite numbed with perplexity about what it is that I am actually saying.

In the meantime, I'll just be amused by your assumptive supposition that I'm speaking directly towards you, or any member of this board in a singled out manner. And I'm a little disappointed that you'd use the "tyranny of the majority" argument as a means to be right or wrong.

As all beliefs among all societies, I think John Mill said it best regarding
the dogmatic beliefs of particular ages:

"It is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make, that ages are no more infallible than individuals--every age having
held many opinions which subsequent ages haves deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now
general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present."

I'm speaking on the matter on the whole. But I haven't heard you say anything about what you might do to change the matter yourself, or even make a contribution towards the treatment of animals.

You wrote on the internet about some poor chickens that you saw while driving down the road.

And you called someone who you think is out to hurt animals an "idiot", when in fact that person acts according to Kant's Categorical Imperative Formula in his daily life regarding the treatment of animals - the gaul.

You see, what you don't realize, is I am a bigger advocate towards animal rights than you ever thought about being in reality.

Not only do I not eat meat because I think that it is, as you yourself say, torturous and inhumane towards animals. But I also raise money for organizations that aid in helping animals - quite a bit, a considerable amount in fact.

I've been personally responsible for the raising of thousands of dollars for animals and their treatment.

But I wouldn't expect you to step off of your argument high horse for just one second and try to discuss the actualities of how "acceptable", by society's hypocrisy, that this society's mistreatment of animals is very similar to what Mike Vick does.

People just don't think about it unless they see or read about the gory details. But we leave those secrets to be kept within our sadistic butcher's twisted mind--we just like how it tastes.

Instead of discussing solutions and realizing that, indeed, there are a tremendous amount of hypocrisies surrounding this ordeal... good old SilverBear, well, he's bent on making an argument and slinging about childish insults....

And I'm the bad guy; go figure....

 

[silverbear]

:cry:


Ah--the most fallible of all logical arguments, Ad hominem.

Listening to your sneering, hypocritical sarcasm finally got to me... but note that I said your ARGUMENT is idiotic...

In the meantime, I'll just be amused by your assumptive supposition that I'm speaking directly towards you, or any member of this board in a singled out manner. And I'm a little disappointed that you'd use the "tyranny of the majority" argument as a means to be right or wrong.

If you live in this society, you are bound by its standards, and by its laws... if arrested, and you go to court with the defense "that law's morally wrong", you're going to jail...

I know you'd love to make this a philosophical debate about the morality of the law in question, but that is utterly irrelevant...

Perhaps that's what you fail to grasp, that your concept of morality does not override the laws of the land...

But I haven't heard you say anything about what you might do to change the matter yourself, or even make a contribution towards the treatment of animals.

I thought it was pretty clear-- punish those who abuse animals severely... that's the only thing that stands a chance of providing SOME deterrence... I say "some" deterrence because if you really are a sick sadist, nothing's gonna get through to you... so when you have yourself a repeat offender, then you have to put him away for a long, long time, if not for the rest of his life...

You wrote on the internet about some poor chickens that you saw while driving down the road.

Yes, I did... and I don't have an answer for that... sorry if I don't have answers for everything... but I am pretty sure that outlawing the consumption of chicken is not the answer...

You see, what you don't realize, is I am a bigger advocate towards animal rights than you ever thought about being in reality.

Not when you're in favor of fining proven animal abusers, and setting them back out in society, all to save yourself some tax money... to the contrary, that's showing utter contempt for animal rights...

That's what I've been trying to point out to you all along, that your stance on animal rights is morally and logically inconsistent...

But I wouldn't expect you to step off of your argument high horse for just one second and try to discuss the actualities of how "acceptable", by society's hypocrisy, that this society's mistreatment of animals is very similar to what Mike Vick does.

Perhaps that's because I don't give a rat's patootie about how "acceptable" you find it... just because other evils exist, it does not logically follow that we should ignore or condone this evil...

When you argue that, YOU'RE the one who's on a high horse, Don Quixote de la Mancha...

People just don't think about it unless they see or read about the gory details. But we leave those secrets to be kept within our sadistic butcher's twisted mind--we just like how it tastes.

While irrelevant, that's not only a fair observation, it's the absolute truth-- I do try not to think about those wrongs...

Instead of discussing solutions

Oh, spare me; you aren't "discussing solutions", you're just railing about society's hypocrisy... there has not been anything constructive offered by you at any point in this now-lengthy debate about l'affaire Vick...

And I'm the bad guy; go figure....

Ahhh, more melodrama... you and me go way back, I have never thought of you as a "bad guy"... even now, when I'm as disappointed in you as I've ever been, I just think of you as profoundly ridiculous...

And like I say, while you whine about "ad hominem", you've been tucking little insults like "puppy love", and "yip yip" into your arguments, clear putdowns of those of us who want to see Vick punished harshly... so once again, your criticisms of society's hypocrisy are deeply infested with your own...

If you can manage to argue without the "puppy love" and "yip yip" BS, you might find me willing to reciprocate with a bit more respectful approach, but so far you've done nothing to DESERVE respect... respect is EARNED, not demanded...

 

[silverbear]

I notice you haven't responded to my arguments linking animal abuse to crimes against humans... I can understand why, that's at the core of your "I only want those who commit crimes against humans jailed" argument...

I'll just note that when you clearly rebutted one of my arguments, I was man enough to stand up and admit I was wrong, rather than doing what you're doing here, which is try to pretend that nothing was said, and that nobody will notice my lack of response...

Well, it won't work-- do you now agree there is a documentable link between the abuse of animals and violent acts toward humans?? Or are you still standing by your now-discredited argument??

And if you are willing to concede a link between the two, are you still standing by your "only those who commit crimes against humans should be jailed" argument??

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Listening to your sneering, hypocritical sarcasm finally got to me... but note that I said your ARGUMENT is idiotic...

I won't point fingers. But it wasn't me who initiated the bellyaching about underhandedness. I think it's apparent throughout your posts that you'd like to have your cake and eat it, too.

Sling the insults in an underhanded manner and calling people out on them doesn't suit you well. In fact, it supports my position that you, and a large portion of these hangmen, are, indeed, hypocrites.

You're just using a law to avoid that issue.

If you live in this society, you are bound by its standards, and by its laws... if arrested, and you go to court with the defense "that law's morally wrong", you're going to jail...

Yeah, I'm aware that this is the issue. I'm not Vick's lawyer. I'm stating some of the actualities regarding what people do in our society. But it goes rather unnoticed, unfortunately.

Again, it's the public using the law to avoid their own horrendous actions towards animals.

Throwing stones from a glass house, if you will.

Silverbear: While irrelevant, that's not only a fair observation, it's the absolute truth-- I do try not to think about those wrongs...

I mean, c'mon man. Can we agree that society does similar actions to other creatures, but doesn't give it much thought?

This debate could go on forever. But I think my point about the standards that we have for the treatment of animals has been made. Something, as you even admit to, needs to be done.

I think that - ESPECIALLY those crying wolf over this ordeal - people should take a look at how they contribute to the mistreatment of animals.

Perhaps my rhetoric got some of you a little riled up. But that was the intent. I'm just trying to make a point. And the point is, ya'll sum hipp-o-crites.

I know you'd love to make this a philosophical debate about the morality of the law in question, but that is utterly irrelevant...

You're right. I'd love to. And it is ENTIRELY relevant - to society's hypocritical ethical standards regarding the mistreatment of animals.

You keep contributing, but judging from afar. Judging others doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite. It just makes you more of one. That's where my problem comes in.

A poster in this thread said, "I didn't even know dog fighting was illegal. But that's because I didn't think about it". Well, the general public, like you, doesn't think about it, nor do they really give a rat's trap about the (mis)treatment of animals.

Perhaps that's what you fail to grasp, that your concept of morality does not override the laws of the land...

I never said it did. Perhaps that's why I'm writing umpteen posts to you about the similarities in animal cruelty that take place every day.

We've agreed upon that. You'd rather not think about it, unless it's technically against the law.

We differ a bit on the perspective. But I think it's clear whose actions bode the better morality; and whose simply follows the law of the land--just like the good sheeple of this country should do.

Because we should never, in a million years, as a society, question the laws , or even our actions within them... am I right?

I thought it was pretty clear-- punish those who abuse animals severely... that's the only thing that stands a chance of providing SOME deterrence... I say "some" deterrence because if you really are a sick sadist, nothing's gonna get through to you... so when you have yourself a repeat offender, then you have to put him away for a long, long time, if not for the rest of his life...

Well, at this point we're not talking about a repeat offender. Though I think that it's probably safe to say that this wasn't Vick's first rodeo (gotta love those, by the way. We're from Texas).

And you do know that there is only a certain amount of room/space available in our prison system, don't you?

Wouldn't one of those cells be better suited for a rapist, murderer or child molester?

I'd understand 12-18 months completely if he were a repeat offender. But, even then, when we're talking gambling and dog fighting, 20 years is excessive.

Yes, I did... and I don't have an answer for that... sorry if I don't have answers for everything... but I am pretty sure that outlawing the consumption of chicken is not the answer...

Of course--there wouldn't be any particular or specific answers within your own actions and moral values regarding animals. . .

It might even be good for your health. People eat meat to excess in this country. It's ridiculous considering the amount actually needed to sustain your body from a nutritional standpoint.

Not when you're in favor of fining proven animal abusers, and setting them back out in society, all to save yourself some tax money... to the contrary, that's showing utter contempt for animal rights...

Again, can you not see the similarities to a hunter and a dog fighter?

One just puts the trophy on his wall; the other puts it in his bank....

That's what I've been trying to point out to you all along, that your stance on animal rights is morally and logically inconsistent...

I find that to be quite the opposite. We'll just have to disagree. My point is a moral one. And there are answers. They just lie in your actions; not mine. I'm good to go, as far as what I do. I can't remember the last time I had a piece of bacon or fried chicken. I'd imagine, by your statements, that you couldn't say the same thing.

Yet, you want someone punished "harshly" for similar actions. You know that you don't need as much meat as you eat to survive.

So why do you eat it that much of it?

Tell me, Mr. Hangman, just how moral YOU are....

Perhaps that's because I don't give a rat's patootie about how "acceptable" you find it... just because other evils exist, it does not logically follow that we should ignore or condone this evil...

No, but it makes sense that since you feel so repulsed by other's actions that it may perhaps suit you well to take an introspective look at your own.

From an outside perspective, you could really use that.

When you argue that, YOU'RE the one who's on a high horse, Don Quixote de la Mancha...

I'm flattered by the comparison. But this isn't fiction. You hangmen really should take a look at your actions as far as how much they contribute to the mistreatment of animals.

While irrelevant, that's not only a fair observation, it's the absolute truth-- I do try not to think about those wrongs...

I appreciate the honesty. To continue the fairness, if you're going to condemn a man for his wrongs, wouldn't it make sense to actually act righteously in comparison to those wrongs.

Seriously... doesn't what I'm saying make a little sense to you?

Oh, spare me; you aren't "discussing solutions", you're just railing about society's hypocrisy... there has not been anything constructive offered by you at any point in this now-lengthy debate about l'affaire Vick...

Yes, the solution would be: While you're all ready to put a rope around Vick's neck for mistreating animals, take an introspective look at what it is that you actually do that contributes to equal mistreatments....

There, I'm offering a solution.




Where is yours?

Ahhh, more melodrama... you and me go way back, I have never thought of you as a "bad guy"... even now, when I'm as disappointed in you as I've ever been, I just think of you as profoundly ridiculous...

Yeah, we do. And I hope that none of this is personal. But I've known you for a long time as well. And Silverbear aint no stranger to melodrama. No knock on you, man. You have my respect in many regards. I'm a bit disappointed in you about this one.

I'll take the high ground, though, and just call your perspective on this ridiculous.

And like I say, while you whine about "ad hominem", you've been tucking little insults like "puppy love", and "yip yip" into your arguments, clear putdowns of those of us who want to see Vick punished harshly... so once again, your criticisms of society's hypocrisy are deeply infested with your own...

Yeah, we can insult each other 'till we're blue in the face. I think we're both relatively capable of defending ourselves or offending others.

I'm not trying to make a big stink about this really. I'm simply asking you, and others reading this, to take a look at their own actions.

If you're so outraged at Vick, then you should know that this goes on in various other fashions that aren't so visible. And I think that people need to think about it.

And I think that the standards for animal treatment, especially in regards to assembly line consumption, need to be looked at.

But that'd never happen. That'd take introspection and rationale...

If you can manage to argue without the "puppy love" and "yip yip" BS, you might find me willing to reciprocate with a bit more respectful approach, but so far you've done nothing to DESERVE respect... respect is EARNED, not demanded...

Sure--how about you lead by example, though. I don't remember attacking you, personally, in an underhanded manner, initially.

I'm not asking you to stop calling me names or attacking me personally . I prefer it--Ad hominem works for me; not for you.

I'm not the one who wants my cake; and to eat it, too.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Wrong... I think Vick is a sadist based on his involvement in the abuse of animals for fun and profit... those who enjoy seeing animals or humans get hurt are, by definition, sadists...

OK, then by your definition a hunter is a sadist because they do it for pleasure, or "fun".

Now, are you going to try to deny that most serial killers have been documented to have gotten their start torturing small animals as children??

I'm saying that serial killers haven't been studied to the potential extent that we've been capable of studying them to.

But c'mon, Vick wasn't torturing dogs like Jeffry Dahmer. This was a blood sport to him - like deer hunting.

One puts the trophy on his wall; the other in the bank.

Consider the words of Keith Hunter Jesperson, aka The Happy Face Killer, who murdered 8 people:



The Los Angeles Times magazine reported:



These are the serial killers who ADMITTED they got their start torturing animals...



http://www.theminx.com/iss4vol2/cruelty2.htm



But I was really wrong to limit the argument to just serial killers, all manner of violent criminals got their rocks off abusing animals at some point in their lives... seems that families where child abuse occur also often have animal abusers in the household:

Oh, wow! This is new to me. We've now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that animal abuse>>serial killings>>beats your wife>>molest your kids>>armed robbery>>and carjacking

Yes! Animal cruelty is the root of ALL of our problems!!

I'm trying not to laugh, but this is ridiculous. If stereotypical associations, even if associated statistically, were an indication of guilt in this country we'd be in big trouble.

You don't have point here--at all.

At this point, there is no evidence that Vick has graduated past animal abuse, so there's no case to be made for locking him away forever...

Seriously, he could be potentially facing 20 years. That's not forever, but sheesh. It's about 1/2 to 1/3 of Vick's "forever", if you know what I mean...

Once again, you miss the point, in a most obtuse way... the point is that animal abuse is a serious crime because it often-- not ALWAYS, OFTEN-- leads to violence against people, which is your standard for when somebody ought to be punished...

This "indicative behavior" that you speak of is NOT, by our legal system's standards, a just cause for when someone "ought" to be punished'

As David Hume said, "you cannot derive an ought from an is".

You're saying someone ought to be punished for something because their behavior, by psychological study's standards, leads to a pattern. Well, they didn't break the law. So, they isn't breaking the law.

It's not the protocol of our law system that if they didn't actually break the law... so they ought to be punished by the law. That's ridiculous

We don't live in an implicative law society. This argument is absurd.

Again, directness regarding specific violations are required for any
law to take effect.

You don't have a point.

I'm merely showing you the undeniable link between the abuse of animals and violence perpetrated on humans... those who care nothing about the lives of animals often care nothing about the lives of their fellow man...

"often". Those who often yell at their wives often beat them.



Does this mean that we should go around arresting everyone that yells at their wives for domestic violence?

Good Heavens.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

I notice you haven't responded to my arguments linking animal abuse to crimes against humans... I can understand why, that's at the core of your "I only want those who commit crimes against humans jailed" argument...

Oh, don't flatter yourself to that extent. If you were making an extremely formidable argument in your favor, I'd still come back. I've never ran from my convictions. You know that.

And please read my posts more carefully. You're missing my point entirely.

I'll just note that when you clearly rebutted one of my arguments, I was man enough to stand up and admit I was wrong, rather than doing what you're doing here, which is try to pretend that nothing was said, and that nobody will notice my lack of response...

I admitted that I was wrong a long time ago when I became a vegetarian for many reasons. And it wasn't a lack of response.

Have you noticed my post count in recent years? The time just isn't as handy as it once was. Excuse that. But rest assured, I fear nothing of what you say. I've weighed the substance involved in this issue way before Micheal Vick made it a more public one.

Well, it won't work-- do you now agree there is a documentable link between the abuse of animals and violent acts toward humans?? Or are you still standing by your now-discredited argument??

What won't work? Your ridiculous psychological studies that you've provided
in which you insist implicates guilt?

Please, I'm begging you. Bring something more substantial to the table than this.

And if you are willing to concede a link between the two, are you still standing by your "only those who commit crimes against humans should be jailed" argument??

I think that regarding first offenders that punishment should be limited to county jail time and/or probation. And, then, for second offenders mandatory prison time not to exceed 36 months, to answer your question.

First time animal offenders should not trump available space for the guy who gained unlawful carnal knowledge of your unwilling teenage daughter.

That's just my opinion, though. You're obviously entitled to yours. But rest assured; I'll never duck from an issue that I feel strongly about.

 

[silverbear]

Sling the insults in an underhanded manner and calling people out on them doesn't suit you well. In fact, it supports my position that you, and a large portion of these hangmen, are, indeed, hypocrites.

"Hangmen"... naw, nothing insulting in THAT... a rather confusing insult, though, since I don't recall anybody seriously suggesting that Vick should be punished to THAT extent...

Again, it's the public using the law to avoid their own horrendous actions towards animals.

Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing that we should ignore what Vick did, because others do things legally that are as bad or worse... that is, or course, the argument of a child...

Silverbear: While irrelevant, that's not only a fair observation, it's the absolute truth-- I do try not to think about those wrongs...

I mean, c'mon man. Can we agree that society does similar actions to other creatures, but doesn't give it much thought?

Uhhh, I thought I just did... indeed, I have never disputed that point... but that does NOT mean we should give Vick a pass for what he did, that does NOT mean we should ignore that extreme level of animal abuse...

I think that - ESPECIALLY those crying wolf over this ordeal - people should take a look at how they contribute to the mistreatment of animals.

If that was the only point you tried to make, we wouldn't be having this argument...

Perhaps my rhetoric got some of you a little riled up. But that was the intent.

IOW, you were just trolling... but then you go and get offended when you get put down for it...

You keep contributing, but judging from afar. Judging others doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite. It just makes you more of one. That's where my problem comes in.

That indictment would be more damning, if it wasn't coming from somebody displaying his own hypocrisy for all to see...

We've agreed upon that. You'd rather not think about it, unless it's technically against the law.

Against the law is not a "technicality"... and just to be clear, some of the things you rail against, I support 100 per cent, such as hunting (even though I personally don't choose to take part in the hobby)...

My agreement with you is strictly in the realm of what we do to domestic animals that we raise for our consumption... we need to figure out ways to treat them more humanely in the process of preparing them for our table...

Well, at this point we're not talking about a repeat offender.

Of course we are, he's been doing this for years... the indictment lists over a dozen such episodes, and alludes without specifics to dozens more...

And you do know that there is only a certain amount of room/space available in our prison system, don't you?

The tax argument didn't work, now you're gonna try the overcrowded prisons argument??

Sorry, that's not gonna work here either... I have no sympathy for the suggestion that Vick should get a pass because the jails are too crowded... I'd say let out some of those poor schlubs who are just in there for marijuana, and put the sociopaths like Vick in their place...

I'd understand 12-18 months completely if he were a repeat offender. But, even then, when we're talking gambling and dog fighting, 20 years is excessive.

Again with the melodrama... never have heard any source say that 20 years is even an option here... the MOST I've heard was 5 years...

Again, can you not see the similarities to a hunter and a dog fighter?

None whatsoever...

One just puts the trophy on his wall;

My Dad hunted all his life, to the extent we laughingly called him Bwana Bob, the Great White Hunter (he was VERY blonde)... birds were his passion, though he did a little deer hunting on occasion... he bred bird dogs...

And the only trophy he ever kept in all those years was trophy he didn't set out to get... he shot this really magnificent pheasant, one that his hunting buddies told him he HAD to have mounted after he killed it...

Most hunters aren't doing it for the trophy... seems you have a distorted conception about what most hunters are doing it for... example-- the single most popular days of deer season around here are the last days, which are the only days you're allowed to shoot a doe... does don't have a rack... the hunters prize them because their meat is more tender...

So why do you eat it that much of it?

Well, let's see-- I'm diabetic, which means I have to avoid sugars and starches... that means go easy on the potatos, the pastas, the breads... I have high blood pressure, which means I have to watch the sodium...

So, the mainstays of my diet are eggs, shellfish, poultry, pork and beef... I like sliced tomatos and cucumbers just fine, and eat a few salads through the course of a week, but the above are the bulk of my diet...

And whether you approve of that or not, I intend to continue with that dietary program...

Tell me, Mr. Hangman, just how moral YOU are....

Another stupid, juvenile ad hominem shot... why you like that, Mr. Hypocrite??

I appreciate the honesty. To continue the fairness, if you're going to condemn a man for his wrongs, wouldn't it make sense to actually act righteously in comparison to those wrongs.

Never have abused a dog, or a cat, or ANY pet, and I never will... you might equate hunting to dogfighting, but I categorically reject the comparison... as I've said, hunters actually perform a service around here-- deer season is lengthened or shortened according to the size of the deer herd in the area, so that the hunters can help control the population... this benefits the farmers, and even the deer themselves (obviously, the ones that don't get shot, LOL)...

Yes, the solution would be: While you're all ready to put a rope around Vick's neck for mistreating animals, take an introspective look at what it is that you actually do that contributes to equal mistreatments....

Y'know, it really is contemptible, all this garbage you keep spewing about "hangmen", and "putting a rope around Vick's neck"... distorting the positions of your antagonists only reveals the fundamental weakness of your argument... if it could stand on its own, you wouldn't need to keep trying to make our views re: Vick more extreme than they are...

Yeah, we do. And I hope that none of this is personal. But I've known you for a long time as well. And Silverbear aint no stranger to melodrama. No knock on you, man. You have my respect in many regards. I'm a bit disappointed in you about this one.

I'm not planning on hating you, or holding any kind of long-term grudge over this, if that's what you mean... never have demanded that my friends agree with me on everything, though of course it would be a demonstration of superior intelligence on their part if they did... yes, though I'm mildly annoyed with you at the moment, I still consider you a friend...

And I think I've already said that I'm rather disappointed in your position in all this too, so we're even on that score...

I'll take the high ground, though, and just call your perspective on this ridiculous.

If you're so outraged at Vick, then you should know that this goes on in various other fashions that aren't so visible.

Such as??

And I think that the standards for animal treatment, especially in regards to assembly line consumption, need to be looked at.

Which is a fair point, worthy of discussion... but it has nothing to do with whether or not Michael Vick should be punished harshly for the sadistic things he did to those dogs...

Sure--how about you lead by example, though. I don't remember attacking you, personally, in an underhanded manner, initially.

Show me the personal attacks I made... to the best of my recollection, all I did was vigorously disagree with the points you raised, points that I found highly problematic... meanwhile, you have consistently disparaged any number of posters in here with your remarks about "puppy love", or "hangmen", or your sarcastic "yip yips"...

You know me well enough to know that if you venture down that road, I'm gonna be more than happy to play the game with you...

 

[silverbear]

I'm saying that serial killers haven't been studied to the potential extent that we've been capable of studying them to.

And in rebuttal, I offered a number of quotes to back up my assertion...

But c'mon, Vick wasn't torturing dogs like Jeffry Dahmer. This was a blood sport to him - like deer hunting.

Not when you're electrocuting dogs because they don't fight well enough to suit you, or slamming them to the ground until they're dead... that ain't got NOTHING to do with "sport"...

Oh, wow! This is new to me. We've now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that animal abuse>>serial killings>>beats your wife>>molest your kids>>armed robbery>>and carjacking

Yes! Animal cruelty is the root of ALL of our problems!!

Once again, lacking substantive rebuttal, you distort your antagonist's argument... and once again, all you've proven is that you can't sustain your argument on the FACTS...

The facts show that those who abuse animals often go on to commit crimes against humans... crimes like child abuse, even murder... deal with that factual assertion, if you think you can...

You're saying someone ought to be punished for something because their behavior, by psychological study's standards, leads to a pattern. Well, they didn't break the law. So, they isn't breaking the law.

No, I'm not saying any such thing... I merely offered up the observations about how animal abusers often graduate to crimes against humans in response to YOUR stated opinion that prisons should be reserved for those who commit the latter crimes...

You were trying to minimize the seriousness of the crimes which Vick stands accused of, ignoring that dogfights always feature illegal gambling, illegal guns, and drugs, and also ignoring that those who abuse animals have shown a greater proclivity to commit crimes against humans...

It's not the protocol of our law system that if they didn't actually break the law... so they ought to be punished by the law.

Uhhhh, Vick DID break the law... he's fixing to plead guilty to doing so a bit later on today...

Does this mean that we should go around arresting everyone that yells at their wives for domestic violence?

Are you now equating yelling at one's wife to the abuse of animals for fun and profit??

 

[silverbear]

Have you noticed my post count in recent years? The time just isn't as handy as it once was.

No, I hadn't... I had noticed that here lately you're posting a lot late at night, like I do... I wondered why that was, figured it was none of my business...

I think that regarding first offenders that punishment should be limited to county jail time and/or probation.

Never have heard of anybody getting county time when found guilty of a FEDERAL offense...

But even if it was, what you suggest would provide absolutely no deterrence to the crime...

First time animal offenders should not trump available space for the guy who gained unlawful carnal knowledge of your unwilling teenage daughter.

Don't have a teenage daughter, and don't have any sympathy to your argument that Vick shouldn't go to jail because the jails are so crowded... I say let out the felons who are in there for less serious offenses first...

 

[fortdick]

I'll buy lunch. I know this place where they let ya walk up to a bovine and hack out what ya want while there still milling around. It's a little extra work if you want pork cause pigs is much faster. Well worth it though.

I hope you a kidding! I can;t see taking a butcher knife to a steer and trying to cut a filet of his back while his was still upright. He might not like it and stomp my ***.

 

[burmafrd]

Though one could argue its sporting.

 

[fortdick]

I think if it were my dog, I'd rest better if "FiFi" didn't die in such vain as to merely serve as a means to see through that Mike Vick serves jail time..

This statement soesn;t make sense. Who killed the dogs just so Michael Vick would go to jail? Vick did! Send him to jail. HE knew it was agasinst the law and did it anyway.

People keep bringing up the great characteristics of dogs. They're probably the most forgiving species.

I think that it would serve a greater cause if "FiFi's" death were to be a cause that triggered a greater action (a significant monetary donation) than seeing through a vicious, puppy vendetta in Mike Vick serving jail time.

My "FiFi" is more forgiving than that. But that's just how my dog rolls, I guess.

A dog will bite you if you try to hurt it. A dog will bite you if you try to hurt its owner. The bottom line is you just don;t believe MIchael Vick should go to jail because he is Michael Vick. IF it was Bubba from Arkansas, you could care less. You want Vick to be treated special.

And I don't buy the whole hunters aren't sadists thing, but somehow, Mike Vick is.

If you've ever hunted and know the feeling of hunting and keeping going back to do it.... yeah, well, it seems to be pretty much the same to me; whether it be for trophy, food, money... But I particularly don't like the trophy one. So the buck hunters get the thumbs down from me; same with all the other large game hunters. There's nothing justifiably humane about hunting with rifles or bows... nothing.

And how do you propose to control population? Put up fliers and have the deer report to Ranger Smith's house for culling? Deer populations are thinned by hunters. We have eliminated all the natural predators so it is up to humans to keep the numbers down for the health of the herd.

I remember reading around 20 years ago about the Elk herd in Yellowstone. The entire herd almost died off because of overpopulation and a harsh winter. THey starved to death. Think about that. Starving to death. Almost the entire Elk population east of the divide.

MAny species have been threatened with exticntion. One of the most notable is the Canadian Goose on the Pacific flyway. Hunter groud like Ducks Unlimited raised the money to but wetlands and breeding grounds. Now the Canada Goose is no longer endangered. Hunters spend much more money for wildlife conservation that do the so called tree huggers. I no longer hunt, but when I did, I was involved with these conservation groups. DU, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, etc. What conservation goup do you belong to?

But back to the issue I have with the whole thing; his punishment. I think it's a little stiff. And think that 4 months of actual time would be the maximum that anyone should get; even for such atrocious crimes against animals; in that much I agree.

As far as the scope and actuality of this whole thing, we'll just have agree to disagree.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. We are entitled to ours. Don;t insult us for it.

 

[fortdick]

You're right. I'd love to. And it is ENTIRELY relevant - to society's hypocritical ethical standards regarding the mistreatment of animals.

You keep contributing, but judging from afar. Judging others doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite. It just makes you more of one. That's where my problem comes in..............................


Of course--there wouldn't be any particular or specific answers within your own actions and moral values regarding animals. . .


Yes, the solution would be: While you're all ready to put a rope around Vick's neck for mistreating animals, take an introspective look at what it is that you actually do that contributes to equal mistreatments....

The bottom line here is that you don;t believe dog fighting should be a crime punsihable by prison time. We do. That is an argument that no one will win, however, it is the law and until the voters elect representatives that legalize it, until then it will still be a crime.

I can't help thinking about the legal age of consent in America. It is 18. A one night stand with a girl under that age is jail time here. IT is not in France (Eastern Canada) where the legal age of consent is 14. Lots of folks here might think sex with a 14 year old should be legal, but most would say not. That doesn't mean you are moraaly correct because you disgree with the law.

I mean, geez, look at NAMBLA. Morality is subjective, the law is not.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

18 is a ridiculous age for consent given most have done it by 17. However, our religious fanatic new government (our security minister actually believes humans walked on the planet with dinosaurs) is raising the age to 16 except if the guy is 19 or younger then it will be ok.

As for your crack on France being eastern Canada, when the US can be as cultured as France and have great museums like the Musee D'Orsay, the Louvres, the Palace at Versailles, then you can talk.

Vive La France