Man vs. Mongrel

[DavidOdden]

An insult by definition is a statement. I asked you a question.

In case you are curious, we don't care whether you phrase your insults as declaratives, imperatives of interrogatives. I'm capable of distinguishing connotations and denotations, no matter the syntactic form of your expressions.

[iGod]

In case you are curious, we don't care whether you phrase your insults as declaratives, imperatives of interrogatives. I'm capable of distinguishing connotations and denotations, no matter the syntactic form of your expressions.

Whooa!

I guess that your barrage of 5th grade English terminology was supposed to get me off balance... NOT!

Perhaps you might have a chance with this tactic if I were lost on the fact that when I said: "An insult by definition is a statement. I asked you a question", that I was responding to Superliminal not you.

Why are you responding to a statement that was never made to someone else? Do you see how "weird" this is? Why are YOU so personally involved?

To further put the matter in its context, subliminal initially said: "Should he be allowed to fight dogs? Sure so should I. But I am not. If I did and was caught doing so would I go to jail? Yes. I would not feel outraged even if I was the one doing time.".

I responded: "Taking a step backward in American history...

During the Boston Tea Party, do you think that everyone who participated drank tons of tea, or were there a plethora of individuals there who recognized the GREATER ramifications of such a demonstration?

Are you really that shallow?"

Please describe the "insult". Better yet, and most appropriate: describe the insult, or take back the insult you made of me with a mistaken or false allegation!

Feel free to state my insult in declarative, imperative, interrogative, connotation, denotation, or any other syntactic form it may have taken... HAW!

You still funny.

[RationalBiker]

Why are YOU so personally involved?

Because he, like me, is a moderator. If you can't find a civil tone that argues the facts of the topic rather than the one that throws off-handed insults at other users, you will find it very difficult to post here. Sarcasm will also get you there quickly too.

[iGod]

Because he, like me, is a moderator. If you can't find a civil tone that argues the facts of the topic rather than the one that throws off-handed insults at other users, you will find it very difficult to post here. Sarcasm will also get you there quickly too.

Then like with him, I ask you to "Please describe the "insult". Better yet, and most appropriate: describe the insult, or take back the insult you made of me with a mistaken or false allegation!".

I don't see any "sarcasm" or un"civil tone" in this request. I read "Forum Rules" and took extra special care as to not be considered guilty of: "Examples of personal insults include: (a) sarcastic comments directed at a particular person's character, and accusations of irrationality or immorality.".

I am aware of the rule in short. Please demonstrate my non-compliance or apologize please.

[DavidOdden]

Then like with him, I ask you to "Please describe the "insult".

Your question to Superluminal "Are you really that shallow?" says that he is particularly shallow. I'm closing this thread, since it no longer serves the purpose of rational discussion.

[Mammon]

[since the other thread was cancelled I was just making this new thread because I still had things I wanted to contribute]

... And by that logic "criminals" such as Michael Fay who at 18 pled guilty in Singapore to vandalism and was sentenced to being beaten with a cane are due no mention or sympathy. Perhaps an American eating bacon in Egypt should be beaten as this is a crime there as well. The point here is that laws that violate an individual's right to himself and his property are invalid, and the person who violates them is under no moral obligation.

I don't understand what your getting at here, your dropping the context. Micheal Fay violated the rights of the property owners whose cars he vandalized. Maybe caning him was a bet over doing it, but he was in the wrong anyways, and shouldn't of done that. He deserved to be punished.

No, if it's against the law to eat some kind of food in some country and you KNOW this and continue to do it, you are liable for the punishment involved. Regardless if the law is immoral, you are still liable for the punishment. If you don't like the laws, then move somewhere different or try to change them like the civil rights activists did in the 1950s and 60s.

In all your quoting and response, I notice how carefully you evade the point I raise which is the issue of property rights. You truly come across like some sort of animal rights advocate or environmentalist.

And you truly come across as an over-enthuastic sports nut who refuses to believe atheletes can do anything morally repulsive because you gain enjoyment from them. You pick and choose when property rights are important. The truth is Vicks' existence has been one of violating property rights of all the taxpayers of Virginia. Him and his family sucked on the welfare state there whole lifes and lived in public housing projects, he went to a public school that threw tons of public money at him to play football and then got a publicly-paid-for scholarship to play college again at public school that got funds from the taxpayers and didn't even get a degree because he got drafted by the NFL to play in a $214 million stadium payed for by the Virginia tax payers.

He has been violating the property rights of the tax payers. Then what does he do with it? He takes all the money he got, that he would of never had if the taxpayers didn't subsidize his life, and then squanders it by running an illegal business on the side. It's not like he needed the money because he was one of the highest paid people in the NFL. It was a just a stupid act on his part, and he was also under investigation for alleged pot smoking (which I feel more sympathy for a pot-smoking person getting arrested then the leader of a dog fighting ring).

Also, Vick claims football and playing it professionally helped him get out of his bad neighborhood. Then he turns around and goes back to the neighborhood and starts a dog fighting ring of all things, making the neighborhood worse.

So as far as evaluating his moral character, I think he is still a desciable person and got what he deserved.

Value? To whom? To a vegan such as myself? Really?

Are you saying that since I believe that people who mutilate say... chickens for people who have to consume flesh "in order to get a hard on" have no value in my life, that I should also believe that they can't possibly have value in the lives of others? Bigotry is an amusing disease!

No, because your dropping the context. We are talking about dog fighting here. It's savage, primitive, and serves no value other then violence for the sack of violence or to provide a quick dollar for people who want to gamble their property on something so stupid. Have you ever seen the caliber of person who goes to these things? Sure, I think it should be legal, but you yourself said this was a moral argument and I still think it's immoral and people participating in it are dispecable to begin with.

This is a classic double standard. On one hand you say that "violation of a law is violation of a law"; that no consideration for the laws moral basis, objectivity, or individual rights should be given

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's unwise in a relatively free or society to violate laws that are immoral because it's not worth the consequences. There is a difference between a law that prevents you from partaking in a leisurily (although immoral) activity and one that makes it illegal to further your own life, like getting medical care. The United States isn't as bad with the latter as it is with the former. Since we don't live an a dictatorship, it's still possible to try and fight to change the immoral laws.

In the meantime, a crime is still a crime.

Then on the other hand you claim that "successful businessmen" are exempt from this "standard"... tuck your sheet in, it's starting to come out from under your clothes.

Is that supposedly to be a veiled attempt to say I'm a member of the KKK?

The right to one's self and property are absolutes. "The Wall" needs a little maintenance work done on it, you yourself shyly admit. - BIG PROPBLEM. You seem to be a bit biased against athletes or entertainers... maybe?

I never shyly admited. You never addressed the fact that the stadium they play in was payed with taxpayers dollars. Also, you are talking about something that, like DavidOdden said, isn't really high on the list of things I'm defending at the moment. In fact, at the moment I think it's not too much of a big deal that dog fighting is illegal, it's one of those things that you would legalize after other things, if you had a set political program moving in the direction of a lazzie-faire state. Once society is more accepting and understanding of the issue of property rights, then it would be a great time to legalize dog fighting.

It's interesting how you call a man who faces 300+ pound men, paid to take his head off for a living a coward.... as you type away safely at your computer...

I will simply mention this time that your double standard creeps in yet again!

I'd call him a coward to his face if I could. But with all the time he is spending with his new daddy in prison I doubt I will get the chance too!

[LiberTodd]

Dude, the fact alone that he compared dogfighting to butchering or domestic farming pretty much makes his arguments invalid to begin with. He acts like it's ok to raise chickens or pigs to fight each other for fun and for some reason the evil feds are jailing Vick for raising dogs for the same purpose. By law it is not ok to raise any animal to fight other animals just for laughs. It's called civilization. Vick violated that law so he's in jail, end of story. This is the Objectivist forum, not the Anarchist forum.

[Ifat Glassman]

First of all, Mammon, I think your choice of name for the thread is awful. Also the location of the thread is chosen badly.

In philosophy you classify discussions based on the content of discussion, not based on the person you are replying to. And I hardly think that iGod (or whoever he is) is a "current event".

However, I did read the beginning of this thread, and saw something I strongly disagree with:

I don't understand what your getting at here, your dropping the context. Micheal Fay violated the rights of the property owners whose cars he vandalized. Maybe caning him was a bet over doing it, but he was in the wrong anyways, and shouldn't of done that. He deserved to be punished.

No, if it's against the law to eat some kind of food in some country and you KNOW this and continue to do it, you are liable for the punishment involved. Regardless if the law is immoral, you are still liable for the punishment. If you don't like the laws, then move somewhere different or try to change them like the civil rights activists did in the 1950s and 60s.

If somebody initiates the use of physical force against you, whether or not such a thing is protected by law, he is immoral. And any such law is indeed invalid.

If somebody wishes to initiate the use of physical force against you, he needs your agreement.

If a land owner decides that whoever wishes to enter his lawn has to be shot in the leg, he is not entitled to shoot, unless an agreement was reached first with the one who wishes to enter, and is willing to pay the price.

A government does NOT own the land, and therefor they have no business dictating laws that will dictate the behavior of anyone living on that land, apart from doing what they're paid for, which is to protect individual rights (of those with whom they have an agreement to do so).

If I am born into an Islamic society, they most certainly DO NOT have the right to beat me to death if I decide to walk in the street without a veil.

[softwareNerd]

First of all, Mammon, I think your choice of name for the thread is awful. Also the location of the thread is chosen badly.

I have merged this new topic with the original.

However, Mammon, when a moderator closes a topic, and you really want to respond, please PM the moderator and say so. Do not start a new topic that circumvents the closing of the original. In other words, disagree with the closing, either with the moderator who closed it or with other moderators, etc., but don't circumvent it, please.

Edited January 8, 2008 by softwareNerd

[iGod]

[since the other thread was cancelled I was just making this new thread because I still had things I wanted to contribute]

My commendations! I felt that it was highly inappropriate to close the thread in the first place. I am glad that you resumed the discussion, and feel a need to say to you that although you and I differ in opinion on this matter, it speaks well of you that you chose not to hide under the cover provided to you by David, but to meet me on the battlefield of ideas, and engage me on the points I raised.... but you are dead wrong, as I will now illustrate:

If you don't like the laws, then move somewhere different or try to change them like the civil rights activists did in the 1950s and 60s.

How did these civil rights activists go about doing this? The answer is: BREAKING THE LAWS! Immoral laws should be challenged, and to do so it is by breaking them.

And you truly come across as an over-enthuastic sports nut who refuses to believe atheletes can do anything morally repulsive because you gain enjoyment from them. You pick and choose when property rights are important. The truth is Vicks' existence has been one of violating property rights of all the taxpayers of Virginia.

How can you say this?!!! Easily. All you have to do is ignore all points I raise, and pretend that he did not own the land that the kennels were located on, nor the dogs that he killed. Once you have done that, you can forget that I stated that this situation is a violation of Mike's property rights, and then you can have a weak leg to stand on in saying that i am "an over-enthuastic sports nut who refuses to believe atheletes can do anything morally repulsive because you gain enjoyment from them."... once again, you funny.

Him and his family sucked on the welfare state there whole lifes and lived in public housing projects, he went to a public school that threw tons of public money at him to play football and then got a publicly-paid-for scholarship to play college again at public school that got funds from the taxpayers and didn't even get a degree because he got drafted by the NFL to play in a $214 million stadium payed for by the Virginia tax payers.

The weakest truth here that annihilates this argument is: Michael Vick's leeching off the welfare state when he was a child is NOT morally wrong. He owes NOTHING for what his parents did... Reparations are NOT in order for the citizens of Virginia, and can't be taken from Michael Vick in the form of violating his property rights.

He has been violating the property rights of the tax payers. Then what does he do with it? He takes all the money he got, that he would of never had if the taxpayers didn't subsidize his life, and then squanders it by running an illegal business on the side.

Now you sound like a democrat discussing how best to spend the profits generated by oil companies!

It's not like he needed the money

Need? Are you REALLY an objectivist, or perhaps a misdirected socialist.

It was a just a stupid act on his part, and he was also under investigation for alleged pot smoking (which I feel more sympathy for a pot-smoking person getting arrested then the leader of a dog fighting ring).

I agree. Given the fact that there are so many "haters" in the USA today, so many racists, so many people with gross inferiority complexes, etc., he should have realized that they would gather together with any half assed excuse they could muster and do all they could to take from him what he amassed by the sweat of his own brow.

Also, Vick claims football and playing it professionally helped him get out of his bad neighborhood. Then he turns around and goes back to the neighborhood and starts a dog fighting ring of all things, making the neighborhood worse.

You make such bigoted statements. "Worse" to who? By who's standard? By what standard? How does dog fighting make a neighborhood "worse"?

No, because your dropping the context. We are talking about dog fighting here. It's savage, primitive, and serves no value other then violence for the sack of violence or to provide a quick dollar for people who want to gamble their property on something so stupid.

Wrong again. The context was NOT dog fighting, the context was the principle of ownership. I won't let you slide so deeply into an evasion on my watch!

Have you ever seen the caliber of person who goes to these things? Sure, I think it should be legal, but you yourself said this was a moral argument and I still think it's immoral and people participating in it are dispecable to begin with.

Yes. I don't participate in such any longer as I am now a lot older than I was during my tenure of raising dogs and fighting them. Most of the people I knew though are still friends of mine, and I like then just fine.

What you are once again evading is the fact that there is NO difference between raising chickens for slaughter, or dogs. The motive is NOT food for the chicken producer, but $. The same motivation for the pit bull breeder. Be real, and stop the evasion!

Is that supposedly to be a veiled attempt to say I'm a member of the KKK?

No. It's a veiled attempt to get you to check your premises.

C!

[Inspector]

It's called civilization.

No, the fact that we don't like what Vick does is called civilization. The fact that the law is stepping in to force someone to stop something which violates nobody's rights is the opposite of civilization. That much is true.

[Mammon]

I have merged this new topic with the original.

However, Mammon, when a moderator closes a topic, and you really want to respond, please PM the moderator and say so. Do not start a new topic that circumvents the closing of the original. In other words, disagree with the closing, either with the moderator who closed it or with other moderators, etc., but don't circumvent it, please.

Okay, next time I'll PM someone instead. But, the thread was closed down because it wasn't a rational discussion anymore (to paraphrase David) but, I'm sitting in the back of the class with my hand raised here saying "I still have something rational to contribute!" so that's why I made the other thread. I thought it would be obvious. Plus, I didn't want to PM iGod with this because I want everyone else to be able to hear my thoughts on the subject.

If I am born into an Islamic society, they most certainly DO NOT have the right to beat me to death if I decide to walk in the street without a veil.

I didn't say they had the right to beat you up, only that your liable for punishment because it's still the law, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral. If I stop paying taxes, I'm still breaking the law and liable to go to jail. In Vick's case, he knew full well he was breaking the law. That's why I call him an idiot.

No, the fact that we don't like what Vick does is called civilization. The fact that the law is stepping in to force someone to stop something which violates nobody's rights is the opposite of civilization. That much is true.

Yeah, that's true. But, it doesn't really capture my sympathy or moral outrage when someone does something immoral and barbaric, but should be legal, and goes to jail for it. At least it's a poetic sort of justice, even if it's a minor sort of legal injustice?

Edited January 9, 2008 by Mammon

[Inspector]

Yeah, that's true. But, it doesn't really capture my sympathy or moral outrage when someone does something immoral and barbaric, but should be legal, and goes to jail for it. At least it's a poetic sort of justice, even if it's a minor sort of legal injustice?

Basically. Like I can't get passionate for the fact that the rights of crack-heads and whores are being violated.

The only thing that got my goat was that people were passionate that Vick was being prosecuted. All the "tHe bAD mAn HuRtz pUppIes lEtz gEt a rOpE!!!!!!!11!" stuff out there actually did manage to piss me off.

[RationalBiker]

Yeah, that's true. But, it doesn't really capture my sympathy or moral outrage when someone does something immoral and barbaric, but should be legal, and goes to jail for it. At least it's a poetic sort of justice, even if it's a minor sort of legal injustice?

I would have to say that I would find the loss of two years of my life (behind bars) due to the prosecution of something that shouldn't be a crime a little more than "a minor sort of legal injustice". Yea, I agree that stupidity landed him where he is though.

I also don't find any justice in injustice any more than I find A is not A.

You say the words dogfighting shouldn't be illegal, but you exude the opposite in the vociferous glee you appear to take in the fact that he's going to jail over it.

All the other talk of the use of public money is non-sequitur to this issue.

[Moebius]

I didn't say they had the right to beat you up, only that your liable for punishment because it's still the law, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral. If I stop paying taxes, I'm still breaking the law and liable to go to jail. In Vick's case, he knew full well he was breaking the law. That's why I call him an idiot.

Now, I don't know if this was the case for Vick. But if a man knows a law to be unjust and immoral, and chooses to break it knowing the consequences and refusing to blindly comply, that would make him uncompromising and perhaps even heroic, not stupid.

[RationalBiker]

Now, I don't know if this was the case for Vick... (snip) ... that would make him uncompromising and perhaps even heroic, not stupid.

While I think I understand what you are getting at, I think that would be a hard sell in Vick's case. I don't think Vick's passion for dog-fighting was greater than his passion for football, and football was clearly more financially beneficial for his life. My opinion is that he risked a much greater value for a much smaller value.

[Moebius]

While I think I understand what you are getting at, I think that would be a hard sell in Vick's case. I don't think Vick's passion for dog-fighting was greater than his passion for football, and football was clearly more financially beneficial for his life. My opinion is that he risked a much greater value for a much smaller value.

I don't think you can really measure Vick's passion for either, but yes its true that football is more financially beneficial. But then I'm a stock broker, but I am probably more passionate about basketball than about stocks. I'm not trying to say that Vick is a hero that stood up to an immoral law by dog fighting. My point is that knowing something is illegal but still deciding to break the law does not inherently imply stupidity.

[Mammon]

Basically. Like I can't get passionate for the fact that the rights of crack-heads and whores are being violated.

The only thing that got my goat was that people were passionate that Vick was being prosecuted. All the "tHe bAD mAn HuRtz pUppIes lEtz gEt a rOpE!!!!!!!11!" stuff out there actually did manage to piss me off.

Yeah me too, but the "ZOMG hE CaNt gO 2 JIAL cuz I wan wtAach him play futbal!" crowd pisses me as well.

I would have to say that I would find the loss of two years of my life (behind bars) due to the prosecution of something that shouldn't be a crime a little more than "a minor sort of legal injustice". Yea, I agree that stupidity landed him where he is though.

I also don't find any justice in injustice any more than I find A is not A.

They are different concepts. A poetic concept of justice is different then a legal concept? I say minor too because it's not a groundbreaking fight for rights and freedom. Vick was remorseful and said it was wrong too, last I checked.

You say the words dogfighting shouldn't be illegal, but you exude the opposite in the vociferous glee you appear to take in the fact that he's going to jail over it.

All the other talk of the use of public money is non-sequitur to this issue

Both of these things, the "vociferous glee" and the talk about use of public money are things involving Vick's moral character and why I'm glad he is going to jail (in the poetic sense). It's like a corrupt pastor going to jail for prostitution, sure it should be legal, but I don't feel bad for the pastor and it's nice seeing someone evil getting something bad done to them.

Also, on the use of public money; think about all the money spent on the investigation and the trial and now putting Vick in jail -- he sure is costing the tax payers of Virginia quite a bit.

[RationalBiker]

They are different concepts. A poetic concept of justice is different then a legal concept? I say minor too because it's not a groundbreaking fight for rights and freedom. Vick was remorseful and said it was wrong too, last I checked.

You say they are different concepts, then you ask a question as to the difference. If you are asserting they are different concepts, you explain to me how they are different. What is "poetic justice" in your usage, and how does it differ from REAL justice? To me, justice is justice, and injustice is injustice. I don't really care that Vick "said it was wrong too" when we are already supposed to be agreement that it should not be illegal in the first place. Legally, it should not be "wrong".

Both of these things, the "vociferous glee" and the talk about use of public money are things involving Vick's moral character and why I'm glad he is going to jail (in the poetic sense). It's like a corrupt pastor going to jail for prostitution, sure it should be legal, but I don't feel bad for the pastor and it's nice seeing someone evil getting something bad done to them.

So, essentially, you think people should go to jail for something if they have an immoral character, regardless of whether or not they actually committed a crime that violates someone's rights? Or in other words, people deserve to go to jail for immorality as well as for rights violations? Is that an accurate assessment?

See, I'm making a distinction here between not being morally outraged and actually enjoying the fact that he's going to jail and that an injustice is still being done in Vick's case. If you aren't going to be morally outraged, that's one thing. But you go beyond that, you actually sound supportive of the fact that Vick was punished for something which you yourself have said should not be a crime. I can't be get past this obvious contradiction; it shouldn't be illegal, but I'm glad he's going to jail for it.

What do you mean by "corrupt pastor" and how does that make him deserving of going to jail for an unjust law? Perhaps this analogy works too; even though a woman a long time ago may have been burned at the stake for being a witch (which shouldn't be illegal since there is no such thing as witches), she deserved to burn at the stake anyway because she was also screwing lots of other men. It's "poetic justice" for her immoral character.

Again, the issue of the public money is non-sequitur to whether or not he should go to jail for dog-fighting. ALL investigations cost money conduct, not just Vick's. The outrage for the expenditure of public money for the prosecution of dog-fighting should be directed at the government, not at Vick. The existence of involuntary taxation justifies the recovery of that money by use of publicly funded opportunites, whether one goes to state run universities or drives on state-owned roads. All such things are the fault of the state, not Vick. If you think Vick "deserves" jail for these things, you would also have to support nearly every US citizen "deserving" jail for the same things.

I would summarize the differences in our opinion like this; whereas you appear to be satisfied that things will just work themselves out (come out in the wash) regardless of specific accountability, I prefer people to be held responsible for the actual things the do for which they should be held accountable and in the manner of which they should be held accountable for that thing (i.e. if a man gets a ticket for jaywalking, I don't think he deserves the ticket just because he screws around on his wife).

Edited January 10, 2008 by RationalBiker

[Inspector]

Yeah me too, but the "ZOMG hE CaNt gO 2 JIAL cuz I wan wtAach him play futbal!" crowd pisses me as well.

Too true. A pox on both their houses. There's just a whole lot of stupid floating around out there on this issue. I can't say I'm satisfied he's going to jail, nor am I particularly outraged. I'm just disgusted with the whole mess and how thugs like him make it nigh impossible for the truth - that animals do not have rights - to be heard.

Kind of like Libertarians, actually.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Inspector

[OBJ Freedom Fighter]

I don't think you can really measure Vick's passion for either, but yes its true that football is more financially beneficial. But then I'm a stock broker, but I am probably more passionate about basketball than about stocks. I'm not trying to say that Vick is a hero that stood up to an immoral law by dog fighting. My point is that knowing something is illegal but still deciding to break the law does not inherently imply stupidity.

I'd say that "the juice wasn't worth the squeeze" and that Vick's decision was clearly stupid. I'm sure prison football doesn't pay as well.