Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Myrhaf

Free Michael Vick

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Let me see if I can make you angry.

Michael Vick is an innocent man who is being persecuted by an unjust government.

...the NFL star agreed Monday to "accept full responsibility" for his role in a dogfighting ring and plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges.

...

The maximum term is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although federal sentencing guidelines likely would call for less. Defense attorneys would not divulge details of the plea agreement or how much time Vick can expect to serve.

However, a government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the terms are not final, told The Associated Press that prosecutors will recommend a sentence of a year to 18 months.

The sport of dogfighting is disgusting, sick, immoral and even evil. To want to watch dogs rip each other to shreds is sadistic; it might be a sign of psychological problems. Certainly it is a sign of inferior imagination and sympathy to the suffering of man's best friend.

It reminds me of the spectacle of bearbaiting, which was popular in Shakespeare's day: dogs were loosed to attack a chained bear. In Merry Wives of Windsor Shakespeare has a moron speak with fascination about bearbaiting. Although both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I loved the sport, it is clear that Shakespeare was not a fan.

Michael Vick is like pornographers, drug dealers, flag burners, prostitutes, Leona Helmsly and Michael Milken: he is among the least defensible, most loathed people in America, whom the government feels confident to persecute even though they have done nothing that would be against the law in a truly free country.

The NFL has every right to ban Vick from the game for life for his participation in dogfighting. However, dogfighting should not be a crime. Animals have no rights, only humans have rights. To give animals rights means to violate human rights. If animals have rights, then one could argue that eating a hamburger and wearing leather shoes are crimes.

Let's take it to the absurd extreme. If animals have rights, then one could argue that any assertion of human will over an animal is a crime. No one asked my cats if they wanted to live with me. I asserted my will over them, bought them and took them home in a little cage as if they were, well, animals.

Animals do not have rights because they do not have the faculty of reason. They deal with one another using force, and humans have a right to initiate force against animals.

It comes down to property rights. If a person owns an animal, then he should have the right to dispose of his property as he wishes. Property rights are absolute; a free and just state should go out of its way not to violate them in any way. It should go so far to protect property rights that it errs on the side of going too far, if such is possible.

Men do not have property rights if they do not have the right to be immoral, stupid, unfair, whimsical and disgusting with their property. A proper government exists only to protect and defend individual rights, not to make sure people are fair, moral and intelligent. This is hard for many to accept in our age when the government routinely violates property rights in countless ways. This absolute, laissez-faire conception of rights is currently theoretical and unconnected to the reality of our mixed economy. It is, as Ayn Rand called capitalism, the unknown ideal.

(Incidentally, isn't it odd that people want to throw the book at Vick but they yawn when Mary Winkler, who murdered her sleeping husband -- a human being -- with a shotgun blast, is let out after 67 days?)

The proper punishment for one who abuses animals is social ostracism. People can voluntarily refuse to sanction irrational, destructive behavior against animals. If we had a free government, then our traditions and customs of volunteer, social punishment would be stronger and more effective, just as private charities flourished before the New Deal brought the state into the charity business.

I don't want to come across as a flower child but I personally think the sport of game hunting is a barbaric holdover from the middle ages. I think it is sick to spend one's leisure time killing animals. People can get much of the thrill of the hunt pursuing animals with a camera instead of a rifle and I believe this is psychologically better than some atavistic lust to butcher a beast in cold blood. But I recognize that hunters have a right to their kills. I hope that as reason spreads through our culture -- if that ever happens -- that the popularity of hunting will wane.

The better our culture becomes, the better our norms of treating animals will be, but our advancement is stifled and indeed retarded when the state assumes the role of our conscience and tells people what they should and should not do. As always, when the state intervenes where is ought not, then people forget their responsibilities and become like children who depend on adults to think and judge for them.

UPDATE: Took out one word, tyrannical; it seems an overstatement of the US government.

147046074

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to come across as a flower child but I personally think the sport of game hunting is a barbaric holdover from the middle ages. I think it is sick to spend one's leisure time killing animals. People can get much of the thrill of the hunt pursuing animals with a camera instead of a rifle and I believe this is psychologically better than some atavistic lust to butcher a beast in cold blood. But I recognize that hunters have a right to their kills. I hope that as reason spreads through our culture -- if that ever happens -- that the popularity of hunting will wane.

As much as I detest what Michael Vick did, I'll have to agree with you on everything except the hunting. Personally, I could never kill an animal (although I love to eat and wear them!) However, I certainly understand the appeal of hunting, to a certain extent. Not that long ago, my grandfather helped his father hunt in order to feed their family. As times changed and he did not NEED to hunt for food, my grandfather enjoyed hunting with his children and their children as a way to spend quality time together. He would educate them about guns and gun safety, they would observe a variety of wildlife and how they behave, spend the night out in cabins or tents, etc. I don't know that they ever hunted for any kind of glory as there were never any trophies hanging on the walls, but I know they would have the meat processed and it would be eaten. And they never killed anything that they didn't eat. Frankly, I don't see what difference it makes if you buy your meat at the grocery store, or if you prefer to go out and kill it yourself. Personally, I just can't stomach the killing and processing part.

Now I know there are some crazy hunters out there who are in it for the kill, but those are the same psychos that like dog fighting, and as you suggest, probably have a mental disorder.

Reminds me of something funny I saw last night from comedian Jim Gaffigan:

Animal Rights Activist: Do you know what they do to those chickens?

Gaffigan: No, but it's delicious!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this dog fighting thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Would it be any different if the animal he used were say, fishes or scorpions, as opposed to dogs? Why should it be any different? Can you back this statement up:

The sport of dogfighting is disgusting, sick, immoral and even evil. To want to watch dogs rip each other to shreds is sadistic; it might be a sign of psychological problems. Certainly it is a sign of inferior imagination and sympathy to the suffering of man's best friend.

Specifically why it is immoral, and evil?

Does stomping on a cockroach make you immoral? What if you were stomping on a cat? Why the arbitrary standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this dog fighting thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Would it be any different if the animal he used were say, fishes or scorpions, as opposed to dogs? Why should it be any different? Can you back this statement up:

Specifically why it is immoral, and evil?

Does stomping on a cockroach make you immoral? What if you were stomping on a cat? Why the arbitrary standards?

Well obviously pests pose a threat to food supplies and health, so they should be eliminated when they invade our living spaces. It's just practical.

The problem I have with dog fighting is that dogs do not naturally fight to the death. Dogs in the wild rarely die from fighting and when they do it's usually from infection rather than the actual fight. I think it's stupid to use animals in a manner that does not maximize their potential to assist mankind. Perhaps that's just my opinion, but it's far more intelligent than inbreeding dogs, forcing them to exercises all day long, then forcing them to attempt to kill each other in the ring for some psycho's pleasure. Then, when they don't perform well, they are methodically killed in inhumane ways. I would have more respect for the guy if he would have at least euthanized them instead of killing them in the sick, twisted ways that he did. This guy is obviously trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom Line: Prohibiting dog fights or even animal cruelty (on one's own animal) is not a proper function of government. Period.

Personally I find dog fights and cock fights quite loathsome and rather unnecessary. But that is my opinion and my taste. I would not enforce that at gunpoint on other folks.

While we are on the subject I heard something funny: A Michael Vick chew toy for dogs.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this dog fighting thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Would it be any different if the animal he used were say, fishes or scorpions, as opposed to dogs? Why should it be any different? Can you back this statement up:

Specifically why it is immoral, and evil?

Does stomping on a cockroach make you immoral? What if you were stomping on a cat? Why the arbitrary standards?

There is absolutely no benefit in destroying one's own property. Also, while fighting miniature pests such as scorpions breeds no real signs of pain from the scorpions, no mass blood, a man in a dog fighting circuit desires to see real suffering. You cannot sit there and tell me that watching a scorpion fight and watching a dog fight breeds the same results. Dogs can howl, scream, drop masses of blood and other such things that put on display brutal shows of gore. Any man having a desire to watch that is very mentally unstable. As I'm sure is the consensus here, dog fighting and other such spectacles should be mocked, ridiculed and the participants should be ostracized but they should not be thrown in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no benefit in destroying one's own property. Also, while fighting miniature pests such as scorpions breeds no real signs of pain from the scorpions, no mass blood, a man in a dog fighting circuit desires to see real suffering. You cannot sit there and tell me that watching a scorpion fight and watching a dog fight breeds the same results. Dogs can howl, scream, drop masses of blood and other such things that put on display brutal shows of gore. Any man having a desire to watch that is very mentally unstable. As I'm sure is the consensus here, dog fighting and other such spectacles should be mocked, ridiculed and the participants should be ostracized but they should not be thrown in jail.

Of course there are benefits. Dog fighting isn't about destroying your own property. It's about winning the fight and therefore the prize/gambling money. Again, I ask for proof that there between mental instability and dog fighting, and the logic as to why it is immoral. For that matter, how is it even a fact that people watch dog fights for the sole purpose of watching the dogs suffer? Do people watch boxing matches or ultimate fighting championships only to watch some guy get pummeled? I'm sure some people do, but it's hardly a universal fact. The reasons for watching dog fights could just as well be for the thrill of gambling, or the skill displayed by the dog or the trainer.

And for the record, no I do not enjoy dog fighting. I have actually seen one while visiting Thailand, and it was indeed brutal. However I would not automatically assume that someone has mental issues if he did enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with dog fighting is that dogs do not naturally fight to the death. Dogs in the wild rarely die from fighting and when they do it's usually from infection rather than the actual fight. I think it's stupid to use animals in a manner that does not maximize their potential to assist mankind.

This argument is a weak one because whether something would occur naturally is really irrelevant to the issue. A horse would not naturally bear a rider in the wild. A bull would not naturally plow a field.

Furthermore, there are problems with what you consider a dog's utility maximization. What would you consider a maximized potential for a dog in regards to assisting mankind? No doubt a guide dog is extremely valuable to a blind person. But is toting around a chihuahua in a carry on bag maximizing their potentials?

Certainly there are values relevant to loving and keeping a dog as a pet. But by the same token there are values for using dogs as a form of entertainment or money making tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see you compare boxers, human beings capable of rational thought, and dogs.

Also, gambling is a fool's game IMO, especially in the arena of dog fighting. All it requires is someone's educated ( Or in Vicks uneducated, backwards hillbilly's case, UNEDUCATED ) Guess. Theres nothing good in risking your own money, especially on a living being's life. They don't have rights, but to just throw them away and watch them suffer ( You know they like the concept of the dogs suffering, otherwise they would choose to engage in an actual sport ) is just sick.

Oh and how about the ways they killed them? A shotgun shell to the head would be fine, but no, they electrocute them, they drown them, hang them ETC.

If you'd like to delve deeper into the psychology of animal tortures, I suggest you take a look at the life and times of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice to see you compare boxers, human beings capable of rational thought, and dogs.

Does the fact that people enjoy watching rational human beings beat each other up make it better or worse than dog fighting? Dogs, after all, have no rights.

Also, gambling is a fool's game IMO, especially in the arena of dog fighting. All it requires is someone's educated ( Or in Vicks uneducated, backwards hillbilly's case, UNEDUCATED ) Guess. Theres nothing good in risking your own money, especially on a living being's life. They don't have rights, but to just throw them away and watch them suffer ( You know they like the concept of the dogs suffering, otherwise they would choose to engage in an actual sport ) is just sick.

Whether or not you approve of gambling is irrelevant. It could be that I have a lot of money, and I don't mind potentially losing some for the entertainment or rush of winning. It could be that I have studied dog fighting, and can reasonably predict the outcome by observing the dog's build and temperament.

Oh and how about the ways they killed them? A shotgun shell to the head would be fine, but no, they electrocute them, they drown them, hang them ETC.

If you'd like to delve deeper into the psychology of animal tortures, I suggest you take a look at the life and times of Jeffrey Dahmer.

I'm not sure a shotgun shell to the head is necessarily better than say, drowning or hanging. You are committing a logical fallacy however if your argument merely consists of: Jeffrey Dahmer tortured animals. Jeffrey Dahmer has mental problems. Therefore all people that watch dog fights have mental problems. Does the fact that many Roman citizens centuries ago enjoyed gladiatorial battles mean that they are all mentally unstable?

So again, do you have any proof that there is a link between participating in dog fights and psychological issues? Or for that matter, some sort of logical reason why dog fighting is immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope the NFL gives him a perm ban (I doubt it). Either way the guy is pretty disgusting, for once I think justice is served from an economic level. In that he's lost most of his sponsorship, salary from the NFL, etc. It's beautiful to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no benefit in destroying one's own property.

How about destructive testing of machinery or devices you own and have built to see if their design is up to the challenge of the intended environment? How about tearing down an old house to make room for a new and better house? How about melting down some metallic goods to own to re-use the metallic content for some new and better purpose?

Pray do be cautious in the use of the adverb "absolutely".

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So again, do you have any proof that there is a link between participating in dog fights and psychological issues? Or for that matter, some sort of logical reason why dog fighting is immoral?

What are the pleasures associated with dogfighting? The only ones I see is the supposed enjoyment of watching two ferocious animals tear eachother to shreds and possibly the alleged excitement of wagering on such a fight. I see no values other than cheering and gambling on destruction for the sake of destruction. I cannot see how supporting such a violent spectacle is in anyone's rational self-interest. It is immoral and in particular incredibly reprehensible.

I think anyone who relishes watching violent dogfights evidently places very little value on life and takes glee in being a first-hand witness to senseless maiming and psychological torture. These are textbook psychological problems.

Do you consider dogfighting somehow different from bearbaiting or immolating a caged animal? Or do you also fail to see how enjoying those activities would be indicative psychological problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is a weak one because whether something would occur naturally is really irrelevant to the issue. A horse would not naturally bear a rider in the wild. A bull would not naturally plow a field. Furthermore, there are problems with what you consider a dog's utility maximization. What would you consider a maximized potential for a dog in regards to assisting mankind? No doubt a guide dog is extremely valuable to a blind person. But is toting around a chihuahua in a carry on bag maximizing their potentials?Certainly there are values relevant to loving and keeping a dog as a pet. But by the same token there are values for using dogs as a form of entertainment or money making tool.

1.) A horse may not naturally bear a rider in the wild, but it is capable of it just like an ox is capable of pulling a plow. And I have no problem with selective breeding to encourage these traits; however, breeding an animal with the sole intent of making it insane, and therefore, crazy enough to fight to the death which it otherwise would not do, is a totally different subject. If you can't see that, there is nothing more I can say to you.

2.) Dogs can be utilized in many ways, hunting companions, herding, guard dogs, etc. (If you care to research the matter further, I refer you to the AKC website which has full descriptions of all the recognized, and many unrecognized, breeds and their functions in society.) Personally, I could do without the useless toy breeds, such as the one you mentioned in the hand bag, and I would not carry my dog in such a manner even if she would fit into a hand bag. I find no use for them at all and they are annoying little barkers who frequently keep me up at night or interrupt an otherwise relaxing walk around my block.

3.) Dogs can be entertaining and used to make money without abusing them mentally and physically and without killing them.

I think anyone who enjoys watching another living creature suffer, particularly to the death, has a serious mental problem. And if that's the only constructive way you can find to enjoy life and/or make money, I think you have a horrible life. (In fact, enjoying watching animals suffer, dissecting them and/or killing them are one of the traits of serial killers.)

I just hope the NFL gives him a perm ban (I doubt it). Either way the guy is pretty disgusting, for once I think justice is served from an economic level. In that he's lost most of his sponsorship, salary from the NFL, etc. It's beautiful to me.

I agree. And just as an aside, after he gave the finger to his home crowd while leaving the field last season, I don't think any of them will be missing him if he's banned permanently, which he should be.

Edited by K-Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the pleasures associated with dogfighting? The only ones I see is the supposed enjoyment of watching two ferocious animals tear eachother to shreds and possibly the alleged excitement of wagering on such a fight. I see no values other than cheering and gambling on destruction for the sake of destruction. I cannot see how supporting such a violent spectacle is in anyone's rational self-interest. It is immoral and in particular incredibly reprehensible.

The fact that you do not see values in dog fighting is not an indication that another rational man couldn't. You are well within your rights to find it disgusting, but to say that it is immoral requires further reasoning.

I think anyone who relishes watching violent dogfights evidently places very little value on life and takes glee in being a first-hand witness to senseless maiming and psychological torture. These are textbook psychological problems.

It is true that the people who enjoy dog fights place very little value on canine life. But there is a gap in logical to say that he therefore does not care about human lives -- essentially the only life that matters, given that a dog has no rights and is essentially a property.

Do you consider dogfighting somehow different from bearbaiting or immolating a caged animal? Or do you also fail to see how enjoying those activities would be indicative psychological problems?

Actually I do think that dog fighting is different from immolating a caged animal, in the same way that boxing or ultimate fighting is different from beating a tied up man to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat. Yes, participating in a dog fight can result in the death of the canine, but the point of a dog fight is in the fight, not the actual death.

Of course, the reason for watching a dog fight may vary from person to person. Just like some people may watch hockey for hockey, while others may care less about the game and just wants a fight to happen. Some people may enjoy fishing for the peace and quiet of chilling by the water, while others may enjoy it for watching a fish bloodied and writhing in their hands. I cannot speak for everyone. What I DO fail to see is how enjoying dog fights automatically indicates a psychological problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I DO fail to see is how enjoying dog fights automatically indicates a psychological problem.

All you have to do is read up on it...here's a starting point I found quickly since I'm at work. I'm sure with a little effort, you can easily find more.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmai...tal%20disorders

Edited by K-Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you do not see values in dog fighting is not an indication that another rational man couldn't. You are well within your rights to find it disgusting, but to say that it is immoral requires further reasoning.

To say it were immoral, would be to say it was an action with no rational backing (i.e. It doesn't further any value in your life). So let's look at this...

It is true that the people who enjoy dog fights place very little value on canine life. But there is a gap in logical to say that he therefore does not care about human lives -- essentially the only life that matters, given that a dog has no rights and is essentially a property.

Human lives matter when trading with other humans - in the direct, monetary way and in the idea, value for value way. We're talking about a man's personal enjoyment here however. What is the value that is being sustained by watching animals kill each other? A value is something you act to gain or keep - what value could possibly arise from senseless death?

Or perhaps you think it isn't senseless? Perhaps there is an art to it? What art would that be exactly, since as you say...

Yes, participating in a dog fight can result in the death of the canine, but the point of a dog fight is in the fight, not the actual death.

So what is the point then? The blood and gore itself? Wondering which animal will die first? The goal of dog fighting isn't to show man's mastery of an animal to gain values - it shows his ability to turn life against itself, to invert a creature's ultimate goal. It's like blowing up a mountain for no reason, other than to see it collapse. Nothing was sought to be gained or created - the entire point was just to see something destroyed.

Ah, but..

The reason for watching a dog fight may vary from person to person. Just like some people may watch hockey for hockey, while others may care less about the game and just wants a fight to happen.

And are the people who just want to see a fight happen moral? You (not you personally) go to see a game, which is about beating the opponent by a gentleman's agreement to the rules, and hope that someone will violate the principle of sportsmanship - that's rational; that's moral?

Some people may enjoy fishing for the peace and quiet of chilling by the water, while others may enjoy it for watching a fish bloodied and writhing in their hands. I cannot speak for everyone. What I DO fail to see is how enjoying dog fights automatically indicates a psychological problem.

Fishing is a skill that takes patience. It requires one knows what they are doing to get the fish. There is even elements of competition in it, towards catching the biggest fish. Some people fish and just throw the fish back again afterwards - it's not about the catch itself (although if they want to eat the fish, they'll keep it, which is alright) but the skill it took.

Someone who wants to do it just to see the fish squirm is indicating something psychologically wrong, because to them, death and pain are a spectacle to be admire. It doesn't matter that it isn't a human life -- it's a life none the less, and the fact that you (again, not you personally) would want to see it ended just for the sake of it, would say a lot about your personal character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you do not see values in dog fighting is not an indication that another rational man couldn't. You are well within your rights to find it disgusting, but to say that it is immoral requires further reasoning.

No more reasoning than what I have provided is required. Since you have not provided any values that can be gained from dogfighting, your argument seems to amount to "Who are we to judge?" This is a terrible argument.

It is true that the people who enjoy dog fights place very little value on canine life. But there is a gap in logical to say that he therefore does not care about human lives -- essentially the only life that matters, given that a dog has no rights and is essentially a property.

Although an individual's life is his standard of value, this does not imply that he has no reason to gain value from any non-human form of life. To enjoy watching dogs, who are often rationally cherished as pets, rip eachother to shreds for no purpose other than for the pure, nihilistic pleasure of watching the battle is abhorrent.

Actually I do think that dog fighting is different from immolating a caged animal, in the same way that boxing or ultimate fighting is different from beating a tied up man to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat. Yes, participating in a dog fight can result in the death of the canine, but the point of a dog fight is in the fight, not the actual death.

I suspected that you would compare this atrocious "sport" to a noble and dignified contest such as boxing. There is an enormous difference between the two. In boxing, the loser often congratulates the winner for a well fought bout. Both competitors are respected as human beings. Both participants can celebrate the culmination of human determination and training that it took to professionally compete as prize fighters. Extensive precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the participants while preserving the spirit of the competition.

On the other hand, in dogfighting the losing animal is often put to death in a brutal manner. The victorious animal, if it also does not receive a swift and brutal execution, is probably just thrown back in its cage until the next bloody ordeal. Unlike boxing, there is no celebration of values in dogfighting; only the celebration of destruction.

What I DO fail to see is how enjoying dog fights automatically indicates a psychological problem.

Before you repeat this again, please propose some value that a rational person could possibly derive from enthusiastically observing dogfights.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought of another really sad aspect of all of this dog fighting mess. Around 1900, the pit bull was the most popular dog breed in America. It was known as a hard-working farm dog and beloved family pet, especially good with children. Now, thanks to these psychos who prefer to inbreed and fight the dogs, we have children and adults being eaten alive by them and whole cities and counties banning them. Thanks to dog fighters we now have legislation that keeps us from owning what was once America's most beloved family pet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All animals are not equal. Some animals are useful to us and therefore are more valuable than other animals. Dogs are a unique example, perhaps. I can't think of any other animal that has so aided Man or has contributed so much to civilization. Don't we owe dogs a measure of loyalty and compassion?

As for Vick I think he'd be risking his life, or at least his physical well-being, if he ever plays in the NFL again. Surely some defensive players are dog lovers. Remember how Carlson Palmer was injured once against the Steelers? That was accidental. Now picture a linebacker or defensive end doing something similar on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Vick I think he'd be risking his life, or at least his physical well-being, if he ever plays in the NFL again.

Not to mention what the fans might do to him. Fans love to throw things. (Some flaming dog poo to his face would be nice!)

Edited by K-Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darkwaters hit on this point, but I want to clarify it and emphasize it since I believe that it is key in proving that Michael Vick is guilty of wanting to see destruction just for the sake of destruction.

Dogfighting is a fight to the death. Ostensibly this means that in order for one dog to win it has to kill the other. But this doesn't always happen. Sometimes the dogs are injured enough to the point where they cannot continue the goal of killing the opponent, and one or both survive because of it. What do you suppose Vick and his buddies do in this situation? Nurse them both back to health to one day fight again? No, they mercilessly execute both of them since they are no longer capable of performing the task that their owners want them to perform: to kill.

So either way, if the dogs do it to each other, or if the humans have to do it for them, the point of the fight is only to witness death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All animals are not equal. Some animals are useful to us and therefore are more valuable than other animals. Dogs are a unique example, perhaps. I can't think of any other animal that has so aided Man or has contributed so much to civilization. Don't we owe dogs a measure of loyalty and compassion?

I think as you move toward higher and higher animals brutality toward them becomes more and more questionable, because they are closer to us at the higher end. Killing bugs is really not a big deal, although I'd have problem with someone who did it to inflict pain for pains sake, to the extent that's possible with a bug, but killing a dog, or a horse, or something like that just to see suffering or just to kill, that's a sign of psychological problems.

The one thing I caution here is to go too far with this, because animal research often requires cruelty, which is well within the rights of the researcher, and certainly not immoral. In this case the animals are being used to improve the lives of humans. An example is the discovery of insulin, which required Dr. Banting use dogs.

As for Vick I think he'd be risking his life, or at least his physical well-being, if he ever plays in the NFL again. Surely some defensive players are dog lovers. Remember how Carlson Palmer was injured once against the Steelers? That was accidental. Now picture a linebacker or defensive end doing something similar on purpose.

That would be reprehensible. You don't go out and try to deliberately harm another player, and you can't take the law into your own hands.

To be sure, what Vick did was disgusting and unworthy of respect, but it was within his rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...