Man vs. Mongrel

[DavidOdden]

Oh but I did say that there should be no laws restricting killing dogs.

Good grief, man! Did you read your own first post? Did you read my reply? If so, how could you possibly say anything as irrelevant as that? What did Vick plead guilty to?

[Moebius]

Good grief, man! Did you read your own first post? Did you read my reply? If so, how could you possibly say anything as irrelevant as that? What did Vick plead guilty to?

Alright, he's guilty of dog fighting, not dog killing. Does that change the principles of this discussion one bit?

Oh, right, it doesn't.

[DavidOdden]

Alright, he's guilty of dog fighting, not dog killing.

Good. Now we can move on to the next point. That isn't a proper law: it shouldn't exist. But it is not a "moral outrage".

[iGod]

Good. Now we can move on to the next point. That isn't a proper law: it shouldn't exist. But it is not a "moral outrage".

I disagree totally.

My disagreement is on two points:

1). Michael Vick is the victim of the government grossly violating his property rights. - Moral Outrage

2). Michael Vick is NOT your average face in the crowd, but arguably the greatest athlete on the planet. This is the man being jailed because he killed a dog, or a million dogs. - Moral Outrage.

Is a dog property?

Should man at his best be jailed and disgraced because he disposed of his property in a manner in which his neighbors disapprove?

Just askin.

[Mammon]

It is immoral to sentence Michael Vick for this so-called crime, as the crime itself is silly, and totally stupid.

Yeah, and Vick knew full well it was a crime and continued to do it. He is a criminal and deserves the punishment for it.

Michael Vick is no more a criminal than any grocery store owner! Why is it such that the man who makes money off of the death and mutilation of chickens, pigs, cows, fish, shrimp, etc. a respectable business man where a Michael Vick a "threat" to society? By what standard is a dog more sacred than any of these other animals?

Because the grocery store owner and butchers are actually produced value in the form of sustance for human beings. Not forcing animals to mangle each other so they can get a hard on and enough money to not have to work for a living.

Laws should ONLY govern how human beings deal with one another. I believe that once we can get interaction within our own species down a bit better, then perhaps we should look into intra-species legislation. Perhaps at that point we will then grant dogs the right to a fair trial, health care and free education.

I bet you watch a lot of Fox News.

FREE MICHAEL VICK!

His being jailed is a moral tragedy.

People fleeing Cuba on ships made of tires and rotten wood to come here to get a better life, only to be shipped back to their demise is a moral tragedy. Jailing successful businessmen who help companies become propely valued through "insider' knowledge is a moral tragedy. The severing of the heads of journalists in the third world Muslim sandboxes is a moral tragedy.

Jailing Michael Vick is a bittersweet victor for human decency.

Whenever I am in the park walking and see one of these animals licking his reproductive organs, I can't help but gag at the thought that the most magnificent quarterback to ever play the game is now held in a cage because of one of these feces eating mongrels. I am being deprived the exhilaration of witnessing what Michael Vick can do on the grid iron because he is being punished for killing dogs that he raised and cared for just like a farmer who raises chickens, cows, or pigs.

You don't have a right to watch this man throw a ball around so you can yell "Eureka!" for weeks to it, and that farmer wasn't brutally beaten the cows to tear each other limb from limb in what could only be described as a senseless worship of physical force and violence -- much like the sport he played, so it's really no surprise.

Human achievement takes a back seat to the "rights" of another species. How does man decide which species can be killed for our benefit, and which ones can not? What is the magic formula? Who is the genius that developed this decision making process?

The free market. Ideally, the free market decides what animals we kill and which ones we don't. You don't see too many dead dogs because people value them more alive then dead, or tamed rather then ruthlessly violent. A little of that sentiment has made it's way through the wall that's supposed to seperate the state and the economy. These laws are the result of that.

The only thing Vick achieved could be described a step or two above what his dogs achieved.

If man is moral to use the lives of other species to promote and sustain his life, then this is a principle that should be used universally or not at all. One man should not be penalized for killing animals where another man is free to do so. Michael Vick is no more a monster than the owners of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies who torture animals to death to develop cures for disease, or those who torture animals to death to provide the mink furs that so many of us covet. A dog is no more special than any other animal!

The pharmaceutical companies toture animals so that we can live without the threat of our assholes turning inside out or out skin falling off or our white blood cells stop working. The furs and clothers keep us warm, and over time we managed to find ways to produce these clothes without the use of so many animals, diminishing their value. Again, these two things futher mans life in a positive way. The only thing watch two dogs being egged on to kill each other does is brutalize oneself and degrade oneself to the level of his savage ancestors.

Clearly, Michael Vick is the victim of gross violation of property rights. Animals in a free and fair society are not citizens but the property of citizens. Animal rights are rights granted to them by becoming the property of human beings. Some are more lucky than others. One animal owner should not have the right to mandate what other animal owners can and can not do with the animals that they pay for.

No.

The victims of gross violation of property rights are the people who were forced to pay $214 million to build a stadium so Micheal Vick can have a place to throw a ball around and get paid enough money to run a morally repugnant business on the side which he knew was illegal to begin with.

And what if the animal refuses to do what the person who owns it wants it to do? Then what? Should you beat it until it does? Keep in mind that it's looking for it's own survival here. It's not a rock, or a T.V.

Unfortunately we live in a society that no longer truly appreciates what property rights mean. We seem to believe that the consensus of a mob has a position of moral superiority over the individual. That for example a mob of hindus has the right to one day vote away the rights of Christians to eat hamburgers.

Yes, and it's perfectly fine for Christians to vote away the rights of liquor store owners and keep them from opening a store near them, or for them to ban prositution, or pass laws that say more then 4 women living in a house at one time is considered a brothel, or to pressure the State government to extort $214 million of the hard working peoples money to build a place where they can watch Micheal Vick tear up the grid iron and also to hold huge religious revivals

Our form of government as created made this an impossibility, but 200 years of sabotage and moral cowardice have eroded and outright re-written the constitution that was created to protect the property rights of its citizens.

What we now have is a pathetic population of mongrel worshipping mediocrity what would literally jail the greatest within our species to protect rights of a mangy, stupid, and filthy animal.

If Michael Vick is kept in prison much longer I don't know exactly what I am going to do but sit still won't be one of my options.

Micheal Vick is an idiot, a coward, and a ruthless thug. Even if the law is immoral, we still live in a relatively free society where greater injustices occur every day and where he could of chosen not to be a moron. So some good has come of this in the form of sending this guy to jail to become some guy's boyfriend and maybe that will teach him not to be a cocky criminal anymore.

[RationalBiker]

Should man at his best be jailed and disgraced because he disposed of his property in a manner in which his neighbors disapprove?

A man at his best should keep in mind what he has to risk by engaging in a known illegal venture whether such venture should or should not be illegal. You praise his athleticism but I condemn his gross stupidity and self-destructive actions.

Whether or not the law should exist, it does and this land survives, for better or worse, by the rule of law.

I bet you watch a lot of Fox News.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[DavidOdden]

1). Michael Vick is the victim of the government grossly violating his property rights.

We are in agreement on that.

Moral Outrage

Which, as I said, is comparable to the moral outrage that drug dealers and pimps deserve. And what about those poor people who, by the hundreds of thousands, have their property rights grossly violated for driving faster than the speed limit? Moral Outrage. Or the hundreds of millions of citizens who have are the victims of the government taking their property from them on April 15? Moral Outrage. There are vast numbers of causes of Moral Outrage. So many that the concept becomes virtually meaningless. It must be very stressful for you to be morally outraged 24/7.

[iGod]

Yeah, and Vick knew full well it was a crime and continued to do it. He is a criminal and deserves the punishment for it.

... 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.

Yes I recognize that it might be unwise to violate such repression, but submission to overwhelming force, is NOT surrender; but resignation.

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.

Because the grocery store owner and butchers are actually produced value in the form of sustance for human beings. Not forcing animals to mangle each other so they can get a hard on and enough money to not have to work for a living.

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!

...Jailing successful businessmen who help companies become propely valued through "insider' knowledge is a moral tragedy.... Jailing Michael Vick is a bittersweet victor for human decency.

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:

Yeah, and Vick knew full well it was a crime and continued to do it. He is a criminal and deserves the punishment for it.

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.

You don't see too many dead dogs because people value them more alive then dead, or tamed rather then ruthlessly violent. A little of that sentiment has made it's way through the wall that's supposed to seperate the state and the economy. These laws are the result of that.

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?

Micheal Vick is an idiot, a coward, and a ruthless thug. Even if the law is immoral, we still live in a relatively free society where greater injustices occur every day and where he could of chosen not to be a moron. So some good has come of this in the form of sending this guy to jail to become some guy's boyfriend and maybe that will teach him not to be a cocky criminal anymore.

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!

You funny.

It must be very stressful for you to be morally outraged 24/7.

I do sleep.

[Superluminal]

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.

Are we discussing Vicks dogfighting ring or his race?

[Superluminal]

The laws are immoral, and to equate Michael Vick to a drug dealer or pimp is a racist evasion.

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 have noticed this in another thread as well. What is the proper repsonse to the improper use of race

in a discussion? Call it out, let it go, or what?

[DavidOdden]

What is the proper repsonse to the improper use of race in a discussion?

I don't think race per se makes a difference, except that people get really sensitive about race. It's like the imprper use of sexual orientation, hair color, or income in a discussion. I'm totally persuaded that it is a huge error to let it slide. Even if silence doesn't literally mean approval, people tend to construe it that way, and then the lie becomes "knowledge". There are contexts where it's just no possible to discuss such a thing rationally, but you shouldn't assume that you're dealing with irrational people unless you have good reason to. Basically, it comes down to being able to prove that it's not a matter of race, and having the conviction to make that argument even in public.

[Moebius]

Good. Now we can move on to the next point. That isn't a proper law: it shouldn't exist. But it is not a "moral outrage".

You're the one that called it a "moral outrage". I just said it is irrational and unjust. Now are you disagreeing with that, or is your only point this whole time that Vick is guilty of dog fighting as supposed to dog killing?

[DavidOdden]

You're the one that called it a "moral outrage".

Would you care to recheck your premises?

[Moebius]

Would you care to recheck your premises?

I believe I have stated it several times, even in the very post that you're quoting.

[DavidOdden]

I believe I have stated it several times, even in the very post that you're quoting.

Never mind, you're actually right about the exact phrase "moral outrage". I responded to the previous claim that the case is a "moral tragedy" which it is not, and responded to the level of outrage clearly expressed by the OP and echoed (with attentuation) by you. But if you're saying that the Vick case does not deserve any special attention, that the OP is wrong to inflate the matter to the status of a "moral tragedy", and that this is simply yet another case of a man's right being violated as happens constantly (and intensively on April 15, and anytime you try to get a contractor to do work on your house), then we may be in agreement. As you say, the Vick case is a "so what?" case.

[iGod]

Are we discussing Vicks dogfighting ring or his race?

I have noticed this in another thread as well. What is the proper repsonse to the improper use of race in a discussion? Call it out, let it go, or what?

Superliminal:

To begin I would first like to say to you that my intent when posting this thread was to discuss the utter contempt that I have at yet another example of the United States of America violating its very founding principles. In this instance the right to property. However, the discussion did no go as I would have hoped to expect, where I admit to "jumping the gun" a bit when I labeled a certain bit of evasion "racist".

I have no concrete proof of what I still believe to be an accurate assessment, which means that I should have simply kept my thoughts to myself at that point.

However, in regards to the remark: "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.", I did a perfect job of demonstrating a text book double standard which makes my statement one that I stand by 100%.

As a side note my statement: "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?" makes no statement, but asks a most VALID question.

Mammon on one hand said about businessmen: "Jailing successful businessmen who help companies become propely valued through "insider' knowledge is a moral tragedy."

However, on the other hand he said of Michael Vick: "Yeah, and Vick knew full well it was a crime and continued to do it. He is a criminal and deserves the punishment for it." and: "So some good has come of this in the form of sending this guy to jail to become some guy's boyfriend and maybe that will teach him not to be a cocky criminal anymore."

I already believe that seeing this illustration gives my statement validity, but I will go one further and explain how this is an obvious double standard, and that I have the right to understand the contradiction.

On one hand Mammon says that a "criminal" who is a businessman tried and convicted on an immoral law is worthy of the status of Moral tragedy victim, but on the other hand a "criminal" tried and convicted by an immoral law who happens to be an entertainer/athlete should be sodomized by by hardened criminals. I legitimately question his motivation for saying such.... don't you?

To answer your second question about how to handle inappropriate use of race in a discussion: Check all premises! Openly, and without apology.

Never mind, you're actually right about the exact phrase "moral outrage". I responded to the previous claim that the case is a "moral tragedy" which it is not, and responded to the level of outrage clearly expressed by the OP and echoed (with attentuation) by you. But if you're saying that the Vick case does not deserve any special attention, that the OP is wrong to inflate the matter to the status of a "moral tragedy", and that this is simply yet another case of a man's right being violated as happens constantly (and intensively on April 15, and anytime you try to get a contractor to do work on your house), then we may be in agreement. As you say, the Vick case is a "so what?" case.

I won't label this evasion racist, as I can't prove the underlying reasons why someone actually says that being taxed or ripped off by a contractor are both EQUAL in devestation to a person's life as being caged for two years, but I will simply state that this is a "classic" evasion...

Y'all funny ...

[DavidOdden]

I won't label this evasion racist, as I can't prove the underlying reasons why someone actually says that being taxed or ripped off by a contractor are both EQUAL in devestation to a person's life as being caged for two years, but I will simply state that this is a "classic" evasion...

It's equivalent to the jailing of a pimp, whore, or drug dealer ~ importer. Have you yet recognised this fact?

[Superluminal]

To begin I would first like to say to you that my intent when posting this thread was to discuss the utter contempt that I have at yet another example of the United States of America violating its very founding principles. In this instance the right to property. However, the discussion did no go as I would have hoped to expect, where I admit to "jumping the gun" a bit when I labeled a certain bit of evasion "racist".

Claiming,

The laws are immoral, and to equate Michael Vick to a drug dealer or pimp is a racist evasion

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.

are far from "jumping the gun a bit".

I have no concrete proof of what I still believe to be an accurate assessment, which means that I should have simply kept my thoughts to myself at that point.

Then please do so.

[Thales]

Superliminal:

To begin I would first like to say to you that my intent when posting this thread was to discuss the utter contempt that I have at yet another example of the United States of America violating its very founding principles. In this instance the right to property.

In that you are right.

However, the discussion did no go as I would have hoped to expect,

Listen, nobody here disagreed with you over his incarceration. He should not be in jail. Nobody denies this, and it's flat out wrong.

The whole discussion revolved around the fuller context.

Let's say you know somebody from work, and one day you visit his house, and while chatting suddenly he's throwing darts at his dog. What would you think of that person? Now, I won't argue he doesn't have the right, but I certainly would have a very bad view of him, and I'd wonder what other sort of things he'd be capable of. And, frankly, the only thing that keeps me from making a law against it is my understanding of the principle of rights. These are cases that really test you.

At the end of the day, I was surprised Vick did this. I've seen him play a few times, and he's a great player, fun to watch, and he always seemed like he was having fun. So, I think he let a lot of people down as well.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Thales

[Superluminal]

The whole discussion revolved around the fuller context.

The context was "moral outrage", which is not shared by me. Vick KNOWINGLY broke law, he was aware of the consequences

of that law. Hence, no moral outrage from me. 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.

[iGod]

Listen, nobody here disagreed with you over his incarceration. He should not be in jail. Nobody denies this, and it's flat out wrong.

The whole discussion revolved around the fuller context.

Let's say you know somebody from work, and one day you visit his house, and while chatting suddenly he's throwing darts at his dog. What would you think of that person? Now, I won't argue he doesn't have the right, but I certainly would have a very bad view of him, and I'd wonder what other sort of things he'd be capable of.

So, I think he let a lot of people down as well.

Your analogy is skewed.

Let's say that you met a farmer. This guy farms say... chickens for a living. He prides himself on producing the absolute best in quality breast meat. He takes you on a tour of his operations, and while demonstrating the greatness of his brood he notices a scrawny rooster in the midst of female chickens that might in theory impregnate some of his stock and ruin the gene pool of his successful chicken farm.

He kills the rooster... - CUT!

THIS is an appropriate approximation of the situation... what were you wondering about Michael Vick's character?

Be real with yourself. Check your premises.

BTW:

Today I am not on my iPhone making posts to this forum, so I am available for unmitigated discussion....

I so enjoy this shyt!

[Superluminal]

The farmer breaks no law.

[iGod]

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.

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?

Do you really see what Vick's incarceration REALLY means for you?

Step outside your (if you have it) disdain for athletes or any other group Michael Vick is a part of , and reason. I am not some person trying to get you guys up in arms about some ------. but a thinker that is beyond race, and is becoming worried about his own personal life.

WAKE UP.

The farmer breaks no law.

Well, since you made this statement you are not covered by Thade's posting:

Listen, nobody here disagreed with you over his incarceration. He should not be in jail. Nobody denies this, and it's flat out wrong.

We are talking about a moral issue, not a legal one.

Check your premise.

I aint Al Sharpton.

[Superluminal]

Are you really that shallow?

You insult me?

Step outside your (if you have it) disdain for athletes or any other group Michael Vick is a part of , and reason.

You insult me again and insinuate race once more.My part in this discussion with you is over.

[iGod]

You insult me?

An insult by definition is a statement. I asked you a question. Is questioning the integrity of your statements insulting? I wonder why if it is. (another question, not insult )

You insult me again and insinuate race once more.My part in this discussion with you is over.

Well, if questioning you for further clarity causes you to be silent with me....

Like I said: "I aint Al Sharpton."