NationStates Jolt Archive

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

My thoughts:

Dog culling and cruelty are associated with the Iditarod and dog sledding in Alaska, but nobody bats and eye.

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.

death-penalty......dog for a dog.:rolleyes:

Yes, the laws are ridiculous. Animals are animals.

Doesn't change the fact that Vick is an idiot, but as loathsome as I find the practice, dog fighting should not be illegal, nor gambling, but since it is, he should have known better.

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

My thoughts:

Dog culling and cruelty are associated with the Iditarod and dog sledding in Alaska, but nobody bats and eye.

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.

Because we eat the pig, I don't know about you but I like my ham, and yes, sled dogs are culled, but they're culled because people want the best sled dog around, I don't really see how that's abused. They just simply breed out any undesirable traits. Also, what kind of cruelty has sled dogs endured?

There's a difference between using sled dogs to win a race (in which no one is killed) then to take a dog, train him to be a killer, and then have him fight to the death with another dog whom also been abused and trained to kill.

He's not being punished enough by the law. However, the destruction of his "good" name and of his career will punish him adequately. No one will stand behind Michael Vick one he's released from prison.

Because we eat the pig, I don't know about you but I like my ham, and yes, sled dogs are culled, but they're culled because people want the best sled dog around, I don't really see how that's abused. They just simply breed out any undesirable traits. Also, what kind of cruelty has sled dogs endured?Well, I think they're mostly kept outdoors tied to extremely short chains in all weather, and sometimes wolves come by and eat them. There's websites about it I guess.

There's a difference between using sled dogs to win a race (in which no one is killed) then to take a dog, train him to be a killer, and then have him fight to the death with another dog whom also been abused and trained to kill.What's the difference? A fight dog isn't necessarily "abused" in any sense greater than that it's trained to fight. A sled dog is trained to run and pull a sled really fast for long distances in extermely cold weather. Both are going to take a hit. Nobody get's killed in dog fights either, except dogs. Why is it okay to kill a dog in one instance, but not the other?

If Vick had eaten the dogs after they died, would that make it okay?

Maybe he'll speak at high schools. Sort of a 'DOn't let this happen to you' thing.

"I'm Michael Vick and I'm a motivational speaker. I'm thirty-five years old, thrice divorced and I live in a van down by the river!!"

Maybe he'll speak at high schools. Sort of a 'DOn't let this happen to you' thing.

"I'm Michael Vick and I'm a motivational speaker. I'm thirty-five years old, thrice divorced and I live in a van down by the river!!"

I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! (http://thetravisty.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Matt_Foley_-_Motivational_Speaker.htm)

One of Chris Farley best skit, EVER! :D

"If Vick had eaten the dogs after they died, would that make it okay? "

Morally... probably not. Legally yeah. Becuase then he could just claim thats how you get the tenderest dog meat. Also it's legal to slay domesticated house pets for food.

Well, I think they're mostly kept outdoors tied to extremely short chains in all weather, and sometimes wolves come by and eat them. There's websites about it I guess.

So you got nothing.....ok, just making sure.


What's the difference? A fight dog isn't necessarily "abused" in any sense greater than that it's trained to fight.

When you hit a dog over and over and over and basically make them be pissed off at the world, then yea that's abused. Hell Police train their dogs better than Dog Fighter "Trainers" do. At least the Police treat their dog with respect.

A sled dog is trained to run and pull a sled really fast for long distances in extermely cold weather.

Which is why sledders use big, strong dogs with thick coat, like Huskies.

Both are going to take a hit. Nobody get's killed in dog fights either, except dogs.

Except those who train dogs to pull sled aren't hit over and over and abused. Like Police dogs, Sledding dogs are treated with respect.

Why is it okay to kill a dog in one instance, but not the other?

Because if a sled dog dies while doing his job, it isn't intentional, in dog fighting, it is.

If Vick had eaten the dogs after they died, would that make it okay?

No, also, *burns down straw man*

I hate Micheal Vick with a passion. He is nothing but a thug and I hope he gets ass raped every day in jail. If I were a player, if and when he gets into the league I would go for his knees on every play and try to cause him pain for the rest of his life.

Free Mike Vick

I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! (http://thetravisty.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Matt_Foley_-_Motivational_Speaker.htm)

One of Chris Farley best skit, EVER! :D

David Spade had to pratically chew his tongue out of his head to keep from laughing. :)

David Spade had to pratically chew his tongue out of his head to keep from laughing. :)

I read that when I was reading something about the skit. You can actually see him smirk in that skit. Ahh I miss Chris Farley. I miss the SNL that had David Spade, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, and whoever did Weekend Update during that time in SNL.

I read that when I was reading something about the skit. You can actually see him smirk in that skit. Ahh I miss Chris Farley. I miss the SNL that had David Spade, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, and whoever did Weekend Update during that time in SNL.

Either Kevin Nealon(good) or Dennis Miller(better).

Either Kevin Nealon(good) or Dennis Miller(better).

Kevin Nealon, Dennis Miller was before my time.

So you got nothing.....ok, just making sure.
Here:
http://www.helpsleddogs.org/

Like Police dogs, Sledding dogs are treated with respect.Well, http://www.helpsleddogs.org/, and what about other animals? Are pigs treated with respect in their small confinements? Calves raised for veal? And if we're raising something as property to be used only as a tool or to eat, how does that meet any criteria of "respect"? You can't respect a thing.

Because if a sled dog dies while doing his job, it isn't intentional, in dog fighting, it is.Why does that matter? Dogs are dead in either case for unnecessary and predictable reasons.

No, also, *burns down straw man*
Straw man? I quote you:
Because we eat the pig, I don't know about you but I like my ham...

Kevin Nealon, Dennis Miller was before my time.

That as back before he sold his soul to Satan...er...I mean Rupert Murdoch. :p

I hate Micheal Vick with a passion. He is nothing but a thug and I hope he gets ass raped every day in jail. If I were a player, if and when he gets into the league I would go for his knees on every play and try to cause him pain for the rest of his life.

You racist!

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

My thoughts:

Dog culling and cruelty are associated with the Iditarod and dog sledding in Alaska, but nobody bats and eye.

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.

Actually, Michael Vick pleaded guilty, so a judge didn't convict him. In reality though, a judge doesn't convict people, juries do.

He's not being punished enough by the law. However, the destruction of his "good" name and of his career will punish him adequately. No one will stand behind Michael Vick one he's released from prison.

No, but I bet a lot of guys will be standing behind him while he's in jail. :eek:

You racist!

Sarcasm or not, we seriously need to get rid of the race card. It lost its use once minorities got their rights and you started seeing a whole bunch of successful minorities. Hugely successful.

I hate Micheal Vick with a passion. He is nothing but a thug and I hope he gets ass raped every day in jail. If I were a player, if and when he gets into the league I would go for his knees on every play and try to cause him pain for the rest of his life.why do you want Vick to be raped?

Sarcasm or not, we seriously need to get rid of the race card. It lost its use once minorities got their rights and you started seeing a whole bunch of successful minorities. Hugely successful.

Yes I was being sarcastic, but still, his comment was very hatefull.

his comment was very hatefull.When he wishes someone was gang raped and wish to cause him pain for the rest of his life.

I would think he was talking about Hitler, Pinochet, Saddam or Bush.

In reality though, a judge doesn't convict people, juries do.

Bench trials.

Not only should dog fighting be legal, but human fighting should be as well.

Gladiators broadcasted on TV. :D

Not only should dog fighting be legal, but human fighting should be as well.http://www.thesweetscience.com/images/3026/rocky_balboa_240x230_052805.jpg

107th Congress: S. 3118 (Status: Dead)
108th Congress: S. 736 (Status: Dead)
108th Congress: S. 2908 (Status: Dead)
108th Congress: H.R. 1532 (Status: Dead)
108th Congress: H.R. 4264 (Status: Dead)
109th Congress: H.R. 817 (Status: Dead)
110th Congress: S. 261 (Status: Scheduled for Debate)
110th Congress: H.R. 137 (Status: Enacted)

They tried for years to enact this law and finally got it approved.

Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]
Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT]
Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]
Sen. Mark Dayton [D-MN]
Sen. Michael DeWine [R-OH]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D-ND]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]
Sen. James Jeffords [I-VT]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Rep. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. John Reed [D-RI]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
Sen. Richard Santorum [R-PA]
Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D-MD]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Sen. John Warner [R-VA]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

No representitive fom GA co-sponsored this bill - animal cruelty is horrible but the federal government has no right enforce shit like this. It isnt even about animals cruelity but about interstate commerce - frankly they wouldn't give a damn if they got a piece of the action thru interstate taxation and regulation.

(e) Penalties
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.

I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! (http://thetravisty.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Matt_Foley_-_Motivational_Speaker.htm)

One of Chris Farley best skit, EVER! :D

I remember that. But I just now noticed .. that he didn't mean to fall on that table and break it. rofl

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

My thoughts:

Dog culling and cruelty are associated with the Iditarod and dog sledding in Alaska, but nobody bats and eye.

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.I don't know about nobody batting an eye - I think it's more that the Iditarod isn't exposed on the nightly news. Give it national exposure and that would change too.

Sarcasm or not, we seriously need to get rid of the race card. It lost its use once minorities got their rights and you started seeing a whole bunch of successful minorities. Hugely successful.We don't see a whole bunch of successful minorities, we see an occasional successful minority.

I'm a vegan therefore the double standard doesn't apply to me.

why do you want Vick to be raped?

with the way he treated those dogs, he deserves it imo.

Bench trials.

Ok, I forgot about those. But to be fair, I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


:D

I'm a vegan therefore the double standard doesn't apply to me.

I am just s vegetarian. :(

I am just s vegetarian. :(That's okay. It just means you like to impregnate and molest animals to suckle their juices, which is superior to torturing and killing them.

Sarcasm or not, we seriously need to get rid of the race card. It lost its use once minorities got their rights and you started seeing a whole bunch of successful minorities. Hugely successful.

What we seriously need to get rid of is (1) idiots that complain about the "race card" anytime someone questions whether a minority member is being treated fairly and (2) racism--which is rampant in the United States.

That being said, Michael Vick's legal problems are not rooted in racism. On that we can agree.

That's okay. It just means you like to impregnate and molest animals to suckle their juices, which is superior to torturing and killing them.

Speaking of torturing and killing them... are you a vegan? if so, you realize your food was grown on land that used to be home to many animals and birds, alot which was killed not for food but because their home was needed to grow your food. add to that the chemicals, not just pesticides but fertilizers that are introduced to make your foods big and colorful killed off many insects depriving alot of Insectivors their meals. again, not for food but to grow your food.

Many of those animals were chased into environments that were alien to them, causing many painful clashes with the dominate fauna there. all to grow your food.

and that's not even touching upon the amount of land taken for your home that you grew up in. the land needed for the power station that runs your omputer as well as the manufacturing plant that made the computer that you are using and the clothes that you wear.

yes, alot of animals are treated cruely, yes alot of sports use animals in ways you don't agree with. but realize all the luxuries YOU enjoy were also at the expense of animals and their habitats.

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

Perhaps you shouldn't opine about matters which you clearly know nothing about.

Michael Vick violated state and federal laws, and tortured animals -- some of them to death.

Read about it here (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/17/dohrmann.vick/index.html) and here (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070717/vick_indictment.pdf).

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.

Are you unable to understand the difference between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal for pleasure?

Speaking of torturing and killing them... are you a vegan?Not completely. I enjoy a good cow molestation now and then.

if so, you realize your food was grown on land that used to be home to many animals and birds, alot which was killed not for food but because their home was needed to grow your food. add to that the chemicals, not just pesticides but fertilizers that are introduced to make your foods big and colorful killed off many insects depriving alot of Insectivors their meals. again, not for food but to grow your food.

Many of those animals were chased into environments that were alien to them, causing many painful clashes with the dominate fauna there. all to grow your food.
Not necessarily. Food can be grown in a greenhouse. Food can be gathered from nature. Growing food can be integrated with the natural environment, rather than supplant it. The hippy place down the street from where I live has a lot of stuff like that.

In any case, the footprint-based effect of veganism are dwarfed by those of consuming meat (see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13295537&postcount=52

and that's not even touching upon the amount of land taken for your home that you grew up in. the land needed for the power station that runs your omputer as well as the manufacturing plant that made the computer that you are using and the clothes that you wear.Aside from the fact that economies of scale, hydro power, and second-hand goods consumption make most of your concerns moot or negligible (compared with the meat consumption of others) in my case, you do raise a good point. Our existence depends on the utilization of energy, and many people do not have a wide perspective when it comes to their own impact. IMO, we should educate people and seek to minimize negative environmental impact

yes, alot of animals are treated cruely, yes alot of sports use animals in ways you don't agree with. but realize all the luxuries YOU enjoy were also at the expense of animals and their habitats.My lifestyle is not exactly luxurious, but even if it were, how would that affect the moral issues in play? So other human activities harm animals, too. Does that somehow make meat consumption okay?

Are you unable to understand the difference between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal for pleasure?

Actually... in a society with factory farms and in which meat-eating is almost entirely for pleasure, I see no way whatsoever to draw that distinction.

The real distinction here seems to be, "I don't like the idea of dog-fighting, but I like the idea of ham. My tastes happen to correspond to those of the majority."

Are you unable to understand the difference between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal for pleasure?I am perfectly able to understand the difference. Maybe you are having trouble understanding. I offer a human analogy.

Mike Vick torturing animals for pleasure
is to
the animal meat industry

as

a torturing serial killer
is to
If nazi concentration campers were born unfree and holocaust ovens were also culinary ovens

Michael Vick is a douchebag, pure and simple, as is anyone who supports dogfighting.
Fucktards like that are the reason so many people have an uninformed opinion of pitbulls.
Those dogs are abused from birth, trained to be agressive and dangerous, and often starved.

Anyone who has ever spent a few moments with a properly trained pitbull knows they are actually big slobbering love mutts. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive, and unfortunatly the breed was made for the purpose.

In Vick's case, I think he should be subjected to the same treatment he gave the dogs.
"Rape Stands", anyone?

Actually... in a society with factory farms and in which meat-eating is almost entirely for pleasure, I see no way whatsoever to draw that distinction.

The real distinction here seems to be, "I don't like the idea of dog-fighting, but I like the idea of ham. My tastes happen to correspond to those of the majority."

I am perfectly able to understand the difference. Maybe you are having trouble understanding. I offer a human analogy.

Mike Vick torturing animals for pleasure
is to
the animal meat industry

as

a torturing serial killer
is to
If nazi concentration campers were born unfree and holocaust ovens were also culinary ovens

1. As someone that grew-up working on a ranch and later spent two years as a vegetarian, I'm not impressed by the comparison of family farms to Dachau and Auschwitz-Birkenau. The comparison is offensive. Shame on you.

2. Animals can be humanely raised and killed for meat. I understand there are arguments about whether one should eat meat at all, but the relevant factor is cruelty. Meat-eating need not be cruel. What Micheal Vick did was gratuitously cruel.

3. There is also a question of what is morally acceptable to the majority in a democratic society. We are free to condemn dog fighting as cruel and inhumane. If you want to argue that we should aslso condemn other treatment of animals, fine. But "OMG duoble-standard" isn't a particularly persuasive argument when one can point to moral distinctions between the cases. Farm animals are well-treated and humanely slaughtered. Michael Vick's animals were mistreated, tortured, used in illegal fights, and killed in painful ways. The distinction is obvious.

1. As someone that grew-up working on a ranch and later spent two years as a vegetarian, I'm not impressed by the comparison of family farms to Dachau and Auschwitz-Birkenau. The comparison is offensive. Shame on you.
Oh boo-hoo. The comparison was to the meat industry in general, although it is perhaps more apt for factory farms rather than the imaginary feel-good "family farm" suggested by the buzzword.

2. Animals can be humanely raised and killed for meat. I understand there are arguments about whether one should eat meat at all, but the relevant factor is cruelty. Meat-eating need not be cruel. What Micheal Vick did was gratuitously cruel.
What is cruelty? Your line between what is cruel and what isn't seems pretty convenient to me. Humans can be humanely raised for meat too. Of course, animals raised for meat usually aren't raised in "humane" conditions unless you really twist the definition of the word "humane" to the point of arbitrariness (like Bush+friends with waterboarding/torture).

3. There is also a question of what is morally acceptable to the majority in a democratic society. We are free to condemn dog fighting as cruel and inhumane.Be careful. Objective morally is not defined by the majority, particularly in instances where the democratic pool excludes the objects of oppression.

Farm animals are well-treated and humanely slaughtered.BS As if "humanely slaughtered" weren't an oxymoron. If a mythical farm that exists where the farm animals all live in happy harmony, have their needs tended to, and are kissed by everybody before being Kevorkianed, it wouldn't be able to compete economically with vast majority of meat-producing operations. Even so-called "free-range" operations, I suspect, would fail to live up to reasonable standards of humaneness.

Michael Vick's animals were mistreated, tortured, used in illegal fights, and killed in painful ways. The distinction is obvious.Animals in your food are mistreated, tortured, and killed in painful ways. To think that there is a significant moral distinction is doublethink.

Oh boo-hoo. The comparison was to the meat industry in general, although it is perhaps more apt for factory farms rather than the imaginary feel-good "family farm" suggested by the buzzword.


Wow you really don't know what you are talking about now do you?

Sled dogs vs dog fighting. Care to offer numbers? Far more dog fighting then there are sled dogs.

I came from a family farm as well so you really don't know what you are talking about.

What is cruelty? Your line between what is cruel and what isn't seems pretty convenient to me.

Again has is dogs tearing each other apart the same as the slaughter of a cow or pig?

Humans can be humanely raised for meat too. Of course, animals raised for meat usually aren't raised in "humane" conditions unless you really twist the definition of the word "humane" to the point of arbitrariness (like Bush+friends with waterboarding/torture).

Nice strawman! Almost very good quality!

Be careful. Objective morally is not defined by the majority, particularly in instances where the democratic pool excludes the objects of oppression.

BS As if "humanely slaughtered" weren't an oxymoron. If a mythical farm that exists where the farm animals all live in happy harmony, have their needs tended to, and are kissed by everybody before being Kevorkianed, it wouldn't be able to compete economically with vast majority of meat-producing operations. Even so-called "free-range" operations, I suspect, would fail to live up to reasonable standards of humaneness.

:rolleyes: And your experience in this matter is what?

Animals in your food are mistreated, tortured, and killed in painful ways. To think that there is a significant moral distinction is doublethink.

:rolleyes: Ok Lets see your evidence.

Wow you really don't know what you are talking about now do you?

Sled dogs vs dog fighting. Care to offer numbers? Far more dog fighting then there are sled dogs.

:rolleyes: And your experience in this matter is what?

:rolleyes: Ok Lets see your evidence. Care to offer numbers? Far more dog fighting then there are sled dogs.what are the your numbers?

You seem to say there is way more dog fighting than what I could presume.

I came from a family farm as well so you really don't know what you are talking about.
You coming from a family farm has nothing to do with whether I know what I'm talking about, which has nothing to do with whether I'm right, which I am.

But

I lived most of my life in Iowa, which is basically a giant farm dotted with small cities and towns. I've been to and known people with farms. Farms owned by families even! I wouldn't say that their animals were generally treated "humanely", but rather "indifferently", although it's my understanding that the big-time hog confinements are substantially worse. Also, the animals were sold prior to slaughter. The messy stuff was all done by the illegal immigrants on the line at IBP/Tyson Foods.

As for "evidence", there's plenty if you have the stomach to watch. This was posted in a different thread:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw

Joaqin Phoenix phones in a poorly written propaganda over one and a half hours of really bad shit done to animals that's perfectly legal.

My original point is, if we as a society allow any animal torture of one kind, but condemn a different kind, we are hypocrites.

Also, why is torture considered worse than being killed when it comes to animals? I would rather be tortured than killed. The behavior of animals suggests the same for them. They try to survive in the midst of torture.

what are the your numbers?

You seem to say there is way more dog fighting than what I could presume.

I heard a fellow on the radio claim 32 states have active problems. All 50 states have laws saying it's illegal.

The humane society estimates there are 40000 dog fighters in the US alone. A little high probably.

Michigan has a law the terminate fighting dogs whenever they get them.

Here is something to explain it more as my info is TV (animal planet and pet detectives) and radio.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm

Also, why is torture considered worse than being killed when it comes to animals? I would rather be tortured than killed. The behavior of animals suggests the same for them. They try to survive in the midst of torture.

And yet the people that face torture try to kill themselves.

You coming from a family farm has nothing to do with whether I know what I'm talking about, which has nothing to do with whether I'm right, which I am.

But

I lived most of my life in Iowa, which is basically a giant farm dotted with small cities and towns. I've been to and known people with farms. Farms owned by families even! I wouldn't say that their animals were generally treated "humanely", but rather "indifferently", although it's my understanding that the big-time hog confinements are substantially worse.

Ahh so you never farmed?

Not everybody abuses their animals as you suggest.


My original point is, if we as a society allow any animal torture of one kind, but condemn a different kind, we are hypocrites.

One involves crime and the other does not.

Ahh so you never farmed?Hell no, not with animals. I'm a vegetarian.

Not everybody abuses their animals as you suggest.Killing animals is abuse. I do know people with pets who treat them nicely.
One involves crime and the other does not.That's kinda my point. Crime is merely a formalization of societal norms. That one is a crime and the other isn't serves only to prove my point.

And yet the people that face torture try to kill themselves.
So you would rather be killed than tortured?

Rot in jail, Ron Mexico.

So you would rather be killed than tortured?

Well i think yes i would reather be killed the tortured

My point in case here.. I eat meat not for enjoyment, but because its part of my every day diet, whether or not I enjoy eating meat is unimportant really. Its a perfectly natural thing...

If you can think of an actual humane way to terminate life I'd love to hear it. Lions kill things in far more grotesque, painful and vulgar ways, so do wolves, and coyotes, and any other predator you can think of. I really get annoyed by the arguments made by vegans/vegetarians that claim inhumanity and similar some-such.

Michigan has a law the terminate fighting dogs whenever they get them.yes.

Cities/states can have bans on PitBulls or other kind of animals.. what is wrong with that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HL7AZCPZAA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54SzbNPcbGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQNxx634_bw&feature=related

yes.

Cities/states can have bans on PitBulls or other kind of animals.. what is wrong with that?


I didn't say it was wrong. Just saying it's a growing problem.

Even now I just saw a blip where there were 42 more arrests for dog fighting.....

My point in case here.. I eat meat not for enjoyment, but because its part of my every day diet, whether or not I enjoy eating meat is unimportant really. Its a perfectly natural thing...Meat may be a natural part of our diet, but that doesn't make it good. (As humans, our behavior can't really be classified in terms of natural vs unnatural). Violence toward each other and toward animals is a natural part of humanity too.

But I would still point out that modern meat-eating is highly unnatural. Selectively-bred domesticated animals are raised in controlled industrial factory-like conditions, and processed through the marketplace to arrive in a supermarket or McDonald's hamburger to be gorged on by the meat-fat every-man. There's nothing natural about that.

If you can think of an actual humane way to terminate life I'd love to hear it.So would I, but you will never hear it.

Lions kill things in far more grotesque, painful and vulgar ways, so do wolves, and coyotes, and any other predator you can think of. I really get annoyed by the arguments made by vegans/vegetarians that claim inhumanity and similar some-such.That's true; nature is violent, and if not as resolutely as humans, it is certainly as brutal. But:

1. We as a species have not yet developed the capacity to improve upon nature. Where ever we spread, the steady destruction of nature turns genocidal as ecological systems are destabilized.

2. In nature, most animals have at least a chance to survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own terms. When humans use animals, every aspect of their existence is controlled by us for our own ends. As a consequence, death and pain are certainties.

If you consider these two facts, it is certainly the lesser of evils if we leave well enough alone, at least until we develop the capacity to interact with nature in a positive manner.

So this athlete guy who I guess is supposed to be a good person in every other respect partook in dog fighting, and is going to do some jail or something. Everybody is outraged.

My thoughts:

Dog culling and cruelty are associated with the Iditarod and dog sledding in Alaska, but nobody bats and eye.
Proof?

The judge who convicted him probably went out and had a ham sandwich afterward. Pigs are supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, right?
He probably smoked a cigarette. Doesn't mean he did. Don't make assumptions over retarded things. Kiling for food is far different that killing for fun.

Why no accompanying media coverage on this double-standard in society? It seems pretty obvious to me.
Because there is none.

Shame the bastard won't rot in jail for the life sentence he deserves.

Proof?
It's a pretty well-documented fact - not exactly a secret. On the first page of a google search:
http://www.sleddogwatchdog.com/
http://www.helpsleddogs.org/
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/facts_about_the_iditarod.html
http://www.adn.com/iditarod/race_2007/race/story/8753814p-8655203c.html

He probably smoked a cigarette. Doesn't mean he did. Don't make assumptions over retarded things.I didn't mean that the Judge literally ate a delicious ham sandwich while contemplating the verdict, but statistically speaking, the chances that slim that everybody involved in demonizing Mike Vick is a vegetarian.

Kiling for food is far different that killing for fun.Only in the sense that one is cold, distant, mechanical, and takes place on a massive scale, while the other is up close and personal. Either way the animal typically suffers and dies. Nobody has yet pointed out what makes one set of deaths morally acceptable, but makes the others not.

Shame the bastard won't rot in jail for the life sentence he deserves.Mike Vick killed a few dogs for his enjoyment. You pay people to torture and kill animals every day so you can enjoy the taste of meat. The only difference is that you're afraid to look at the consequences of your actions.

He's not being punished enough by the law. However, the destruction of his "good" name and of his career will punish him adequately. No one will stand behind Michael Vick one he's released from prison.

There are hundreds of cases like this at any given tim. You just never hear of them because they aren't famous like Vick. As for the law isn't punishing him enough, he's getting the same punishment as all those other people. In fact, he even probably got a worse one than average. The judge gave him one month off of the maximum sentence. He's going to be in for almost 2 years

He's pretty much getting an example made out of him.

There are hundreds of cases like this at any given time.And do they all get charged?

what % actually makes it to Jail?

And do they all get charged?

what % actually makes it to Jail?

yes what % actually makes it to Jail?

And do they all get charged?

If their case is before a court then they clearly have been charged.

If their case is before a court then they clearly have been charged.allow me to be more specific.
...32 states have active problems.

The humane society estimates there are 40000 dog fighters in the US alone.what percentage -of these- would you say are charged by the DA.

and... how many actually make it to Jail. (I bet -1st time offenders- get suspended sentences)

Not necessarily. Food can be grown in a greenhouse. Food can be gathered from nature. Growing food can be integrated with the natural environment, rather than supplant it. The hippy place down the street from where I live has a lot of stuff like that. and where is this greenhouse? replacing a tree? or several acres of trees if you want one large enough to support you and your family for a year.

and have you tried harvesting wild grown crops? no feilds now, no weeding, no removal of pests and animals that would otherwise feast on your crops...

and this "hippy place", is it a building? one that made several animals homeless, forcing them to go to other territories and starve?

In any case, the footprint-based effect of veganism are dwarfed by those of consuming meat (see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13295537&postcount=52ah, so it's not that you condemn the torture and mistreatment of animals, you only condem what you consider excessive torture of animals. Torturing them is fine as long as it's not alot. ;)

Aside from the fact that economies of scale, hydro power, and second-hand goods consumption make most of your concerns moot or negligible (compared with the meat consumption of others) in my case, you do raise a good point. Our existence depends on the utilization of energy, and many people do not have a wide perspective when it comes to their own impact. IMO, we should educate people and seek to minimize negative environmental impact and yet you still need the plants to generate the hydro power and distribute it, more homeless animals... and places to sell second-hand goods, more land taken from animals. Wind farms stand a risk of killing flocks of birds. same with hydro plants, solar farms etc... so where does the "stop the torture of animals" end and "progress is necessary" begins?

My lifestyle is not exactly luxurious, but even if it were, how would that affect the moral issues in play? So other human activities harm animals, too. Does that somehow make meat consumption okay? you are the one saying meat consumption is torture, as well as many sports that use animals (horse racing, dog racing, dog/cat shows, etc) yet those animals raised for consuption are raised on wide fields and, for the most part, kept healthy and protected, those legal sports animals are trained and cared for by their owners. you turn a blind eye on animals forced to wander the streets, eat garbage and fight for survival as their homes are shrunk down to a point where it cannot support their numbers. you condemn one form torture and live a life that still tortures animals.

Oh boo-hoo. The comparison was to the meat industry in general, although it is perhaps more apt for factory farms rather than the imaginary feel-good "family farm" suggested by the buzzword.

What is cruelty? Your line between what is cruel and what isn't seems pretty convenient to me. Humans can be humanely raised for meat too. Of course, animals raised for meat usually aren't raised in "humane" conditions unless you really twist the definition of the word "humane" to the point of arbitrariness (like Bush+friends with waterboarding/torture).

BS As if "humanely slaughtered" weren't an oxymoron. If a mythical farm that exists where the farm animals all live in happy harmony, have their needs tended to, and are kissed by everybody before being Kevorkianed, it wouldn't be able to compete economically with vast majority of meat-producing operations. Even so-called "free-range" operations, I suspect, would fail to live up to reasonable standards of humaneness.

Animals in your food are mistreated, tortured, and killed in painful ways. To think that there is a significant moral distinction is doublethink.

*sigh*

I understand you object to people eating meat. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise.

But there is still a significant difference between raising an animal and eating it and torturing an animal to death. Animals raised for meat are not necessarily mistreated, are not tortured, and are generally not killed in painful ways.

If you can't see that torturing an animal is itself a wrong seperate and above from the raising of livestock, then it is you that are morally unclear.

Similarly, if you really can't make a distinction between farming and running a Nazi concentration camp, it is you that needs to do some soul-searching.

Be careful. Objective morally is not defined by the majority, particularly in instances where the democratic pool excludes the objects of oppression.

So animals should have the right to vote?

Meat may be a natural part of our diet, but that doesn't make it good. (As humans, our behavior can't really be classified in terms of natural vs unnatural). Violence toward each other and toward animals is a natural part of humanity too.

But I would still point out that modern meat-eating is highly unnatural. Selectively-bred domesticated animals are raised in controlled industrial factory-like conditions, and processed through the marketplace to arrive in a supermarket or McDonald's hamburger to be gorged on by the meat-fat every-man. There's nothing natural about that.

So would I, but you will never hear it.

That's true; nature is violent, and if not as resolutely as humans, it is certainly as brutal. But:

1. We as a species have not yet developed the capacity to improve upon nature. Where ever we spread, the steady destruction of nature turns genocidal as ecological systems are destabilized.

2. In nature, most animals have at least a chance to survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own terms. When humans use animals, every aspect of their existence is controlled by us for our own ends. As a consequence, death and pain are certainties.

If you consider these two facts, it is certainly the lesser of evils if we leave well enough alone, at least until we develop the capacity to interact with nature in a positive manner.

Are you suggesting that domestic livestock would "survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own terms" if they were abandoned by humans? My family should simply release their sheep into the "wild"?

Are you suggesting that domestic livestock would "survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own terms" if they were abandoned by humans? My family should simply release their sheep into the "wild"?

Well having them killed by coyotes, dogs, etc or starving to death is "natural" and "more humane" in comparison to breeding them for food or hunting them.

Didn't you know that?

... hunting..Just as wrong.
Hunting for pleasure is just like dog fighting or corridas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW1ZFyyfgSg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKkhygTcpo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKtH6rfTK8&feature=related

this one is killing in 3 fun ways with music too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UBk1aHVEI&feature=related

and where is this greenhouse? replacing a tree? or several acres of trees if you want one large enough to support you and your family for a year.Not necessarily. Only a fraction of the Earth's surface is covered in forest, and there's plenty of room in what has already been destroyed by those before us.

and have you tried harvesting wild grown crops? no feilds now, no weeding, no removal of pests and animals that would otherwise feast on your crops...For most of human history we were hunter-gatherers.

and this "hippy place", is it a building? one that made several animals homeless, forcing them to go to other territories and starve?It was probably a different building first. I'm not sure which section of downtown Juneau was built on mine tailings.

ah, so it's not that you condemn the torture and mistreatment of animals, you only condem what you consider excessive torture of animals. Torturing them is fine as long as it's not alot. ;)Who says I don't condemn lesser intrusions into nature? Like I said, I prioritize. Why are people convinced that because one doesn't hold the same views as they, one must be a hypocrite? And what does any of this have to do with the moral difference between Vick's action and most people in the US?

and yet you still need the plants to generate the hydro power and distribute it, more homeless animals... and places to sell second-hand goods, more land taken from animals. Wind farms stand a risk of killing flocks of birds. same with hydro plants, solar farms etc... so where does the "stop the torture of animals" end and "progress is necessary" begins?If there is a line, it's well away from industrial meat, that's for sure, but you can't draw a line because it's not a zero sum game. As creatures of nature ourselves, we will always do both good and evil. As creatures of superior intellect, we are morally obligated to maximize the former and minimize the latter.

you are the one saying meat consumption is torture, as well as many sports that use animals (horse racing, dog racing, dog/cat shows, etc) yet those animals raised for consuption are raised on wide fields and, for the most part, kept healthy and protected, those legal sports animals are trained and cared for by their owners. you turn a blind eye on animals forced to wander the streets, eat garbage and fight for survival as their homes are shrunk down to a point where it cannot support their numbers. you condemn one form torture and live a life that still tortures animals.Why do you insist on building up these straw men? Expanding the field to the whole of society's endeavors merely strengthens my argument that Mike Vick is no monstrous than the most of the human population. And the vast majority of food animals are by no means raised in "wide fields". At least not in Iowa.

But there is still a significant difference between raising an animal and eating it and torturing an animal to death. Animals raised for meat are not necessarily mistreated, are not tortured, and are generally not killed in painful ways.Do you make sure of that before paying for your meat? We know from the existence of all those undercover PETA-style shock videos that at least the of food animals that are raised and processed in the filmed facilities are tortured and mistreated, and people who purchase the meat from those facilities are paying them to do what they do.

If you can't see that torturing an animal is itself a wrong seperate and above from the raising of livestock, then it is you that are morally unclear.

Similarly, if you really can't make a distinction between farming and running a Nazi concentration camp, it is you that needs to do some soul-searching.Of course I see the differences. I've already specified exactly what they are if you had read my previous post more thoroughly. The difference between a Nazi concentration camp and a factory farm is that one uses animals for food and one uses humans and just kills them. The motivations are different too, but that doesn't effect the physical consequences to the oppressed subjects. As for the difference between torturing an animal and raising livestock, they are not mutually exclusive. One may raise livestock and not torture an animal, although this would be economically detrimental for some operations. Or one may raise livestock and torture the livestock as well, which may or may not be economically necessary to compete in the free market.

So animals should have the right to vote?That would be impossible. My point was that since animals are unable to vote, acts done unto them by society are done entirely without their consent, and when society acts upon them, but cares not for their interests, they will suffer.

Are you suggesting that domestic livestock would "survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own terms" if they were abandoned by humans? My family should simply release their sheep into the "wild"?Although some species of livestock would thrive, most wouldn't, having been domesticated beyond the means for their own survival, which is why I would say that society, bearing responsibility for that domestication, has a moral duty look after the general well-being of these animals. What that would entail is beyond the scope of discussion, but needless to say, killing and eating them would not apply.

Although some species of livestock would thrive, most wouldn't, having been domesticated beyond the means for their own survival, which is why I would say that society, bearing responsibility for that domestication, has a moral duty look after the general well-being of these animals. What that would entail is beyond the scope of discussion, but needless to say, killing and eating them would not apply.


What would you do with them? you can't release domesticated Animals into the wild, you can keep them around sure but then they grow and take up space. You have to feed them, tend to them day after day. I'm sure farmers have better things to do than that

What would you do with them? you can't release domesticated Animals into the wild, you can keep them around sure but then they grow and take up space. You have to feed them, tend to them day after day. I'm sure farmers have better things to do than thatBetter by their speciesist standards maybe. Courses taken might involve sterilization, integration with a suitable natural environment (there are feral hogs down south, but probably not well-integrated into the environment), integration with the built/human environment (special parks and such, or like India with cows everywhere), controlled breeding to better adapt the species to survive. Maintained, happyfarm-like preserves...

Just as wrong.
Hunting for pleasure is just like dog fighting or corridas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW1ZFyyfgSg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKkhygTcpo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKtH6rfTK8&feature=related

this one is killing in 3 fun ways with music too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UBk1aHVEI&feature=related

Ah, yes, because Bullfighting is representative of hunting. You keep believing that if it makes you feel better.

Ah, yes, because Bullfighting is representative of hunting. You keep believing that if it makes you feel better.I am not into doing things to "feel better". I am NOT your average "Holier than thou" American. (or not)

I am not cheerleading the Public -coast to coast televised- trial and imprisonment of Michael Vick.. just for a collective "Feel Better".

OK, you guys want a reason as to why killing a cow for food is different than dog fighting? Fine, here it is.

Why do cows exist? Because we domesticate them for food. That's it. The only purpose of a cow or pig is to be eaten. Look at the animal kingdom for proof. If we end all meat eating and let all the cows go free, they'll probably just die in the hands (or... paws) of some other animal. They have no real purpose in this world other than to be prey.

Now dogs... completely different. They are pets, helpers, hunters, companions. We domesticate them so we can interact with them. Our bond between them is of love and care. When you take that bond and destroy it by using that dog for fighting to win some money or to get off, it's dumb and inhumane.

hunters


...fighting to win some money or to get off, it's dumb and inhumane.Hunting "to get off" is just as dumb and inhumane.

Using live chicken as Footballs "to get off" is just as dumb and inhumane.

Hunting "to get off" is just as dumb and inhumane.

Using live chicken as Footballs "to get off" is just as dumb and inhumane.

uhh.. duh? When did I say that hunting for pleasure was right, anyway? All I mentioned about hunting was that dogs help hunters. I defend hunting to survive, not hunting to get a jolly good sport out of it.

And again... duh? when did mention that, anyway?

Why do cows exist? Because we domesticate them for food. That's it. The only purpose of a cow or pig is to be eaten. Look at the animal kingdom for proof. If we end all meat eating and let all the cows go free, they'll probably just die in the hands (or... paws) of some other animal. They have no real purpose in this world other than to be prey.Purpose according to whom? Since you probably wouldn't survive in the wild, what if society decided that (or had bred you for) you had a purpose, and that it had nothing to do with your interests personally, but with some other group's interests?

Now dogs... completely different. They are pets, helpers, hunters, companions. We domesticate them so we can interact with them. Our bond between them is of love and care. When you take that bond and destroy it by using that dog for fighting to win some money or to get off, it's dumb and inhumane.So humaneness is dictated by not by suffering, enslavement, or respect, but by an arbitrary, human-defined "purpose", like a tool? You think that Michael Vick should be in prison because he wasn't using a tool for what you consider to be its purpose? Should I spend a year in the slammer because I use knives as screwdrivers?

Fact is, Michael Vick's dogs likely came from a line of dogs bred specifically to fight - fighting was their only purpose. In fact, dogs evolved/were domesticated in the first place to be fighters. That is the only reason the species exists. By your standards then, Michael Vick's use of dogs to fight is fulfilling to their purpose, and the use of dogs for house decoration and Paris Hilton's accessories is inhumane.

Fact is, Michael Vick's dogs likely came from a line of dogs bred specifically to fight - fighting was their only purpose.



You are incorrect, and should stop.

Vicks animals were not all Pitbulls. Even if they were, the Pitbull was bred as much for companionship as fighting.
It was, is, and will always be a minority of "breeders" that raise animals for fighting purposes.

In Vick's case, his animals were almost all mixed breeds.
They were raised in a puppy-mill fashion, by use of rape stands. This is where a female dog is tied to a stand, rendered immobile, and the animal is raped by males.
This is usually traumatic to the animals.




In fact, dogs evolved/were domesticated in the first place to be fighters.

Wrong again.

Dogs have been companions since we lived in caves. Dogs were not used normally used for fighting purposes until 1600's in Europe, when it became fashionable. see "Bear-Baiting".

Our existence depends on the utilization of energy, and many people do not have a wide perspective when it comes to their own impact. IMO, we should educate people and seek to minimize negative environmental impact
If everyone would be a vegan most humans would die of starvation for the very simple reason that vast quantities of energy and nutrition available to beings we eat *is not* directly available to us.

Depending on where you live and the time of the year most of the vegan food *has* to be imported - fresh fruits, nuts, vegetables, naturally grown required nutrients - often by rapid, read: air, cargo and from relatively far away. This is not exactly conserving the planet when there's a locally available fresh source of nutrients - meat, fish, game, insects, marine life, dairy products - available around the year.

The environmental and financial cost of producing and transporting necessary nutrients to every human being, from baby eskimos to elderly aborigines, by plant diet only is prohibitive in comparison to omnivorous diet for the very simple reason that the naturally growing nutrients vegan diet needs are climate bound to a small portion of our planet.

You are incorrect, and should stop.everyone is allowed to explain his POV. Even the ones you dont agree with.
.
and the animal is raped by males.So how do they inseminate the Cows you eat?

I am not into doing things to "feel better". I am NOT your average "Holier than thou" American. (or not)

I am not cheerleading the Public -coast to coast televised- trial and imprisonment of Michael Vick.. just for a collective "Feel Better".

So you just make inane comparisons that have nothing to do w/ the partially quoted post to waste bandwidth then?

uhh.. duh? When did I say that hunting for pleasure was right, anyway? All I mentioned about hunting was that dogs help hunters. I defend hunting to survive, not hunting to get a jolly good sport out of it.You didnt..

I am just using your post to make an statement that -if there is any justice- "get of" Hunters must have the same penalty as Michael Vick.

I use people that way.. its nothing personal. ;)

So you just make inane comparisons that have nothing to do w/ the partially quoted post to waste bandwidth then?my message is loud and clear.







Its not necessarily addressed to you.. unless you are one of the -millions of- "feel good" cheerleaders ;)

Vicks animals were not all Pitbulls. Even if they were, the Pitbull was bred as much for companionship as fighting. unfortunatly, not all fighting dogs are pitbulls. It's perfectly viable to have a non-pitbull breed trained to fight in a dog fighting ring.

It was, is, and will always be a minority of "breeders" that raise animals for fighting purposes. yep.

In Vick's case, his animals were almost all mixed breeds.
They were raised in a puppy-mill fashion, by use of rape stands. This is where a female dog is tied to a stand, rendered immobile, and the animal is raped by males.
This is usually traumatic to the animals. do you know why a 'rape stand' is most likely used? because the Females are also trained to fight, they need to be tied down else either one or both dogs will die because they are trained to fight.

A Rape Stand was found on Vick's property (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/sports/football/07nfl.html), unless he's running a puppy-mill...


Wrong again.

Dogs have been companions since we lived in caves. Dogs were not used normally used for fighting purposes until 1600's in Europe, when it became fashionable. see "Bear-Baiting". actually they were used for hunting when we were in caves.

Also it can be speculated that they were used for guarding property as well as chasing off vermin and pests.

but agreed, not for 'fighting' per se.

Not necessarily. Only a fraction of the Earth's surface is covered in forest, and you ignore the plains, the lightly wooded areas that are not forests, all other types of environments that hold animals...
and there's plenty of room in what has already been destroyed by those before us. the "I didn't do it so it's not my fault" argument? my grandparents did it so I am without responsibility?

yep... plenty of room... that's why cities are growing and new suburbs are being made...

For most of human history we were hunter-gatherers. and it was such a successful way of living that we are still doing it today... no... wait...

It was probably a different building first. I'm not sure which section of downtown Juneau was built on mine tailings. so your building was built on an industry that not only clear cut a forest, but added to the eroson of the land. and that makes it ok for you to claim your home on someone else's land?

then you should have no complaint about cattle and other livestock being raised on open fields.

Who says I don't condemn lesser intrusions into nature? Like I said, I prioritize. Why are people convinced that because one doesn't hold the same views as they, one must be a hypocrite? And what does any of this have to do with the moral difference between Vick's action and most people in the US? and what is Vicks actions to cattle raising and eating meat? you choose not to eat meat, that's fine. I'm happy for you. but don't condemn others for eating meat citing cruelty to animals when you yourself still live a life and promote a life that causes clashes between humans and animals on a daily basis. tell me, how many times do you see moose wandering the streets of most small Canadian towns?

If there is a line, it's well away from industrial meat, that's for sure, but you can't draw a line because it's not a zero sum game. As creatures of nature ourselves, we will always do both good and evil. As creatures of superior intellect, we are morally obligated to maximize the former and minimize the latter. The line is usually drawn at the overall treatment of the animals. not the purpose of said animals. you are trying to push the line to a zero sum game.

Why do you insist on building up these straw men? Expanding the field to the whole of society's endeavors merely strengthens my argument that Mike Vick is no monstrous than the most of the human population. And the vast majority of food animals are by no means raised in "wide fields". At least not in Iowa.You started by connecting Vicks and dogfighting with the Iditarod and other sports in your very first post.
and expanding the field to all of man's endevors only shows that you are not actually doing all you can do to alliviate all of mankinds animal abuses (if you consider how dog sleders raise and train their animals to be abuse) and that is also ignoring all the abuse animals heap upon each other.
Go ahead and demonize Vicks and those who abuse their animals in that way. I will join you in that. but to say that those who train sports animals are also abusing them (when it's not obviously abuse... only one case was shown to be abuse in 2007 in your website you linked to) as well as those raising livestock is only showing your fanatism and selective blindness to your cause.

December 18, 2007, 1:05 AM ET
ATLANTA -- Five Atlanta Falcons players have been fined a total of $47,500 by the NFL for uniform violations that stemmed from demonstrations of their support for banished quarterback Michael Vick during the team's loss to the New Orleans Saints on Dec. 10.

Several hours before the game, Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison for his role in an illegal dogfighting ring that was centered on property he owned in Virginia.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3159267The NFL has every right to impose fines.. after all they are a dictatorship by the Multi-billionaire team owners.

But I salute the brave teammates.. for they knew their support is going to cost them, the NFL and the Media circus is going to demonize them. Yet they still choose to use their freedom of speech. Home of brave Land of the free.

everyone is allowed to explain his POV. Even the ones you dont agree with.
.
So how do they inseminate the Cows you eat?

As someone who worked on a farm, I can answer this. Either through artificial insemination administered by a vet, or with a live bull.

As someone who worked on a farm, I can answer this. Either by a vet, or with a bull.what is the procedure of the Vet/Bull insemination, can the cow say No ?

everyone is allowed to explain his POV. Even the ones you dont agree with

He was not expressing a point of view.
He was reciting misinformation.

He can say "I prefer blue to red", all he wants. THATS a POV.

Inferring that pitbulls were/are bred exsclusively for fighting is a mosnomer, and it is that sort of bad reputation, that causes the breed to be misunderstood by far too many people.

what is the procedure of the Vet/Bull insemination, can the cow say No ?

In the case of artificial insemination, there's a long, thin, flexible tube that contains the bull sperm, and a rather long disposable plastic glove that goes over the arm of the person inseminating the cow. I can't really speak to technique, since I was never part of that process (an experience I'm glad I missed). To your other question, since cows can't speak, I'm guessing they can't say no. But it's not like the cow HAS to stand still (at least, not on the farm I worked on), if it doesn't want to be impregnated.

Inferring that pitbulls were/are bred exsclusively for fighting is a mosnomer...fair enough.

the "I didn't do it so it's not my fault" argument? my grandparents did it so I am without responsibility?"I didn't do it, so it isn't my fault." isn't an argument. It's true by definition. Not that those affected by the consequences care about who's "fault" it is...

yep... plenty of room... that's why cities are growing and new suburbs are being made...Cities are growing and new suburbs are being developed due to steadily-changing standards of human habitation. Mass consumerism and isolationist/segregationist culture have persuaded people that they need larger yards, more square footage, and more distance from the "bad" areas. In the US, metros that are shrinking in population are expanding in geographic footprint.

and it was such a successful way of living that we are still doing it today... no... wait...Actually, it was an immensely successful way of living. As hunter-gatherers, humans spread across the globe and thrived in conditions present almost everywhere on the Earth's surface except in Antarctica. Only relatively recently has agricultural-industrial civilization emerged, which actively eliminated other forms of society and is proving to be unsustainable in its present form.

so your building was built on an industry that not only clear cut a forest, but added to the eroson of the land. and that makes it ok for you to claim your home on someone else's land?Why are you making stuff up?

then you should have no complaint about cattle and other livestock being raised on open fields.I do have complaints, and they have been voiced.

and what is Vicks actions to cattle raising and eating meat? you choose not to eat meat, that's fine. I'm happy for you. but don't condemn others for eating meat citing cruelty to animals when you yourself still live a life and promote a life that causes clashes between humans and animals on a daily basis.Where have I promoted a life that causes clashes between humans and animals on a daily basis? Please quote text. If I have promoted anything in this thread, it is the minimization of clashes between humans and animals.

Surely you see the hypocrisy of your statement above - you're practically arguing my point for me. The same sentiment ought to lead one to say this to you: "You choose not to participate in dog fighting, that's fine. I'm happy for you. but don't condemn others for fighting with dogs when you yourself still live a life and promote a life that causes clashes between humans and animals on a daily basis."

Ths difference is that I'm trying to purge adverse impacts from my life, or at least minimize them, while you presumably don't give a rat's ass about animals... except when somebody else, like Vick, is a little too blatant about it such that it would threaten your sustained cognitive dissonance to allow it to pass.

tell me, how many times do you see moose wandering the streets of most small Canadian towns?I don't spend a lot of time in small Canadian towns. I hear there are moose in Anchorage more or less constantly, but that's not in Canada.

The line is usually drawn at the overall treatment of the animals. not the purpose of said animals. you are trying to push the line to a zero sum game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game


You started by connecting Vicks and dogfighting with the Iditarod and other sports in your very first post.
Yes, I did. The term "straw man" refers to the stuff you make up about my position - not the stuff that is true. Like this:
you turn a blind eye on animals forced to wander the streets, eat garbage and fight for survival as their homes are shrunk down to a point where it cannot support their numbers.no not rly

and expanding the field to all of man's endevors only shows that you are not actually doing all you can do to alliviate all of mankinds animal abuses (if you consider how dog sleders raise and train their animals to be abuse) and that is also ignoring all the abuse animals heap upon each other.
1. You haven't demonstrated that I'm not doing all I can. You certainly haven't demonstrated that I'm not doing better than most. If I take to the trees, I can't engage the rest of society on this issue. The worst thing animal rights activists can do is to curl up in a ball and try to avoid being tainted by the rest of society.

But that doesn't matter, because:

2. If I were a hypocrite, it wouldn't affect the truth of my argument. I could be a dolphin-raping puppy-killer and it would still be true that society is holding a double standard with regard to Michael Vick and society's own endeavors.

Go ahead and demonize Vicks and those who abuse their animals in that way. I will join you in that. but to say that those who train sports animals are also abusing them (when it's not obviously abuse... only one case was shown to be abuse in 2007 in your website you linked to) as well as those raising livestock is only showing your fanatism and selective blindness to your cause.I linked to several websites that provided a great deal of evidence for wide-spread, systematic abuse dog-sled racing, and in the case of cruelty in livestock operations, it would be more reasonable to deny the holocaust itself. It's ironic that you accuse me of selective blindness (based on made-up ideas you have about my lifestyle or thought process) when selective blindness is exactly what I am trying to oppose in this thread.

Inferring that pit bulls were/are bred exclusively for fighting is a misnomer, and it is that sort of bad reputation, that causes the breed to be misunderstood by far too many people.I don't remember saying that pit bulls were bred exclusively for fighting. Maybe that was somebody else.

However, the role of "companion" in dog's prehistory (and current use) was only one of many (and in many cases, a secondary or non-existent role), including that of a food source, beast of burden, weapon of war, and protection from / foil against wild animals.