I'm just relating what he said, not agreeing with it.

I even tried calling the Dept of Animal Care & Control, but they wouldn't do anything about it because I didn't know the address where he kept the dog.

Surprisingly Vick has "found religion" I think it was hiding under the dog corpses, once removed he was able to "find" it.

I guess all is forgiven now because he pretends to believe in the giant bearded sky fairy?

I love the bit about how he needs to grow up, that somehow being soul-less and abusing innocent animals is attributed to maturity... thats a good one. Because you know, kids will be kids and murdering helpless devoted animals has such a cute, child like innocence about it.

Maybe he's talking about the lying to various and sundry in a desperate attempt to save his a$$.

Rather than all that other evil stuff.

Micheal Vick finds tEh Jesus.



And he's White!

On TV, in conversation with friends, and in this thread, I hear the line of reasoning that torturing or killing dogs is on par with or worse than torturing or killing humans because the dogs are innocent and can't have done anything to provoke the treatment.

Note that this reasoning is remarkably similar to the reasoning used by Republicans to support anti-choice positions on abortion, i.e. the fetus is innocent. It hasn't done anything to deserve being terminated.

I don't say this to instigate an endless discussion on how a dog is different than a fetus. It's enough to acknowledge that they're different. But to argue that a dog killer deserves prison time, while an abortion doctor deserves legal protection, is pretty basically a moral judgement, and I don't think the government should be legislating morals once we exit the realm of human-to-human interaction. That's why I'm pro-choice, and why I think Vick's punishment (if it turns out to be a year or more in prison) is overly punitive, if not completely unjustified.

You love dogs. Fine. You have an emotional attachment to them. Great. So do I. If Vick stole your dog or my dog and hung it or electricuted it, then I think he should go to jail for a very long time. But he didn't. He raised his own pitbulls-- not an endangered animal by any means-- and did with them what he chose. I think he's a "piece of shit" as much as anyone for his decision, but I don't think that entitles us to put him in jail.

I could list dozens of sanctioned ways that people hurt and kill animals all the time in this country. Again, any contrast you make between those acts and Vicks' are moral judgements, plain and simple. A guy strangles and drowns dogs in Georgia and he's going to jail. A guy shoots some deers' faces off in Georgia and he's a sportman, even a strict interpreter of the constitution. The majority is with the deer killer and against the dog killer. For some of us it must feel strange to be welcomed by the Moral Majority for once.

dgrace wrote:On TV, in conversation with friends, and in this thread, I hear the line of reasoning that torturing or killing dogs is on par with or worse than torturing or killing humans because the dogs are innocent and can't have done anything to provoke the treatment.

Note that this reasoning is remarkably similar to the reasoning used by Republicans to support anti-choice positions on abortion, i.e. the fetus is innocent. It hasn't done anything to deserve being terminated.

I don't say this to instigate an endless discussion on how a dog is different than a fetus. It's enough to acknowledge that they're different. But to argue that a dog killer deserves prison time, while an abortion doctor deserves legal protection, is pretty basically a moral judgement, and I don't think the government should be legislating morals once we exit the realm of human-to-human interaction. That's why I'm pro-choice, and why I think Vick's punishment (if it turns out to be a year or more in prison) is overly punitive, if not completely unjustified.

You love dogs. Fine. You have an emotional attachment to them. Great. So do I. If Vick stole your dog or my dog and hung it or electricuted it, then I think he should go to jail for a very long time. But he didn't. He raised his own pitbulls-- not an endangered animal by any means-- and did with them what he chose. I think he's a "piece of shit" as much as anyone for his decision, but I don't think that entitles us to put him in jail.

I could list dozens of sanctioned ways that people hurt and kill animals all the time in this country. Again, any contrast you make between those acts and Vicks' are moral judgements, plain and simple. A guy strangles and drowns dogs in Georgia and he's going to jail. A guy shoots some deers' faces off in Georgia and he's a sportman, even a strict interpreter of the constitution. The majority is with the deer killer and against the dog killer. For some of us it must feel strange to be welcomed by the Moral Majority for once.

By altering the species purely to serve our needs, breeding out many of their natural defense mechanisms and survival instincts, I believe we are obligated to care for and protect these animals. Though no fault of their own, they depend on us for survival. Killing dogs and hunting deer for "sport" (not that I agree it is one), are completely different. The two are not equal.

sunset_gun wrote:By altering the species purely to serve our needs, breeding out many of their natural defense mechanisms and survival instincts, I believe we are obligated to care for and protect these animals.

I respect your belief. I feel a similar moral obligation towards these animals.

Killing dogs and hunting deer for "sport" (not that I agree it is one), are completely different. The two are not equal.

I'm sure countless moral distinctions could be drawn between the two.

dgrace wrote:I don't think the government should be legislating morals once we exit the realm of human-to-human interaction.

why shouldn't we? the human-to-human stuff is going to be where 90% of the debate lies anyway. (abortion included.)
i think it's more of a cultural thing than a moral thing.

major malling marsupial wrote:

dgrace wrote:I don't think the government should be legislating morals once we exit the realm of human-to-human interaction.

why shouldn't we? the human-to-human stuff is going to be where 90% of the debate lies anyway. (abortion included.)
i think it's more of a cultural thing than a moral thing.

Why shouldn't we? I guess because I'd rather the government have available to them as narrow a range of justifications for putting someone in jail as possible.

dgrace wrote:

major malling marsupial wrote:

dgrace wrote:I don't think the government should be legislating morals once we exit the realm of human-to-human interaction.

why shouldn't we? the human-to-human stuff is going to be where 90% of the debate lies anyway. (abortion included.)
i think it's more of a cultural thing than a moral thing.

Why shouldn't we? I guess because I'd rather the government have available to them as narrow a range of justifications for putting someone in jail as possible.

so it's a question of degree? i agree then.
you sounded so absolute at first. "the realm of human to human interaction. " no, we're all related.