Premier Rock Forum

Its completely impractical to separate morals and laws. The whole point of laws is to control people who rationalize morals, or those who simply have vastly atypical morals.

Sadly dogs being executed in the USA for losing fights is actually a much better fate than many dogs face in other countries.

its not about dog lovers tho, its about controlling criminal elements. Those who seek to torture and control animals tend to be on the criminal side of things. We all know the cliches about budding serial killers starting out on animals...

its the same thing w/ these dogfighting douchebags. They want power, control, to feel macho. Killing dogs gives them boners so they can all get their repressed gay anger out. I mean look at VIck's goatee, its very metro gay, clearly he is going to prison because he wants cock in his ass and is not man enough to admit he is gay.

Back on topic, forcing dogs to kill each other is vastly different than killing helpless deer w/ a high powered riffle, and then not eating the meat.

While both are cowardly acts, if we don't let those retards kill the deer the population quickly gets out of control. Mostly because the same fuckheads killed off the top level predators in most areas where deer roam, so they breed like rats and destroy plant growth, spread ticks and generally breed without true natural selection developing into a whole host of issues.

Laws really should be about "common sense/logic/scientific facts" and in the case of dogfighting, its pretty much common sense that its cruel to the dogs and there really isnt a reason for it.

We still need rednecks to kill deer because we allowed the natural balance to be broken hundreds of years ago and its the only way to keep the deer in check w/o spending too much money.

major malling marsupial wrote:

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.

By "we" you mean we, ahem, and the animals? Yes, we are connected to the animals, no doubt. But we are distinct from animals in the sense that humans speak to one another and form societies and make laws. And I'm fine with social rights laws that prevent one person from doing direct harm to another person or to society in general. But we're all so quick these days to suggest a new law, a new punishment, a new jail sentence. We undervalue freedom, and are therefore unwilling to accept the cost of a more expansive working definition of it.

Hexpane wrote:Its completely impractical to separate morals and laws. The whole point of laws is to control people who rationalize morals, or those who simply have vastly atypical morals.

and

Hexpane wrote:Laws really should be about "common sense/logic/scientific facts" and in the case of dogfighting, its pretty much common sense that its cruel to the dogs and there really isnt a reason for it.

I don't think the point of all, or even very many laws is to control people who rationalize morals. I think often the point of laws is to empower the moral rationalizations of some of the people. Once done, we begin to call those rationalizations or laws "common sense."

I just want to make sure I understand you dgrace. You think it should be legal to torture an animal in any way you see fit if

a) you raised them

and

b) they aren't endangered?

sunset_gun wrote:Micheal Vick finds tEh Jesus.

And he's White!

....and Irish, apparently!

Who knew?

AlBStern wrote:I just want to make sure I understand you dgrace. You think it should be legal to torture an animal in any way you see fit if

a) you raised them

and

b) they aren't endangered?

I'll give you the straight answer first and then the qualifications:

Straight answer: yes, I do.

Qualifications: local jurisdictions make laws all the time that regulate behavior based on the shared values or assumptions of a tight-knit, relatively small community. I could support something like that happening with dog fighting, but penalties for such local infractions tend to be fairly moderate (a fine, repossession, community service). With Vick, this was a federal prosecution seeking multiple years of jail time. That sort of sentence says to me that the society is now granting dogs (and not various other animals) the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I'm not sure I'm on board with that.

I also think this is something that can be largely dealt with outside of the legal system. The vast majority of people are already against dog fighting, but if this really is such a widespread problem, mass public service campaigns have proven to be quite effective in changing public behavior in the past. Perhaps such a campaign would have a similar effect in this area over time.

That said, the continuing effort to get people to spay and neuter their dogs will go much further towards promoting a humane treatment of these animals than concentrating on dog fighting. This was never about a widespread problem. It was about prosecutors furthering their careers by taking down someone who is widely known because he is good at something.

Again, I don't agree with Vick's actions. It's just that I have a relatively high standard for what constitutes a jailable offense.

dgrace wrote:...but if this really is such a widespread problem, mass public service campaigns have proven to be quite effective in changing public behavior in the past. Perhaps such a campaign would have a similar effect in this area over time.

so you're saying that television commercials, not jail, will convince people to stop absusing animals?

dgrace wrote:This was never about a widespread problem. It was about prosecutors furthering their careers by taking down someone who is widely known because he is good at something.

he was definately good at drowning and electrocuting dogs, thats for sure...but then again, dogs werent made in god's image. so they're disposable.

you sir, are a douchebag.

andyk

ah, morality.
thinking hard about this on my commute today after reading some Peter Singer.. isn't horse racing in the same neighborhood of cruel as dogfighting?

or how about standard fois-gras raising? industrial pig-farming?

interesting how humans can be so picky with their moral battles. I guess you have to start somewhere..

andteater wrote:he was definately good at drowning and electrocuting dogs, thats for sure...but then again, dogs werent made in god's image. so they're disposable.

You said that, not me.

dgrace wrote:you sir, are a douchebag.

andyk

And the needle jumps on the applause-o-meter!

Hmm. Something made in the image of something else should prove to be rather common. More common then say, something that isn't made in the image of something else. So, perhaps if we are to be abusing something, we should start at something we have copious amounts of. Leave the not-so-common stuff alone.