|
>1) that the degree of outrage expressed, and the degree of
>condemnation of vick and his boys is hypocritical in
>comparison to the almost complete pass given to folks for
>other activities which are similarly cruel. (similarly, not
>equally).
Agreed, and as I said, it wasn’t me condemning Vick. I will admit that I was outraged by what I was reading about the case, but I’d be similarly outraged reading about some hunter who went out and tortured / killed a bunch of deer for the sole purpose of his entertainment.
But every single person I know who hunts also eats the meat. If they didn’t, I’d say something.
I can’t address whether a meat-hunter gets enjoyment from the kill. It only seems natural to enjoy a successful hunt (as opposed to an unsuccessful one - who wants to fail at anything?), but I would hope the enjoyment is not derived because an animal was hurt and killed.
I can’t read minds or intentions so there’s no way to know if someone enjoys hunting for the wrong reason or not, even if they eat the meat.
>2) just because this stuff is included in the indictment does
>not mean it happened. we don't know for fact how ANY of these
>dogs died, whether or not vick was present, and, if he was not
>present, whether he had any knowledge of the particulars. yet
>folks are riding their high horse as if it is a foregone
>conclusion that he was personally frying puppies (or that
>there is any evidence that puppies were fried, at all).
Agreed. This is what I’ve said too.
>3) based upon the arguments i have seen, there is an EXTREMELY
>thin line, morally, separating dogfighting and hunting.
If you are talking about sport hunting, I agree. All hunting? No, I don’t agree with that.
>..a - if the demarcation is death, all of the dogs don't die.
>that can't be the sole determining factor, because how would
>we judge the comparative morality between a dog which is well
>cared for, fights, wins, lives, and is relatively unscathed
>versus an animal that is killed by hunters.
I don’t know for sure, but I would think most of the dogs die eventually. Do dogs “retire” from dogfighting, or do they fight until they are finally beaten to the point that they can’t compete anymore? True, if they “retire” after some gruesome injury, they’re not dead, but they’ve been abused.
And from what I understand, dogs that can't fight anymore are used to build up the confidence of a younger dog in training. I've also heard that dogfighters adopt dogs from shelters and rescues for this purpose too, which is totally fucked up. The people who do this shit are sick bastards.
>..b - if the demarcation is suffering, then the 'humaneness'
>of hunting (sport or otherwise) hinges upon the skill of the
>hunter in delivering a single kill shot.
First, I’ll again remove non-sport hunting from the argument. Because hunting for meat is not an immoral act; it is part of nature.
As for sport hunting, there is definitely animal suffering for no reason at all, which is horrible.
>a wounded animal that
>must wait to be finished off, or, even worse, survives and
>eludes the hunter only to die later of starvation or infection
>or being eaten alive by insects preying upon its exposed
>wounds most CERTAINLY suffers.
True, but this happens in nature too. Not all predators are successful. Wounded animals sometimes suffer but escape their predator. This is not immoral if the hunter is hunting for meat, IMO. Ideally you’d want to minimize an animal’s suffering, of course.
And if a hunter was capable of tracking down the wounded animal, he probably would, and would probably mercifully deliver a killshot once he found it rather than let it suffer.
But I agree, there is suffering involved in hunting, no doubt. To me the morality of it depends on intent. Are you doing for nourishment, which is natural… or for entertainment, which is sick?
>that level of suffering is not
>only possible, it is LIKELY for a large number of animals,
>unless we take the preposterous conclusion that almost ALL
>hunters have flawless aim and their prey is killed
>instantaneously. do the hunters INTEND for the animal to
>suffer? no. but we're judging based off of effects, not
>intent, right?
No, intent is very important. That’s why there’s a huge difference between premeditated murder, “heat of the moment” murder, accidental manslaughter, etc. Intent is very important in determining morality – in fact I’d say it’s the most important thing.
If someone is driving and a child runs out into the road and gets hit and killed, that’s a horrible tragic accident. It’s not immoral (unless the driver was drunk or careless).
If someone tortures and murders that child, that’s an enormous difference in terms of morality.
But the end result is that the child is dead.
Likewise, intent doesn’t matter to the animal, but it does matter if you’re talking about human morality.
>dogfighters don't INTEND for their dog to die,
>either.
They are abusing their animal, and making it incredibly likely for it to suffer grievous or fatal injuries.
It might not be technically “murder” to tell your child to go play ball on a busy interstate… but you’re setting that child up for being killed, and it’s still highly immoral.
>if the suffering of the animal supercedes the moral
>intent of the human responsible for said suffering, there is
>not much distance, at all, between the hunter and dogfighter.
I would argue it doesn’t though. Intent is all important in issues of morality, not the end result. If a baseball player is hit by a line drive and killed, was he murdered? Was the batter immoral? The same applies to car accidents, etc. It’s about intent.
>certainly not as much difference as the folks who go out
>themselves in camo to kill some animals but are so outraged
>about dogfighting.
I’d call them sick too.
>..c - if the demarcation is suffering plus the possibility of
>death, regardless of intent, then we'd also have to look at
>other areas in which human amusement or utilitarianism puts
>animals into harm's way, like horse racing, dog racing,
I don’t know much about the racing industries. If they are as bad as Will_5198 said in his post, it’s sounds pretty abusive to me.
>bomb
>sniffing dogs, police dogs, etc. has that K-9 really been told
>that his carrying out of his training can result in the loss
>of his life? does that german shepherd have the understanding
>that his human handler does?
No, but these cases are different because we are exposing animals to the possibility of injury/suffering in order to prevent human suffering. I would never argue that an animal’s rights supercede ours as humans. But that doesn’t mean we can abuse them.
If the choice is to let humans suffer and die from bombs, or to use dogs to try to find them, even though it endangers the dogs, I think that’s probably morally acceptable. Though some would disagree.
This raises the issue of animal testing, and that’s a whole ‘nother debate. Personally I think it’s fucked up to do it to animals for things like cosmetics and “beauty” products, because those are unnecessary products to begin with.
But testing potentially harmful drugs on animals instead of people? That’s tricky. Someone has to test the drug (assuming it’s a potentially beneficial drug that’s worth testing), and if not animals, then it has to be people.
It does bother me when primates are used, because they are so close to humans IMO.
>none of these are 'pro-dogfighting' arguments in the least.
>what they are, however, are serious questions about the
>ethical gulf between how one activity is viewed in comparison
>to how society views other related activities.
Some interesting points, and very few of the other posters have made them.
>if the NRA was
>into dogfighting it'd be legal, due to the money and clout
>they wield.
Arguable. Fuck the NRA, though, for real.
>based upon all of the above, the vehemence of the outrage
>expressed by folks who are damning vick (without careful
>examination of evidence) is extremely innappropriate, to the
>point of being hypocritical, imo.
True. But for the most part, I haven’t said shit about Vick.
>if you condemn dogfighting, and also condemn (almost as
>loudly) hunting, and the meat industry, then flame on.
I make exceptions for hunting for meat. Cerefusion has the strongest moral ground of all, because he doesn’t hurt animals at all. No one can really say shit to him.
>but
>these mfers who think that bucking bambi is some noble shit,
>but that vick (or whomever) is a step above a baby raper, i
>got issues w/ their moral consistency, that's all.
True.
>>Kudos for following the case so closely. But you won't find
>>me slandering Vick and declaring him guilty in this post.
>
>cool. many people are reacting based off of VERY biased and
>proven inaccurate perceptions put out there by sensationalist
>media.
True.
>>...I agree; it seems unlikely he was totally in the dark. But
>I'm
>>reserving judgment until he's been proven guilty.
>
>i think that's a prudent position.
I try not to jump to conclusions.
>>My posts address the sick fucks who think dogfighting is
>okay,
>>or that since hunting for sport is legal, they have the
>right
>>to torture a dog to death for kicks.
>
>i think a small percentage of them actually think that. its
>mostly hyperbole, and an unarticulated critique of the
>inconsistencies in the public reaction that i detailed above.
Could be, but that’s giving them more credit than they deserve, IMO. This is a message board / discussion board – why don’t people try to actually make coherent and valid points?
Instead of waiting for someone else to do it, and then saying, "Yeah, that's my man! I meant to say what he said, even though I said nothing remotely like it."
>i could not watch dogs tear each other apart. i think its
>sick. i also could not beat someone in the face repeatedly
>with a billyclub. there's a lot of shit i can't do.
Agreed.
>as much as i love dogs, if there was a police dog that was
>trying to bite my genitals, as trained, i would do my best to
>KILL that dog. that's for certain. (if he was trying to bite
>me anywhere, actually, but genital biting is particularly
>taboo -- lea my nuts alone, scruffy).
Of course. I’m all for self-defense.
>>Does this honestly make sense to anyone:
>>"You shot and ate a deer, so that means it's okay for me to
>>torture a dog to death for my own amusement."
>>
>>I just don't see how anyone can make that statement and not
>>feel like a sick person.
>
>no. but the real point they are making is that, 'you shot and
>ate (or didn't eat) a deer, you can NOT be taken serious when
>you go apoplectic in an argument about animal cruelty. EVEN
>though you and o_e have beaten the 'eat or not to eat'
>question into the ground. there are cats who hunt who derive
>pleasure from killing the animals that they eat. ion't give a
>fuck if it was for sunday dinner. if the pleasure comes from
>killing something (as opposed to a destitute mfer thinking
>that he just fed his fam for 6 mos), then that is some sick
>shit.
I agree with this. If you hunt for sport/pleasure, you have no moral ground.
Although for the record, I don’t think you have to be starving to be morally justified in hunting for meat.
Unless we ban eating meat unless you’re starving, we have to accept that all meat comes from a dead animal. There’s no moral difference between hunting it and having someone kill it for you. You’re just passing the buck in the latter case.
>>Since we're quoting ourselves, see post 696. I don't support
>>sport hunting, nor do I support dogfighting. They are both
>>sick, and I don't understand why a person would enjoy
>>torturing and killing animals for kicks.
>
>i can rock w/ that position.
Cool.
>>The thing is, sport hunting is legal because you can't
>legally
>>separate it from hunting for meat. You can't pass a law that
>>says, "If you hunt, you are required by law to eat your
>meat."
>>The govt. can't step up and dictate someone's diet. And even
>>if that law was passed, there's no fucking way at all to
>>enforce it. Is a park ranger going to follow every hunter
>>around so that if he kills something, the park ranger can
>then
>>follow him home and watch him eat it?
>
>but this is a moral argument, not a legal or practical one.
I agree. I am just pointing out that you can’t make sport hunting illegal, for practical and legal reasons, even though it is immoral. I’ve said numerous times that it’s immoral to hunt for sport or entertainment.
Dogfighting however, can be made illegal because the whole idea has no valid, morally defensible purpose whatsoever.
>i
>do not recognize the moral authority of someone who sanctions
>sport hunting but is outraged at the very concept of
>dogfighting. that is DISSONANCE.
I don’t sanction sport hunting, but I recognize the fact that it cannot be banned by a meat-eating society, because you cannot distinguish it from hunting for meat. Intent matters, but there is no way for the government to gauge intent in this case.
With dogfighting, there is no good or bad intent. It’s all bad.
So I agree with you regarding morality – anyone who says sport hunting is moral and dogfighting is not is wrong.
>>And saying, "Go to the store" is not the answer. How is a
>>slaughterhouse more humane than hunting your own meat?
>You're
>>just having someone else do the killing for you (and
>arguably
>>in a less humane way than a rifle - but I'm no expert so I'm
>>not addressing that discussion).
>
>i know its not an answer, and i own my moral inconsistency.
So you think eating meat is inherently immoral? I don't.
>but i'm not eating a hamburger and pretending i have no skin
>in the game. folks acting as if someone who fights dogs is the
>devil, himself, yet has absolutely NO problems with hunting
>(or the meat industry) is either a confused person, morally,
>or someone whose outrage is being manipulated by the media and
>being told what to get excited about.
Dogfighters are immoral. There are worse things in the world, but nothing excuses or justifies abusing and torturing animals for entertainment.
Hunting for meat? It’s a part of the natural world. I don’t think it’s inherently immoral, though I can respect Cere’s position on the matter even if I disagree.
Hunting for sport? It’s sick to enjoy hurting and killing something, just like it is with dogfighting.
Meat industry? I would love to see the meat industry forced to act more humanely in everything they do. I’d support reform, even if the prices go up as a result.
>this is in the same vein of me not being able to understand
>folks who are pro-life but have no qualms with up to a million
>people dead for no damn reason in iraq. if they interpret life
>as beginning with conception and therefore see abortion as
>murder, i can understand their outrage. but if they hold THAT
>opinion, but also believe that its no big deal if innocent
>iraqis are being killed every single day because of our
>policies, or if they simultaneously hold opinions that money
>should NOT be spent on programs that help at-risk children or
>the populations which would increase if abortion was illegal,
>then i have MAJOR beef w/ their moral consistency.
Agree very much. I’m pro-choice but I can understand being pro-life IF the rest of the views are consistent, like you said.
It’s been my experience that most pro-lifers are conservatives who are anti-welfare and public assistance, which in many cases supports the very children they don’t want to let the mother abort (ironic and stupid). And they tend to be pro-death penalty (which is fucked up), pro-war in Iraq, etc.
>>So until you've proven that point, there's no moral ground
>to
>>stand on unless you want to make eating meat illegal
>>altogether.
>
>wrong. i'm saying that dogfighting is bad, but not as bad as
>these people are making it seem.
I assume you’re not talking about me, so I don’t know how to respond to how bad “people are making it seem.” The people saying Vick should be hung or tortured whatever – obviously that’s way over the line.
>folks have been using this as
>cover to air their previously held racist beliefs
Obviously racist comments have no place in the discussion. Personally I would have made the same posts I made if the case was about Brett Favre or anyone else.
>and multiple
>forums have had comments posted where folks suggest he be
>lynched, in no uncertain terms. if folks aren't driven to
>these rhetorical extremes by the general violence and
>unfairness that goes on in everyday society (to animals or
>humans) i have a right to say that's fucked up and
>inconsistent and hypocritical.
Agreed.
>i can make that point effectively without having to be PRO-
>dogfighting.
True. But some cats on here are dismissing dogfighting entirely, and come off as actually being pro-dogfighting. “It’s just a dog,” etc.
>cockfighting is illegal, even though i imagine someone could
>fry them roosters up after the 'game' and say its all good.
Right, but it’s the abuse and torture of the chickens that happened before you eat them that is morally wrong and legally wrong.
>i think extremes of animal cruelty should carry jail time, no
>doubt.
Agreed.
>but i look at jail time relatively. should a cat get 6
>yrs for these charges? i can't see that.
I don’t know. I really have no idea how long of a sentence someone should get. I haven’t even thought about it.
>there's folks that
>don't get 6 yrs for murder.
True, and that’s fucked up all by itself.
>and, again, with sport hunting
>being not only legal but popular (the fucking vice president
>does it) i have a hard time with the moral leap that
>dogfighters should get hard time.
No, the distinction is important because you can’t PROVE someone was hunting for sport, which is why it’s legal.
But the fact that we unfortunately have to allow sport hunting (since we can’t ban all hunting) does NOT mean that all other cases of animal abuse should be less serious.
Like we discussed above, when talking morality, there’s not an enormous difference between sport hunting vs dogfighting.
But legally, because dogfighting is always done with immoral and sick intent, it should be punished.
Whereas hunting, you can’t determine intent so there’s not much we can do about it.
>if vick can be proven to
>have electrocuted that one dog, on some extra cruel shit, yes,
>he should get some time in jail. 30-60 days, though. not 6yrs.
I don’t know anything about sentencing, but 30-60 days seems way too light if all that shit is true. I don’t know about 6 years - I’m no sentencing expert so I can’t comment.
I sure as hell hope his race, fame, etc have no bearing on the outcome.
>and he should get fined out the ass, no doubt.
What’s a fine to someone with his kinda money though?
>>I don't see how you can equate eating meat with torturing a
>>dog to death for kicks.
>
>never said that. just pointed out that there isn't that
>comfortable chasm between the two from which we can safely
>hurl our judgments like zeus' lightning bolts.
I find a huge difference between eating meat and pointless animal abuse. Sport hunting – you’re right.
>>Therefore, there is NO reason whatsoever to make dogfighting
>>legal.
>
>i DAMN sure never said that.
Cool. Seems like someone in here said that if hunting is legal, so should dogfighting. Which is obviously fucking stupid.
>the best interest would be served
>by vick getting probation, fined out the ass, and doing a grip
>of PSAs explaining why this is a fucked up and barbaric
>practice.
If everything is true (and he was a participant), I do think jail time is appropriate.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports 
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
