On Vick and values

By: Bill S (Diary) | December 29th, 2010 at 02:00 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

This past week, the President again made the mistake of speaking without consulting his handlers – this time on the topic of Michael Vick. In this particular case, his comments came in a call to Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie, who subsequently shared Obama’s comments on Vick and the Eagles with the news media. According to the WaPo:

The president has not spoken publicly about the call, though aides acknowledged that it took place. But Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie told Peter King of Sports Illustrated and NBC Sports that during their conversation Obama was passionate about Vick’s comeback.

“He said, ‘So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance,’ ” said Lurie, who did not indicate when the call occurred. “He said, ‘It’s never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail.’ And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.”

Predictably (although apparently not by Obama), reaction to this has been swift and pretty negative, especially by organizations such as PETA.

Until today, I haven’t spent any time at all paying attention to this whole episode with Vick, Obama, etc. because I disliked Vick even before it became known that he was a dog killer. But I found this particular reaction from Tucker Carlson to be more than a wee bit ridiculous:

“I’m a Christian, I’ve made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances,” Carlson said. “But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should’ve been executed for that. He wasn’t, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale.”

Tucker, come on. “Executed“? Jeez, I like puppies and I even have one. But I would hardly advocate the death penalty for killing them. (Perhaps Tucker is simply channeling Lethal Weapon 3′s Martin Riggs: “We can’t shoot a dog. People? Okay, but not dogs.“)

A more appropriate response is this evaluation by Richard Cohen. He writes:

The sanctimony regarding this dog killer is sickening. He was wantonly cruel, not only pitting dogs against one another in fights, but drowning poor performers. Didn’t he know this was cruel? Didn’t he know wounded dogs were in pain? Is he so stupid he didn’t notice the blood, the torn skin, the…? Oh, forget it! The man’s an animal himself.

Now Vick has punched all the tickets on the road to rehabilitation. He is contrite. He loves pooches. He might even get a dog himself. How much of this is genuine and how much is synthetic I leave to you. But I’ll tell you this. Vick got a second chance not because he deserves it but because he can play football. This is the lesson we can all take from this sorry episode. It’s one thing to be sorry. It’s much better to hit your man in the end zone.

Hear, hear. Obama’s attempt to place some sort of charitable motivation upon Vick’s signing by the Eagles is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

Mo’Kelly, at the Huffington Post, notes the key point as well:

Professional sports is a meritocracy, not a charitable organization about the business of garnering presidential voicemails. If Michael Vick were to unfortunately suffer a career-ending injury in his next game; he would be cut, his career disappear and his non-guaranteed contract money right along with it.

President Obama’s phone call (and subsequent spotlight) would have been better served highlighting individuals and entities truly about the business of helping everyday African-American men reintegrate themselves into society after prison; not offering more inappropriate idolatry of athletes.

Michael Vick is an exceptionally talented football player who presently has value to the Philadelphia Eagles; no more, no less. The Philadelphia Eagles franchise is about the business of winning football games and maximizing revenue. The franchise took Vick on a flyer and it panned out.

Bully for them.

Let’s not rewrite history and attribute altruistic motives where they do not belong or exist.

Praise Michael Vick for his football prowess. Applaud the Philadelphia Eagles for the shrewd construction of its present team. But never should any president be heaping praises of morality on an organization for simply attempting to sell more tickets, win more games and ultimately make more money. Eventually, President Obama will concern himself with the issues most important to African-Americans, as in the multitude. It just won’t be today as this clearly is not one of them.

To be sure, the Vick situation is little more than a capitalistic move on the part of the Eagles, with which I have little issue. However, I see a slightly different theme here, concerning our willingness to look beyond the moral/behavioral issues of athletes and entertainers. The amount of latitude in behavior that community receives from the public is repulsive. This episode with Vick is yet another road sign along the path of moral decay in this country – that a guy like Vick can pull the stunts that he did and not only be permitted to play again in the NFL, but even worse: to again receive fan adulation, despite being one of the biggest scumbags to ever hit the field (and I say “one of” because he really can’t hold a candle to St. Louis’s own Leonard Little, who killed a woman as a result of his drunk driving, yet was re-welcomed to the field with open arms by the misguided St. Louis football fans). Furthermore, I believe that the cultural attitude that has permitted Vick to be so quickly forgiven and “redeemed” is more than a little bit connected to the current downhill rush to libertarianism within the GOP. We as a society are in the process of abandoning moral positions for “bigger and better things”, namely getting as many votes as possible and worrying more about our wallets than our values.

Now, as Tucker Carlson similarly stated, I, too, am a Christian and believe in forgiveness and redemption. And Vick did his time in jail and claims to be rehabilitated. Fine. But let’s not forget how we got here in the first place and why he’s back in uniform: because we increasingly place more value on scoring points/runs/goals – and perhaps on winning elections – than we do on the character of those who are directly involved and on the values that should drive behavior in America. In the words of one of my esteemed Redstate colleagues: wouldn’t it be nice if there was as much rage over the millions of aborted babies in this country as there has been over the dogs that Vick killed?

Tags: Abortion, Barack Obama, dogs, football, Michael Vick, values

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

Goldwater_Conservative

all around. Obama looks dumb for saying anything, followed by Vick’s worst game of the year. I really dont dislike Vick, unlike say a LeBron James who clearly thinks he is a King and entitled to greatness, Vick has alwaysed come across as somewhat hublle and low key. He clearly has bad judgement and runs with the wrong crowd but you dont see him beating his chest like some others do.
But the bigger question to Obama is what warrented his call? Does playing good football mean you have recovered from your crime? Maybe he has been rehabilitated, myabe not, but what he does on the football field will not make any difference in how he acts off the feild. Which is where I think Obama’s logic is flawed on this.
Goldwater_Conservative

Maybe Obama should call Farve up and congradulate him on showing us that egomaniacs who ignore their team and cheat on their wives dont win.
bluesriffer

but I agree with Carlson. My wife and I have a Maltese who is definately a member of the family and treated like a small child. She is a cross between a dog and a daughter. If I found out that someone did anything to her like Vick did I would not wait for the criminal justice system to define the so called appropriate punishment. I would deal with it myself and it would not be pretty.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

and one of the greatest such public stories I can recall. The message, the birth of the messenger for which was just celebrated on Dec 25, is all about rehabilitation for all sinful humans, whether they kill dogs and play football or whether they conspire to kill Christians and go on to be Apostle Pauls.

Go Vick!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
Academic Elephant

on Tucker’s part here–and after all, at this point the very mention of Vick’s name is a guarantee of ratings, traffic, etc.–witness the fact that the Eagles’ game was flexed last Sunday and that’s what lead to its being postponed.

In any event, I think it’s a more complex issue, to wit:

http://phillysportsdaily.com/eagles/2010/12/28/reader-opinion-having-the-talk-about-michael-vick/
Goldwater_Conservative

and I hate people that torture animals, but I will say those dogs he was dealing with and your favorite family pet are two different things. Yes its their fault for fighting them and teaching them to be that way, but those animals are pure mean at that point and are a very real threat to people.
bluesriffer

what does religious beiiefs have to do with how I feel about someone abusing dogs.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

The definition of what is sufficient penalty for a given crime is written by your representatives in the state legislature. If they say that 2 years in prison, or 5 years, or 10, is enough for that crime, then by definition, the convicted criminal has paid his debt to society IN FULL when he has completed that time.

There are longer-lasting repercussions to having been convicted of a crime — again, defined by the legislature. They do not include permanent removal from the professional field of one’s choice. Thus, there is nothing wrong with Michael Vick playing football — no matter how many dogs he murdered.

Do you think that such a man SHOULD be barred from his career? One might ask why you think so, or why you make that special claim for football players, but the more relevant comment is — if you think so, WRITE TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR AND SUGGEST THE CHANGE. That is the ONLY legitimate means by which to enforce such a measure, if, by some twisted logic, you decide that it is appropriate.

And by the way, it is NOT appropriate to demand this of a man who has already served the prescribed penalty for his crimes. That would be an ex post facto law, which the US Constitution forbids.
http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

The legislature defined what the appropriate penalty was for his actions. He fulfilled their requirements, serving the prescribed time in prison.

Do you think he should have had a stiffer penalty? Fine. You have no right whatsoever to carry out that penalty in any manner. You DO have the right to petition your state legislature to change the law in such a way as to make sure that FUTURE criminals pay the appropriate penalty. Per the US Constitution, you have no right to add to Vick’s penalty after he has served the penalty prescribed by law.

You’re entitled to your opinion — and Michael Vick is entitled to play football. If you don’t like that, don’t watch.
bluesriffer

my only point was that I could understand how Carlson, or any other dog lover, could feel that the punishment here did not fit the crime and could fell that way VERY strongly.
josephusmyer

Yes, Vick served his time, and it’s right that the legal system impose no further sanction on him.

But that doesn’t mean that the NFL – a private organisation – should let him back in. Private individuals can “punish” a person by refusing to do business with them, regardless of whether the legal system has punished them at all.

Look at it this way – a pedophile completes his sentence, and asks to babysit your kids. Yes, he’s done his time. But you’d still be crazy to let him do it.

Likewise, if you think that OJ was guilty of murder, you will shun him even though the legal system imposed no punishment.

The legal system imposes punishment according to the law. The private sanction of being shunned by the community is in addition to that, and need not cease once the law’s punishment has. The NFL, as a private body, could stop Vick if it wanted.
http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

Libertarians don’t have a problem with the blind praise of horrendously immoral football players? If that’s the case, I’m not sure why you use Tucker Carlson as the example of “most outraged”–I think by most conservative standards, he’s well “downhill [in the] rush to libertarianism.”
swami7774

I think Vick is sincere in his regret for doing what he did. Hearing him describe life in the slammer–especially his explanation of hearing the metal door slam behind him–was convincing.
Issue 2: why in hell does Obama think he needs to inject himself into this? He’s not a serious person.
runner12

I was not a fan of Vick prior to his criminal behavior, and even less so after the horrible crimes he committed. I believe he got exactly what he deserved, time in jail. He served his time and is trying to rebuild his life.
The Eagles took a chance on him. He is only playing because the starter got hurt. In essence, he has earned his way back. It was not given to him on a silver platter. In fact, if I recall the Eagles were the only ones who took interest in him.
As a Christian who has made many mistakes, how in the world can I wish to see a man suffer who has already paid for his crimes? I am happy for him that he has turned his life around. Maybe he can keep other young men from going down the bad path he took.
aesthete

I had no idea that there was a libertarian consensus on this, or any, issue in the private sector, given that as an ideology it is only concerned with what government does. I guess the libertarian Pope must have made a declaration at some point
jccbin

there would be fewer People-Killers.

Killing a pet is just short of killing an innocent child in my book. A fellow man could be expected to recognize the danger and at least have a chance to defend him/herself. A dog, even an abused fighting dog, cannot fathom the meaning of a gun, knife or machete.

I reserve the right to be unreasonable in this. I reserve the right to kill any human in favor of my dog, regardless of the consequences to myself. That is my right. Now, please try to kill my pet. Please.

Some things are more important that Country, Politics and “organized social-club religion.”
victrola

Let’s set aside the morality question of abusing animals.

Michael Vick and Obama together is a PR nightmare for Democrats. With all that is going on, Obama found time to call the owner to congratulate him on giving a disgusting figure like Michael Vick a second chance? That’s a home run pitch down the middle for Republicans.

Republicans should make this THE story of the week.
http://www.trommetter.com/log/ Jason

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Tucker Carlson probabbly wouldn’t advocate death for human baby killers. I’m guessing he’s staunchly Pro-Choice.
pdawk

The guy grew up in a rural area in Virginia. In an area where dog fighting was common and encouraged. He probably saw hundreds of dogs killed and even tortured to the point where he not only thought nothing of it, but assumed it was expected to some degree. There are times in the history of civilized society where slavery and the persecution of others religioius beliefs was accepted. Doesn’t make it right, it just means many people are a product of their environment.

According to the laws of our country Michael Vick was tried, convicted and served his sentence. He was released from prison, allowed the opportunity to seek work, and has been a model citizen since his release. With the insanely high percentage of re-offenders who end up back in prison, Mike Vick is someone for whom the system worked as intended.

Judging other is a national past time in this country. What Vick did was beyond reproach, but he cannot rewrite history. He can only try and be the best person to his family and model citizen for this country going forward. If he truly has no remorse in his heart for what he did, then there will be a all powerful judge who will deal with him accordingly. In this life, however, I choose to believe that you can turn your life around, you can be taught the errors of your ways, and you can be forgiven by those whom you hurt the most.
http://www.scragged.com petrarch

…succumbing to the profound moral evils and leftist lies involved in conflating animals with people.

Animals can be cute. They also have no souls. They were put here for our benefit, nothing more, nothing less.

A person who abuses animals may be a bad man, and should perhaps should be subject to social sanction. At the very least, individuals have every right to criticise or refuse to deal with such a man.

But as long the animal is his own property, how can anyone call themselves conservative who consider it the proper place of government to interfere?
acat

I am not sure what “difference” you’re seeing.

Some of the sweetest dogs are the ones that were rescued from that life. Not all are able to make the transition, but .. a surprising number do.

This is also a hot button political issue in some circles – a case can be made that Brady (R-Cand, IL-Gov) lost because of a bill he supported that would allow animal control districts to euthanize multiple animals at the same time. Quinn (D-IL Gov) opposed the practice with some rather .. gruesome ads .. in the Chicago market and did better in the suburbs than he should have…

Mew
the_invisible_hand

Growing up where I did, I saw dogs get shot for not returning after a hunting trip.

No one should torture dogs, but this worship of animals that I see in some people is disturbing to me on some level. Vick, in my opinion, paid a price disproportionate to his crime.

I remember always thinking…he’s doing two years when NO PERSON was hurt?

I’m glad Vick is getting a chance to play and that he’s doing well. I hate the Eagles, but Vick is doing well and he’s fun to watch.

This is just one of those rare times where I agree with Obama. I’m glad for Vick.
mustango

One of his more reviled quotes (by those on the left): “Does it bother you to think that some doctors get rich performing abortions?”

He’s also been called out by our good fiends at Media Matters for saying that Obama is “afraid to use the word ‘abortion’”.
Bill S
Bill S
acat

Vick served his time, yes. In the eyes of the law, as the saying goes, he’s square.

Society, though, that’s a whole ‘nother scale of justice… and this is a hot button issue for some who will administer their own justice, and will do so in perfectly legal ways. Not buying anything with Vick’s image on it, not supporting the Eagles, not supporting any advertisers of the Eagles, being rude to Vick should they happen to encounter him … which is pretty unlikely.

The point being, to say that he’s entitled to play football is not quite true – he’s entitled to try to play football.. if he can find a team who will let him play… but the people who love football and who don’t feel he’s paid his debt yet, or who feel he’s insincere, can still seek justice by other legal means.

If, based on your last paragraph, enough of them don’t watch.. that whole “right to play” thing could change, no?

Mew
aesthete
acat

… said the libertarian cat.

This is the same game the Liberal media plays .. find someone, anyone who is believable as a representative of a group and whatever that person thinks is what the group thinks.

Get ten libertarians in a room and ask for an opinion on something, you’ll be lucky to get only ten answers.

I like the idea of a libertarian pope – but he has to wear an even larger, tackier hat.

Mew
acat

Seriously, because Vick makes his money by being physically gifted, he’s automatically unlike most of us who will never play pro ball.

That, plus the lifestyle of the professional athlete makes it extremely difficult for us to know whether he’s sincere or not.

As for upbringing as an excuse, please take that load of manure away. Wrong is wrong, and if Vick didn’t know any better, someone in his group or someone in his former teams’ management damn well ought to have and should have said something. Ignorance has also, historically, not been an acceptable excuse.

Mew
jstjoan

?The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.? ~Mahatma Gandhi
pdawk

have anything to do with a persons psychological makeup then there is no reason to keep up this conversation. Go take in a foster child that has been in a horrible home situation and see if they have a different perspective on wrong and right.
acat

in which there are indicators that cruelty to animals is a short mental step from cruelty to humans, I’ll just point out that most of American society by population did not grow up on a farm anymore…..

In a society that has largely left the farm, dogs are treated more as surrogate children in many cases. This doesn’t always go over well with the dogs … thus the success of books teaching people how to treat dogs like dogs .. but it is a fact that needs to be acknowledged when trying to understand the phenomenon.

As for government interference, I think Vick paid his debt to the government under the law and is free to make his way.

Mew
veritaseequitas

given another shot at playing football simply because what kind of cretin tortures and kills animals? He knew it was wrong and did it anyway. Bark Obama is a punk who defends Michael Vick because he is a cretin who believes that babies should be put to death. He knows its wrong and yet defends it anyway to satisfy a part of his loony left wing base. Oh yeah, and of course they are both black and you know Bark would never have made the call if the dog torturer had been white. Birds of a feather and all that.
Sean (SIConservative)

I’ve both worked in the pro-life movement and been to a dog fight. There are members of this site – not many, but enough – who support legalized abortion. I suspect that many of those same members will criticize the President’s comments on Vick. I’ll not paint all those criticizing the President’s statement with the same brush. I will, however, say this. Anyone who in one breath says that Michael Vick shouldn’t be in the NFL and in the next says that a pro-choicer is worthy of public office is a hypocrite.
JadedByPolitics

it is the LACK of a soul that Vick and serial killers who start with animals then make their way to humans exhibit. That you could watch an innocent die a horrendous death speaks to the EVIL in you. The sickness that infest society is something the liberals have been perfecting for decades. The Vick is once again beloved is a stain on the soul of the this Country!
Sean (SIConservative)

I’ll speak on moral grounds here not legal, as I think we’re in the same boat on the notion that the legal punishment for abusing/killing animals should not be the same as the legal punishment for abusing/killing humans. Animals exist for the pleasure of humans. If you’re a vegetarian, that’s another story and we can discuss this on separate grounds. If not, though, I’d suggest you go to a slaughter house. Animals bred and killed for human use/consumption aren’t treated humanely. They generally live miserable, cramped existences and are slaughtered painfully. Whether this is news to you is not so important as the fact that you have chosen to ignore it. Animal fighting has deep cultural roots (for example, bull fighting) and is a far cry from abuse to humans. To be sure, if people transfer their abuse of animals to people, that is something that should be dealt with swiftly and severely. If not, though, it is simply a matter of how they wish to control their property, and the government should have nothing to say about it.
Sean (SIConservative)

For any novice poker players, please don’t say “see and raise” at the table. It’s poor form. If you’re raising, say, “raise”. If not, say “call” or fold.
Bill S

I find libertarian philosophy to be more or less devoid of moral standards (and spare me the “harm principle” lecture – I’ve heard it a thousand times and I don’t buy it) – The GOP’s downward spiral into libertarianism is, as I’ve stated, is the right-wing politics proof point that we’re abandoning traditional values in favor of a social liberal “do whatever you want to” mentality. This particular story makes a lot of points that I wholeheartedly agree with (and a few that I don’t), but it captures the essence of my thinking on the matter. Here’s one:

About one in ten Americans self-identifies as libertarian, and even fewer consider themselves ?movement? libertarians. Most of them don?t subscribe to Reason or attend conferences at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank funded in part by the infamous brothers Charles and David Koch. But many are libertarians without knowing it. That is, they identify as economically conservative and socially liberal.

With respect to this Vick story, I find the public’s acceptance of Vick, despite his repugnant behavior, to be yet another signpost indicating that we’ve thrown out values in favor of doing whatever is expedient in accomplishing today’s task – whether that be winning football games or winning elections. My apologies if I failed to make that plain enough.
powertothepeople

maybe you need to hear a few more religious phrases or go to church. Even if your “will not be pretty” means serious violence, same applies.

I despise people who feel tough by hurting weaker people or animals, hunting of course is excluded, but no way a dog is on the same level as a human and the punishment should be nothing close to the same.
nycenterright

Where is the one place you are pretty sure to find people who are happy that Michael Vick is on the field for the Eagles? Philadelphia. Barack Obama can’t get reelected without Pennsylvania, and his chances of winning Pennsylvania are very heavily based on how well he does in Philly and the Philly suburbs. I think all of this is calculated, assuming that it is a net positive in Philly and therefore Pennsylvania, and a net neutral everywhere else.
JSobieski

Seriously:
Prescription drug benefit
No child left behind
Smoking banned all over the place
Government spending up up and up

What libertarian policies have been enacted in the last 10 years?

The GOP have become democrat-lites, not Liberterians or Libertarian-lites.
aesthete

I would say that its overview of where libertarianism stands is pretty accurate. It does, however, make the mistake of muddling Objectivism and libertarianism: where the former is a philosophy that encompasses personal morality and what the government should do into one, libertarianism really doesn’t preclude one from believing in any sort of moral system as a person, as it is merely a philosophy of governance. For that matter, American conservatism doesn’t, either: The last third of the article (the critique) is also rather silly (with a rather cliche tarring of all of libertarianism as Rothbardian), and most of the critique is limited to fiscal libertarianism (which is analogous to fiscal conservatism). Frankly, I’m not sure what you agree with in the ill-informed critique

Generally speaking, I find the conflation of morality and preferred scope of government to be the fundamental mistake that people make as regards libertarianism: I can (and do) believe that intemperate drinking, not tithing, and blasphemy are wrong, but I certainly don’t want to criminalize such actions! (For that matter, you don’t believe in conflating morality and scope of government, either: unless you plan on turning the US into a prison state, you don’t really believe in criminalizing all that is immoral.)

We have had this conversation before, though, so I’ll just agree to disagree on issues where we actually disagree (rather than where you disagree with the bizarre caricature of libertarianism that manifests itself in rightist critiques of the same).
aesthete

If it’s a choice between Tea Parties and Glenn Beck being the new face of conservatism, or Bush Republicanism maintaining its hold, I’ll go with the former.
nycenterright

I used to think they were. When abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana legalization were the only “social” issues anyone ever talked about, that made sense.

But now, “social liberal” has a whole other meaning. Social liberals believe that the government can (and should) require you to buy health insurance decide what kinds of food you can and can’t feed your child. Any part of that sound “libertarian” to you?
aesthete

Abortion, gay marriage, and DADT are contentious corner cases among libertarians, especially abortion. It’s telling that every federal official who claims to be libertarian or libertarian-conservative is also pro-life.
hoosierteacher

Consider this story along with the timing of Obama’s comments about prisoners not getting second chances. It involves a police officer being killed in Mass. by a parolee who was supposed to be serving 3 life sentences.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/mass-cop-killed-career-criminal-parole-despite-life-sentences/?test=latestnews
Scope

I’m speechless that you would say that.
Scope

what part of that do you not understand. Those dogs were not born mean, and some have been rehabilitated that were young enough to be rehabilitated. Anyone who condones dog or animal torture and cruelty needs to be locked up for a long time. Read any story you want about the serial killers, they started out torturing and killing animals. The sign of good character is in how you treat the elderly, the young, and ANIMALS.
texasgalt

I suspect you will be proven right.
Superheater

How about a libertarian klan.. nobody’s hat’s are tackier than the klan’s.. i’m guessing you are familiar with the attire (inside and out).
Scope

is that the football fans here are willing to give Vick a pass, because it’s all about football, ratings, and making money. I am absolutely shocked at the number of people here, who are willing to forget about the horrendous torture he put some of those dogs through, because, hey, it’s all about freakin football. As I said, many serial killers started out as animal killers. If you are so heartless that you can just kill an animal, you are on your way to bigger and badder things. It seems that for many, animals are part of the throw away society. I am so sad about some of the comments I could cry. And, don’t forget, this diary was about Obama intruding into football where he doesn’t belong.
aesthete

Someone who eats meat on a regular basis is really stretching by condemning dog fights to the extent of calling for capital punishment for those who have participated in them. Sorry, but if you only extend your compassion (or animus) depending on how cute and fluffy the animal is, or your proximity to said misdeed, you’ve pretty much lost the argument.

Good points, btw.
Scope

look at the current president of the United States. Proof positive.
Scope

Cold hearts such as yours usually have no joy in their lives. I’m only sorry for any animal you come across.
Scope

Pond scum does come to mind.
Scope

by the people here posting what they are. The posting names of those that have such cold hearts against animals have been burned into my brain.
jeffreywturner

People should not try to picture their beloved pets in the place of the fighting dogs Vick was abusing.

If you want to do that – then you are going to basically hate all Filipinos, given that they butcher and eat dogs there, and you could picture your dog as one of the ones being eaten.

As much as I adore every dog I have ever had, I know that dogs are not people. As lovable as they are, they simply do not have souls as we do, because they are not made in the Imago Dei as we are.
LisaDe

Our compassionate President praises Lurie for giving an ex-convict a second chance, saying there is not a level playing field for those who do their time, etc. However, the small jobs given to prisoners to simply keep their minds occupied or to teach them some sort of skill that they may actually acquire work after their sentence, have been wiped out in many prisons because of the very unions that our fair Commander-in chief holds on a silver platter. Not every man who goes to prison has the talents of Michael Vick and not every prisoner deserves to be shunned from society for the rest of his life. Obama is such a hypocritical s.o.b.
marshmom

that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES doesn’t have more important things to do than to be playing basketball, making NCAA predictions, and calling football coaches to give his “approval” of their choice of teammates. (There’s that pesky EGO coming out again–thinking everyone needs his approval)

What a disgusting waste of oxygen! I thought he has stated on like thirteen different occasions that “jobs” were his highest priority!!!
Oh, yeah, AFTER vacation in Hawaii, couple hundred rounds of golf, catching all the football games on television, etc.

This reminds me of some interview that was done recently with a white house “insider” who said that the president didn’t have a clue what he was doing as president, but always wanted to talk about sports. What a shock.

And for what it’s worth, I do think Michael Vick should be punished by society for what he did. Whether or not anyone believes that animals have souls, or they’re just “here for our enjoyment” as I read one person say, they are still living beings that deserve to be treated kindly and humanely. They DO feel pain and for someone to inflict pain on any living being and not CARE if they do, they are not right in the head.
Menlo

I think equal penalties and outrage should be directed at people who leave their dogs outside to annoy the whole neighborhood. I have had to call animal control on just about every dog-owning neighbor within sight. Unfortunately, there are many I can’t see. If people cannot move to a more remote area or leave their dogs indoors, they should not be allowed to own one!

While I think some laws are in order to protect animals, harming one is deserving of punishment no greater than that of vandalism. Certainly harming an animal that poses a threat or history of harm to others should not be penalized at all.
powertothepeople

While cows may not live in the lap of luxury and there are cases of cruelty, slaughter houses do not forces the cows to eat gunpowder, shock them into a frenzy, refuse them food for days to pump up their desire to kill, shoot them for loosing, hold their heads under water in order to kill them, bury them in the ground while still alive, etc etc etc. And his dogs were not turned into hamburgers. There is a big difference not too mention dog fighting is against the law as is improper disposing of animal carcasses, failure to submit income for tax, betting, etc. He was not jailed primarily for the dog fighting, he was jailed for his lying that stemmed from his arrogant belief that he was above the law.

You would have an argument if dog fighting was legal and or the dogs were turned into food. But killing animals in as a humane way as possible for food is a far cry from some ass hurting animals in horrible ways just because he damn well felt like it. There is a reason why there is a direct correlation between animal abuse and future criminal behavior including serial killing.

I am not a big animal rights guy, in fact I never get into that crap. I hunt and have even killed dogs on my land to protect my family, pets, or livestock. But I never abused an animal and do not support it at all. It is not animal worship as the first guy said, it is just being a humane human.

And their is a difference, if I did not say that enough before.
6eorge Jetson

Very well said acat.

But while dog loving NFL fans have the right to decline to “buy” the Vick/Eagles/NFL product, clearly the Eagles/NFL have decided that playing Vick is a positive NPV move.

I’d be supportive of Vick boycotts, but where are they?
http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

Of course, the way we treat animals is absolutely no indication of the quality of our moral fiber.
acat

They’re not getting coverage, but .. just on a whim I looked and there’s a Facebook group with over 23,000 members opposing Vick getting another dog.

Yes, I know Facebook membership has near-zero value but .. it’s not quite zero, is it? And that’s on a quick look… a harder look may find more. Not organized, not covered, but .. it does exist.

Mew
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Eating meat, regardless of what vegans say, is part of our biological make-up. We’re omnivores. It’s how we were designed (whether by an intelligence or a process).

Torturing animals for pleasure is sick. This is especially true of dogs, which (thanks to thousands of years of selective breeding) are extremely human-like. Our species created theirs, and we have a big responsibility to be their caretakers. Interestingly, they may also be responsible for the domestication of humans, as there is evidence that dogs or their ancestors have cohabited with man in very early settlements.

Here’s a must-watch documentary about dogs on Netflix instant view. The part about how they read human emotions is really neat.
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/Dogs-Decoded-Nova/70148726
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

that an animal abuser could be justified by God? Or that a persecutor of the church could as well? Or both? What about someone who defends a public and explicit call for for the damnation of living, particular, identifiable persons?

Knowing how you reconcile these questions would help me put your pronouncements in context.
acat
acat

Interesting statement there, Scope. Or, did you perhaps mean something else?

There’s a huge difference between psychological makeup and failure to overcome a hard background.

Mew
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

dog was involved. It was bad, period. I would also say that the trafficking aspect, even though it was not a human, does justify the prison time. But certainly a person that killed dogs can and should have a chance for redemption, and by all accounts the Dungy visits; McNabb and Reid mentoring, and finally drawing on values from his childhood that were good; he appears to be doing well.

As a side note, yes, pit bulls are taught to be mean. All breeds can be so taught, but one difference between pit bulls and other breeds is that when they do get mean, they are more deadly due to the construction of their jaws.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

as bad or worse than Vick’s were denied employment, then we would have an exponentially dangerous permanent employment mess.
6eorge Jetson

Sorry to be so cynical, but I’m still ticked off about how Rush was excluded and the NFL suffered no apparent detrimental impact.

After a couple of days, I came to accept that the NFL is just an end-entity and our frustration would be better spent on fighting the Leftists in govt, not on the Leftists in periphery (albeit the spotlight).

I watch a lot less NFL than I used to (after growing up a Detroit Lions fan), and have nothing to say but “Go for it” to the boycotters.
acat

The difference between deliberate minimal care and neglect, and deliberate sadism.

I am opposed to factory farming in principle, and when I buy meat I do pay more for the free-range chicken and eggs, and grass-fed beef. I don’t advocate against factory farming here because, at this point, it’s way down the priority stack.

It doesn’t mean, though, that I somehow can’t be outraged at the abuse of animals. That’s like saying that because I oppose abortion I must somehow also be opposed to the death penalty. It does not work that way.

Mew
acat

doesn’t mean it’s not happening…. Especially true if it doesn’t fit the narrative.

(several hardcore Chicago Bears fans in the family…)

Mew
pilgrim

I think that some are upset that the kind of employment Vick can be offered by an employer is the kind where he can make a whole lot of money. If Vick was a dishwasher, and he went to prison for his crimes, and returned to washing dishes for someone giving him a chance to again wash dishes some folks would not be nearly so hopping mad about that.
aesthete

I mean, the Klan was legendary for its resolute commitment to individual and minority rights despite the desires of the collective, right?
acat

“a right to a job” and “a right to play pro ball”.

It’s like the difference between the right to a job and the right to be a columnist…. does Bob Greene have a right to write for the New York Times?

Mew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Greene
kestrel
Superheater

But referring to the Pope’s “tacky” hat shows your impramatur-not libertarians.

Interestingly, there’s an admonition for you in the WSJ today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576049802441667970.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
JSobieski

The fact that animal cruelty leads to violence against human beings is well established in psychology. A torturer of animals is far more likely to be a murderer than a non-torturer of animals.

Why should theft of a valuable painting result in more jail time than what Vick did?
aesthete

I’ll grant you that.

OTOH, advocating capital punishment for killing an animal as some have done?! I love my dog, but that’s just ridiculous.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

That said, willfully torturing a bring which is, as far as I can tell, both sentient and self-aware, especially for pleasure, is clearly a great moral evil and should be punished harshly.
Sean (SIConservative)

Someone who lets his child starve to death is no better than someone who beats his child to death. Both immense suffering by the child, for whom the parent is responsible.
Sean (SIConservative)

“Torturing animals for pleasure is sick.” – Actually, you’re on shaky ground at best if you’re also going to talk about our biological make-up. Violence is part of our nature, and violence involving animals for the pleasure of humans has long been a part of history (Roman Coliseum, Spanish bullfights). While the details of what Vick did might be a bit different than those two examples, it’s not all that far off.

Second, as far as domesticating them, it really depends on where in the world you are. For example, there are dog farms in Korea that breed dogs for human consumption. Those dogs aren’t at all domesticated but are instead treated as livestock. In some places in India, rats are treated as sacred. That doesn’t offer them any higher status elsewhere. Our responsibility is toward our own species. Sure, people can freely choose in individual circumstances to assume responsibility for animals, but those are individual choices.
cpaguy

I don’t get the dog/cat worship in this country. You really don’t see it in other countries to such an extent.

I guess we have so much relative wealth that we can’t help but make toys and even family (i.e. cats & dogs) of tools (i.e. cats eat mice and small vermin, and dogs are useful for hunting).

It is really sick (to me) that poeple place such importance to animals. I have had pets, and really liked them, and mourned when they weren’t around.

However, animals are not people. One cannot equate animal “cruelty” to what one might do to a human…you can’t (well shouldn’t) imprison somebody because you think they might do something.

Vick shouldn’t have served any time (like most dogfighters who are caught). He was a star, so an example was made.

Our culture’s attachment to dogs and cats is just as laughable to other countries as our “horror” of them eating cats/dogs or not eating cows.
Pirohy

What Vick did is wrong, and he paid the price, but he is NOT a murderer. If you kill an animal it is not murder. Some animal lovers seem to equate or put animals above humans.
In a way, I give Obama credit for being “politically incorrect” on this issue.
Pirohy

I think Scope’s response proves your point.,
Pirohy

My priest became really annoyed when a parishioner demanded assurances that her dog was in heaven. He told her simply “No, it isn’t”.
JSobieski

We should be good custodians of nature, and that includes animals. I admit that on an emotional level, I would like to smack around anyone even thinking about animal cruelty. If someone even touched my cats in a way that was purposefully violent, I would deliver righteous wrath like it was nobody’s business.

Ghandi was an impressive man, but his sayings re: violence aren’t exactly conservative and they aren’t exactly Christian.

Ghandi thought the Jews should have passively given in to those infamous death camps started at the behest of that German lover of dogs, Hitler.

The Iranians love their cats by the way. Does that outweigh how they look at dogs?

I think Christianity is pretty clear on the issue of where animals stand in the moral order. I don’t think conservatism has much of a position either way on animals except to say that needless cruelty can’t be a good thing.

I don’t think animals should be subjected to cruelty by their owners. Is a pet property? Sure, but there should be more limits on how a pet is treated than on how I treat a lamp or a chair.

I say all of that acknowledging that the modern animal rights movement is a bunch of leftist communist types (think Coons), and thus I would be reluctant to fully adopt what those folks say on the matter.

As I write all of this, one of my cats is staring at me . . .looking a bit diappointed and annoyed.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Good stuff. Glad you got to the Gandhi quote before I did!
the_invisible_hand

Crimes that take property from people have human victims. So obviously humans are hurt when they are robbed or defrauded. Which is fundamentally different than killing a dog.

Surely you don’t think we should protect all animals from violence. Otherwise we’d have to arrest Colonel Sanders.
the_invisible_hand

Seems to me if you have so much compassion for animals you might extend some common courtesy to your fellow humans. You fall into the same line I see in many of the animal rights movement in that you seem to prefer animals to people which inspires your venom.
kervick

There are two issues of importance here. First, America is becoming an animal-obsessed Nation which is quite troubling. Many people see no difference between humans and dogs – people on both sides of the political spectrum I might add. This speaks to the degradation of humanity.

Secondly, many of us are seeking enduring values and self-evident truths as the Founders did, If they wanted to create a Christian Nation they would have done so. The libertarian center of this Country is for personal responsibility without the Christian fundamentalism.

Remember, the classic liberal Deist Thomas Paine believed the American Revolution would be immediately followed by a revolution in religion, a revolution that never happened. It is happening quietly today.
robmull

Mr. Obama supports infanticied by neglect; what makes you think [he] has compassion for unclean dogs?
jiminga

and paid the price, that’s how the system is supposed to work. Vick is an excellent football player, but a lousy human being. He may claim to be rehabilitated but I don’t believe him.
powertothepeople

when you write such nonsense as above? You equate animal worship with people who have a problem with the way Vick acted and then have the gall to come back with such a response.

Write nonsense, expect to be called on it.
http://bluecollarmuse.com Blue_Collar_Muse

I was totally enjoying the post and then was totally confused by what I feel is an unnecessary and untrue statement .

In the first place, I don’t see the GOP on a downward slide towards Libertarianism. As has been noted by other commenters, perhaps a slide towards Progressivism, but Libertarianism??

Secondly, I disagree that such a slide would be a downwards slide. I don’t find Libertarians to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I find many, if not most of them, to be as fiscally and socially conservative as I am. What I do find is that their preferred method of accomplishing their political goals is not via legislation. They prefer that each individual wrestle with and come out on the right side of the morality of issues and behave accordingly. Doing so results in quite moral behavior, which is the point. A million doctors can offer abortions but if there are no customers, then the situation we all fervently hope will come to pass – no abortions in America – has arrived without the passing of a single law.

To say that a man has the right to make whatever mistakes he chooses and the subsequent responsibility to live with the consequences of those choices is a hallmark of Conservatism in general and Libertarianism in particular. In that regard, I believe the GOP is headed in the right direction. That there is disagreement between Republicans and Libertarians as to where the lines should be drawn on legal and illegal regarding issues like drugs, prostitution and other matters, is not the same thing as saying Libertarians are either the Second Coming or scum of the earth.

Other than that, I thought the piece was well written and I agree completely. But the throw away sentence slam on Libertarians was a glaring, out-of-place, incorrect and unnecessary statement in the scope of what Bill was saying.

Better if he had made an entire diary on his premise that the GOP is in such a downhill slide. I’d like to see his thoughts and arguments in defense of that premise. But a one liner tossed out in the midst of a story on Vick and redemption is not really the place to have that debate …
itrytobenice

I guess Obambi’s laser-like focus on jobs means that he’s watching more ESPN to see who the newest rookies are going to be.
arizonaoldfart

In the interest of full disclosure, let me state, up front, I am an animal lover! Do animals have the same value as humans? No but, do we have the right to mistreat or kill them? Not necessarily, unless we play by Nature?s rules!

Animals in Nature fight to eat and survive! They don?t do it for sport! And yes, we are morally bound by Nature’s law, just like animals! We are supposed to abide by it! When we remove them from Nature’s intended role, we accept the moral obligation to care for and protect them!

A sport is a contest between two competitors who supposedly have an equal chance to win! Is hunting a sport? I don’t think so! What chance does an animal have against a rifle that can kill it from 500 yards away without even knowing it was being threatened? Zero chance! Is that equal?

If you want to call it a sport then according to Nature?s law, you have to compete with the animal on Nature?s terms! You have to do it with (teeth and claws) the weapons that Nature gave you! I have no problem with hunting animals, if that?s your thing but, don?t call it a sport! Nothing could be further from the truth! You want to be a sport? Go wrestle a buck or a bear and claw or bite him to death! Then you can call yourself a true sportsman!

With all that said, Michael Vick violated Nature?s law! He took Nature?s animals and used and abused them for his own self gratification and financial gain! When they were no longer useful and became a liability, he disposed of them in a very cruel and heartless fashion! Is that the same as killing your wife when she doesn?t perform up to your expectations? Probably not! It does, however, say something very sinister about Michael Vick and people like him! They have very little concern or compassion for anything once it is no longer of value to them! That?s a very dangerous attitude!

Was Tucker right? Should Michael Vick be executed? Probably not! Unless we do it the way Nature intended! I believe his punishment should be according to Nature?s law! Give him the opportunity to be a true sportsman! Put him in the PIT with the biggest meanest dog we can find and allow Nature to take its course! If he wins, then we?ll reward him by letting him repeat it over and over! If he loses, then SHOOT HIM LIKE A DOG!
smill1953

“…despite being one of the biggest scumbags to ever hit the field (and I say ?one of? because he really can?t hold a candle to St. Louis?s own Leonard Little, who killed a woman as a result of his drunk driving,..”

I agree with just about everything you say, except this. I think Vick is much worse. His actions were depraved and willful. Leonard Little may have had poor judgment that ended in tragedy, but that doesn’t not make him inherently evil. Michael Vick’s actions reveal the rotten core of his very being.
http://www.scragged.com petrarch

and it was very well cared for until it died of extreme old age, as the healthiest cat its veterinarian had ever seen.

What’s more, there is no debate that people who intentionally abuse their own animals are probably bad people. People who lie or commit adultery are generally considered bad, too, and are often socially ostracized if they do it to excess and rightly so.

But we do not make those things a matter for the LAW.

Again: If an animal is property, what right does the law have to define what you can or can’t do with it, as long as it is not hurting anyone else? Obviously, there may be other crimes – we all understand tax evasion, and improper disposal of a corpse can easily kill other people via spreading horrible diseases, so those offenses are the proper purview of government. But the actual abuse of the animal? No.

If we are to have liberty, we have to permit other people to choose to do things that we would never choose to do – or else, where is the logical limit to government power?
Brian Hibbert

Philly sports daily knows how to pick good writing.
jccbin

And I don’t care what verses, dogma (punny, huh?) or direct words from God himself guide the priest’s words.

You cannot win this debate with me. I am perfectly comfortable with the cognitive dissonance of telling God himself to Go Fly a Kite on this issue. How dare any of you expect logic and reason in all things from everyone?

Welcome to Humanity. Teaching God lessons, if necessary.
Brian Hibbert

Bob Greene based on their own reasons.
Banjo

This is part of a continuum going back to the beer summit. Obama has to check in with his black base now and then, show them he’s down with them, man. That said, why not cut Vick some slack? The man went to prison, said he’s sorry. I believe in redemption, and I think Tucker Carlson was kidding. Let’s no get so grim and sanctimonious that we lose a sense of humor. Look what happened to the left when theirs got lost.
Goldwater_Conservative

I dont condone it and I pointed out that I realize they were taught to be that way. Reguardless of how they got that way though, I”m only pointing out that they couldnt exactly realse them to someones house like you would fluffy, or even give them to your local shelter, they are dangerous.
http://mrnewyorkcity.blogspot.com lifeofthemind

Let us set an arbitrary upper limit to where compassion is operating. Put it at ten times the minimum wage. Football players have some kind of college background so Vick presumably doesn’t need to dig ditches for a living. He does not however deserve millions of dollars as a media personality. The reward for rehabilitation should be obscurity. If someone wants to give him a chance then they could offer him employment managing a warehouse crew. Given his history he shouldn’t be in any position working with children or as a role model. As a convicted felon he may not be eligible for government employment so I doubt the the Department of Sanitation would be open to him. He might try the private sector.
JSobieski

If you look at a pet as purely property, than the following are equivalent:

(1) I steal from you
(2) I kill torture your dog

Both crimes involve damage to your property.
Neither crime involves damage to your person.

Even if you look at pets as property no different than a bank account or a book shelf, there is not reason to treat it less seriously than a corporate fraud or a home burglary.

The factors that criminal laws look to in differentiating punishments involving property damage:
(1) financial value of the loss
(2) use of violence in perpetrating the crime
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
morstar150

You were correct in stating that the culture is in a downward spiral because of the insensitivity to our fellow beings. However, it is the media that places these people on a pedestal and willingly trys to convince us that these mostly uneducated physical freaks are role models. They are jocks, good or bad and that is all.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

par for the course.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

to answer here. My sermon is over. Smile, but seriously gal.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
Marcus_Traianus

and the ability of a person to recognize their mistakes and rehabilitate their character.

But mistakes most often come with perdurable consequences including others’ continual doubts about the transgressors sincerity and true convictions. It is also simultaneously a personal battle for the person that submitted to their self-destructive weakness. Witness the alcoholic who though reformed, will always be known as such, an unfaithful wife, always an adulteress, the convicted always an “ex-con” and so on. These are daily struggles for the perpetrators and by extension those surrounding them.

There is simply no way to look into a man’s heart and surmise his true intentions. So we proceed on the basis of observing the persons’ daily actions to hopefully derive their perennial convictions. And it is in that regard we watch Vick, sincerely cheering for his personal redemption; but always mindful of his past sins and therefore watching, sanguinely to see if his actions are consistent over time.

Frankly, not enough time has passed to determine if this is the road he will continue to walk along. But I, for one, will continue to cheer with bated enthusiasm for his success. Not necessarily on the field, but in his personal struggle.
powertothepeople

or do you always post PETA nonsense? You say…

“A sport is a contest between two competitors who supposedly have an equal chance to win! Is hunting a sport? I don?t think so! What chance does an animal have against a rifle that can kill it from 500 yards away without even knowing it was being threatened? Zero chance! Is that equal?”

Lets look at that nonsense for a sec..

Early man used weapons

Is a lion killing a rabbit fair? I mean the lion must follow fair rules and give the rabbit a stone or something to compete with its dominant speed, size, teeth, claws, etc…….right?

If we need to act like nature, then we can kill just for the hell of it like the lion does the hyena, dogs do cats, etc….right?

So since you have an issue with guns and want us to kill “fairly” like in nature, you are prepared to show us some of the fair hunter versus prey scenarios…….right?

Nonsense, complete nonsense. And I bet you are in favor of animal rights but have no issue with the killing of the unborn……..right?
pilgrim
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

In fact, one could argue pretty persuasively that slavery is historically universal, up until?Wilberforce and the abolitionists made moral arguments against it, leading to its abolition in the British Empire and, later, elsewhere. (Side note: The universality of slavery provides the best argument against man being essentially good, as well as the workability of anarchy.)

Only because of intellectual, moral, and theological developments in the West have we abolished slavery, which continues to exist in parts of the Islamic world.

Animal violence as entertainment is not a positive good. That is to say, it does not increase human flourishing or fulfill any emotional or physical needs.

This is one way that it differs from eating meat. Our bodies digest animal protein differently than plant protein, etc. Would the world be a better place if we didn’t eat meat? I don’t know. Maybe. It’s so utopian an idea that it’s not particularly realistic. An interesting idea (and one that seems pretty realistic, unless there is excessive government interference) is test tube meat (or vat-grown meat), which could me modified to deliver higher levels of nutrition, as well as preventing slaughterhouses, etc (which I don’t spend too much time thinking about, to be honest). I could see its potential for good as equal to or greater than the grains developed by?Norman Borlaug, which have saved ~1bn individuals in the third world.

Anyway, back to the present day. Generally, I think that the animal rights movement takes things way too far, and they seem driven by sort of oddball, hippie ideals and off-kilter ethics. Plus, they equate men, minks, and mollusks, which is crazy.

As far as which species we are responsible for, obviously our primary responsibility is to our own species, but we have a secondary responsibility to be caretakers of other species, as long as this does not interfere with our ability to care for the needs of our own. Clearly, a ban on dogfighting is a nonzero proposition, reducing harm to a lesser species without increasing it (or reducing a palpable benefit) to ours.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Laws restrain man’s base instincts as well as providing a framework for the exercise of liberty. What can be more base than torturing man’s best friend?

It was not too long ago that men were the property of other men, and I’m sure that similar arguments were made against involuntary manumission, bans on violence against slaves, etc.
acat

Vick has a right to seek a job. He isn’t guaranteed a right to play pro ball, just the right to seek work in that field.

If the Eagles owner took enough grief – and they evidently don’t expect to – then Vick would find himself seeking other opportunities.

Mew
acat

I’m not sure I’d buy it as an argument, but .. maybe the defense should have brought it up.

Or are you suggesting that Mr. Vick should start speaking out against factory farming?

Mew
acat

Put that into words much better than I’ve managed thus far.

Mew
bluesriffer

Since dogs are not on the same leve as humans then it’s OK to torture and kill a dog because because dogs don’t go to heaven…blah…blah…blah. I will simply repeat that if I saw it I would do something about it and it would not be pretty.

And I don’t need a lecture on religion. If I wanted to find a God-like quality of “unconditional love”, I would find it in the super-natural in the Almighty and in the natural I would more likely find it in a dog then I would in my fellow man.
JSobieski

while affirmatively killing someone doesn’t provide for such beneficial intervention.

I know that Christian theologians and philosophers treat the following differently:

Lethal injection into a patient
Assisting a patient commit suicide
Removing a feeding tube
Removing a respirator

The first three are never allowable, but the 4th is. If you subscribe to a pure utilitarian outcome-based approach, you are going to open the door to all sorts of bad stuff from a conservative perspective.

The law also treats these 4 activities differently. A court has never ordered 1 or 2, while 3 and 4 have been done.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

than humans, as in, if there was a fire in the house, they would save their cat before their mean ass uncle.
Scope

You claimed his prison sentence was “excessive.” From what I understand, he never served a day for the torture of the animals, as in drowning, electrocuting, slamming to the ground until dead and hanging are abominable. Many dogs lose their lives in pounds on a daily basis, but they are humanely euthinized. If they were not fighters, they were tortured to death. That is simply a devil living within those that not only do the deed, but also those that stand by and watch it happening. Animals are God’s creation also, and, were not put here for the purpose of a human’s desire for bloodlust. The same goes for cockfighting, no pun intended. That is a temptation by the devil to test human’s souls. It is a means of testing good over evil, and unfortunately Vick choose the evil path.

No, I don’t agree that he should have been executed, that’s rediculous. It would be redeeming on Vick’s part though if he actively started or supported some type of program that spoke out against dog fighting, or torturing animals, and I’m not referring to PETA.

This seems to have started because he expressed a recent desire to own another dog. This also has blown up because our wonderfully sympathetic president, who has a heck of a lot more important duties, than to publicly speak out for one of his brothers, just like the Harvard flap. For Obama, this wasn’t about redemption. If that is the case then I guess we can all forgive Obama for what he is doing, and hope that his redemption brings about a second term for him.

Vick served a 23 month sentence for federal crimes of interstate gambling. Some of the fights had purses as high as $26,000. The state was supposed to bring charges against Vick for animal torture, which by law is considered a felony, and can result in a 5 year prison sentence for each crime. He killed, or had killed, 8 dogs. The state prosecutor didn’t bring the charges of torture, because they were supposed to already be covered in the federal indictment. I guess by the time of the plea bargain, the torture charges were dropped. He never served any time for the torture charges. What is the normal time served for federal charges of interstate gambling? Is a two year sentence too excessive for that? He didn’t serve his time for the public’s perception of the crime, animal torture. He served his time as a two bit criminal gambler. If he has truly been redeemed, it will take a long time for many to believe it.
mspector

Only after Vick had a largely highly successful season. He could have made the same call when Vick was signed, or even after Vick’s first game as a starter. But he did not. Like the opportunist he is, Obama waited until it seemed that Vick was a lock for MVP (after the last 3 or 4 games he may not be, but that’s another story). This is about nothing other than Obama trying to buy some “street cred”, as if getting his lip busted in a pickup basketball game was not enough.
Scope

that I cared more about the animal that was tortured and killed, than I do about the person doing the torturing and killing, I would be correct. I would be willing to bet that most, and most posting here as to this subject, would not say they would save the cat before the crazy uncle. If I witnessed someone torturing an animal, I would have no hesitation in slamming that person to the ground, and rescuing the animal. Again, I would be correct. Those that can easily torture animals can also easily torture human beings. Animal torture is a part of the profile of probably most every serial killer. If Vick has been redeemed great, but, he still warrants watching to keep him there.
bluesriffer

If I ever went searching for the God like quality of “unconditional love”:
1) I know I would find it in the Almighty
2) Very sure I’d find it in a dog
3) Not too sure I’d find it at all in my fellow man.

And the fact that you may find me disturbing does not disturb me in the least.
kenchely

I’m as conservative as anyone. But I’m perturbed by people who claim to be Christian claiming that because a man has sinned, he cannot be saved. I’m also bothered by the proposition that he should not be able to live his life after that sentence is over.

Sure, what Michael Vick did was bad. His sentence was probably about right. Now he has served his sentence. That’s the reason sentences have terms. We live in a society today in which it appears that every crime is a life sentence. For most ex-cons, employment is a mirage, because in a tight employment market, one of the questions on every job application is “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” A “Yes” answer means the immediate discarding of the application, sometimes by law. That’s bad enough.

But to say that Michael Vick, or anyone else in his position, cannot be saved is itself a sin. It takes the Lord’s name in vain by proclaiming as the word of the Lord that which is the reverse of what the Church teaches. St. Paul was an accomplice to the murder of St. Stephen, and was an active persecutor of the Church. St. Peter denied our Lord three times. Christ told the thief on the cross that “Today you will see Me in Paradise.”

We give men on their way to the gallows (or electric chair or whatever) a chaplain to whom they can make confession and receive absolution. Every church that has absolution–Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox–also teaches that that absolution is God’s forgiveness.

Who is any of us to deny the forgiveness that God gives? Christ said, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” None could throw that stone. Jesus then said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and sin no more.”

Michael Vick did wrong. He was duly punished. He spent time in prison and has lost tens of millions of dollars as a result of what he did. Now it is time for us to say to him, with Jesus, “Now go, and sin no more.” And do not deny him what Jesus Christ has secured him on the Cross, the same salvation we, too, as sinners, need. “There is none that doeth good, no not one….For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Scope

football star, his arse would still be sitting in prison.
powertothepeople

“Since dogs are not on the same leve as humans then it?s OK to torture and kill a dog because because dogs don?t go to heaven?blah?blah?blah.”

Did I say it was OK to torture animals, do not think so. Did anyone else on this topic say it, do not think so. So stop with the tirade it does not suit you well. We are not talking about animal torture being OK or that he should not have been punished. What we are talking about is the ignorant comments coming from so many that call for serious harm to execution to befall those who hurt animals. It is not only stupid, it would be illegal.

And while you may think you can hurt/kill anyone who would every hurt your animals or you may even be able to, that is not the point. There is no justification is setting the life of an animal at the same level as a human. Not legally, Biblical, morally, or any other word you want to put in there. And should it every happen, God forbid, you will rue the day you made the decision and will have plenty of time to dwell on the poor decision from a cell.

And so far you have not been lectured on the Bible, so again, stop the tirade. It is what I expect from a 16 year old who does not like to be told the way of life from his “horrible” parents.
powertothepeople

10 more times and it may start to appear clever or original.

If you hate fellow man so much and feel dogs should be equals or superior, have you exited any area filled with us evil beings and moved into a hermit status?

And if God is a slobbering, butt licking, tail chasing, constantly farting, other crotch smelling being, many of us are going to be quite disappointed when we get tot he pearly gates.

And dogs do have conditions on their love, you have just chosen to treat them in a way you have never crossed the points where they would turn.
Sean (SIConservative)

The law has to be enforced. Whether there should be a law in place, though, is another discussion. I’d make the case that it shouldn’t be.
The_Gadfly
The_Gadfly

I know a number of people (not PETA kool-aid drinkers either) who would like to see death penalties for such animal cruelty cases. They reason that anyone without empathy for an animal suffering that much likewise has no empathy for human beings and is a high risk case for murder, particularly serial murder when they are deprived of the opportunity to torture animals, or when the pleasure derived from torturing animals ceases to provide them with their needed “fix.”

I don’t know that all such cases are beyond redemption so I wouldn’t personally advocate that as a hard and fast policy. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of truth in what the proponents of death for animal torture lay out. I will also note that they tend to make a distinction between animal torture and animal cruelty (although their advocated penalties for animal cruelty are none to pleasant either).
Sean (SIConservative)

First, theologians don’t treat the first three differently, with the exception of very rare and narrow circumstances regarding the removal of a feeding tube (it is permitted in a few cases). The first three all pass the murder test.

Second, if we limit the discussion to the way in which the animals are killed rather than expanding it to how they live, it’s not an issue of willful neglect but of direct violence against the animals. Kosher food exists because animals typically experience great pain when they are killed. Most consumers, myself included, aren’t bothered by that so long as the end product tastes good. It’s pretty rare to find someone who isn’t Jewish paying much concern to the way in which the animals are killed.
bluesriffer

you have now officially met all the requirements to be awarded a 4th degree black-belt in dumbass. Even Michael Moore must now refer to you as sensei
bluesriffer

you have now officially met all the requirements to be awarded a 4th degree black-belt in dumbass. Even Michael Moore must now refer to you as sensei
powertothepeople

no way anyone with any common sense could justify death or serious harm as a punishment for animal abuse/killing.

Animals, all animals, are a much lower class than humans. At the end of the day, their worth is no where close to a humans. But at the same time, I have no issue with reasonable punishments being set for animal abuse.

But we should all remember that animals must never take a higher status than humans:

If you ran into a house fire and had time to save the human inside or the animal, the human must live.

If it came down to feeding a human or letting an animal live, the animal must die.

Animals must always take a back seat to human existence but at the same time, with the knowledge we have that shows animal abuse leads to human abuse most of the time, we do need to make sure punishments are there for offenders. But the time must demonstrate that animal life is not equal or even close to equaling human life.
acat

And is now square, in the eyes of the law and the government. We seem to agree on that.

That doesn’t mean, especially given the profile of the case and the plea bargaining that went along with it, that everyone agrees he’s paid his debt .. and there are some perfectly legal additional punishments he’s going to have to put up with.

As I recall, you were making a moral argument.. is it perhaps that there shouldn’t be any punishment for animal torture? That seems to be the way you’re drifting.

Mew
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Or, to put it another way, mew. Or is it miaow? I’m not fluent in cat.

A couple of years ago, I started looking at ethical questions through the lenses of harm reduction and maximizing eudaimonia. It helps me to avoid distracting myself (which I do a lot).

Considering your wide-ranging views and general openness, you might enjoy some of the videos from “Beyond Belief”, a series of symposia presented by the Science Network. There are three, and the third is the one that I most enjoyed: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

You will likely find yourself disagreeing with many of the speakers, but if you have the time, you’ll find it thought provoking. VS Ramachandran, in particular, says some really neat things. Michael Shermer is a regular at BB, and he’s interesting, as usual.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

even if he were charged with all the crimes imaginable in this operation. I don’t care how long it takes for people to believe he is redeemed. I do care what the Bible says about forgiveness of sin.

I have followed Vick closely since he was in college. He has always been a mixed bag. I did say at the time of his arrest that I thought I saw true remorse in his demeanor and that I have been convinced via Dungy and Vick’s statements and actions that I think he is truly sorry and repentant.

I think he is clearly one of those that got caught up in a cultural thing that made him blind to the morals and is not one of those would be serial killers that stated by pulling the wings off flies.

But as with all of us, time will tell all.

And as to “rights”, of course he has no right to force anyone to hire him., but also he has the right to be hired by anyone that will.

Thanks for your long and thoughtful response.

Love you gal and Happy New Year to you and yours.
JSobieski

Theology teaches 1-3 wrong, 4th permissible
Law says 1-2 illegal (at least in US), 3 and 4 can be court ordered.

If you treat 1-4 as a set–the statement that theologians/philosophers treat members of the set differently is correct.

Putting a dog out in the cold in winter without concern whether or not the dog lives or dies is different than breaking the dog’s neck with your bear hands.

One action precludes the continued living of the dog, while the other does not.

The bottom line is that there are numerous examples in law where passive omission is not punished in the same way that an affirmative action is.

I.e. Not feeding your children is child endangerment. Killing your children is murder.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
JSobieski

Laws exist because our natures are not that of angels.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

precisely because he is famous. This is often the case and goes by the name of the “Patty Hearst Syndrome”.
powertothepeople

is glaring.

Violence may be our nature, and you are correct there, but being a part of our nature does not excuse behavior. We are also sexual beings who dislike rejection. Does not mean we can rape those who will not give it to us. We also can not hurt others just because we have violence in our nature. Humans must control impulses.

While violence towards animals does go way back, it again is not an excuse for behaving that way today. We do not do many of the things Romans and other older cultures do, why are you trying to make the exception on this matter. Until we live completely like the old communities, not really sure why it matters what they did with animals. Not too mention, animals were worshiped in many old and new cultures, we are not doing that. Well at least most of us do not.

And again, does not matter what they do in other nations, we are not bound by their cultures, laws, or feelings. We have our own and our laws say it is illegal. What they do does not affect us when it comes to this issue. Nor do our laws and customs affect them. They want to worship a rat, so be it. Does not mean we have to nor should we change our rules to reflect their rat worship.

There is a difference between animals killed for food and what Vick and so many others do. I will say that what he did is not equal to doing it to a human and we should all recognize animals are not equals nor do they deserve equal protection. But animal abuse is a proven gateway to much harsher crimes including hurting humans and it should be punished. Punishing a person for hurting an animal is not animal worship or putting an animal above a human no more than punishing a person for willfully damaging a car is putting a car on the same level or above a human.

We are in the US not Korea. We have laws that he broke, hence he deserved to be punished. But at the same time we in the US need to make sure we never allow PETA and other such groups to define an animal as an equal to a person which would allow them to punish offenders equally.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
miroco

What a light weight!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
Sean (SIConservative)

First of all, slavery as it existed in the United States had existed before, but not as frequently as many think. For example, the Israelites had slaves, but slavery was typically a means of paying a debt, and there were strict standards for the treatment of slaves.

Second, you are correct to point out that advancements in thought have led to changes in what is acceptable behavior. Just 200 years ago, slavery was widely accepted, and those advocating abolition were seen as extremists. That doesn’t mean, however, that long-standing traditions should be swept away because some make different moral judgments than others. Many on the left, for example, tell us that ideas of prohibiting marriage between two people who love each other is as barbaric as you consider dog fighting. The fact that an idea is new does not necessarily make it better than the old.

Third, human activity should not be limited to what fulfills fundamental human needs. Desires must also be considered. If you want to limit what is legal to that which contributes to human flourishing, you should probably be arguing in favor of destroying all televisions and support government regulation of the internet, albeit perhaps not the current means of doing so. While we can legitimately support the regulation of behavior that infringes upon the rights of others, we run into dangerous ground when we start arguing that non-human entities have rights. More dangerous yet is the government restricting what people can and can’t do with their own property. Our responsibility to other species is limited to the impact that those species can and will have on our own, and government’s intervention must be limited to those questions.
Bill S

…so maybe I’ve missed something. But no one, to my knowledge, has called Mr. Vick’s eternal salvation into question. That is pretty much completely out of context in this discussion.

Yeah, he paid his dues to society. But that doesn’t mean he should be allowed to play football. In fact, I believe for him to do so is completely inappropriate. Professional athletes, whether we like it or not, serve as role models for kids and adults of all walks. This guy did something that’s absolutely repulsive. As others have indicated, that kind of behavior indicates a heart issue. Can he be completely redeemed from an eternal perspective? Absolutely….no one (and I mean no one) is incapable of redemption through Jesus. But he’s still here on Earth, and the way we deal with such things in society is not how God deals with them in His kingdom. Lifting up someone like Vick as a great role model at this point is entirely improper, IMHO. And this is why I think the whole thing is indicative of a degree of moral decay that prioritizes athleticism over values.
powertothepeople

Have you thought about going on the circuit, you come up with such zingers.

You must really have a headache working your brain so hard to come up with these lines. I would suggest you stop as you really are failing at being clever.

Hope you were not expecting to hurt my feelings, it would take a much smarter person to do it and a much more clever line.

But keep trying, never know if you can accomplish the goal.
powertothepeople

after the whooping we suffered at the hands of Auburn, looking forward to giving one out. We need to win to come back at a higher ranking to start the next year.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
Sean (SIConservative)
bluesriffer
The_Gadfly

If would have been a run of the mill criminal, none of the charges against him would have been lost or dropped. Dog torturers are one of the few classes of criminals it is safe to throw the book at.
yragnostaw

If Michael Vick were white, Obama would never have made that telephone call. Period.
http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

But I think the general phenomenon you’re referring to is knowledge. As more is learned about an animal, its habits, its brain function, its ability–we tend to treat it with a bit more dignity than say, Michael Vick chose to.

Sure there are some loonies that think “frogs are people too!” but the idea of legislating against animal cruelty is firmly established by 1. decency, and 2. the long-established connection between rage and sadism against animals, and general rage and sadism.

It’s not a new thing, all this attention to treating animals decently. (E.g., kashrut.)
bluesriffer

In my world..Vick is no different from someone like Gacy. Just did it to a different form of life. And 2 years in my view was not enough. Maybe some day when you grow up you will understand but if not just keep cheering for sociopaths like Vick.
avgjo

Kosher laws require that an animal not suffer during slaughter or it is unclean. God didn’t allow man to eat meat until I think it was chapter 9 of Genesis. One opinion I read on this said that killing animals for meat makes it easier to kill human beings, which might explain the phenomenon of serial killers ‘graduating’ from killing animals to people.

That said, I wouldn’t kill a human being over an animal. I might beat them to a pulp in some cases, but not kill them. I actually used to believe that was okay. Then I realized, I’d be killing something made in God’s image over something not. Out of respect for my God, I wouldn’t do it.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Everyone has a God–either the one who has spoken the cosmos into existence for his own purposes and glory, who crushed his own Son on the tree for the redemption of the elect, who justifies the same even when they are dead in sin, and who will soon return to crush his enemies and bring his children into eternal bliss, at which time the debate will indeed be over, its winner him from whose mouth proceeds a sharp two-edged sword–or the one they have carefully crafted, in their own image, between their ears, like whom they become: deaf, mute, blind, impotent.
Bill S

My problem with Little is that not only did he kill a woman with his drunk driving, but after his initial conviction he continued to do it….he was caught DWI again after that. And like Vick, he (at least was) attempted a comeback. Again – I find this offensive, as NFL “stars” (which Little was, at one time) are seen as hero figures, and it sickens me to see people (especially children) idolizing those who have squandered their standing with the fans. Moral. Decay.
bluesriffer
texasgalt

is whether Vick has really changed his heart. Only time will tell.

The fact he got himself together long enough to find another shot to play football for millions of $ doesn’t mean all that much, to me.
Scope

If you read my other posts, he was sent to jail, for 23 months, for interstate gambling charges. The torture charges were removed as a part of the plea deal with the feds. The state didn’t pursue him on the torture charges either. I believe because of his notoriety, and his ability to pay the big bucks lawyers. I’ve actually read that the VA Prosecutor didn’t go after him with the animal cruelty charges, because they were an original part of the federal indictment. His lawyers argued with the state that he would be facing prison time already from the feds for the cruelty, and, in the end served no time for the cruelty charges.

I had asked you before, what would a normal prison sentence be for interstate gambling? Is 2 years harsh for those convictions? My opinion, he got off easy.
powertothepeople

mush for brains? Again, who has cheered for Vick? Lying to try to make a point, especially when everything said is on record and easily scrolled though only makes you a fool.

You did not argue about his time and whether it was appropriate or not, so stop with lying. You advocated killing or seriously injuring someone who messed with your animal, period.

I would agree with you or anyone that 2 years for the combines crimes he committed was a light sentence, but you never made that argument till now, so you are simply trying to blow smoke instead of addressing the nonsense you posted.

And by the way, Mr Kettle, it is a immature person who speaks of violence and acts tough hidden behind a screen of a computer where safety in anonymous land guarantees they will never have to back up their rhetoric. It is also a child who does not have the maturity to recognize that when faced with many years in prison, bragged about behavior will quickly become rational thought. And unless you are just plain out stupid, I doubt you would trade whatever life you have and the companionship of your wife for years to life in prison. So please for the sake of your pride, stop with the childish claims and your attempts to project your own maturity level on me.

You want to state he did not receive enough time for all that he did, fine. And we would most likely agree. Keep talking nonsense about killing/seriously harming a human over a mutt, and I will continue to expose your foolishness.
arizonaoldfart

YOU SAID ?Can you come up with your own arguments? or do you always post PETA nonsense?
I believe I stated my argument quite well! Unfortunately you missed my point! In fact you missed all my points, apparently, AND ADDED SOME THAT I DIDN?T EVEN MAKE!
Did I mention PETA? Truth is I?m even less of a PETA FAN THAN YOU ARE! Not only do I not quote them, I really don?t EVEN listen to them, support them or even like them!
And if you?re going to quote me, then at least do it in the proper context. I also said and I quote: ?I have no problem with hunting animals, if that?s your thing but, don?t call it a sport!?
I am not against hunting, as you said! I merely said that hunting is not a sport! That?s the point I was making! True, I don?t hunt but, I have family members and loads of friends who do! Maybe if you had bothered to read the whole post before you went off, we wouldn?t be having this conversation!
What I DID NOT SAY, is what you said when you said I have an issue with guns! It?s OK to read between the lines but don?t read your words into what I said! I assure you I do not have an issue with guns! I merely gave an example of a hunter with a rifle killing an animal at 500 yards! The animal doesn?t even know it?s being hunted! What?s sporting about that? WHAT?S FAIR ABOUT THAT? Oh, well! If that makes you feel sporting, then go for it! No problem here!
Just so you know my feelings about guns, I own several rifles, shotguns and a handgun! I am a firm believer and supporter of the 2nd Amendment! I have guns for protection, JUST IN CASE I need them! I also have a very good friend who collects MACHINE GUNS, but then he doesn?t hunt either!
To your point that ?Early Man? used weapons, of course he did but, then he didn?t call himself a sportsman either, huh? He hunted to survive!
AND for your statement about animals killing ?for the hell of it?, how would you know what their intent is? According to most animal experts, animals in the wild kill for food, to eliminate other predators and protect themselves and their territory!
Killing the unborn? Give me a break! God only knows how you decided that I was in favor of killing babies! I don?t recall saying anything about the abortion issue but, then I didn?t say a lot of the other things that you said I did, either! Just for the record, I?m ANTI-ABORTION! GOT IT!
Why don?t you do another POST and tell everybody my views on OBAMACARE, DADT, START, THE NATIONAL DEBT and all the other current issues we face! You seem to know HOW I FEEL ABOUT EVERYTHING, even the issues I didn?t mention!
THE ONLY NONESENSE HERE IS THAT YOU READ WHAT YOU WANTED TO READ AND DISTORTED WHAT I REALLY SAID, IN ADDITION TO WHAT I DIDN?T SAY!
Since you think I don?t like guns, I?ll leave you with one of MY FAVORITE QUOTES from one of the Founding Fathers:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
~Thomas Jefferson

PLEASE DON?T GET THAT ONE WRONG LIKE YOU DID WITH WHAT I SAID! I CERTAINLY WOULDN?T WANT YOU TO GO SHOOTING UP CITY HALL!
IN GOD WE TRUST!
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!
the_invisible_hand

If the dog is his property and he kills it, then what is the harm? Who, as in a person, was harmed or suffered a loss?
the_invisible_hand

I’ll tell you what. Don’t feed your dog for a week and see how loyal a hungry dog is.
powertothepeople

“clever” one line comment or a repeat of what you said 3 other times.

Man you are disappointing me.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

I am not aware of any absolute property rights, even in Galt’s Gulch. In addition to zoning, eminent domain, and the like (limitations of which I am not, generally, fond), property must be used in a lawful manner.

For example, I may not turn my home into a crackhouse or brothel. I may not use a printing press to publish copyrighted materials, if someone else owns the copyright (generally). Etc.

In other words, behavioral and social constraints are in place in order to promote general welfare and to prevent actions that are excessively in violation of norms and mores. Property rights are bounded by these constraints.

If we, as a society, determine that an act is so cruel or maladaptive that it should not be tolerated, then clearly we can limit the uses of property to exclude such acts. I contend that the things that Vick did fall into this category, which is why there is no contradiction between property rights (which I hold as sacred as anything) and banning cruelty to animals, cruelty being defined in a reasonable, common-sense manner.

As far as our freedom to do what we like beyond our immediate needs goes, my right to swing my hand ends where your nose begins, even if fist swinging is my favorite, most pleasurable activity. It would be foolish to grant animals the same rights as humans, but according them reasonable protections is well within our legal and moral framework and traditions.
NHConservative0227

Obama was taught racist beliefs for 20 years by Rev. Wright and went out of his way to criticize the Boston cops in the Professor Gates case based on racism.

I believe this is another example. Obama supports Vick because he is black. Had Vick been white, Obama wouldn’t have called the Eagles owner.
pirate55

… when those for which I have a great deal of respect….
1. Term a less than 2 year sentence in a Federal Prison as excessive when
the UNNECESSARY taking of life occurs, particularly in significant numbers!
2. The passion of others whom I have respected when they call for
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT of the offender.

As a retired law enforcement professional who worked on many a homicide, we all lose track of the failure of our American system to address violent crime. To those who call for rehabilitation, I suggest the best rehabilitation and deterrent would be PUNISHMENT and DETERMINANT SENTENCING. To those who call for EXECUTION, when it comes to animals, that is EXTREME, but I do understand your passion. Capital Punishment has hardly proven to be a deterrent!

To a President who feels the way this one does, I’m sorry, I CANNOT. I don’t think the sentence was either appropriate or will act as a deterrent to others who commit the same crime. Sounds like a Chicago community organizer to me. And to those who believe the sentence was EXCESSIVE, there is not a great distance between the unnecessary execution of an animal and a human being is there? That is for another debate!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
Tbone

There are maybe half a dozen people walking this earth whose life I would value above my dog’s life.

You don’t like like my values, too frickin’ bad. I could care less, mutt.
powertothepeople

tough you are and not many would worry about your ability to pass out the death penalty. So your point is simply a mute point.

And blah blah blah, I am sure you are the one man out there willing to give up your free life in exchange for prison bars over a dog. And if you are that one man, I have got to ship you a trophy for dumbest walking.

Hypothetical is easy, reality is what the rest of us live in. Join us some time….
acat
acat

I’m not one to think of animals as more than animals, but .. it seems that there is a case for differentiating between treatment of animals and treatment of inanimate property. Clearly, a dog can feel pain, while a toaster cannot.

Mew
bobbymike

was grabbed by its hind legs and swung so its head repeatedly smashed against a large tree trunk until apparently the skull came apart sending brain matter all over the place.

I’m an Old Testament kind of guy I have no doubt there is a very warm place in hell for Mister Vick.
Sean (SIConservative)

Here is where we run into problems. Yes, it is consistent with legal traditions to pass such restrictions. I think we’re in agreement that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. From a legal standpoint, any restrictions lawfully enacted under the Constitution have to be enforced.

Whether it is wise, or even fits within our American traditions, is dubious. As the Declaration of Independence states, governments are instituted to protect the God-given rights of men, and governments are instituted to secure those rights. Neither it nor the Constitution provides for any rights for anyone other than people. Abusing animals, whatever private judgments people may make about it, does not impede on the rights of any people.

You make mention of a few examples of infringements on property rights. Both zoning laws and the uses of eminent domain have been wildly abused. Eminent domain should only be used in cases in which the government needs the property for the protection of its citizens. Kelo was a primary example of the state taking the ball and running with it when given too expansive a power to infringe on private property rights. Similarly, zoning laws are abused when they force preexisting business to close.

You suggest using a standards of “reasonable protections” for animals and a societal determination that something is “cruel or maladaptive”. There are millions who would make the case that alcohol, including that brewed or made in someone’s home, reaches the maladaptive standard. As for “reasonable protections” for animals, that is extending the government’s authority beyond the protection of human life, liberty and property, and is therefore illegitimate.
Sean (SIConservative)

“we as a society”
acat

didn’t you just argue yourself into a circle that allows the Fed to protect animals?

You’d be better off making a small-government local-standards case here as clearly the role of animals in urban and suburban culture is different than in rural areas….

Mew
Tbone

They are lethal and have anger management issues. The ones with good dispositions are usually found in biker gangs and cage fighting. The ones with bad dispositions are usually nuns teaching in Catholic schools.

Send me your contact details so I can send you the address where to send the trophy.
bluesriffer

it will no longer love you. And that is different from human behavior how? I’m glad you are disturbed.
bluesriffer

Here is what you don’t understand though…and by all your comments apparently never will. I will always care more for a dog who greets me lovingly every single day then I ever will for a sociopathic killer. Just plain common sense boy. No go out and try to find yourself some you will find it helpful as you grow up.
bluesriffer

But let me ask you a question. Are you supposed to be less touched by the horror that a Gacy or some other sociopath did to other people simply because you did not know them personally? They weren’t you family? If I project what Vick did to other dogs to my own, it may because I just don’t see a difference. As to the fact that a dog has no soul, I understand that and that actually makes me more protective. It is because my dog has no everlasting. She has a here and now and when she gone it is just over and I will take a baseball bat to anyone who tried to harm her or any other dog.
http://www.scragged.com petrarch

Thank you for illustrating my point.

You are conflating abuse of HUMAN BEINGS, with abuse of NON-HUMAN BEINGS. There is a vast and unbridgeable gulf between the two.

There is literally no comparison whatsoever between slavery, and any sort of treatment of animals. Insofar as you believe that there is, you have been suckered by the statist left.

Again, I repeat the question for which there has as yet not been any answer given:

On what grounds does the government have authority to regulate what a man does with his own property, so long as it harms no other person?
Sean (SIConservative)

There are a few important distinctions that need to be made here. First, Congress and the executive make binding judgments about Constitutionality. Marbury notwithstanding, judicial review is not in the Constitution. Congress can be grossly mistaken in its judgments about the Constitutionality of its laws, but it is only in the application of those laws. For example, Congress could pass a law establishing Lutheranism as the national religion, and, understood in its proper place, all the judiciary could do would be to declare each application of the law unconstitutional, not the law itself.

Second, whether such laws can be passed and whether they should are entirely separate questions. I think just about everyone on this site would agree at the very least that the federal government shouldn’t be involved since it has no Article I Section 8 authority to do anything about this.

That said, I think you’ve missed my point about the distinction between whether a law can and should be passed. States can, if they choose, pass a curfew of 8:00p.m. There’s nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting them from doing so. Whether they should pass such laws is an entirely separate issue, and that’s the point I was making.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx
acat

So you’d be fine with a county or city passing a “no kill” law, i.e. all shelters must take all animals and may not euthanize any animals. Legal, not Federal, and while it’s kind of stupid – what do you do with the feral cats and possums – it would meet your standard for “could be passed” .. even if it does not meet your standard for “should be passed”.

Which brings us back to something I said earlier… suburban and urban dogs are often treated more like surrogate children – right or wrong – to the point where it was a tipping issue in the last Illinois governor race…

Mew
Sean (SIConservative)

I’d oppose such laws on philosophical grounds, but not on constitutional ones.
Menlo

I am astonished when I see the money and/or other resources so many people put into their pets. There are so many places those resources could be better allocated. I can’t even begin to understand it.
bluesriffer

about an old woman who once asked a priest if her dog how had just died was in heaven:
Priest: I don’t think dogs are in heaven
Old Woman: well I don’t see how I could be perfectly happy in heaven
if Fido wans’t there
bluesriffer

Priest responds: Well then Fido will be there since you will be perfectly happy in Heaven.

Buckley said he could not find a flaw in the priest’s logic.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

you just devalued Buckley a few notches for me.

No comprendo.
bluesriffer

but the story is accurate.
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

Cutting off the fat to get to the meat of the matter in such an economical fashion. Well stated – and uncomfortable for the listener, myself included, with no treacle in the formulation.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

that he couldn’t see the illogic of any sequence in the form:

A: X?
B: Provisionally, Not X.
A: I won’t be happy in heaven unless X.
B: Since you cannot fail to be happy in heaven, X.

Well, not odd, I suppose, in light of the degree to which faith in uncorrupted reason and unmediated supposed revelation has strangled the faith delivered once for all to the saints through the unchanging scriptures, but still … saddening.

But that can’t be settled here, I know!
jeffreywturner

Do you then condemn entire nations of people (such as Filipinos) who happen to butcher and eat dogs? A dog is a dog right? If you do, can the Hindus in India condemn us all for butchering and eating cows?

It angers me to no end when people mistreat animals, especially dogs, since it is because of us (humans) that dogs are unable to fend for themselves. However, I only make the point that from a Biblical perspective, no matter how much of an affinity one culture happens to have for a particular type of animal, the only Earthly creature set apart from all the others is Man.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx
bluesriffer
aesthete

You could easily replace the X in the punchline with marijuana, guns, or anything else on Earth that has the tendency to make one happy and get the same result. Suffice it to say, heaven will be great and unlike (and better than) what any of us have anticipated.
bluesriffer

I can’t right all the wrongs in the world. Can’t say I’m up to date on how/why dogs are killed in the Philippines. Th Bible however does specify that animals, even those used for food should not be tortured. I just consider grabbing a dog by it’s hind legs and smashing it’s head into a tree for no other reason than it would not fight hard enough as an abomination. If I ever saw someone do that I am just saying I would not wait for “justice to be served”. If that makes me a terrible person so be it. I just get angry when I come across the attitude that it’s “just a dog”. I’ve already been accused on this thread of basically saying something akin to God is really dog spelled backwards which was so over the top I had to do a smackdown. But that is where I’m coming from.
aesthete

“Th Bible however does specify that animals, even those used for food should not be tortured.”

It also condemns adultery, homosexuality, and a plethora of other sins. There’s a difference between an action that is sinful and one that justifies violence against another human being. Where others are coming from is that this is the mentality that leads radical environmentalists to put a low value on human life (or rather, an artificially high one on the lives of animals).
bluesriffer

maybe so but I’m not placing a low value on all human life…only on those that do not seem to put any value on life at all. I put no difference between someone who wantonly kills human vs someone who wantonly kills animals. To me they are both sociopaths. This is just the way I feel and I make no apologies for it.
cpaguy

Well….of course race comes into play a bit….but the Feds had just put in place new laws for dogfigting…increases the sentencing guidelines by linking it to organized crime….they were looking for somebody of Michael Vick’s stature to make an example of…

Interestingly enough, nothing was made of Vick’s white Atlanta Falcon teammate(not a superstar) killing his girlfriend’s puppy in his bare hands the next week to be cruel to her…

Now that was a crime…the puppy belonged to the girlfriend, and he destroyed her property…(it can technically be a felony based upon the relative value of the puppy’s breed)
jeffreywturner

How do you differentiate between animals?

I mean, when someone stomps on a roach or burns an ant with a magnifying glass, do you equate that with the people who abuse dogs?
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I think I am right, by far.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

federal guideline sentence

Fed guidelines are key and Vick got upper end.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond. A couple of quick thoughts: I agree that this should not be a federal issue. As far as local laws go, though, limiting animal cruelty seems reasonable, as long as the limitations aren’t excessive. There’s probably a philosophical difference here, which is fine. That’s one of the things that makes politics such a fascinating subject.

A couple of thoughts, though: SCOTUS doesn’t have constitutional oversight of laws’ constitutional authority, but considering how early Marbury was in the country’s history, it has become a de facto responsibility of the court, and to suggest that we remove this responsibility seems profoundly un-conservative, since conservatism seeks largely to preserve those traditions and structures that have evolved and shown demonstrable benefit to society’s stability.

I see our founding documents as an extension of the classically liberal traditions of Britain, and while we should not let foreign countries determine our policy, it is helpful, I think, to look at English history. In the case of animal cruelty, I believe that Cromwell sought to ban cockfighting and the like, as did other Puritans. In other words, it’s part of our moral and legal heritage and pre-dates the finding documents. I think so, at least.
Sean (SIConservative)

Sports, especially boxing, provide a perfect example. Even in other sports, coaches frequently go into a game with the intent to injure one or more players on the other team, but no DA would press charges (well, exception in absolutely egregious cases in which the injury does not take place as part of the game, e.g. Marty McSorly).
Sean (SIConservative)

I hope that our legal and moral traditions have more solid foundations than to rest, even in part, on a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the selling into slavery of tens or hundreds of thousands more, and the brutal occupation of a country.
Sean (SIConservative)

Constitutions are written to bind the hands of government even from its early stages. Usurpations of power that take place early in a government’s history are no more legitimate than those that take place later. It is unfortunate that the blatant power grab was not corrected quickly by the Congress, which should have removed those responsible for the decision since they were no longer practicing “good behavior”. The Constitution provides our legal foundations, and anything that contradicts it must not be permitted.
JSobieski

There are rules, referees, etc.

Most importantly, there is symmetrical consent —players consent to the rules and consent to play the game.

Violence outside the scope of sports is illegal. In fact, assault can consist of mere threats and battery or mere unwanted touching.

You are citing exceptions that prove the rule. Violence is illegal unless it is consensual. Citing examples of consensual violence does not disprove the rule.
Menlo

Never mind what authority it has; I’d prefer to do away with the entire judicial branch.
bluesriffer

I feel like my position is entirely misunderstood because I allowed myself to become angry at a single poster which made me respond in a way that was not clear…which was my fault..

I believe in the preciousness of human life. I don’t believe that any animal is above or equal to human life. I also believe that when God gave man dominion over all the animals he did not have a canine gladiatorial torture mill in mind (to use an apt description from Jonah Goldberg).

That was my only point. It was that what Vick did, and he owned the business, was just so horrific that to say 2 years was excessive was to cheapen horrific down to the level of a liquor store robbery. I only meant to say that I wish I knew more humans who were as loyal and loving as my dog and that to minimize the cruelty to them just because they were dogs was just wrong.

So it really wasn’t a question of putting one animal above another. It was just that dogs are intelligent and they feel pain and if I actually saw anyone doing something like what Vick did to his dogs I would not stand idle.
bluesriffer

I did not mean to suggest that Buckley acutally believed this….only that he told the story. I looked for the link but it was told by one of the NRO staff in rememberances at his passing. Would it seem so strainge to you if the only reason he told it was to comfort some friend who had just lost a pet and logic be damned? I became a conservative after watching Buckley on Firing Line many years ago when I lived just south-west of you in Queens. I would hate to think that I was responsible for you questioning what a great man he was.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

I know and can accept that the rationale for his assessment he gave is common–even while disagreeing. Don’t worry, my original comment about your recollection was somewhat hyperbolic–no damage has been done to my opinion of Mr. Buckley’s immense role. Thanks for the civil interchange; it’s certainly unnecessary to go any further over an inconsequential comment made decades ago–one measure of his enduring stature is the fact that we’ve even had this discussion when it is a near certainty that anyone is going to be parsing our exchange decades hence!

All the best.
jeffreywturner

n/t
Sean (SIConservative)

Sorry for the delay in replying. You’re placing what I think to be too much emphasis on the consent aspect. To be clear, I agree fully that it’s a critical aspect of permitting violence between people. That said, in my view it is more significant that we recognize violence as part of our nature, and acknowledge that there is a need to be able to express it. I think permitting violence against animals fits within that realm since no harm is done to people.

That aside, though, my larger point is that it is an infringement of property rights. It’s perfectly legitimate for people to make personal, moral judgments about the behavior of others. It’s entirely different, though, to force those judgments on other people and their right to property. (Important distinction for the illiterates who would try to extend this statement to include abortion: People aren’t property.)
Sean (SIConservative)

Let me break down your piece into smaller bits so as to focus on the real points of disagreement. For starters, I’ve already said that we have laws that need to be enforced. I’m not talking about whether we have to enforce laws on the books, but disputing whether we should have the laws at all. They’re two separate issues.

The second issue I want to resolve before getting to the crux of your argument is that hurting an animal is precisely comparable to damaging a car. Of course we aren’t always punished for damaging a car. It’s legal in most states for a guy to drive his old, beaten down clunker onto his property and fire twenty rounds into it. If he does it to a neighbor’s car, though, that’s another issue.

Third, as far as it being a gateway to crimes against people, we shouldn’t be punishing gateway issues, as the vast majority of people who engage in the supposed gateway activity don’t graduate to the ultimate crime. You punish the crime when it occurs and not before.

Now, to the heart of your argument. I was responding specifically to Greg’s point about our biological make-ups. If you are going to make the argument that it is in our nature to eat meat, then you have to acknowledge that it is also in our nature to commit and/or enjoy for entertainment purposes acts of violence. If you are going to make the case that laws conform to our biological nature, you have to accept the entirety of that nature, and can’t choose it only when it is convenient.
Scope

Animals are living breathing things that were put here by God.. Sorry if I offend you with that reference.

In the last week there has been a local story here where a young guy threw a kitten against the wall and killed it. The kitten, disconnected a cable to his video game. That was the kittens crime. The girlfriend, who owned the kitten, called the police and reported the incident. The kid was due in court to answer for animal abuse charges, and, not surprisingly never showed up for the hearing. There is a warrant out for his arrest.

If you really believe that it is OK to use animals for acts of violence, and, somewhere in your comment I think I read that it was a form of release, I would be absolutely scared to death to be anywhere in your proximity. If I lived in your neighborhood, I would probably move.
powertothepeople

and you know it.

Shooting an old car is not the same as shooting a dog just for the hell of it or for losing a fight. The comparison I made was not intended to be the same and you know it. But for you to try to compare shooting a living creature, not for food, sickness, danger to human, etc but just for the hell of it is not the same as taking target practice on an old car. It matters little that you keep defining it as property, we have legitimate laws across this country telling you what you can do or can not do with your own property. And since the majority of our society feel killing animals for the hell of it, making them fight,and or abusing them is a crime, it is legitimate to punish someone for doing it. The whole libertarian argument about personal property does not fly here.

No one is claiming we should punish for what you may do such as a possible gateway crime, we are saying we as a society have every right to deem animal abuse a crime. And since it takes a weak and pathetic individual to abuse or kill an animal just for kicks and giggles, screw ‘em, let them do time. But since you said, punish the crime when they do it, not sure why you keep debating this as he was punished for the crimes (notice the s) that he committed.

And who cares what our make up is, you have to control it. Men are designed to be cheaters, can not do it if you have morals and want to keep your marriage in place. Men tend to be attracted to younger women, some more than others but you still have to control the DNA make up. Man tend to want to kick the ass of those who tick them off, again, got to control it. The very thing that makes us different than animals is our soul and the ability to control our impulses. Cheesecake tastes much better than green beans, but I have to control my impulse to not eat those foul beans or I would be as fat as could be. We do not conform our laws to our natural impulses, we conform our standards to what society deems is best for all. It is why we can not kill should we catch our spouse in bed with another (impulse), we can not punch anyone in the face who we thinks deserves it (impulse) etc. Eating meat to live is a far cry from what Vick and other do to these animals and in fact, is not even in the same league.
Sean (SIConservative)

And yes, for philosophical purposes, I am. And taking it a step further, as to the local incident, the cat belonged to the girl. He damaged her property, and must pay for it just as he would have to pay for having damaged her car. I have expressed no problem with that, nay, even supported it.
Sean (SIConservative)

Are you aware of how animals are treated and killed? How can you justify the treatment of animals in both life and death? Are they less worthy of protection and humane death because they’re not cute and cuddly or because they’re tasty?
Scope

talking about not name calling and all that but, I don’t think that I cross the line with calling you without question heartless, and yes, even evil. If a child disconnected someones video game, what would you do to that child? Please don’t answer, I know, the child is your property, and it probably equates to the same thing as your car. You don’t live in Virginia do you?
Scope

because it appears that Sean is simply trying to post the most sensational views to gain attention. There is no question that he is so far beyond anything most here would find acceptable, even if you aren’t an animal person. He gives me the creeps and the shudders. I would not live anywhere near this person. I would actually report him to the police as someone to keep their eye on. Have a good night, I’m outa here.
Sean (SIConservative)
powertothepeople

you know it, I know you know it, everyone knows you know it. You are trying to compare life sustaining kills as being the same as killing for the hell of it, making these animals fight for our sport, and abusing them. Last time I checked, slaughter houses do not force the cows to fight to the death, do not feed them gunpowder to enrage them, etc. You are trying to pass nonsense off as rational thought. It does not fly…

And do not know where you live, but if you live in this country, animals intended for slaughter are protected, there are laws regulating their care, keep, and the way they kill them. So again, you are tying to play me and the rest of us for fools.

And lets set the record straight:

Had he killed the dogs for:

Food

Safety for himself (although this does not apply since he raised them to be dangerous and abused them so badly)

Safety for his family or another human (still does not apply under above premise)

Safety for his own animals (and yet again does not apply under the above premise)

Because the animal was sick

Because the animal was injured

Because the animal was dying/real old

I would have zero problems with it. I have shot many a dog/wild dog and my property to protect my family, myself, and my stock. But you are trying to pass a crap sandwich off as a sirloin burger and we are not fooled. He broke the law, end of story. All the nonsense you are typing does not change the fact he broke numerous laws. So even if I bought into your nonsense, it still does not matter as laws were broken and he was punished accordingly.

And like Scope said, if you actually believe what you are typing there is something seriously wrong with you and you need to make sure you never come to my home. I would take your mindset as being dangerous and a danger to my family.
powertothepeople

and since I am going to honor Erik’s demands for his site, I will not place on “paper” what I think about this guy. If he believes what he is typing, he needs to get help fast. I think it is more he needs attention badly in his life or likes to play the part of the antagonist.
Sean (SIConservative)

Your post is a joke. You’re talking about all the reasons to kill animals that have nothing to do with the argument. Nobody ever suggested you’d have a problem with killing animals for safety, and you’re diluting your point by bringing it up.

Now, on the food front, humans don’t have to eat meat to live. Period. We can, but it’s not necessary. It’s a luxury. Many even argue that it’s less healthy than other types of food.

As for going to your house, don’t worry about it. I don’t hang out with hypocrites.
powertothepeople

First, you are the one who wanted to lay claim to the idea that if someone eats meat, they can not be against what Vick did. Your words mandate that anyone in the discussion clarify their position as to where they stand on killing animals. Please tell me you can wrap your head around that.

As far as the nonsense about what we can survive with or without, that is irrelevant and does not merit a response.

Now if what I say here is above your pay grade, please let me know and I will just chalk this conversation up to being like spitting in the wind.

I am for the death penalty, I am for it for all premeditated murder and even child molestation, but I do not condone nor would I be in favor of killing a man,no matter how much it is deserved, like the radicals do in Iraq and other areas by sawing off their heads. We are not animals and we should not act as such. But this does not mean I am a hypocrite or double talking. It means there is a right way and a wrong way.

I am for killing a man who breaks into my home, but this does not mean I am for shooting someone who cuts through my property. There is a difference.

The killing of enemy soldiers by our warriors is justified. On the battlefield, they should kill everyone they can. But that does not mean they can walk into a village and wipe out the women and children or come home and kill who they want to.There is a difference, one is needed the other murder.

Same applies to animals, there are justified killings and there are illegal killings. There are humane killings and there are criminal killings. It is not that hard to understand. Killing animals for food or for justifiable reasons is permitted in this country, killing animals or abusing animals because you want to or for the hell of it is wrong and illegal.

Your postings are nonsense. You keep trying to defend an indefensible position and you are doing yourself no service. And one must ask, are you a person who respects the law or only the laws you want to follow. If the latter is true, you are a criminal.I could care less about your reasoning, it is still against the law and your arguments are what a 12 year old would make. You have shown little evidence of being mature or an adult as you have posted your nonsense, and one must assume either you are sick in the head or just trying to start crap. Even most teens would know they went off the deep end and would back off.

And kudos to you, you found a solitary case of abuse in the millions of animals killed yearly for food.But what you fail to bring up, is the fact it was against the law and action was taken. It was not justified nor accepted as OK. In fact, not sure what point you are trying to prove with that video.

If you were to motivate some idiot by convincing them your nonsense was the way to go, you would be just as guilty as they. You are trying to convince people breaking the law is OK because you want to deem animals as worthless property. You are trying to take the side of criminals and you are trying to pass off criminal behavior as being acceptable.

Now if you are not smart enough to know you should drop this, I will do it for you. I have little time for nonsense, and this nonsense takes the cake. I will leave it at this, if you really believe what you have typed, please seek medical help, do not raise any kids where you have any direct or indirect hand in their upbringing, and do not share your nonsense with anyone impressionable. There is something seriously wrong with your thought pattern and if you can not see it, then you have some real issues.
Sean (SIConservative)

I’m probably wasting my time here since you’ve failed to understand a word I’ve written so far, but I have said throughout that the laws on the books have to be enforced. What I’m debating is whether these laws should be on the books. Apparently, though, that distinction is well over your head.
powertothepeople

sure, that is all you have been arguing.

Hey Sean, meet rock. Guess what the two of you have in common.
Pingback: Desire Even
Pingback: Errol Christensen
Pingback: Auto Forum
Pingback: Welcome to My Blog
Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo
Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์
Pingback: randki w tarnowie
Pingback: randki warszawa
Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami
Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์
Pingback: strona z randkami
Pingback: steel strapping
Pingback: strona z randkami
Pingback: stencil art
Pingback: Media Streaming
Pingback: Click For Info
Pingback: Pop Over Here
Pingback: Look These Up
Pingback: breast actives
Pingback: desain interior rumah
Pingback: working from home jobs uk
Pingback: biaya bangun rumah
Pingback: Savannah Weinhold
Pingback: Rolf Brais
Pingback: Becki Dufrane
Pingback: http://wwww.loansandbadcredit.org/
Pingback: search by phone numbers
Pingback: Sidney Trundy
Pingback: aloe vera side effects
Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair
Pingback: cv wzór
Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro
Pingback: wzór cv
Pingback: Frederick Pelletier
Pingback: madamelux
Pingback: Raspberry Ketone Plus
Pingback: distilling brandy
Pingback: natural green coffee bean
Pingback: John Markin
Pingback: John Markin
Pingback: Repair and Troubleshoot PLC
Pingback: uniform specialist
Pingback: Teichfolie
Pingback: John Markin
Pingback: payday advance stores
Pingback: open payday advance store
Pingback: SEO Services Australia
Pingback: kids bikes
Pingback: Welcome to My Blog
Pingback: portal randkowy

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

On Vick and values

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL