Yes. And chickens. And cows. And pigs. And fish. Writhing around with a hook shoved in your throat isn't torturous? And yet, we flip the fuck out when the animal is lovable. If he had eaten the dogs, would that have made it better in your eyes? I never said it was purely because people love dogs. It does, however, play a role in how it was perceived and how the sentence was carried out. The venom some people are STILL spitting about how unforgivable it was...hilarious.
Both QFT. I think the social argument about dog-fighting has a lot more weight than people are understanding. Most of us see his pitbulls and think dog, but I get the feeling that when those people who construct these dogfights see them they think don't register them the same way. They see them as sub-feeling creatures, kind of like how boxing/UFC promoters see their fighters. He's not going to get a golden retriever or something for his kids and suddenly make the thing fight other dogs, it's a totally different situation. That said, I think it would be best for everyone if there were regular checks on the dog's health, just so everyone can be certain things are moving along as they should. I think him having a pet would help him to break the stigma that any type of dog could ever be viewed simply as an object bred for fighting.
Vick was convicted for an unlawful animal fighting gambling ring, not for being cruel to the dogs. The dog part certainly didn't help his image, but it wasn't what put him in prison.
We disagree less than you think. I agree that dogs being lovable has certainly played a role in the enforcement of this crime. I also agree that most, if not all, other animals are sentient. My end result is that I wouldn't approve of [induced] dog fighting any more than I would cat righting, cock fighting, or fish fighting, along with torture and killings when they don't perform. Your end result may be different; that'd be where we diverge. But we get there in similar ways. You're saying dogs aren't "really" different than other animals, and I agree. But that distinction even becomes difficult to make between humans and all animals, which is why I took issue with you appearing to separate humans from the group (except that we wield power and make laws) and then lumping the rest of them all together.
there are murderers that play in this league....and didn't get punished. it's time to leave Vick alone.....he's done his time.
Actually, I think it's been proven that the brain of a fish is too small for the animal to feel pain. Just sayin' :smile:
You took the time to disagree with me in a post and misrepresent my original statement. That's why I responded as I did. I never said I did, nor was I primarily discussing my personal feelings, but rather those of the general public. Are you really going to tell me that people would still be stringing him up today if he had been engaged in a fish fighting ring? Even a cock fighting ring? Come on... If he were fighting chickens, people would forget about it instantly, and the "who cares" element would have been far greater. I'd even hazard a guess that a lot of people would laugh about it a la Kenny Powers. The minute you start comparing the difference between dogs and other animals to the difference between humans and other animals, you've sunk yourself. The absurdly reductionist "we're the same except we wield power and make laws" argument merits no direct response. Talk to me the day we actually see dogs exhibiting high capacity for reason over instinct. The anthropomorphic transference of their owners doesn't count, by the way.
That's not true. I've seen an eel shriek in pain right after it was punched by Andre the Giant as he was rescuing Buttercup. Not a fish, per se, but a sea creature. And the Jaws family certainly felt pain. I mean, it fueled the revenge of the family for 3 straight sequels.
The point being that convicted sex offenders still aren't allowed to become youth club volunteers even after they've served their time. I agree with the view that Vick would be highly unlikely to cause another animal any harm; the problem is that it sets a precedent. If you argue that Vick's public profile makes him a special case and thus allowed to own a dog whereas Joe Schmoe convicted of the same offence has his lifetime ban upheld, you're creating a two tier society in the eyes of the law. I'm sure that those of greater legal knowledge can cite me countless examples of this sort of thing happening anyway, but I don't see that the benefit of allowing Vick to own animals again outweighs the message that it sends about the law not really meaning what it says.
But Joe Schmoe didn't necessarily donate a shit-ton of money to these animal rights groups and humane societies now did he?
Maybe not, but just because John Wayne Gacy gave money to his local Sunday School doesn't mean you'd want him coaching peewee ball.
Is Ray Lewis allowed to have another human in his house? If he is, then Vick should be allowed to have a dog in his house.
When did I misrepresent your original statement? You said "animals are animals." That's a blanket distinction which I thought, as said, was without warrant. And I certainly didn't attack you in any way.... [/QUOTE] I never said I did, nor was I primarily discussing my personal feelings, but rather those of the general public. Are you really going to tell me that people would still be stringing him up today if he had been engaged in a fish fighting ring? Even a cock fighting ring? Come on... If he were fighting chickens, people would forget about it instantly, and the "who cares" element would have been far greater. I'd even hazard a guess that a lot of people would laugh about it a la Kenny Powers. [/QUOTE] I agree that people act differently because of dogs, and I said that. I was also discussing my personal feelings. I even went out of my way to say "Your end result may be different; that'd be where we diverge." AKA not putting words in your mouth. [/QUOTE] The minute you start comparing the difference between dogs and other animals to the difference between humans and other animals, you've sunk yourself. The absurdly reductionist "we're the same except we wield power and make laws" argument merits no direct response. Talk to me the day we actually see dogs exhibiting high capacity for reason over instinct. The anthropomorphic transference of their owners doesn't count, by the way.[/QUOTE] As I said before, this is your view; mine is different. I don't think the capacity to use reason over instinct is a viable difference, most notably in that it would allow the same treatment of retarded persons as it does of similarly intelligent animals. The lines get rather blurred. Not to mention, I don't see how "we shouldn't hurt humans" follows from that "humans have high capacity for reason over instinct" but not from other attributes that other humans or animals may or may not possess.
I'm with whoever said he should be allowed to have one but have to have a humane society check up Its crazy to me that when someone serves their sentence our human nature is to continue to want to punish that person further. It's no wonder people fall back into old habits when they get out of prison
It's the law, not human nature. Convicted felons have restrictions on them, even after serving their sentences. They cannot own a fire arm, they are restricted from voting, the severity of how long varies state to state, many countries will not allow them entry, so their travel is restricted, certain offenses, such as sex offenders have to register for life. Certain professions, like attorneys and teachers, can not practice again. Since it seems to be an issue with Vick, the courts must have put a restriction on his right to own an animal. It comes with the territory. Convicted felons lose all kinds of rights via the courts, not human nature. Foxy
