NFL conditionally reinstates Michael Vick

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

So where do you get the right to impose your morality on me? That's precisely what happened here.

Since you're in the vicinity, you should probably leave Japan, find an uninhabited island somewhere in the South Pacific and start your own Individualist colony there.

Nobody but the insects and the animals will be imposing their morality on you there.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

Since you're in the vicinity, you should probably leave Japan, find an uninhabited island somewhere in the South Pacific and start your own Individualist colony there.

Nobody but the insects and the animals will be imposing their morality on you there.

Cute, but you didn't answer the question.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Cute, but you didn't answer the question.

It wasn't to be glib, dude.

Seriously, anywhere you go, short of an island, you're going to be subject to the law of the land.
You know that going in.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by John Scott

So where do you get the right to impose your morality on me? That's precisely what happened here.

I don't have the right to impose my morality on you.

It is not my problem if the laws have any good or bad moral value, or if they don't have any moral value at all. But as a citizen I understand that my moral must adapt itself to the laws.

[Allen Farlow]

Oh, my gawd, John, I'm not sure I should even respond to your post!

Did you mean to type humanely or humanly? Animals should be treated humanely, in my opinion, not humanly. Animals are not humans but people so often 'humanize' animals. Most animals don't have a long memory, and can't even figure out what might be coming up in a minute from now. They don't realize the chute they are walking down has an air hammer waiting to, well, I'll politely not describe what happens out of respect for others who may read this, but it is as quick and painless as it possibly can be, unless it is a kosher slaughterhouse, then it's a different story altogether, not quick and not painless.

Breeding them by the millions and killing them at will (referring to livestock) is a far cry from staging dog fights, John. Surely you must be able to see that.

Are you referring to Michael Vick when you say you are outraged that a fellow human was deprived of years of his life? He violated a lot of laws! Should he not be punished like anyone else? Doesn't matter if you subsidized it or not, the government has a system in place to punish lawbreakers; if it didn't what good would the laws be?

The government has no right to do what it did? Please. Start your own country and then you can make the rules. In the United States we have laws against cruelty to animals, gambling, torture of animals, mistreatment of animals, running a criminal enterprise, the list goes on concerning Michael Vick.

Just because he didn't harm any humans, huh? Then I suppose arsonists shouldn't be charged and sent to prison if their work didn't harm any humans?

John, in nature, no one forces animals to kill each other. There are no fights for exhibition or for money. They always have the option to retreat. Dogs in dogfights never have the option to retreat. They are actually pushed back into the fight if they try to escape. And if they just lie down and refuse to fight the other dog, they are tortured and killed by their owners if the other dog doesn't do it first.

Slaughterhouses operate for humanitarian purposes? In a manner, yes. Humans are meat eaters, how else are we to put meat on the table? Would you prefer that someone walked into the field and dropped the animals one by one right in front of the other animals? You have to kill them first. That's the way it works. But there's no reason we can't do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Slaughterhouses are designed to control the process so that it is accomplished in as pain free a manner as possible, and they are also designed to do it an efficient manner.

If you don't like it, might I suggest you try becoming a vegan?

Your bucket doesn't hold water, John.

And we can all see where you're coming from. You live in Japan and I guess everyone there thinks dogfighting is okay, that there's nothing wrong with it. Well, that may be okay over there, but it's certainly not okay over here. Maybe one of these days other countries will come out of the dark ages. (Dogs are a lot more intelligent than cows.)

Do you believe in God, John? Do you believe in the Holy Bible? If you do then I would imagine that you must know that mankind is the caretaker of animals. Note particularly the word 'care'. It doesn't say anything about torture and how it is okay simply because animals don't have the rights afforded to mankind. Torture is torture. Michael Vick's time behind bars was a lot more humane than what his dogs experienced, I'm almost sure of that.

If his morality didn't match that of the others living in the land he is living in, then he's got a problem, not us. His morality is sorely lacking, and if he violates laws (even if those laws are made to reflect a generally accepted standard of morality) he deserves to be punished for breaking them.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What irony, John? Vick is responsible for the injuring and death of quite a few animals, animals that never had a choice.

He always had his choice. If he gets attacked by dogs, he has the choice to run like the coward that he really is.

And who is imposing their morality on you, John? The people who make the laws you would be arrested for if caught breaking them? Go ahead and break the laws in Japan and see if they impose their morality on you. My goodness! I suppose you dislike seat belt laws, too?

Doesn't matter where you live, John, there are things you should not do, period. And because certain people have a hard time getting that through their skulls, laws must be made and enforced.

Like I said, your bucket doesn't hold water.

[John Scott]

Breeding them by the millions and killing them at will (referring to livestock) is a far cry from staging dog fights, John. Surely you must be able to see that.

You don't seem to be functioning logically. If animals have "natural rights" surely those natural rights would include the most basic right - i.e., a right to life. I'd love to see your argument for the right to kill but not inflict pain. That's bound to be entertaining.

The government has no right to do what it did? Please.

Surely there are legitimate laws, and illegitimate laws. What makes the difference? Answer that and we'll be standing on the same ground.

If you don't like it, might I suggest you try becoming a vegan?

But I do love it. I love beef. Chicken too. And to avoid being a hypocrite, I'm not going to send anybody to prison for violating any imaginary animal rights.

And we can all see where you're coming from. You live in Japan and I guess everyone there thinks dogfighting is okay, that there's nothing wrong with it. Well, that may be okay over there, but it's certainly not okay over here. Maybe one of these days other countries will come out of the dark ages.

Oddly enough, it's not Japan that has the highest incarceration rate in the world - it's America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pr..._2007_2008.PNG

Who is in the dark ages again?

Do you believe in God, John? Do you believe in the Holy Bible? If you do then I would imagine that you must know that mankind is the caretaker of animals. Note particularly the word 'care'. It doesn't say anything about torture and how it is okay simply because animals don't have the rights afforded to mankind. Torture is torture. Michael Vick's time behind bars was a lot more humane than what his dogs experienced, I'm almost sure of that.

The Holy Bible huh? Maybe we should outlaw sodomy and fornication too?

Why not try to establish a case for animal rights without referring to religious texts.

If his morality didn't match that of the others living in the land he is living in, then he's got a problem, not us. His morality is sorely lacking, and if he violates laws (even if those laws are made to reflect a generally accepted standard of morality) he deserves to be punished for breaking them.

Laws shouldn't reflect majority morality. Laws shouldn't have anything to do with morality. That's a recipe for disaster, or in America's case, a huge part of the population being incarcerated.

And who is imposing their morality on you, John? The people who make the laws you would be arrested for if caught breaking them? Go ahead and break the laws in Japan and see if they impose their morality on you. My goodness! I suppose you dislike seat belt laws, too?

Yes, in fact, I do. John Stuart Mill might just agree with me:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

As do most Libertarians.

I'll say again, define legitimate law and you'll understand what differentiates it from illegitimate law.

[Allen Farlow]

Tsk, tsk, John. Did I ever say that animals have natural rights?

Let me tell you what I believe.

I believe that all of us (yes, even animals, and you and Michael Vick) are the soul, spirit, energy, whatever you want to call it, that powers these minds and bodies that walk and talk. We are not the bodies, the bodies are merely 'apartments' we live in when we come to this planet, from wherever it is we may come from.

When these bodies finally fail and die, we leave them and go wherever it is we go. Maybe we return here in another body to go through another life on Earth again? Who knows? Maybe there really is such a place as Heaven, where we spend the rest of eternity singing God's praises? I don't know. But I'll find out eventually.

But upon the death of the body, we leave it, as it can no longer sustain us. I believe that not only applies to humans but also to animals, insects, any living being on this planet. We all have a purpose for being here. If we could see the 'big picture', we'd be better able to understand the purpose for our being here, but we can't at this point.

Nevertheless, we are here, and my point is that death is a release from these Earthly bodies. That's all it is. Death only comes to the body, not to we, and it can come in many forms, can be excruciatingly painful or pleasantly relieving, it can be prolonged over many years or happen in less than a second.

But there is little rational purpose in causing unnecessary pain and agony to another living being. That's why civilized countries use lethal injection. It is considered by the courts to not be cruel and unusual punishment. But to do so for profit?! (Before you mention medical experimentation on animals, I am completely against that as well.)

So yes, causing death without pain should be a priority, if you must cause that death. We have drugs that can do that, and the only pain would be the prick of a needle. Air hammers delivering an unexpected and mortal blow to the head (as is used in most slaughterhouses) devastates the brain, which senses pain from every part of the body but itself, and is perhaps the most painless manner of death available without drugs.

So there's your argument for the right to kill but not inflict pain, John. Humans eat meat, but there's no good reason animals must be tortured before being killed.

As far as a right to life, I don't think any of us have a so-called 'right to life'. We're here and that's all there is to it, but our time here need not be spent being tortured endlessly.

As I said, we all have a purpose for being here. Our lives, I believe, are pre-determined and have a certain time assigned to them. We are here for a purpose, and in the case of animals that humans use for food, to serve that purpose they must, out of necessity, be killed.

But there is absolutely no good reason for humans to torture animals before killing them. I say that about the cows and hogs in America, the dogs and cats in China, the bulls used in bullfights in Spain, and the dogs that suffered under the hands of Mr. Dispicable, Michael Vick.

Laws, illegitimate vs. legitimate? Are you referring to the meaning as being unlawful or merely illogical?

The highest incarceration rate. What kind of an argument is that, John? So the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate, big deal. That rate not only includes scum like Mr. Vick, but also rapist, murderers, drug pushers, thieves, cop killers, and everyone else who broke the laws and got sent to prison.

This thread is not about capital murder, John, nor your idea of morality, nor legitimate law vs. illegitimate law, nor the incarceration rates of various countries around the world.

This thread is about the scum Michael Vick, what he did and his being allowed to play pro ball again.

I say hands down he doesn't deserve the chance.

[South]

I'm not for outright cruelty to anything, but where "animal rights" are concerned I think it's an inherently hypocritical arena. I'm no fan of Vick, but he went to prison for torturing animals. I legally own traps that are designed to clamp metal down on the legs of animals, cutting through the skin and holding them trapped in that fashion til I show up. If I'm late they will chew their own legs off in desperation. I can legally pull fish from the water and keep them there while they suffocate to death. I can legally order lobster in restaurants that are put into boiling water while still alive. I can legally set snare traps that are designed to hang the animal to death. Still, a man lost freedom for doing nothing worse than these things to dogs.

I'm not excusing him. He knew the law and broke it. I just don't agree that animals should have protection of any sort under the law. Otherwise you're just picking and choosing which animals get it and which don't and giving PETA types president to push their goofy agenda.

Teach your kids to be kind to things weaker and dumber than them and keep the law/government out of it.

I am for the outright destruction of all attack-bred dogs, but that's for another time.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by South

Still, a man lost freedom for doing nothing worse than these things to dogs.

Well, I can certainly tell you that I completely disagree with you about that. You may consider that what you do is no worse than what happens to dogs forced to fight, but I assure you, what you do is not nearly as cruel!

There's a huge difference between snaring or trapping an animal and torturing it just to get your jollys.

[South]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

There's a huge difference between snaring or trapping an animal and torturing it just to get your jollys.

The only difference is intent. That's irrelevant to the animal.

I was raised to kill whatever you kill as quickly and painlessly as possible and I teach my kids the same. I'm not for cruelty. I just don't think it should be a legal issue.

[Cricket]

I have great respect for you, so my questions are very sincere. When trapping an animal, do you do so for the entertainment of watching them suffer? Do you charge money for others to watch the suffering? If you caught a fish that did not perform as expected (wrong size or just didn't give much of a fight) would you torture it? I see a HUGE difference between hunting or fishing for food, and what was done to these dogs. Even in the case of people who fish for the pure joy of it (catch and release) the vast majority do so in a manner that ensures that they will live on their return to the water. Even farmers who either need to put an animal out of his misery or kill for food do so in the most humane method available. If an animal needed to be put down, would most people electrocute it? Drown it? Slam it into the ground repeatedly?

To me, what this speaks to is a very scary lack of character. What type of people torture animals?

Take a look at this article and see if you see any correlation?
http://www.hsus.org/acf/cruelty/publ...l_killers.html

Yes, he was convicted and paid for his crimes. But I believe that character is something you either have or you don't. That isn't something you often find changing. My disappointment is in The NFL choosing to allow a man to play a professional sport that little boys look up to and often want to be someday.

In my personal opinion, it is a shame when we allow a man like this to be that example . . .

[South]

Originally Posted by Cricket

I have great respect for you, so my questions are very sincere. When trapping an animal, do you do so for the entertainment of watching them suffer?

Of course not. Like I said I have always killed in the fastest, least painful way the situation allows. When trapping I've never let daylight hit before clearing traps and I dispatch the catch with .22 longrifles in the ear. Immediate death. I haven't trapped for awhile, but to me it's a better method of obtaining fur than fur farms.

Originally Posted by Cricket

If you caught a fish that did not perform as expected (wrong size or just didn't give much of a fight) would you torture it............ it into the ground repeatedly?

I understand what you're saying and I understand that it's coming from a heart of compassion. No, I've never deliberately wounded anything without intent to kill and do what I can to lessen the pain of unintentional wounding. I carry a sidearm deer hunting because a head shot is a quicker death than a slit throat for a wounded animal.

My point isn't that people should be cruel, just that I don't think the government should enforce a law about it. I say that because it's selective and very open for loose interpretation. These are the kind of laws that could be carried over by the Sonia Sotomayor's of the world to stop a fish from suffering by fishing, to stop a man from hunting because "if you can't shoot a dog in your yard you shouldn't be able to shoot a deer or dove in the field."

People should just behave decently. When you let the government decide what is and is not cruel and which animals that applies to it starts hitting too close to home for me.

I've had to shoot a dog that was dear to me. He got old and sick enough to be in constant pain and nearly unable to move. I did the kill myself rather than take him to a vet into unfamiliar surroundings to die on a cold metal table surrounded by strangers. Rather he was out in the woods he loved and was happy. Death was instant and he was happy and comfortable to the last second. By some animal cruelty laws I would be breaking the law to do that again.

I know that the situations may be a world apart on intent, but a law that effects the bad guys carries over to everybody.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by South

People should just behave decently.

But they don't always behave decently, as this thread points out.
That's why laws must be enacted, to attempt to force people to be decent when they, otherwise, wouldn't be.
And even then, some disobey the law and act indecently.
Decency is not a problem for you because you're a thoughtful man with a brain in your head.
Not everyone is so lucky or inclined.

[ScriptMan]

Originally Posted by South

I've had to shoot a dog that was dear to me. He got old and sick enough to be in constant pain and nearly unable to move. I did the kill myself rather than take him to a vet into unfamiliar surroundings to die on a cold metal table surrounded by strangers. Rather he was out in the woods he loved and was happy. Death was instant and he was happy and comfortable to the last second. By some animal cruelty laws I would be breaking the law to do that again.

The difference between what you did and what the dog fighters do is the difference between day and night. I'm not sure I could it unless the animal was mortally wounded at the time. I respect your intentions and actions.

Sadly you are right that you might be convicted under the same laws.

[Allen Farlow]

Here's good news far as I see it:

Vick sweepstakes: One day and, so far, no takers

By RACHEL COHEN, AP Sports Writer 12 hours, 53 minutes ago

If any NFL teams are interested in Michael Vick, they’re not saying.

Read full article here.

[ScriptMan]

He broke the law and I find his "sport" despicable. He was convicted and served his time.

Why should he be banned from earning a living now?

I respectfully submit that you will find his greatest detractors at a pro choice rally.

If you can understand that let me know.

Edit: And I do not plan on seeing another MLB baseball game until Pete Rose is in the hall of fame where he belongs.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by Cricket

My disappointment is in The NFL choosing to allow a man to play a professional sport that little boys look up to and often want to be someday.

It's not like the NFL thinks he is a good person. He will be bringing a lot of money to them (controversy in TV, interviews, more tickets sold). Plus his team must be putting pressure on the NFL to have the player back, nobody wants to lose a player.

Sadly, no sports organization really cares about this kind of thing, they give awards to good players, and all, but anyone who can bring bring money into the business is always welcome for them.

[Hades]

People should just behave decently. When you let the government decide what is and is not cruel and which animals that applies to it starts hitting too close to home for me.

The government didn't come up with these laws for no reason.
Every law is created because somebody broke it before it existed. If people had in their nature not hurting animals for pleasure this law wouldn't exist.

I assure you it is there because not everybody acts as rationally as you do.

[John Scott]

As I see it, if there's any morality being imposed on anyone, the morality of the citizens of the US is being imposed on Michael Vick and only because he chose to break laws within it's borders.

Yes, and that's a defense of what? Majority rule? And majority rule is excusable why? Just because a group of people draw and imaginary line across some land and say "that's our border" and then "within this border, we get to impose our morality on everybody" doesn't really fly. Doesn't matter how many people believe they are sovereign over me, it doesn't make it so.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, and that's a defense of what? Majority rule? And majority rule is excusable why? Just because a group of people draw and imaginary line across some land and say "that's our border" and then "within this border, we get to impose our morality on everybody" doesn't really fly. Doesn't matter how many people believe they are sovereign over me, it doesn't make it so.

No, but if you choose to live somewhere, you also choose to abide by their laws or suffer the consequences, no?