In light of the Michael Vick debacle, I have heard numerous opinions on the values of a dogs life over a humans, how killing a dear is different than killing a dog, and many more. I have come up with some questions for you all to see where your sould lies.
Is a dogs life worth less than a humans? What if the human is blind, deaf, and a quadrapaligic who is also mentally retarded?
Is hunting a deer the same as killing a dog? What if you also eat the dog and use the parts, Native American style?
Like in the first question, if you murder the disabled person should you get 20 more years in prison than you would get for killing dogs?
Since so many of you say people hunt deer to control the population, if there was a spike in the dog population, is it humane to let them run wild and hunt them with guns or bows?
Here are some that don't have to do with sports.
Which is worse? Driving while talking on a cell phone or smoking crack? They're both illegal.
Which should get the longer sentence? Child abuse or abuse on an adult?
Now I for one am not an any side int his argument except that what Vick did was inhumane and cruel. I would just like your insight on these scenarious. Thanks.
1.) who said a dog's life is worth more than a human's? Despite the fact that my dog life is worth more than my ex wife's and Howard Stern's both, I'm willing to concede this is an exception to the usual.
Since dog eating is illegal in every state what is the point in #2 other than sour grapes because Vick is getting what he deserves?
Since when is Vick getting 20 years despite deserving it much less 20 more than killing a disabled person?
#4 is the same question as #2 reworded. You need to get over it. Vick is done.
Let me clarify some things. I have heard on alot of blogs the controversy on a humans value of life vs. a dog's. In number 2 I was just giving a hypothetical scenerio, imagine those laws were gone. In #3, when you murder, you could get 20 years. If Vick only gets 1, is it right that a murderer that kills a human is punished alot more than a murderer that killed a dog?
Well, first let me say that I think it's shameful that there are still people out there who are trying to divert blame from Vick..to hunting!!
Second, hunting deer (not dear..learn to spell) is humane. A shot through the heart isn't the same as torture by electrocution, drowning, hanging, etc. If you can't see the difference, go to your local psychiatrist...because you have no conscience.
Third, can anyone tell me how many of those dogs Mikey V cut up...stuck in the freezer...and ate during the winter? I'm not really sure...but I doubt Mikey V eats dog for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Fourth, hunting for deer is LEGAL...LEGAL...LEGAL...LEGAL!!! IS THAT CLEAR!!
Dog fighting and TORTURING DOGS...IS ILLEGAL...IT'S ILLEGAL...IT'S ILLEGAL!!
This is getting really old...having to answer the idiotic bloggers who are still trying to justify the sadistic actions of a psychopathic killer who gets off by hearing dogs scream and by seeing them rip each other's faces off.
GET A LIFE DUDE...if you can't see the difference...then you are part of the problem!!!
(i always answer in reverse order, for the record)
abusing anyone, regardless of age is pretty pathetic. but abusing a child is kind of like admitting you cant take on anyone your own size, so i'd have to say child abusers should get a stiffer sentence. (although, letting it be known to the rest of the prison population that a person prays on kids is evil justice in a way)
both kill brain cells...ok, kidding...kinda. if you had said smoking crack while driving, it'd be a no brainer. i hate drug users, so the only way i cut them any slack is if they curl up in a hole somewhere so they cant potentially hurt someone while they're high. smoking crack is worse, but some people obviously shouldnt be doing anything while behind the wheel other than driving.
i believe humane societies and PETA already "control" the dog population to a certain degree. why would you want to hunt dogs anyway?
1 person vs. how many dogs? forget that, yeah, you should get more time for killing a human, but you should at least have sense enough, if you dont like dogs, to just not own one.
no. and if you want to eat dog, living in another country is probably something to look into very seriously...or seeking psychiatric help.
some humans arent worth spit, so it depends on the human in question (1 guess who i'm referring to).
*edit after reading your update*
vick killed, or was present for, many dogs' torture, r@pe and murders. all i know is that 1 year isnt enough.
question for bubbB- if a human is blind, deaf and a quadrapalegic, does it even matter (or can you determine if they werent this way prior to going blind, deaf and crippled) that he/she is retarded?
Cuzzifer makes a good point. How do you know their retarded? A cerebral palsy victim may jerk and twitch and even have to wear diapers like one 20 year I know about but their minds are just like ours. It's their body that makes you turn away thinking they're not intelligent.
Depends on if the adult is able to defend themself. those abuse senior citizens in "rest homes" *(translation: come here to die) are just as criminal as a child molestor in my view.
I just dont get where you're coming from man. My life in retirement is even more complicated than sitting around making up WHAT IF secenarios. IF A BULLFROG HAD WINGS HE WOULDN'T BUMP HIS BUTT WHEN HE JUMPS NOW WOULD HE?
Last edited by OneLastOutlaw on August 25th at 9:45 PM.
i love the example my friend gave, he used to work for the police dept, one day the chief of police parked his car in a wrong place got a ticket!! someone told my friend to remove the ticket.. he said no way... yea i agree so what if his cheif broke the rule!!!!!!!
while i am not an advocate for hunting, if the animal is used to sustain life, i absolutely have no problem with it. It's just cutting out the middleman-the butcher.
As far as justifying a human's life based on whether or not they have full use of their facilities is wrong. All life is to be cherished, but I place a human life's higher than an animal.
Last edited by lisa4usc on August 25th at 11:31 PM.
A dog's life is not more valuable than a person's and that is why Vick will only serve around a year for his part in this whole debacle. If he had killed a person he would be in jail for many more years.
As for dog, it is eaten in Korea and Mexico. Should you live in one of those places go ahead and hunt them, but don't go in and kill one that is a pet. Nor should you torture one before eating it or gamble on its fighting ability. Killing the dog is not the problem for Vick, but how he did it is and why he did it. Motives are very important here. Hunters don't go out and torture deer.
Deer hunting is only mildly better if the hunter eats the deer. Many commenters here seem to assume that's what every hunter does. But, there are plenty of hunters who hunt purely for the enjoyment. They kill the deer, then either get it stuffed or just leave it lying in the woods. That's no better than what Vick did, in my opinion. It's still killing an animal for enjoyment.
Also, some commenters seem to think that every hunter kills every deer with one bullet, through the head or heart. That's not really how it works. It only happens that way in ideal situations. Often times, a hunter will shoot a deer, lose track of it, then find it some time later after it's bled out for a while.
I agree that deer hunting can be justified in terms of population control and environmental concerns, and of course for food if it's used in that way. But, the method of killing in most cases isn't much better.
Vick broke the law. I realize what you were trying to accomplish but from reading your bio I think this is beneath you. No matter what side you come down on here, VICK BROKE THE LAW! That is the only moral question that should be asked.
Last edited by bluegrassLady on August 26th at 11:24 AM.
Vick was a felon many times over.
Each fight and dog killing was a felony.
Trying to rationalize his crimes is ludicrous.
Analogies to deer hunting is idiotic.
I hunted deer, field dressed and took the deer home for the freezer.
It's time for all of us to stop writing about Vick.
We need actual posts about something related to sports.
Jgrace...sorry, disagree. A shot thru the heart is NOT the same as dogs ripping each other's faces off..and then being hung, electrocuted, and drowned for not performing up to par. Deer don't scream and yip when the bullet or arrow goes thru the heart.
And once again...(this isn't necessarily directed just at you jgrace)
DOG FIGHTING IS ILLEGAL!!!
DOG FIGHTING IS ILLEGAL!!!
DOG FIGHTING IS ILLEGAL!!!
Fatmaw - I agree, if the bullet goes through the heart. Have you ever gone deer hunting? I have, though it's been a while. You have to realize something. The deer doesn't just walk up to you, point blank, and let you shoot it through the heart. That's a perfect case scenario. You've done good if you shoot it through the heart. That doesn't always happen.
Also, the deer might not scream and yip. But, it feels the same pain a dog does if that bullet doesn't pierce the heart.
I recognize that dog fighting is illegal. And Vick deserves what he's got coming to him. But, that wasn't my point. Several people said that deer hunting and dog fighting are nothing alike. Well, that depends on how good a shot you are. I assume you're a good shot. But, not everyone's as good a shot, or as good at tracking. Alot of times, the deer gets shot in the side, or in the leg, and ends up hobbling forty or fifty yards until it bleeds out. In terms of how your actions affect the animal, the two are not that different in most cases.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on August 26th at 3:11 PM.
Fact: It is illegal to kill torture animals in the United States.
Fact: It is legal to hunt wild game in the United States. Domestic animals are not considered wild game.
The federal judiciary mandates minimum sentencing guidelines for all felonies. States mandate for misdemeanor. So all state are different. All person should be hung for abusing the elderly, children or the infurm.
Item four is a feaux question and has no merit. Domestic animals are "put down" by control cetners.
Item number five. It is not ilegal in all states to drive and talk on acell phone. It is illegal in all state to drive under the influence.
Jgrace...this goes much further than the animals. I understand your point. But you're missing the entire point of this dilemma.
Hunters (at least most of the ones I know) respect the animals enough to try and make the death experience as quick and painless as possible. They get no pleasure out of seeing an animal suffer. Like I said, that's been my experience with the hunters I know.
Those who are involved in dog fighting have an internal need to inflict pain and suffering on helpless animals. It isn't hunting for them..it's pleasure in hearing the screams...and it's pleasure in watching them die a slow and painful death. This is why dog fighting is illegal..as opposed to legal hunting. Training animals to be cruel to each other...and then torturing the one's that aren't cruel enough is a far cry from a hunter who attempts to shoot his prey throught the heart.
I understand that. But, killing is killing. The animal doesn't really care that you're trying to kill it "in a nice way". Both animals are going to die. To say that the two are nothing alike just isn't entirely correct, in my opinion. The two aren't exactly alike. But, they are somewhat similar. They are not completely unrelated.
I would agree that dog fighting is worse than hunting, when hunters do it right. But, I wouldn't agree that the two are nothing alike. Saying that a hunter tries to "shoot it through the heart" is a moral justification. The hunter is still killing an animal. If you're against killing animals, you should be against hunting too. (I don't know where you stand here, I'm referring to the general "you".) I just don't agree with people who make a big deal about dog fighting, but then say hunting is okay. If you're against Vick in legal terms, because he broke a law, I can agree with that. But, if you're against Vick because he killed dogs, and you're okay with hunting at the same time, I just think that's a bit hypocritical.
If civilian folks enjoy killing so much, why not join the military!! Vick wouldn't last 24 hrs in the marines or any other military. Feetball players are NOT warriors!
jgrace...sorry we can't see eye to eye on this. In my eyes..there is a HUGE difference. Have you ever stomped on an ant, spider, or swatted a fly? Do you think that anyone who does that has the same sadistic mentality as someone who tortures animals?
This may sound waaaaaay outta line. However, it is the only way to truly make my point. Let's say someone has your kid held hostage. Would you rather it be a doctor who threatens their life by a drug that can kill them instantly...or would you rather it be an Islamic extremist who threatens to cut their head off?
Sorry, I know that's graphic. But it helps to explain my point better than any other way I can think of...if what I said in my last comment doesn't suffice.
I understand that dead is dead. But in reality, there are many different ways to get there. I, for one, don't want to suffer. I would rather someone shoot me thru the heart...than to put me in a ring where I fight to the death....or electrocute, drown, or hang me...wouldn't you?
jgrace..there's nothing hypocrital about what I'm saying. Please look at the mentality of the people you are talking about. You are talking about people who have no respect for life whatsoever. They get enjoyment out of seeing living creatures suffer. They enjoy watching them rip each other apart. They enjoy watching them hang there, jerking in mid air, yipping...screaming..as they hang there for a long period of time. They enjoy watching them struggle as they are held under water to drown...they enjoy killing...they enjoy being in control.
A hunter has respect for the animal. He TRIES to put them out quickly...with as little pain as possible.
Now, you tell me the difference in the two mentalities. One has a sadistic, psychotic enfatuation with suffering and death. The other doesn't want any living thing to suffer. The other does it LEGALLY!!! Who would you rather live with jgrace...someone who gets off on torture...or someone who respects a living organism enough to make it quick?
Hunters (for the most part) do their hunting legally....LEGALLY!!! Dog fighters gamble, hide their actions from the authorities, and they get off on watching dogs rip each other apart.
There's a difference between insects and animals. If you're going to argue for insects, you might as well go on down the line to bacteria and even individual atoms. As far as I can tell, it's been pretty well-documented that animals' brains are developed enough to feel pain. I don't know if that's true for insects.
As for my children, I'd be equally distraught either way. In the end, my child would end up dead. I'd probably be more distraught if the terrorist tortured my child, then returned him/her back to me, alive. Then my child would have to live with that experience.
I think part of this depends on what you consider a "quick death". Electrocution is pretty quick. Drowning is over in a matter of minutes, depending on lung capacity. Hangings are generally over in a few minutes. These are not really good examples of "slow, painful deaths", at least in my opinion. A "slow, painful death" would be lying in a hospital bed for months with a terminal disease. Of course, I've never experienced any of these things, so I can't really know.
jgrace...what about the mentality of the one's who are involved in dog fighting as opposed to LEGAL hunting? Do you honestly think that Joe Blow down the street, who hunts for deer during deer season only has the same mentality as those who enjoy watching dogs rip each other apart, train them to doso, and who then torture them when they don't live up to expectations? Come on...you've got to be kidding me.
And I know you can't tell me that you would just as soon see your child be hung, electrocuted, or drowned, as opposed to shot thru the heart.
Jgrace, I know you to be logical and intelligent. But if you honestly cannot see the difference in the two..then I'm at a loss for words. And if you can honestly say that you would just as soon be hung, electrocuted, or drowned, than shot thru the heart...if you had the choice upon your death...then I know you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Come on now...tell me that's what you are doing!!!
It's not correct to make statements about the mental health of "these people". You can't know that about every one of them. Some may fit that mold. But, then again, some in the general population also fit that mold. There are many reasons why people engage in such behavior. It's not just as simple as "they're all crazy".
You can't "respect" a living organism by killing it. You just can't. "Respect for life" means that you protect life, all life.
Why is dog fighting illegal? Why is hunting legal? Does that make it right? There was a time when drinking alcohol was illegal. Does that mean we are wrong to do it now? Was it right for them to make it illegal? Likewise, is it right for them to make dog fighting illegal?
A behavior is not necessarily morally correct just because it's legal.
The law is just whatever people with power view as acceptable behavior for the rest of us. Does that make them right?
Fatmaw - I never said the two had the same mentality. What I said was that you can't lump everyone who has ever participated in a dog fight into one lump category. It's like anything else. There are any number of reasons why someone might decide to participate in it.
If you're asking, I'd rather not see my child killed at all. From my own perspective any one of those would be equally painful to watch. Are you telling me you wouldn't mind watching your own child die, as long as he/she was shot through the heart?
jgrace...tell the Native Americans that you can't respect the animals you kill. I don't know what else to say. I can say that I honestly think you are arguing just to be arguing. And coming from a military guy, such as myself, I can tell you that there is a difference in how you die.
I give up...if people can't see difference in sadistic torture and killing for food..and killing respectfully, I have lost the battle.
This "whose to say" dung is a bunch of PC dung. You can say that at any time about anything. I'm so tired of hearing people say that...and hearing them say "who are you to judge" that I'm just baffled. If we didn't judge, there would be no law of the land..and there would be no FREEDOM!! Maybe we should just turn our entire lives over to the shrinks and let them do everything for us. I don't know. But if I honeslty have to sit here and defend the fact that someone who gets a rise out of torturing animals ILLEGALLY is different from someone who hunts LEGALLY...then we have a long way to go in our society.
Jgrace..I've always known you to be logical and intelligent. But your PC bias has made you blind to this situation. And I know..."how dare you tell me I don't know the difference, and what's going on"...I know how you feel about those of us who tell you that you really don't know what's going on. I'm not questioning your intelligence...just your direction with your intelligence. I know..you're going to get all defensive about that..as you usually do. But I have such strong feelings about this...and I honestly think that you are just
Well, I'm not convinced that you, or anybody else for that matter, can know what it feels like to die. How do you know that?
I'm not saying that there's no difference. I'm saying that the two are not as unrelated as you're making them out to be. You seem to be building up the hunting of animals. We're just on different levels here.
I agree that people are needed to judge behavior. But, I don't agree that the people who are chosen are necessarily correct for the job, or that they necessarily always make the right decisions.
My disagreement with you here is not a "PC bias". It's real easy to use that as an argument. I'm honestly just trying to sort this all out. I don't know how you can make such a quick judgment. I like to step back, take it all in, then make a decision. Snap judgments are often not the best kind.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on August 26th at 7:49 PM.
Also, it's not "arguing just to argue". It's arguing to think more deeply about the subject, and to get you to think more deeply about the subject. That's when the learning happens. That's what I do.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on August 26th at 7:51 PM.
Outlaw, but is hunting morally right and should it be legal? That is what I am trying to convey here. Even though things are legally right (smoking, hunting), does that mean they are by out moral conscious and standards ok to do?
I'm just another guy with other opinions. If you like my style, go for it and read. If not, yell at me and I will yell louder. I'll throw the race card into your face. I take a hard look at sports and try to find the real meaning for NASCAR, which is just an advertisment for beer.
