Michael Vick indicted for dog fighting

[bobdroege7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701393.html

Good news for poochies all over USA.

from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031507/

the movie Jesse James (1939)

"Shooting' too good for him, hanging's too good for him, he should be run out in the street and shot like a dog!"

Just a quote about how I feel about Mr Vick.

[bobdroege7]

Help mods, can you move this to politics please

thanks

[yairhol]

It said he also was involved in the executions of dogs that did not perform well.

I hope he gets fried for this.

Regards,
Yair

[kerikiwi]

Destroying unwanted dogs ( the term 'execution' is dubious) is the least of it. Unwanted horses are destroyed as a matter of course, as are thousands upon thousands of dogs and cats.

[Puppycow]

Destroying unwanted dogs ( the term 'execution' is dubious) is the least of it. Unwanted horses are destroyed as a matter of course, as are thousands upon thousands of dogs and cats.
They are euthanized, but not like this:
The indictment said that in April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Vick also is alleged to have consulted with Peace before Peace killed a losing dog by electrocution in 2003.

[bobdroege7]

And wanted cattle are carefully destroyed and placed on my plate.

Sometimes, it's not what you do, but how you do it that matters.

to me anyhow.

[yairhol]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair

[clerihew80]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair
I don't know about that. This case, coming as it does after a series of high-profile scandals involving football players behaving badly, has attracted a ********* of bad publicity for the league. From the indictment alone Vick is facing suspension. If he's convicted, who knows? The league or the Falcons organization could throw the book at him.

[Puppycow]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

[Katana]

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.


The Humane Society of the United States has been pretty vocal since the investigation began. They were calling for the NFL to discipline Vick and for Nike to cancel its endorsement deal with him back in April. Neither organization was willing to act until the legal system had, and I agree with that approach. I'm not sure that I agree with a policy of disciplining players who may be found to be innocent of charges down the road.

However, given how the NFL and teams have handled other "problem players" of late, I would be surprised if Vick escaped this without some serious consequences.

[aggle-rithm]

Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

The ones that don't participate in dog fighting themselves, I suppose. :(

[Complexity]

Stake him down and let the dogs have him.

[joobie]

vick has seriously gotta be one of the dumbest people alive.

it apparently runs inthe family, too, since his brother is also a moron.

[BPSCG]

The Humane Society of the United States has been pretty vocal since the investigation began. They were calling for the NFL to discipline Vick and for Nike to cancel its endorsement deal with him back in April. Neither organization was willing to act until the legal system had, and I agree with that approach. I'm not sure that I agree with a policy of disciplining players who may be found to be innocent of charges down the road.

However, given how the NFL and teams have handled other "problem players" of late, I would be surprised if Vick escaped this without some serious consequences.I sent the following email to Nike:
"I will not buy any Nike products as long as Michael Vick represents your company."

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

MS-NBC fired Don Imus when they decided it would cost him too much money to keep him. Nike will do the same with Vick, if enough people tell them.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

vick has seriously gotta be one of the dumbest people alive.

it apparently runs inthe family, too, since his brother is also a moron.

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

Maybe they could develop a Michael Vick signature shoe for running from the police.


ETA: That's weird, I quoted myself. I was supposed to quote BPSG's Nike post.

[coalesce]

I sent the following email to Nike:
"I will not buy any Nike products as long as Michael Vick represents your company."

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

MS-NBC fired Don Imus when they decided it would cost him too much money to keep him. Nike will do the same with Vick, if enough people tell them.

Done, thanks.

And can we un-retire Lawrence Taylor to play against Micahel Vick for one game and tell Lawrence that Vick is really Joe Theismann?

Michael

[Overman]

nevemind.

[Darth Rotor]

nevemind.

Was that a sausage machine? It looks from the video that someone put a whole, unskinned cow into a sausage machine.

The film didn't show blood spray, or I didn't see it, so I can't tell if the cow was alive or dead when the machine made it into what I think was sausage.

Did I see that correctly?

DR

[Overman]

Thats why I took it out...I couldn't verify the video...

I guess its still a good question though...

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

[The Shank]

Can't get access to the message board on Vick's website. I wonder why?

[kerikiwi]

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

I don't think people do.

[New Ager]

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

(New Ager)

I would say a lot. Here in Atlanta, fans are not happy.

Personally, I have no desire to root for him.

The season, if he plays, seems like a waste.

I think the fans the will start rooting for one of the backups to replace him.

[EvilSmurf]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

Scrut, it's all Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vick)

[BPSCG]

Here's Nike's response to my email:

Response (Kelly) - 07/18/2007 12:16 PM
Thank you for contacting us regarding Michael Vick.

There is no change in the status of the agreement between Nike and football player Michael Vick. Nike will continue to monitor the situation, but has nothing further to say at this time.

We appreciate that you took the time to contact us and your feedback will be passed along to the proper department.

Sincerely,

Nike

[Katana]

Here's Nike's response to my email:


I'll let you know what they said in response to mine.

Thanks, Beeps.

[BPSCG]

I'll let you know what they said in response to mine.

Thanks, Beeps.Betcha the JREF million that it's exactly the same as their response to me, right down to the last comma. :biggrin:

[bigred]

I don't exaggerate in the slightest when I say I would very much love to see some eye-for-an-eye justice here. Drown him, hang him, shoot him, or maybe just throw him in a ring with a bunch of very nasty pit bulls. I would rejoice in his elimination from this world. Sadly, this would never happen, because it's "too cruel." So much for the punishment fitting the crime.

[Hutch]

Here's Nike's response to my email:

"Send that #@$%%# the bedbug letter!"

I think everybody is just waiting to see if another shoe will drop, if one of the other guys involved will rat and "tell all" on Oprah or Larry King.

Somebody on ESPN noted that this is not some country prosecutor tryingforaname (see Duke lacrosse), but that these are Federal charges, and the Feds don't usually mess around with something like this unless they think they have the goods.

Another person who figures riches and fame do not equal responsibility and planning...it seems almost an epidemic among the wealthy and powerful, from way back to the present (and probably well into the future--old Karl Marx was many things, but mostly a cock-eyed optomist on human nature)

We shall see.

[Darth Rotor]

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

Thanks for the link, Beeps.

My letter:
I will be returning the Nike Golf Balls I just purchased to the store for a refund, unopened.

I will no longer use Nike Golf balls, but will instead use Titlest again.

I will no longer purchase for my son any Nike Products for his tennis: shirts, shoes, nothing.

Off to addidas for running shoes.

Unless

You people Drop Michael Vick.

By the way, Phil Knight and friends, you people are unwittingly staining Tiger's name, as his lead sponsor, by also having on staff a trouble maker like Michael Vick, for all that he's a fantastic athlete.

Have you no shame?

DR

[joobie]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

He played quarterback collegiately at Virginia Tech, but was dismissed from its football program "due to a cumulative effect of legal infractions and unsportsmanlike play." [1] He was originally signed by the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent in 2006. The Miami Dolphins released him on May 1, 2007.
Marcus Vick has been involved in multiple traffic and minor criminal violations in Virginia resulting in convictions, and as of June 4, 2007, was the defendant in a civil lawsuit on behalf of a 17-year old girl alleging they had a nearly two-year long sexual relationship and that Marcus Vick offered to provide her alcohol and marijuana and asked her to have sex with other men.

details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vick)

[LostAngeles]

I heard Ron Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Ron_Mexico_lawsuit) is the real culprit here...

Seriously, I don't think the NFL and the owners of the Falcons and the fans are letting him out of this one and good for them!

[Katana]

Betcha the JREF million that it's exactly the same as their response to me, right down to the last comma. :biggrin:


Well, evidently I don't rank up there with you.

They didn't even bother to respond.

Then again, perhaps the volume is too much for Nike to handle (I'd like to think).

[BPSCG]

Thanks for the link, Beeps.

My letter:
I will be returning the Nike Golf Balls I just purchased to the store for a refund, unopened.

I will no longer use Nike Golf balls, but will instead use Titlest again.

I will no longer purchase for my son any Nike Products for his tennis: shirts, shoes, nothing.

Off to addidas for running shoes.

Unless

You people Drop Michael Vick.

By the way, Phil Knight and friends, you people are unwittingly staining Tiger's name, as his lead sponsor, by also having on staff a trouble maker like Michael Vick, for all that he's a fantastic athlete.

Have you no shame?


DRNike makes golf balls???

[Katana]

Nike makes golf balls???


Oh, yeah.

Used and, ahem, lost a couple just last weekend.

[HarryKeogh]

Nike makes golf balls???

It's true. When I was a 7-year-old child in China I worked in their golf ball factory inspecting the products. If they didn't have the correct number of dimples I had to report the discrepancy to my 8-year-old supervisor.

I still miss gossiping with the crew around the water cooler stagnant pond in the back of the shop.

[BPSCG]

Well, evidently I don't rank up there with you.

They didn't even bother to respond.

Then again, perhaps the volume is too much for Nike to handle (I'd like to think).I like to think that Nike is afraid to cross swords with the dread Katana. :biggrin:

[Katana]

I like to think that Nike is afraid to cross swords with the dread Katana. :biggrin:


Hah!

I like that.

:D

[Darth Rotor]

Nike makes golf balls???
Tiger Woods plays them. They are either number two or three in terms of quality and preference (depends on which Golf Mag reviews the stats, performance, etc) behind Titleist. Or they aren't, and it's all a load of paid marketing hype. :)

The chip Tiger Woods hit on the 16th at the Masters in 2005, that hung on the edge and then fell into the hole for birdie, got zoomed in on in the replay and clearly showed the Nike logo on the ball. That clip has been replayed over and over. Tiger also plays Nike irons, but rumor has it that the design is actually Mizuno, milled to their specs, with a Nike Logo on them. Not sure it that is true.

There is a promotion out at the moment where one can win some great prize on marked boxes of Nike balls. I have found them to be almost as good as Titleist, (maybe a bit longer, not quite as "touch" friendly around the green for scrambling and inferior for putting) and with the coupon I had for 6 dollars off, the Nike box was a good deal.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have found them to be almost as good as Titleist, (maybe a bit longer, not quite as "touch" friendly around the green for scrambling and inferior for putting) and with the coupon I had for 6 dollars off, the Nike box was a good deal.

I have found that Titleists go too far into the woods for my taste.

[bigred]

I heard Ron Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Ron_Mexico_lawsuit) is the real culprit here...

Seriously, I don't think the NFL and the owners of the Falcons and the fans are letting him out of this one and good for them!
If Vick weasels out of jail time (or gets a token tiny amount of the time he deserves) and comes back from whatever suspension and leads the Falcons to glory on the field, you'd be amazed how quickly people will forgive and forget. Actually "nauseated" is more like it for me, but being nauseated by the NFL/its players/its fans is hardly new to me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nike suspends release of Vick line

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/19/bc.fbn.vick.nike.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[Darth Rotor]

I have found that Titleists go too far into the woods for my taste.
Ah, but in the woods there is shade, a place to take a quick pee, possibly finding more balls than the one you hit in there, and sometimes other surprises. (This relates to a shot I sliced into the woods, in Virginia, near a fence that separated the Golf Course from a small house. As I approached the ball wedged under the fence behind a tree limb, motion caught my eye. I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!) about 20 feet from me. Moving slowly, so as not to attract attention, I picked up my ball and moved away from the opening. The pursuing continued as I turned and headed back to the course, through the brush. When I dropped my ball (unplayable lie, penalty stroke) I was asked: "How many strokes is that" I could not help but reply "More than I could count." The puzzled looks turned into laughter as I explained what I had encountered.)
Nike suspends release of Vick line

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/19/bc.fbn.vick.nike.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
A statement released by Nike Inc. said the company "is concerned by the serious and highly disturbing allegations made against Michael Vick, and we consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and abhorrent.
Yeah. Even Nike won't put dogs to work in its sweat shops. :eye-poppi

OK, cheap shot, I'll knock it off.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

(This relates to a shot I sliced into the woods, in Virginia, near a fence that separated the Golf Course from a small house. As I approached the ball wedged under the fence behind a tree limb, motion caught my eye. I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!)

Well, Virginia is for lovers!

[bobdroege7]

It's true. When I was a 7-year-old child in China I worked in their golf ball factory inspecting the products. If they didn't have the correct number of dimples I had to report the discrepancy to my 8-year-old supervisor.

I still miss gossiping with the crew around the water cooler stagnant pond in the back of the shop.

You sir, are a no good yankee liar!

[ponderingturtle]

Thats why I took it out...I couldn't verify the video...

I guess its still a good question though...

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

I would be against bull baiting as well. And I am ok with people killing dogs, cats and horses for food. It is about method.

[ponderingturtle]

Does Nike have other brands owned by the same company or is it just nike?

[bigred]

I don't know, but I hope we talk a lot more about golf balls than the actual topic of the thread.

[Tricky]

I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!) about 20 feet from me. Moving slowly, so as not to attract attention, I picked up my ball and moved away from the opening. The pursuing continued as I turned and headed back to the course, through the brush. When I dropped my ball (unplayable lie, penalty stroke) I was asked: "How many strokes is that" I could not help but reply "More than I could count." The puzzled looks turned into laughter as I explained what I had encountered.)

At least it wasn't an unplayable lay. That really gives new meaning to playing out of the rough. What was par on that hole anyway?


(and countless other golf jokes.)

[Darth Rotor]

At least it wasn't an unplayable lay. That really gives new meaning to playing out of the rough. What was par on that hole anyway?


(and countless other golf jokes.)
He had an extra stiff shaft on an oversized driver, so he was was able to take two strokes off of the round. She particulary liked the way he stroked it from the frog hair, and that he consistently found the hole from the rough. Her only complaint was that his bag was old and cracked.

DR

[Puppycow]

Vick has been barred from training camp (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301392.html?hpid=topnews)

Looks like the NFL is keeping him at arms length for now.

[Overman]

Someone is attempting to cash in on this.... (http://www.peta.org/)

[bigred]

? I'm no PETA fan, but anything they can do to aid the anti-Vick cause, more power to them. He's a POS who will not get anything near the punishment he deserves.

[daredelvis]

According to the news stories I have read the NFL commissioner stepped in and told the Falcons to hold off with any punishment. My first thought when I heard this was, "wow, the team was going to do the right thing".

Turns out the Falcons wanted to suspend him for FOUR GAMES!

I was a moron.
? I'm no PETA fan, but anything they can do to aid the anti-Vick cause, more power to them. He's a POS who will not get anything near the punishment he deserves.

This is the second crime Vick has committed. Causing PETA to get one more dime should add 5 years on to his prison term IMHO.

Daredelvis

[Overman]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152438730v16_150x150_Front_Color-White.JPG

'and for only 20.99 you can get this cute 'Sack Vick' T-shirt!!!

BTW it goes real well with the tote bag...

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152443500v11_150x150_Front.JPG

Peta...BS.

[EvilSmurf]

Can Nike unilaterally break their contract with Vick? If they can, they ought to.

[bigred]

Turns out the Falcons wanted to suspend him for FOUR GAMES!I have no idea why you hid this in a "spoiler," but FYI that is apparently the max punishment a team can give under the circumstances. Bizarre eh?

Supposedly the commisioner is a "tough guy" and unlike the limp-wristed POS he recently replaced, isn't going to play w/sub-human slime like this (the NFL is loaded with em). I call BS on that one.

[LostAngeles]

http://www.slate.com/id/2171266/entry/2171267/ to read the complaint against Michael Vick.

So to him, these dogs weren't companions, they weren't friends, they didn't herd sheep, they didn't help hunt, their entire purpose was to either die and lose him money or die and win him money.

I've seen Tamagotchis better treated than that.

Can we petition the NFL Commissioner to fire Vick with a punch to the face?

[joobie]

one of his co-defendants is going to plead guilty according to various sports outlets.

[Cain]

According to the news stories I have read the NFL commissioner stepped in and told the Falcons to hold off with any punishment. My first thought when I heard this was, "wow, the team was going to do the right thing".

It's my understanding that they were motivated more by self-interest than doing "the right thing." I read/heard somewhere that if the team got to suspend him, then they would not have to pay him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

one of his co-defendants is going to plead guilty according to various sports outlets.

That has to be bad news for Vick.

[LostAngeles]

That has to be bad news for Vick.

Is it wrong of me to find joy in that news? Considering what I've read, the thought of sending him and his co-defendants to jail for a long time makes me quite happy.

[MelBrooksfan]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152438730v16_150x150_Front_Color-White.JPG

'and for only 20.99 you can get this cute 'Sack Vick' T-shirt!!!

BTW it goes real well with the tote bag...

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152443500v11_150x150_Front.JPG

Peta...BS.


PETA: Capitalizing on animal abuse since 2007.

[Cain]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

So to him, these dogs weren't companions, they weren't friends, they didn't herd sheep, they didn't help hunt, their entire purpose was to either die and lose him money or die and win him money.


The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from *********** a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

[LostAngeles]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.



The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from *********** a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

The reasons for domesticating dogs include what I listed. Dogs were helpful back in the day. You would expect those dogs to be generally well-treated and not thrown into a ring and expected to tear apart another dog for the heck of it.

Cruelty masked as entertainment is, in a word, disgusting. (Might be why Dubya isn't attending a gladiatorial match in his honor tonight.)

When it comes to eating meat? Please examine your dentition and compare it to that of carnivores and herbivores. You'll note that it seems to be a blend of both. Humanity evolved eating meat. Culturally, we've adapted so that we can subsist on a vegetarian diet. We can go omnivore or we can go herbivore. Given time and interest, hell, we could probably choose to go carnivore if we wanted.

I like meat. I don't like fois gras. I don't like veal. But I like meat. What you choose to eat is your own buisness.

Cruelly executing an animal because it didn't, "perform," is not. It makes you an *******.

[Cain]

The reasons for domesticating dogs include what I listed. Dogs were helpful back in the day. You would expect those dogs to be generally well-treated and not thrown into a ring and expected to tear apart another dog for the heck of it.

So? I'm pretty sure dogs have not been historically domesticated to aid the blind or sniff out illegal drugs. What happened "back in the day" is not really relevant.

Cruelty masked as entertainment is, in a word, disgusting.

Agreed, but "entertainment" is notoriously subjective. In a recent (still ongoing?) wrestling thread someone insisted on comparing the WWE to Shakespeare.

When it comes to eating meat? Please examine your dentition and compare it to that of carnivores and herbivores. You'll note that it seems to be a blend of both.

Such as... howler monkeys and gorillas?

I like meat. I don't like fois gras. I don't like veal. But I like meat. What you choose to eat is your own buisness.

Yeah, you like to eat meat. Michael Vick enjoys seeing his dogs tear each other limb from limb. How is his entertainment any of your business?

[Puppycow]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.



The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from *********** a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

So you think that you are more moral than the rest of us, is that it? Holier than thou?

[Cain]

So you think that you are more moral than the rest of us, is that it?

Yes and no (in that order). Inasmuch as it is wrong to needlessly consume animals, then yes, I suppose I am "more moral" in at least that one respect. I'm not sure why so many meat-eaters obsess over this "you think you're better than me" nonsense. I do not consciously try to measure my morality against others, particularly with regard to eating meat; I would not read much into it about a person because it is a cultural and moral blind spot. Although I am sick of arguing about vegetarianism on this board, I think I am posing a fundamental question in a rather provocative and interesting way (while staying on topic).

[Puppycow]

Yes and no (in that order). Inasmuch as it is wrong to needlessly consume animals, then yes, I suppose I am "more moral" in at least that one respect. I'm not sure why so many meat-eaters obsess over this "you think you're better than me" nonsense. I do not consciously try to measure my morality against others, particularly with regard to eating meat; I would not read much into it about a person because it is a cultural and moral blind spot. Although I am sick of arguing about vegetarianism on this board, I think I am posing a fundamental question in a rather provocative and interesting way (while staying on topic).

Fair enough. So, you think that only vegetarians are morally pure enough to condemn Michael Vick's crime. But if eating meat is wrong, then I guess that means we should kill all the carnivorous animals, right? Of course not, that was only a rhetorical question. If killing for food is OK for a lion, then it is OK for us. Deliberate cruelty is in a different category. Meat should be raised and slaughtered humanely. PETA, BTW is also against animal research, which is necessary for scientific reasons. I hardly consider standing in the way of scientific progress to be as important as standing for it.

[Number Six]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

I think it's questionable whether Peta does any good at all and may even do harm. (It's questionable whether the JREF does any good too, but the JREF's job is much, much tougher.) Peta operates in a way that makes people hate them, which naturally drives people the other side of whatever issue Peta takes. The public outrage over Vick is in spite of Peta, not because of it.

If you morally equate animals with people then you're going to annoy most people and that's going to make them not want to listen to you. A boy is a dog is a fish is a pig.

[Cain]

Fair enough. So, you think that only vegetarians are morally pure enough to condemn Michael Vick's crime.

No. Perhaps they're a little more consistent, though not as consistent as vegans.

But if eating meat is wrong, then I guess that means we should kill all the carnivorous animals, right? Of course not, that was only a rhetorical question. If killing for food is OK for a lion, then it is OK for us.

"Should"/"ought" implies "can." So far as I know lions are not moral agents, and are otherwise incapable of reasonably obtaining a steady food supply without resorting to violence (in their natural environment, of course). Really though I've been over this exact point dozens of times here. Not interested.

Deliberate cruelty is in a different category. Meat should be raised and slaughtered humanely. PETA, BTW is also against animal research, which is necessary for scientific reasons. I hardly consider standing in the way of scientific progress to be as important as standing for it.

Do you not agree that we can learn more about humans by experimenting on humans? Oh, but I guess that is not "necessary" according to you, and consequently not such a big deal that you favor obstructing scientific progress. That's more or less the exact moral argument at the center of the movie EXTREME MEASURES. I forget the exact wording of the famous quote, "Experimenting on animals is important because they're just like humans. We can morally experiment on animals because they're nothing like humans." And yes, of course it is better for cows to be raised and slaughtered humanely. You see, it's cows who are raised, not meat The trouble with humanely raising and slaughtering animals is that it's almost impossible given the massive scale of operations, as documented by undercover investigations. Perhaps you, unlike the industry, favor keeping cameras trained at all points of "production" in order to catch criminals and prevent harm.

Number Six:
I think it's questionable whether Peta does any good at all and may even do harm. (It's questionable whether the JREF does any good too, but the JREF's job is much, much tougher.) Peta operates in a way that makes people hate them, which naturally drives people the other side of whatever issue Peta takes. The public outrage over Vick is in spite of Peta, not because of it.

I used to think that was the case, but not so much anymore. Some people are going to take offense at Peta regardless of its methods because they don't enjoy seeing their morality questioned in a fundamental way. Hence all the "you think you're better than me" ******** that flies around. Plus, they just looooooove eating animals. Also, unless it really is trying to rid the world of religious belief, I do not think the JREF's job is nearly as difficult (not that it matters).

[MelBrooksfan]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075

[LostAngeles]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075

Yeah, and when Deion Sanders was commentating for CBS's football coverage, I didn't enjoy him because of his eloquence. I just liked his suits. Shannon Sharpe does a much, much better job.

While his points about the things done to other NFL players are valid, this whole bit about, "status," rings hollow with me.

[shuize]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075


Thanks for the link. I was starting to forget why I believe idiot celebrity athletes should enjoy their wealth in silence.

The only thing I can gather from this situation is that we're using Vick ... I believe Vick had a passion for dogfighting. I know many athletes who share his passion. The allure is the intensity and the challenge of a dog fighting to the death. It's like ultimate fighting, but the dog doesn't tap out when he knows he can't win ... We should have the same passion for man that we have for man's best friend.


Hey, um, Dion, dogfighting is a felony. But I hear ya man, even though it's a crime, it's, like, wrong to judge people who do it and everything. 'Cause, like, if we can't solve all crimes, it's wrong to prosecute anyone.

This situation reminds me of a scene in the movie "New Jack City," when drug dealer Nino Brown is on the witness stand and eloquently says, "This thing is bigger than me."


Yeah, Dion, it's probably a conspiracy. :eye roll:

[Number Six]

used to think that was the case, but not so much anymore. Some people are going to take offense at Peta regardless of its methods because they don't enjoy seeing their morality questioned in a fundamental way. Hence all the "you think you're better than me" ******** that flies around. Plus, they just looooooove eating animals. Also, unless it really is trying to rid the world of religious belief, I do not think the JREF's job is nearly as difficult (not that it matters).

I guess it depends on what you take to be the JREF & Peta's missions. I took the JREF's mission to be get people to think critically with regards to all things, which is roughly akin to ridding the world of religious belief and also newage, which is almost impossible. And I took Peta's mission to be to ensure that people treat animals ethically, which many people are inclined to do already.

But then, that is according to my own definition of "ethical" in that context, which roughly means to be nice to dogs, don't torture animals, be careful to not inflict undo pain in medical research, etc. According to the defintion of "ethical" to many in Peta though, it means more like morally equating animals with humans (a boy is a fish is a dog is a pig), and yes, by that definition I agree that Peta's job is as hard as the JREF's job.

People don't like having their morality questioned in a fundamental way. I agree with that completely. And that is why I think that if you're going to question someones morality in a fundamental way it's important to do so very tactfully. I mean, some people will never change no matter what but others may change if you can explain to them why you think they should without simultaneously making them feel threatened. It's hard to do but I think it's worth a try. And I think Peta either doesn't try or else they do try but fail miserably.

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. Using reason and tact is definitely the best way to sway some people and maybe I'm incorrectly extrapolating that to how to sway the masses.

[BPSCG]

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. The problem is, if after you've purged yelling and over-the-top rhetoric, you're still preaching an over-the-top message, people still won't listen to you.

If someone tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that a bear has the right to catch salmon and eat them, but I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

If he further tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that a fox has the right to catch rabbits and eat them, but I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

[Overman]

LOL@Deion Sander's New Jack City reference!!!

[Cain]

I guess it depends on what you take to be the JREF & Peta's missions. I took the JREF's mission to be get people to think critically with regards to all things, which is roughly akin to ridding the world of religious belief and also newage, which is almost impossible.

I should think critical reasoning would also entail re-examining one's diet; you know, questioning cultural norms.

And I took Peta's mission to be to ensure that people treat animals ethically, which many people are inclined to do already.

But then, that is according to my own definition of "ethical" in that context, which roughly means to be nice to dogs, don't torture animals, be careful to not inflict undo pain in medical research, etc. According to the defintion of "ethical" to many in Peta though, it means more like morally equating animals with humans (a boy is a fish is a dog is a pig), and yes, by that definition I agree that Peta's job is as hard as the JREF's job.

This is the second time you repeated that line and I'm going to call ******** on it. It's not as though only PETA engages in "equating" animals with humans. When a child mistreats a family pet, the mother is inclined to ask, "How would you like it if I [did the same to you]?" Also, virtually nobody says animals should be treated exactly like humans; instead animals warrant similar consideration. I'm not sure why Newkirk's infamous comment gets as much play as it does: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals." Darwin published ORIGIN less than 150 years ago, where he demonstrated humans are created from animals. He went on to say our differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. Now of course it's going to take people a long time to not get so hung up on species. When ORIGIN was printed the U.S. still practiced slavery, and even today most Americans reject evolution.

People don't like having their morality questioned in a fundamental way. I agree with that completely. And that is why I think that if you're going to question someones morality in a fundamental way it's important to do so very tactfully. I mean, some people will never change no matter what but others may change if you can explain to them why you think they should without simultaneously making them feel threatened. It's hard to do but I think it's worth a try. And I think Peta either doesn't try or else they do try but fail miserably.

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. Using reason and tact is definitely the best way to sway some people and maybe I'm incorrectly extrapolating that to how to sway the masses.

I used to be sympathetic to something like the view expressed above but not so much anymore. I think it's a good thing PETA and similar groups are out there being provocative and annoying because when it does stir up a discussion we get to see the empty arguments from apologists for murder. Witness BPSCG's nonsense:

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

And dogs can defecate in public whereas humans cannot. Peeing on trees is natural and convenient, yet it's OK to discriminate against me. Yeah, sure, discriminate against the human. I can understand prohibitions against anyone with mud butt from letting loose in public... but if a person poops like a rabbit, then what's the big deal? Just use a baggy to clean up the mess. Cats are permitted to play with their prey, but if a human did the same then the evil statists would intervene under the authority of "anti-cruelty" regulations.

What people do not seem to understand is that the animal rights (or animal liberation) crowd has already won an important part of the argument. Everyone already recognizes rights and/or obligations to some extent; they simply have difficulty coping with the logical implications of their moral beliefs. A lot of girls describe themselves as "big time animal lovers" and if a man does not "love" animals, then that's a deal breaker. Of course, animals is basically limited to kitties, horsies, doggies and dolphins. Other, more exotic creatures get respect when they pop up on Discovery (pandas, whales, polar bears).

[BPSCG]

I used to be sympathetic to something like the view expressed above but not so much anymore. I think it's a good thing PETA and similar groups are out there being provocative and annoying because when it does stir up a discussion we get to see the empty arguments from apologists for murder. Witness BPSCG's nonsense:

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

And dogs can defecate in public whereas humans cannot. Peeing on trees is natural and convenient, yet it's OK to discriminate against me. Anticipation of exactly that objection is the reason I put the word "important" in there. I do not consider urinating in public to be an important right. Do you?

This is the point where you have to ask where rights come from. Why does a dog have the right to urinate in public? Why does a dog have the right not to be set to fighting other dogs to the death for the enjoyment of humans? I think you'll conclude that the only rights animals have stem from what we as humans bestow upon them. Were we to forbid dogs from urinating in public tomorrow, that right would end (leaving aside the difficulties of enforcement).

Dogs, as natural omnivores, eat meat as a necessary part of their diet. What logic grants them the right to eat meat while denying that same right to human omnivores? We're not talking about something trivial here, such as where one may defecate; we are talking about something necessary to one's health, even one's life.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

No support the humane society, PETA are a bunch of people who support firebombing research facilities.

[Cain]

Anticipation of exactly that objection is the reason I put the word "important" in there. I do not consider urinating in public to be an important right. Do you?

I suspected you would highlight "important," and the answer is that I do not consider eating meat to be important (or having dog fights, and so on).

This is the point where you have to ask where rights come from. Why does a dog have the right to urinate in public? Why does a dog have the right not to be set to fighting other dogs to the death for the enjoyment of humans? I think you'll conclude that the only rights animals have stem from what we as humans bestow upon them. Were we to forbid dogs from urinating in public tomorrow, that right would end (leaving aside the difficulties of enforcement).

Now you're confusing a couple of things. Dogs effectively have only the rights "humans bestow" in the same sense oppressed people can only exercise the rights dictators are willing to tolerate. So there's a basic distinction between what we do allow and we ought to allow. Normally dogs need exercise, and if a caregiver does not have a large enough yard then that means going out on walks, which means that at some point the animal may have to relieve himself. Shall I assume you hold dogs' "rights" are contingent upon human beliefs in a way that human "rights" are not? Meaning, for example, we humans cannot collectively decide to take away the right to religion. In an empirical sense we can: We can kill people who form churches and pray. In another sense, the moral sense, we cannot because to do so is wrong.

Presumably you think it is a violation of rights to torture an innocent person for fun, regardless of how many people share such a belief. However, your above statements seem to suggest you think a dog's right against torture does depend on whether or not people think it is OK.

Dogs, as natural omnivores, eat meat as a necessary part of their diet. What logic grants them the right to eat meat while denying that same right to human omnivores? We're not talking about something trivial here, such as where one may defecate; we are talking about something necessary to one's health, even one's life.

I am reluctant to debase the irony at work here by pointing it out. What "separates" humans from animals -- or humans from non-humans as we are technically animals -- is our ability to choose; the fact that we are moral agents. If we were irrevocably incontinent, then we could defecate whenever, where-ever. However, we're reasonably capable of controlling not only our bodily fluids but our appetites as well. The consequences of choice are responsibility and accountability.

Ponderingturtle:
No support the humane society, PETA are a bunch of people who support firebombing research facilities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know for a fact that this is not entirely true. Besides, what's wrong with firebombing torture chambers posing as research facilities? Suppose a member of the ALF discovered what was happening on Michael Vick's property, but the authorities refused to act. Consequently, the activist trespassed, stole "property" and firebombed the joint, thus bringing the atrocities to light.

[BPSCG]

I suspected you would highlight "important," and the answer is that I do not consider eating meat to be important Fine. Do you consider testing potentially life-saving drugs on animals to see if they are safe and effective, before testing them on humans to be "important"?

Now you're confusing a couple of things. Dogs effectively have only the rights "humans bestow" in the same sense oppressed people can only exercise the rights dictators are willing to tolerate. You haven't answered the question I asked: Where do the rights come from? Do the rights to life, liberty, and property come from God, as the Enlightenment philosophers argued? If not, where do they come from? Did rights exist before the existence of homo sapiens? If not, then animals have rights because homo sapiens invented rights and elected to bestow certain of them on the other animals.

Whatever their source, by what logic does it follow that the rights that humans have necessarily extend to animals? And if they extend to animals, how far down the food chain do those rights go? Primates? Mammals? Warm-blooded animals? Vertebrates, including crustaceans and insects with exoskeletons? Before you cry, "Slippery slope!" explain why a cow has the right not to be killed by you, but the bacteria on your hand, which poses no significant threat, does not have that same right.

Shall I assume you hold dogs' "rights" are contingent upon human beliefs in a way that human "rights" are not? Meaning, for example, we humans cannot collectively decide to take away the right to religion. In an empirical sense we can: We can kill people who form churches and pray. In another sense, the moral sense, we cannot because to do so is wrong. You are, in effect, restating my question: Where do rights come from? From God (or "nature's God," as Jefferson called him)? Or from man? Or from somewhere else?

I am reluctant to debase the irony at work here by pointing it out. What "separates" humans from animals -- or humans from non-humans as we are technically animals -- is our ability to choose; the fact that we are moral agents. No, we do not. You are positing the existence of free will, which does not exist. The illusion of free will exists, because we do not readily perceive the outside influences that determine our actions. See Mark Twain's What is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm)

[Number Six]

This is the second time you repeated that line and I'm going to call ******** on it. It's not as though only PETA engages in "equating" animals with humans. When a child mistreats a family pet, the mother is inclined to ask, "How would you like it if I [did the same to you]?" Also, virtually nobody says animals should be treated exactly like humans; instead animals warrant similar consideration. I'm not sure why Newkirk's infamous comment gets as much play as it does: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals." Darwin published ORIGIN less than 150 years ago, where he demonstrated humans are created from animals. He went on to say our differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. Now of course it's going to take people a long time to not get so hung up on species. When ORIGIN was printed the U.S. still practiced slavery, and even today most Americans reject evolution.

What are you calling BS on? Is it the fact that I didn't add "They are all mammals?" I didn't know that was part of the quote too, if it was, but I don't think it matters because I doubt she was giving a zoology lecture and I think instead she was equating animals with humans, which she's done many times. For right or wrong, people dislike that very much. And she is the head of Peta.

Also, as far as the your example of ALF firebombing the a place that tortures animals because the Feds wouldn't do anything about it, in your recent post (I don't know how to quote two posts at once), the problem is that the definition of torture from ALF or Peta differs greatly from that of the public in general. Just about everyone is in favor of not tortuing animals, but for some that means medical research on animals is okay while for others it's not. That's the whole crux of things. If there were no difference of opinion between ALF & Peta and the general public then there'd be no reason for ALF & Peta to exist.

[Number Six]

Here is Newkirk's quote we're discussing.

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986

[bigred]

Yeah, and when Deion Sanders was commentating for CBS's football coverage, I didn't enjoy him because of his eloquence. Go figure.

Calling Sanders a moron and a pathetic clown isn't simply like saying water is wet; it's like calling the Grand Canyon a pretty big hole. Love how his biggest concern is for the millions Vick is losing. Aren't apologists great?

[Cain]

Fine. Do you consider testing potentially life-saving drugs on animals to see if they are safe and effective, before testing them on humans to be "important"?

I think "important" is the wrong word here. Whether or not we consider it to be "important" depends upon our hierarchy of values. If we heavily discount the worth of non-human life then I suppose, from that perspective, animal testing is an imperative. If we expand the circle of concern, then it's considerably less important. We must also separate moral value from self-advantage. Something important to me may necessarily harm another, so my values might trump personally welfare, or vice-versa.

You haven't answered the question I asked: Where do the rights come from?

Oh, I'm so, so, so sorry for not providing a tidy answer to that easy, noncontroversial question :rolleyes: Rights come from Gort.

Do the rights to life, liberty, and property come from God, as the Enlightenment philosophers argued? If not, where do they come from? Did rights exist before the existence of homo sapiens? If not, then animals have rights because homo sapiens invented rights and elected to bestow certain of them on the other animals.

Whatever their source, by what logic does it follow that the rights that humans have necessarily extend to animals? And if they extend to animals, how far down the food chain do those rights go? Primates? Mammals? Warm-blooded animals? Vertebrates, including crustaceans and insects with exoskeletons? Before you cry, "Slippery slope!" explain why a cow has the right not to be killed by you, but the bacteria on your hand, which poses no significant threat, does not have that same right.

Unfortunately, I think you have this backwards. The real question is why do we limit these rights -- wherever they come from -- to humans and humans alone? (Again, it's worth noting that the unspoken truth is we don't. Most people arbitrarily concede obligations and concern to certain kinds of animals.) In any event, whether you know it or not, you've stumbled across a couple of the core arguments FOR the animal rights/animal liberation camp. That is, the argument from speciesism, or the arbitrary discrimination against an animal on the basis of species; and the argument from marginal differences. Why does an infant merit rights that a higher functioning chimp lacks? (Again, potentiality claims, membership of species, all of that has been talked about here ad infinitum, and I'm sure there are many FAQs available on the web). As for why bacteria lack rights, well, you can more or less find approximately the same answers everywhere: they crucially lack the capacity to feel pleasure/pain, and develop interests over time, Again, this exact sort of thing has been hashed out literally dozens of times.

You are, in effect, restating my question: Where do rights come from? From God (or "nature's God," as Jefferson called him)? Or from man? Or from somewhere else?

No, we do not. You are positing the existence of free will, which does not exist. The illusion of free will exists, because we do not readily perceive the outside influences that determine our actions. See Mark Twain's What is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm)

I know for a fact I addressed you on precisely this essay in another thread, probably one dealing with vegetarian concerns. I further recall that your vulgar psychological egoism was easily undermined. If you really, truly actually believed that we do not have the ability to choose then there's no point whatsoever arguing over anything that has a moral dimension unless there is a direct and tangible benefit to you personally. Not that you have a choice.

-----------------------

Number Six,

I've seen several different iterations of the quote, and that was one of them. People regularly cite in some vague attempt to prove something. I have never seen the full context.

Also, as far as the your example of ALF firebombing the a place that tortures animals because the Feds wouldn't do anything about it, in your recent post (I don't know how to quote two posts at once), the problem is that the definition of torture from ALF or Peta differs greatly from that of the public in general. Just about everyone is in favor of not tortuing animals, but for some that means medical research on animals is okay while for others it's not. That's the whole crux of things. If there were no difference of opinion between ALF & Peta and the general public then there'd be no reason for ALF & Peta to exist.

And the Bush administration cannot agree with John McCain and Amnesty International over what constitutes torture. I think I've seen disturbing polls where a large part of the public thinks it is OK to torture people under certain conditions. People are opposed to torture in an abstract sense, but most are not interested in learning about what's going on. It's almost always better to swallow the blue pill and go with the flow.

[MelBrooksfan]

Go figure.

Calling Sanders a moron and a pathetic clown isn't simply like saying water is wet; it's like calling the Grand Canyon a pretty big hole. Love how his biggest concern is for the millions Vick is losing. Aren't apologists great?

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."

[bigred]

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."
Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.

Smith is another rocket scientist who also mostly mourns the millions Vick is losing. aw.

[BPSCG]

I think "important" is the wrong word here. Whether or not we consider it to be "important" depends upon our hierarchy of values. If we heavily discount the worth of non-human life then I suppose, from that perspective, animal testing is an imperative. If we expand the circle of concern, then it's considerably less important. We must also separate moral value from self-advantage. Something important to me may necessarily harm another, so my values might trump personally welfare, or vice-versa. So you would agree then, that if something is important to humanity as a whole - say the safety and efficacy of a drug that would cure AIDS - the need to test it on animals would trump the animals' "right" to not be killed. Is that correct?

Oh, I'm so, so, so sorry for not providing a tidy answer to that easy, noncontroversial question :rolleyes: Rights come from Gort. Be flip, if you want, but you were the one who was claiming that animals have rights. If you don't think those rights come from God, and they don't come from man, then you have the burden of proving they exist at all, or at least seriously answering where they come from.

Unfortunately, I think you have this backwards. The real question is why do we limit these rights -- wherever they come from -- to humans and humans alone? (Again, it's worth noting that the unspoken truth is we don't. Most people arbitrarily concede obligations and concern to certain kinds of animals.)Do they? Or is it that, rather than extending rights to animals, our laws limit the rights that we have with respect to what we may or may not do to animals? The law may prohibit dogfighting contests; that prohibition does not vest dogs with rights, nor does that prohibition arise out of some rights dogs already had.

I know for a fact I addressed you on precisely this essay in another thread, probably one dealing with vegetarian concerns. You may have addressed it before, but I don't think to me - at least I don't recall it.

If you really, truly actually believed that we do not have the ability to choose then there's no point whatsoever arguing over anything that has a moral dimension unless there is a direct and tangible benefit to you personally. Not that you have a choice. I long ago discovered that there is no point to arguing anything with anyone if a crucial component of his argument is the fiction that we have free will.

[BPSCG]

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."

Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.
Gotta love Tank McNamara:
Sunday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/29/)
Monday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/30/)
Tuesday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/31/)

[Cain]

So you would agree then, that if something is important to humanity as a whole - say the safety and efficacy of a drug that would cure AIDS - the need to test it on animals would trump the animals' "right" to not be killed. Is that correct?

Let me clarify and restate. There are cases where my morality may conflict with my material welfare, and the latter overwhelms the former because of a weak will, doubts, instinct for preservation, or whatever. I'm not saying that is correct, quite the opposite. Also, because it seems as though you're now arguing from within a utilitarian framework I should point the issues of drug research and animals-for-food are separate and distinct. The argument here for drug research seems to be that we MUST test on animals as there is no other viable alternative. OK, fine. However, this is much, much less important to me than raising animals for food, as that process claims tens of billions of lives per year.

Be flip, if you want, but you were the one who was claiming that animals have rights. If you don't think those rights come from God, and they don't come from man, then you have the burden of proving they exist at all, or at least seriously answering where they come from.

It's a silly, pointless exercise, as I've learned from experience. Where morality "comes from" is a controversial issue. It's almost always better to highlight possible internal inconsistencies common to most world views, which is exactly why the argument from marginal cases is so compelling. The fact of the matter is there many different approaches to animal rights/animal welfare/animal liberation that it would be a mistake to confuse or lump together those perspectives.

Personally I'm not enamored with all this rights talk. It's an American thing: we're always claiming special rights, minority rights, abortion rights, disability rights, natural rights, children's rights, women's rights, parent's rights, human rights, etc. We also like to declare wars on things, like drugs, poverty, terrorism. The most important and influential animal "rights" advocate is Peter Singer, and he's a utilitarian opposed to a lot of the rights talk that characterizes modern American discourse.

Do they? Or is it that, rather than extending rights to animals, our laws limit the rights that we have with respect to what we may or may not do to animals? The law may prohibit dogfighting contests; that prohibition does not vest dogs with rights, nor does that prohibition arise out of some rights dogs already had.

This is clumsy semantic maneuvering. Why on earth should you then tolerate having your rights restricted with respect to what you may or may not do animals? Could it perhaps be because animals merit moral concern?

I assume you would be against a law prohibiting people from desecrating religious or national symbols from within the privacy of their own home (and probably -- especially -- out in public as well). Who cares if certain groups are offended? Tough luck, right? Now on what rational grounds would it be OK to prohibit me from torturing a dog that I purchased with my own money? Why should I be restricted from disposing of my property in a manner I see fit? Except for the dog, nobody else is being harmed. If you say it's because of prevailing social norms, then you must accept that it would be permissible if people believed otherwise, which not only opens you up against charges of moral relativism, but provides a rationale for the state to restrict you from tearing up copies of the Qu'ran. Alternatively, you might argue on strictly anthropocentric grounds that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans, but that's an empirical argument. It also (crucially) concedes what people are just not generally willing to accept: that there's nothing directly wrong with torturing animals. It means that what Michael Vick has (allegedly) done is not in itself wrong, but could lead to real wrongs. Who knows, maybe that will make you more open to regulating movies, violent video games and religion. Please, don't limit yourself to these suggested arguments. Try to be inventive when it comes to evading this most basic point.

You may have addressed it before, but I don't think to me - at least I don't recall it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56431&page=3&highlight=psychological+egoism

I long ago discovered that there is no point to arguing anything with anyone if a crucial component of his argument is the fiction that we have free will.

I've gotta say (no really, I got to) that that ostrich-like response has served you well over the years.

[BPSCG]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56431&page=3&highlight=psychological+egoismAh, okay - thanks, I'd forgotten that discussion.

I've gotta say (no really, I got to) that that ostrich-like response has served you well over the years.

What I had particularly forgotten was that you abandoned the field after the following exchange:
I recognize outside influences ("free will" is yet another word I try to avoid).
Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?
Twain's psychological egoism suffers from the same deficit most God-theories do (by God-theory I mean something that explains everyting, like Freudianism or Marxism): it's unfalsifiable.

Not at all. If you can show one single human action that was not motivated by the person's belief that he would secure his inner contentment, that would prove the hypothesis false.
At which point, you bailed on me. Ostrich-like, indeed. :biggrin:

[Cain]

Ah, okay - thanks, I'd forgotten that discussion.


What I had particularly forgotten was that you abandoned the field after the following exchange:

At which point, you bailed on me. Ostrich-like, indeed. :biggrin:

I realize that I sometimes I do overlook replies, or just plain forget, but in this case you're mistaken. See post #95, which came after what you're calling here the final comments (your post #92). If anyone "bailed" it was you. Ostrich-like, indeed.

[Lonewulf]

Now, now, children, play nice.

[BPSCG]

I realize that I sometimes I do overlook replies, or just plain forget, but in this case you're mistaken. See post #95, which came after what you're calling here the final comments (your post #92). So you did. Of course, if you had hadn't childishly disguised who you were replying to, I might not have skipped past it.

In any case, you still did not really answer the question, "Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?" Your reply was a non-answer, a dodge:
You're the person who originally used the term. By "outside influences" I merely meant the concept of the self is not this mystical entity residing in a vacuum. Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices. "Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices."

Yes, outside events, social forces, influence our behavior, and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things. Does anything other than outside forces influence our behavior? If so, what?

"...but we're still capable of making choices." No. If our behavior is controlled by outside forces, we do not make choices, any more than your car chooses to stop at a red light. This post you are reading at this very moment is controlling your behavior - along with a thousand other outside influences. You may or may not reply to it, but what you do will be the confluence of all those outside forces.

[Cain]

So you did. Of course, if you had hadn't childishly disguised who you were replying to, I might not have skipped past it.

The nerve of me to "disguise" who I was replying to, and in plain sight! I see how it works. If I don't reply, then I bailed. If you don't reply, then it must be because I had childishly and contemptuously put my reply on double-secret background. And now you want to start this up again over a year later. Give me a second, my face hurts from grinning.

In any case, you still did not really answer the question, "Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?" Your reply was a non-answer, a dodge:
"Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices."

Yes, outside events, social forces, influence our behavior, and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things. Does anything other than outside forces influence our behavior? If so, what?

Although I wrote it over a year ago, and I have not re-read the exchange in its entirety, from the snippets I have skimmed it seems sufficiently clear I used evolutionary psychology as an example of something that is not an "outside" influence, so this stuff about a non-answer is, well, nonsense (Unless, of course, you consider a person's own biology to be an "outside influence" (not simply the product of outside influences) and that's not something I would put past you).

"...but we're still capable of making choices." No. If our behavior is controlled by outside forces, we do not make choices, any more than your car chooses to stop at a red light. This post you are reading at this very moment is controlling your behavior - along with a thousand other outside influences. You may or may not reply to it, but what you do will be the confluence of all those outside forces.

Yes, yes, I've heard all of this stuff before. Free-will is an illusion, we're all basically machines, and, oh yeah, you can't prove any of it. Also, please note the subtle transition from mere influences toward determinism. As I said, it's B.S. because it's unfalsifiable, and that's one reason why, unlike you, I think the interminable free will debate is almost completely worthless. What's annoying is when people put on this knowing, Morpheus-like pose and say, "If you respond to this then aha, and if you don't then AHA" and they think it's sooooooo clever when really it's barely one step above grandpa's "got your nose" trick. Let's just flip for it: heads, I win; tails, you lose. :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

Although I wrote it over a year ago, and I have not re-read the exchange in its entirety, from the snippets I have skimmed it seems sufficiently clear I used evolutionary psychology as an example of something that is not an "outside" influence,
Evolutionary psychology (abbreviated ev-psych or EP) is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection.So are you saying free will is a product of natural selection? Please. You haven't even demonstrated free will exists, let alone where it comes from or the mechanism by which it functions.

so this stuff about a non-answer is, well, nonsense (Unless, of course, you consider a person's own biology to be an "outside influence" (not simply the product of outside influences) and that's not something I would put past you). So you don't think a person's biology influences his behavior? And you don't think a person's biology is influenced by outside sources? Try eating a tablespoon of drain opener, then use your free will to stop the biological and chemical reactions. Or do you think that, as humans, we are somehow exmpt from the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics that rule the rest of the natural world?

Yes, yes, I've heard all of this stuff before. Free-will is an illusion, we're all basically machines, Show me an example of free will at work. Never mind your blather about evolutionary psychology and other theories and speculations. Show me a real-world example of something you have done that was not compelled by your desire for inner satisfaction.

As I said, it's B.S. because it's unfalsifiable, And as I said, it's not - all you have to produce is one example of the unicorn free will in action - in essence, all you have to do is show one example of an effect without a prior cause.

What's annoying is when people put on this knowing, Morpheus-like pose and say, "If you respond to this then aha, and if you don't then AHA" and they think it's sooooooo clever when really it's barely one step above grandpa's "got your nose" trick. I think what you really find annoying is that you have no suitable answer. You might as well be annoyed with me when I show you that 1+1=2 by taking one apple out of one pocket and one apple out of another and showing you two apples. 1+1 still equals 2, and always will, whether you're annoyed or not.

[Lonewulf]

*Scratches his head*

Has the discussion changed? I thought you were all debating the morality of eating meat, which came from the morality of using dogs in dogfights. Now apparently it's onto evolutionary whatchamacallits and a Free Will/Determinism thread.

[BPSCG]

*Scratches his head*

Has the discussion changed? I thought you were all debating the morality of eating meat, which came from the morality of using dogs in dogfights. Now apparently it's onto evolutionary whatchamacallits and a Free Will/Determinism thread.Yeah. Try to keep up. :p

[quixotecoyote]

How about suicide BPSCG? That or any other act that runs obviously counter to one's best interest?

[mumblethrax]

It's astonishing to me that someone is always, always, always willing to race down the path to moral skepticism to avoid confronting the idea that inflicting suffering and death on animals for food might not be the best we can do. Even precisely the same people urging us to write to Nike in order to demonstrate opposition to torturing dogs to death! It's so transparently self-serving:

"Torturing animals for entertainment is wrong!"
"I agree!"

"Torturing animals for food is wrong!"
"Whoa, hold on. Just where does morality come from, anyway?"

[Number Six]

I think you'll find few people that will say they don't mind animals being tortured for humans to have food. But the problem is that something that is considered non-torture to one person is considered torture to another.

[mumblethrax]

No, I haven't really found that. Most people are happy to characterize treatment of dogs in cases like this as torture, but hesitant to do so when confronted with similar treatment of animals in agriculture, for no particularly good reason. That's not a problem of definition, it's a problem of consistent application.

That's not really what I'm getting at, though--substitute a different word if you prefer. The point is that this moral skepticism is a fallacy of distraction. Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other? It reminds me of the religionist who harps on cognitive relativism to direct attention away from the problem that his beliefs are an incoherent mess. If you're attacking the underpinnings of truth or inconsistently questioning whether morality exists, it might be an indication that your argument has gone off the rails.

[BPSCG]

How about suicide BPSCG? No, I'm happy in my life. Why would I want to do that?




Oh, you mean as regards free will. Well, let's start with an example Twain gives in his imaginary discussion between and Old Man and a Young man:

Y.M. When a man sacrifices his life to save a little child from a burning building, what do you call that?

O.M. When he does it, it is the law of HIS make.HE can't bear to see the child in that peril (a man of a different make COULD), and so he tries to save the child, and loses his life.

That or any other act that runs obviously counter to one's best interest?Keep in mind what motivates man is not necessarily what is in his best interest, or even what he perceives is in his best interest. It is what he perceives will give him his own approval, his own inner satisfaction.

Note the man's motivation: He could not bear to see the child die. He decided (perhaps in a matter of a split second) that he would rather risk death, even almost certain death, than continue to live knowing the child died and he did not at least try to save it. The thought of living with that knowledge was unbearable, and he would achieve his own approval only by risking his life to save the child. Any other alternative would be too painful to live with.

Okay, that's not suicide. But it's only one step removed. I'm assuming that suicide is a step generally taken only when one sees nothing but unbearable unhappiness before him for the rest of his days. This is someone who can only secure his own approval, his own inner satisfaction in the one act that will end his misery.

I keep telling people to read this commentary on Twain's What Is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm) but nobody does. Damned shame.

[bigred]

Gotta love Tank McNamara:
Sunday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/29/)
Monday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/30/)
Tuesday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/31/)
The last 2 were kinda weak but LOL @ that first one. Funny and makes a good point. Too bad guys like that golfer almost never speak out against the losers though.

Oh and btw if you atheists will excuse the expression: GOD BLESS BILL COSBY

[bigred]

It's astonishing to me that someone is always, always, always willing to race down the path to moral skepticism to avoid confronting the idea that inflicting suffering and death on animals for food might not be the best we can do. Even precisely the same people urging us to write to Nike in order to demonstrate opposition to torturing dogs to death! It's so transparently self-serving:

"Torturing animals for entertainment is wrong!"
"I agree!"

"Torturing animals for food is wrong!"
"Whoa, hold on. Just where does morality come from, anyway?"
Good comparison :rolleyes:

[quixotecoyote]

No, I'm happy in my life. Why would I want to do that?




Oh, you mean as regards free will. Well, let's start with an example Twain gives in his imaginary discussion between and Old Man and a Young man:

Y.M. When a man sacrifices his life to save a little child from a burning building, what do you call that?

O.M. When he does it, it is the law of HIS make.HE can't bear to see the child in that peril (a man of a different make COULD), and so he tries to save the child, and loses his life.

Keep in mind what motivates man is not necessarily what is in his best interest, or even what he perceives is in his best interest. It is what he perceives will give him his own approval, his own inner satisfaction.

Note the man's motivation: He could not bear to see the child die. He decided (perhaps in a matter of a split second) that he would rather risk death, even almost certain death, than continue to live knowing the child died and he did not at least try to save it. The thought of living with that knowledge was unbearable, and he would achieve his own approval only by risking his life to save the child. Any other alternative would be too painful to live with.

Okay, that's not suicide. But it's only one step removed. I'm assuming that suicide is a step generally taken only when one sees nothing but unbearable unhappiness before him for the rest of his days. This is someone who can only secure his own approval, his own inner satisfaction in the one act that will end his misery.

I keep telling people to read this commentary on Twain's What Is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm) but nobody does. Damned shame.


Ok, so what definition of free will are we using then? Acting on one's own motivation seems to fit pretty well to me.

[bigred]

Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other?
:boggled: good grief

Why do we have to spell out how blatantly wrong murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is? Is this some goofy trolling expedition?

[Number Six]

No, I haven't really found that. Most people are happy to characterize treatment of dogs in cases like this as torture, but hesitant to do so when confronted with similar treatment of animals in agriculture, for no particularly good reason. That's not a problem of definition, it's a problem of consistent application.

That's not really what I'm getting at, though--substitute a different word if you prefer. The point is that this moral skepticism is a fallacy of distraction. Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other? It reminds me of the religionist who harps on cognitive relativism to direct attention away from the problem that his beliefs are an incoherent mess. If you're attacking the underpinnings of truth or inconsistently questioning whether morality exists, it might be an indication that your argument has gone off the rails.

I'm not going to answer your second paragraph because I'm not really following that part of the debate and I haven't really thought about it, but your first paragraph is not true. People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things. Some would say that both of those things constitute torture and others wouldn't but the point is that the things involved are different

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.

[Cain]

So are you saying free will is a product of natural selection? Please. You haven't even demonstrated free will exists, let alone where it comes from or the mechanism by which it functions.

I should think that if we do possess free will, then it is must be the product of evolutionary forces. Also, I have no intention of proving free will exists. To repeat, not only do I think the argument is worthless and off-topic, but it's too ambitious a controversy to follow through on, especially when the position you're taking is non-falsifiable.

So you don't think a person's biology influences his behavior? And you don't think a person's biology is influenced by outside sources? Try eating a tablespoon of drain opener, then use your free will to stop the biological and chemical reactions. Or do you think that, as humans, we are somehow exmpt from the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics that rule the rest of the natural world?

Do you actively strive to misunderstand? You asked me one year ago to cite something that is "not" an "outside influence" and the answer I returned was biology, at which you bailed on the conversation. Few people, I gather, would consider an innate disposition toward violence (for example) to be an "outside" influence. A person conditioned toward violence is another matter.

Show me an example of free will at work. Never mind your blather about evolutionary psychology and other theories and speculations. Show me a real-world example of something you have done that was not compelled by your desire for inner satisfaction.

As I explained to you over a year ago -- at which you promptly bailed out of the discussion -- there's nothing I can say to satisfy you. It's more or less the same story with Freudians. The irrefutability of a hypothesis purporting to elegantly explain almost everything is also its critical weakness.

And as I said, it's not - all you have to produce is one example of the unicorn free will in action - in essence, all you have to do is show one example of an effect without a prior cause.

I think what you really find annoying is that you have no suitable answer. You might as well be annoyed with me when I show you that 1+1=2 by taking one apple out of one pocket and one apple out of another and showing you two apples. 1+1 still equals 2, and always will, whether you're annoyed or not.

No, you're engaging in simple topic avoidance. Apart from the pursuit of "inner contentment," which state of affairs is morally superior, one where a humans satisfy their inner most desires torturing animals, or one in which animals are treated with dignity and respect?

Number Six:

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.

You keep going on in this vein. Yeah, some people do say this and some people do say that, big deal. Some people are right and some people are wrong.

People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things.

Uh-huh. People doing whatever they do, you don't know, you just know that it's completely different. :rolleyes:

[MelBrooksfan]

Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.

Smith is another rocket scientist who also mostly mourns the millions Vick is losing. aw.

If that's the politics at work, when can we expect Al Sharpton to enter the scene?

[bigred]

If that's the politics at work, when can we expect Al Sharpton to enter the scene?
I am frankly surprised his overbearing dumbass hasn't chimed in yet. Might this be territory even he dares not tread? gasp

[Number Six]

Number Six:

You keep going on in this vein. Yeah, some people do say this and some people do say that, big deal. Some people are right and some people are wrong.

Uh-huh. People doing whatever they do, you don't know, you just know that it's completely different. :rolleyes:

He was denying something that was obviously true and I was just pointing it out. If you don't like it then I think you should complain to him for saying the blatant falsehood, not me for pointing it out.

And I know some of what they do to raise animals to sell for food but the point is I'm 100% certain the way they do it isn't by fighting dogs. The point I was making didn't have anything to do with what they do to raise animals for food _except_ to say that it is different from dog fighting. Therefore, I just said "whatever they do" instead of trying to detail it all.

Honestly, I think you need to be a little more careful in your reading and writing.

[Cain]

He was denying something that was obviously true and I was just pointing it out. If you don't like it then I think you should complain to him for saying the blatant falsehood, not me for pointing it out.

And I know some of what they do to raise animals to sell for food but the point is I'm 100% certain the way they do it isn't by fighting dogs. The point I was making didn't have anything to do with what they do to raise animals for food _except_ to say that it is different from dog fighting. Therefore, I just said "whatever they do" instead of trying to detail it all.

Honestly, I think you need to be a little more careful in your reading and writing.

Someone needs to be more careful when it comes to generating and expressing her views. Yes, however "livestock" is raised it differs from dog fighting if only because we're talking about different animals having different things done to them -- a morally superficial difference. The point is that people such as yourself (effectively) say that it's OK for animals to suffer provided they're going to end up in your tummy, but it's not OK for animals to suffer in service of entertaining the Michael Vicks of the world, and that's an arbitrary distinction. If a person believes animal suffering is morally relevant -- and who doesn't? (other than BPSCG) -- then he should ask himself under what conditions, toward what ends, animal suffering is justified.

[Lonewulf]

:boggled: good grief

Why do we have to spell out how blatantly wrong murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is? Is this some goofy trolling expedition?

I do believe that the point has gone right over your head.

So, you DON'T have to explain why murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is. I guess it's true a priori? Self-evident, therefore no evidence is needed?

But, a vegetarian/vegan HAS to explain why they view killing animals as wrong from some ultimate morality show of some sort. It's NOT true a priori, evidence is needed, and unless they can adequately express their viewpoints, they are "idiots" (as BPSGC would call them so eloquently).

Consistent!

Let's have another demonstration of consistency!

If I torture dogs in my back yard for entertainment, then I am wrong, and need to be punished. You lord over how I'm wrong, and if I try to explain away my actions in whatever way, you'd probably react in pure disgust, right? When the man is arrested and put in prison, you cheer. It's GOOD that he was punished for his actions.

Now, I look at a slaughterhouse and go, "blech". I show disgust. I say to you that it's disgusting, and then I turn vegan and encourage you to do the same. Suddenly, I'm lording over my morality over you, I'm acting "holier than thou". YOU weren't acting "holier than thou" to the guy who had dogs tortured, but I'M acting holier than thou. I don't ask or demand for you to go to prison, but you don't like me encouraging you to give up meat. You don't like the perception that I think of myself as "more moral" than you are.

If none of the above actually applies to you, Bigred, then feel free to ignore it. However, I see a lot of people act indignant at the supposed "holier than thou" attitude of the vegetarian.

Apparently, if someone disagrees with you over an issue of morality, they're either "holier than thou", or immoral evil sons of *****es that need to be punished. And, of course, you'd be the moderate one... while the guy that was "less moral" can't call you "holier than thou" for whatever reason.

Consistency!

[mumblethrax]

I'm not going to answer your second paragraph because I'm not really following that part of the debate and I haven't really thought about it, but your first paragraph is not true. People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things. Some would say that both of those things constitute torture and others wouldn't but the point is that the things involved are different
I don't know where you're going with this. Are you saying that some people think inflicting pain and death upon dogs is torture, but inflicting pain and death upon pigs is not? Yes, I know they do--that's why I say that they don't have a coherent definition of torture. It's not controversial that both of these things happen, but it doesn't become torture in one case and not the other simply because we've conferred Most Favored Animal status upon dogs.

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.
The morally arbitrary nature of this distinction is exactly what I'm critical of--you can't therefore defend it by simply restating it.

[Number Six]

I don't know where you're going with this. Are you saying that some people think inflicting pain and death upon dogs is torture, but inflicting pain and death upon pigs is not? Yes, I know they do--that's why I say that they don't have a coherent definition of torture. It's not controversial that both of these things happen, but it doesn't become torture in one case and not the other simply because we've conferred Most Favored Animal status upon dogs.


The morally arbitrary nature of this distinction is exactly what I'm critical of--you can't therefore defend it by simply restating it.

Yes, some people (most probably) think both that dog fighting is immoral and raising animals to eat isn't. I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I'm just saying it is.

You can say they don't have a coherent defintion of torture but they would disagree and in fact might say that it's you that doesn't have a coherent definition of torture. And neither is right because it is subjective. You may see the distinction between dog fighting and raising animals for food as arbitrary but some others do not. And it's not a mathematical or scientific thing that can be proven one way or the other in the end.

You can have your own morality and others can have theirs and you can try to persuade others to come to your point of view. That's fine. People naturally believe their morality is the best morality. But remember that defining your views as the morally correct ones doesn't automatically make it so and also it makes persuading others to come to your view harder because it essentially tells them "You should agree with me because I'm right and you're wrong" instead of telling them why they should agree with you.

[mumblethrax]

You can say they don't have a coherent definition of torture but they would disagree and in fact might say that it's you that doesn't have a coherent definition of torture. And neither is right because it is subjective. You may see no distinction between dog fighting and raising animals for food as arbitrary but some others do see a distinction. And it's not a mathematical or scientific thing that can be proven one way or the other in the end.
What is and is not coherent is not a subjective matter. Whether or not it's important to be coherent might be. Suffice it to say that I think it is, and so will most other rational people. Yes, I can say that the other's beliefs are incoherent, and he can say the same about mine...but I can actually tell him why his beliefs are incoherent, whereas he will be parroting the language of critical thought.

No, morality is not math or science. It is, however, possible to speak about morality rationally.

You can have your own morality and others can have theirs and you can try to persuade others to come to your point of view. That's fine. People naturally believe their morality is the best morality. But remember that defining your views as the morally correct ones doesn't automatically make it so and also it makes persuading others to come to your view harder because it essentially tells them "You should agree with me because I'm right and you're wrong" instead of telling them why they should agree with you.
We can't do that if there is no basis for rational discourse--we'd just be talking at each other. I'm not saying that my views are true by virtue of the fact that I hold them--I'm saying that some moral systems are incoherent, and some are not. This is not a matter of opinion. The view that 'killing black people is wrong, but killing white people is not,' for example, is irrational (and not just different) because the distinction between white people and black people is arbitrary, and the beliefs incoherent. That doesn't mean you can't hold this view, of course--just that you'd be wrong to do so.

[Number Six]

What is and is not coherent is not a subjective matter. Whether or not it's important to be coherent might be. Suffice it to say that I think it is, and so will most other rational people. Yes, I can say that the other's beliefs are incoherent, and he can say the same about mine...but I can actually tell him why his beliefs are incoherent, whereas he will be parroting the language of critical thought.

No, morality is not math or science. It is, however, possible to speak about morality rationally.


We can't do that if there is no basis for rational discourse--we'd just be talking at each other. I'm not saying that my views are true by virtue of the fact that I hold them--I'm saying that some moral systems are incoherent, and some are not. This is not a matter of opinion. The view that 'killing black people is wrong, but killing white people is not,' for example, is irrational (and not just different) because the distinction between white people and black people is arbitrary, and the beliefs incoherent. That doesn't mean you can't hold this view, of course--just that you'd be wrong to do so.

You're simply defining your views as rational and the views of those that disagree with you as irrational. You can tell others why you think their beliefs are incoherent and they can tell you why they think yours is, but naturally you think you're right and they're wrong, but they think they're right and you're wrong. What makes you the one that is right and them wrong? Just because you have reasons for your views that you agree with and they have reasons for their views that you don't agree with doesn't make you rational and them irrational. After all, they'd say that they're the rational ones and you're the irrational one. It is subjective.

Morality is subjective. I know that's scary because it opens the door for all kinds of bad moralities in the name of "Hey, it's my opinion, who are you to tell me it's wrong?" But just because it's scary doesn't make it not true.

[quixotecoyote]

It is illogical to say that inflicting pain on dogs is wrong but inflicting pain of pigs is alright without being able to substantiate a moral difference in kind or circumstance. That is true regardless of your personal morals.

[mumblethrax]

You're simply defining your views as rational and the views of those that disagree with you as irrational. You can tell others why you think their beliefs are incoherent and they can tell you why they think yours is, but naturally you think you're right and they're wrong, but they think they're right and you're wrong. What makes you the one that is right and them wrong? Just because you have reasons for your views that you agree with and they have reasons for their views that you don't agree with doesn't make you rational and them irrational. After all, they'd say that they're the rational ones and you're the irrational one. It is subjective.

Morality is subjective. I know that's scary because it opens the door for all kinds of bad moralities in the name of "Hey, it's my opinion, who are you to tell me it's wrong?" But just because it's scary doesn't make it not true.
Well, you're now doing exactly the thing I was criticizing earlier: selectively pulling the rug out from under ethical discourse by invoking naive subjectivity.

I don't care whether morality is subjective or not: I'm saying that you cannot credibly call your beliefs coherent if they are not coherent, for the same reason that you cannot speak of being logical while you argue that A and ~A are simultaneously true.

And no, I don't think anyone can tell me why my views on this matter are incoherent. I'll invite you to try, though, instead of just attempting to undermine the debate by suggesting someone could do this.

[Number Six]

Well, you're now doing exactly the thing I was criticizing earlier: selectively pulling the rug out from under ethical discourse by invoking naive subjectivity.

I don't care whether morality is subjective or not: I'm saying that you cannot credibly call your beliefs coherent if they are not coherent, for the same reason that you cannot speak of being logical while you argue that A and ~A are simultaneously true.

And no, I don't think anyone can tell me why my views on this matter are incoherent. I'll invite you to try, though, instead of just attempting to undermine the debate by suggesting someone could do this.

I agree that saying that A and ~A is are both true is illogical. But I think you're ascribing such logic to people simply because you disagree with them. People that think dog fighting is immoral but don't think raising animals for food is immoral aren't saying both A and ~A are true, rather they're saying that A falles into the class of immoral things and ~A falls into the class of things that aren't immoral.

[Number Six]

It is illogical to say that inflicting pain on dogs is wrong but inflicting pain of pigs is alright without being able to substantiate a moral difference in kind or circumstance. That is true regardless of your personal morals.

First of all, dogs and pigs are different. But even if it were pigs and pigs or dogs and dogs instead of pigs and dogs your statement wouldn't be true. It depends on the circumstances, on how much pain, on why the pain is being inflicted, on what will happen if the pain isn't inflicted, etc.

[Number Six]

Well, you're now doing exactly the thing I was criticizing earlier: selectively pulling the rug out from under ethical discourse by invoking naive subjectivity.

I don't care whether morality is subjective or not: I'm saying that you cannot credibly call your beliefs coherent if they are not coherent, for the same reason that you cannot speak of being logical while you argue that A and ~A are simultaneously true.

And no, I don't think anyone can tell me why my views on this matter are incoherent. I'll invite you to try, though, instead of just attempting to undermine the debate by suggesting someone could do this.

Someone could tell you why they think your views are incoherent just as you could tell someone else that they're views are incoherent. Naturally you think you're right and they think they're right. And you think they're wrong and they think you're wrong. That's why you hold the views you do and they hold the views they do. I probably can't _convince_ you that your views are incoherent but then again you probably can't convince those that disagree with you that theri views are incoherent. In the end everyone makes up their on mind on subjective issues. And I'm not trying to pull the rug out from anything, I'm simply stating that morality is subjective. It is. I wish it weren't because a lot of hassle could be avoided if it weren't.

[mumblethrax]

I agree that saying that A and ~A is are both true is illogical. But I think you're ascribing such logic to people simply because you disagree with them. People that think dog fighting is immoral but don't think raising animals for food is immoral aren't saying both A and ~A are true, rather they're saying that A falles into the class of immoral things and ~A falls into the class of things that aren't immoral.
Propositions cannot themselves be described as moral or immoral, they instead have qualities like truth value or imperative force. If we have some proposition A: It is wrong to inflict pain and death on dogs for entertainment, its negation (~A) is not It is not wrong to inflict pain and death on pigs for food. It would be It is not wrong to inflict pain and death on dogs for entertainment.

Instead, what people are arguing is that A and ~B are simultaneously true, failing to grasp that in the moral context A and B are premised on identical moral properties: there is nothing about a dog being used in entertainment that allows it to make moral claims which is not also true of a pig being used in the production of food. Effectively, B can be substituted for A, and the contradiction becomes clear (if you disagree, please offer some justification--it is you, after all, who has frequently asserted yet failed to elucidate this important difference between pigs and dogs).

Our language is rife with an unjustified species favoritism: these dogs were executed (invoking acts like extrajudicial killings), while pigs are merely slaughtered or killed. Dogs helped us cross the Bering Strait, therefore we owe it to them to treat them better. Food animals, meanwhile, helped us to develop agriculture, specialized labor, and then civilization, so we owe it to them to sacrifice them by the hundreds of millions, even after we no longer need to eat them to maintain our civilization.

Someone could tell you why they think your views are incoherent just as you could tell someone else that they're views are incoherent. Naturally you think you're right and they think they're right. And you think they're wrong and they think you're wrong. That's why you hold the views you do and they hold the views they do. I probably can't _convince_ you that your views are incoherent but then again you probably can't convince those that disagree with you that theri views are incoherent. In the end everyone makes up their on mind on subjective issues. And I'm not trying to pull the rug out from anything, I'm simply stating that morality is subjective. It is. I wish it weren't because a lot of hassle could be avoided if it weren't.
There are things that are true regardless of whether I am able to convince someone that they are. You're raising a separate question here: how best to convince people.

I'm not interested in discussing pedagogical techniques right now. I don't care that some people will think I'm wrong and others will think I'm right. I'm speaking to the universe of people willing to critically examine their moral beliefs here, and so this claim of naive subjectivism is irrelevant. I'm not even talking about morality at the moment: I'm pointing out that a claim of coherency is not itself a moral claim. You ought to be coherent is, but I had hoped I could take for granted that people see value in being coherent here, and convincing someone of this is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

I mean, has it occurred to you that I don't even necessarily disagree that morality is subjective? It's just not the issue.

[Number Six]

there is nothing about a dog being used in entertainment that allows it to make moral claims which is not also true of a pig being used in the production of food. Effectively, B can be substituted for A, and the contradiction becomes clear (if you disagree, please offer some justification--it is you, after all, who has frequently asserted yet failed to elucidate this important difference between pigs and dogs).

The first part of the above is your opinion but instead you state it as fact and that is where the problem comes. If someone has a morality for example that says "We shouldn't hurt animals solely for entertainment but hurting them so we can eat them is okay" then B cannot be substituted for A in their mind and there is no contradiction. In their morality the two things are not equivalent. In your morality they are equivalent. It is subjective.

For that matter, let's make a finer distinction and talk about dog fighting long haired dogs and short haired dogs. Suppose someone said it is not immoral to fight long haired dogs but that it is immoral to fight short haired dogs. Then that distinction is enough because even though it isn't an important distinction for me or you, it is an important distinction for them. Each person determines what is an important distinction and what is not. You've decided that that the distinction between dog fighting and and raising pigs for food isn't important but others disagree. It is subjective.

If two things are identical in every way then they're identical and you have to treat them identically in order to be consistent. But if two things are similar in some ways and different in some ways then whether or not the differences are important to you is up to you, not someone else. You can try to persuade others that the differences should be important to them, but you can't just state that they are important to them.

I mean, has it occurred to you that I don't even necessarily disagree that morality is subjective? It's just not the issue.

I don't see it that way at all. I think whether morality is subjective is the whole issue here. It seems to me that you keep saying (or implying perhaps) that raising animals for food is immoral because dog fighting is immoral and there is no distinction between them. But there is no distinction between them _to you_. To some others there is a distinction. And to yet some others there is no distinction between them but not because both are immoral in their minds but rather because neither are immoral.

[Lonewulf]

Mumblethrax, my respect grows for you every day.

I still eat meat because I'm a weak weak man (and because I feel that Germany treats it's animals well, given the many laws passed on how to treat and hunt animals), but I definitely agree with you.

[Aoidoi]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/08/01/bc.fbn.vick.reporterapo.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[bigred]

I do believe that the point has gone right over your head.

So, you DON'T have to explain why murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is. I guess it's true a priori? Self-evident, therefore no evidence is needed?

But, a vegetarian/vegan HAS to explain why they view killing animals as wrong from some ultimate morality show of some sort. It's NOT true a priori, evidence is needed, and unless they can adequately express their viewpoints, they are "idiots" (as BPSGC would call them so eloquently).

Consistent!

Let's have another demonstration of consistency!

If I torture dogs in my back yard for entertainment, then I am wrong, and need to be punished. You lord over how I'm wrong, and if I try to explain away my actions in whatever way, you'd probably react in pure disgust, right? When the man is arrested and put in prison, you cheer. It's GOOD that he was punished for his actions.

Now, I look at a slaughterhouse and go, "blech". I show disgust. I say to you that it's disgusting, and then I turn vegan and encourage you to do the same. Suddenly, I'm lording over my morality over you, I'm acting "holier than thou". YOU weren't acting "holier than thou" to the guy who had dogs tortured, but I'M acting holier than thou. I don't ask or demand for you to go to prison, but you don't like me encouraging you to give up meat. You don't like the perception that I think of myself as "more moral" than you are.

If none of the above actually applies to you, Bigred, then feel free to ignore it. However, I see a lot of people act indignant at the supposed "holier than thou" attitude of the vegetarian.

Apparently, if someone disagrees with you over an issue of morality, they're either "holier than thou", or immoral evil sons of *****es that need to be punished. And, of course, you'd be the moderate one... while the guy that was "less moral" can't call you "holier than thou" for whatever reason.

Consistency!
lol @ posting all this - then later admitting you eat meat. :rolleyes:

Consistency!


I will in fact ignore most of what you said, since it doesn't apply to me. Might've been a good idea to ask instead of assuming (ranting), ya think?

PS - I do believe "the" point (actually there is more than one made in this thread) has not gone over my head. I also believe that all the rationalization and waxing philosophic changes nothing about how sickeningly and obviously criminal/perverse the acts in question are/were. Even if (for the sake of argument) we agree that killing animals for food is criminal, it doesn't change that one bit. Nor does it change my desire to see this dirtbag and those like him locked away for a lonnnnng time.

[Lonewulf]

lol @ posting all this - then later admitting you eat meat. :rolleyes:

Consistency!
Okay, I don't see what that has to do with the point.

I fail to see why my personal actions makes a point any less right or any more wrong. If I say, "Murder is wrong", and then go and kill someone, does that make murder right? If I say "theft is wrong", but steal something, does that make theft wrong?

If I say that SOMEONE ELSE is saying that murder is wrong and kill someone, does that change what the OTHER person said so?

I was justifying someone else's viewpoint. Though I admit, I tend towards that view. However, there seems to be a viewpoint that if you defend vegetarians/vegans in ANY WAY, you're a vegan/vegetarian. D'uh. You have to be rabidly anti-vegetarian/anti-vegan in order to not be vegetarian or vegan. How fun.

The one thing that's consistent in this thread is the fact that you don't seem to have a clue what people are saying here.

I will in fact ignore most of what you said, since it doesn't apply to me. Might've been a good idea to ask instead of assuming (ranting), ya think?
So you're ignoring the point of what others say in response to vegetarians, which in fact was the point of the post you responded to?

If you're not even going to bother to understand what someone is saying, then please be kind and do not clutter the thread with your useless responses.

PS - I do believe "the" point (actually there is more than one made in this thread) has not gone over my head.

Considering your response to the post, I disagree.

You said

good grief

Why do we have to spell out how blatantly wrong murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is? Is this some goofy trolling expedition?
Since you did not get WHY he brought that up (since you brought up "trolling expedition", then yes, the point has gone over your head. Sorry.

look through the thread, and not just that one post. Put it into context. Maybe then you'll understand.

I also believe that all the rationalization and waxing philosophic changes nothing about how sickeningly and obviously criminal/perverse the acts in question are/were.

And where does morality come from? Is it absolute or relative? What if I'm perfectly fine with torturing animals -- why should I be punished?

If people in this thread are going to make vegetarians answer that question, then why can't you?

Or do you disagree with the people that are asking vegetarians to answer such questions?

Even if (for the sake of argument) we agree that killing animals for food is criminal, it doesn't change that one bit. Nor does it change my desire to see this dirtbag and those like him locked away for a lonnnnng time.
Then that's good.

[mumblethrax]

For that matter, let's make a finer distinction and talk about dog fighting long haired dogs and short haired dogs. Suppose someone said it is not immoral to fight long haired dogs but that it is immoral to fight short haired dogs. Then that distinction is enough because even though it isn't an important distinction for me or you, it is an important distinction for them. Each person determines what is an important distinction and what is not. You've decided that that the distinction between dog fighting and and raising pigs for food isn't important but others disagree. It is subjective.
Well, you're doing my job for me here by pointing out that this distinction between long-haired and short-haired dogs is justified to the same degree that the distinction between pigs and dogs (or for that matter dark-skinned humans and pale-skinned humans) is. It also happens to be patently absurd, so I'm hopeful that people might realize that this absurdity then radiates out to similar distinctions proposed on exactly the same basis (which is to say pulled out of thin air).

The point here is not whether this distinction is important or not important to me, but whether it is important at all, and specifically whether it has any bearing on the capacity of dogs or pigs or people to make moral claims on us. I'm going to (controversially!) propose here that it's totally irrelevant whether the dog yelping out in pain as someone beats it to death has long or short hair, in terms of how the dog himself experiences the beating. This isn't about what I believe--I'm capable of recognizing that I'm not the center of the universe, moral or otherwise--it's about what it means that the dog has some experience of the world, can communicate that to us, and what follows from it.

If two things are identical in every way then they're identical and you have to treat them identically in order to be consistent. But if two things are similar in some ways and different in some ways then whether or not the differences are important to you is up to you, not someone else. You can try to persuade others that the differences should be important to them, but you can't just state that they are important to them.
Yes, well, I'm still waiting for you to point out what this difference between pigs and dogs is, and why it matters, so it's difficult for me to actually try to persuade the hypothetical you of anything: you still prefer to have this metaconversation about how people are capable of holding different beliefs rather than telling me what you believe, and why you believe it.

Honestly, all this stuff about how people's beliefs are important to them is unbearably precious. Yes, I get it. People often refuse to give up a belief in God, for example, even after it's been pointed out in gory detail that there is no reason or value in it, because they're simply too emotionally invested. They invoke faith as a conversation stopper, and that's the end of it. Again, I am not speaking to those people. I'm talking a forum (mostly) full of professed skeptics, who I hope are capable of critically examining their own beliefs, and rejecting them if they don't meet some minimal standard of justification.

I don't see it that way at all. I think whether morality is subjective is the whole issue here. It seems to me that you keep saying (or implying perhaps) that raising animals for food is immoral because dog fighting is immoral and there is no distinction between them. But there is no distinction between them _to you_. To some others there is a distinction. And to yet some others there is no distinction between them but not because both are immoral in their minds but rather because neither are immoral.
I wish you wouldn't jump between contexts like this. Remember that I was talking about coherency here, and responding to your claim the something can be coherent to me, and not to you, and that this is true because of moral subjectivism.

A claim of coherency is not, itself, a moral claim. We do not have to establish that moral facts exist before we determine whether a set of moral beliefs coheres. That's why this point about subjectivity isn't relevant to the debate we're currently having. Again: has it occurred to you that I don't believe in moral facts?

Now, if you're telling me that there's an important difference between pigs and dogs that renders them too dissimilar to be treated similarly, I'm going to ask you what it is and why it matters. If you think you there is no expectation that you should answer this question, then there is no basis for rational discourse, because you're being unreasonable. I cannot, in fact, persuade you of anything (at least not without resorting to appealing to your emotions, which I'm not interested in doing), because you've cut the legs out from under the discussion by asserting a distinction without explanation and insulating yourself from any and all criticism.

Which, incidentally, is exactly the kind of thing that always happens in these threads. As soon as someone points out something that indicts virtually everyone, the post-hoc analysis begins in order to avoid having the chicken come home to roost. That's why it's not useful to have a conversation about morality after it's clear that your sense of identity as a decent person rests on which conclusions you come to: it's like a Christian archaeologist setting out to find Noah's ark, rather than collecting evidence and seeing where it leads him. There was a thread here about a year ago (which was about 700,000 pages long if I recall correctly), during which one poster shifted between radically incompatible moral perspectives in order to avoid dealing with this same problem. I'm not interested in doing this again--telling me that morality is subjective does not insulate you from the expectation that you have some reason for asserting a distinction in kind between pigs and dogs. You've made this claim, so drop the meta-ethics and back it up, or stop with the sideshow.

[Number Six]

Okay, it's apparent to me that this discussion isn't progressing anymore so I'll bow out for now and leave it to others if they wish chip in.

[bigred]

Okay, I don't see what that has to do with the point
There you go again with "the point." I don't know what you consider "the" point, but I'm simply saying you're doing a classic pot/kettle thing. You accused me of inconsistency (a weak accusation at that) - then do the same thing. Such nonsense makes it harder to take a person seriously.

I fail to see why my personal actions makes a point any less right or any more wrong. If I say, "Murder is wrong", and then go and kill someone, does that make murder right? If I say "theft is wrong", but steal something, does that make theft wrong?
No, but it does blow a huge hole in your credibility, therefore making it much less likely that people will listen to/believe what you are saying. So if you go on about the horrors of eating meat while still doing it yourself, don't be too surprised when people roll their eyes and walk away.


I was justifying someone else's viewpoint.
On the contrary: your hypocrisy weakened it, if anything.


However, there seems to be a viewpoint that if you defend vegetarians/vegans in ANY WAY, you're a vegan/vegetarian. D'uh
When someone staunchly defends them (not just "in any way"), it's a reasonable assumption, although granted still just an assumption. You really seem to be overly sensitive about all this, although I've no idea why. If you want to start up a thread about whether or not it's morally acceptable to eat meat, go for it. We're talking about some slimeballs who murder and torture animals for fun.


The one thing that's consistent in this thread is the fact that you don't seem to have a clue what people are saying here.
:rolleyes: You really love that pot/kettle thing don't ya? So when were you appointed the spokesperson for everyone else in this thread? Missed that part. Why don't you start with getting a clue about what I'm saying, since you're addressing me, then go from there?


So you're ignoring the point of what others say in response to vegetarians, which in fact was the point of the post you responded to?No, I'm ignoring what you yourself suggested I ignore in your earlier thread, since it didn't apply. You really seem to be having a hard time with that. The point of my reply to the post in question, which I now explain for the 2d and final time, is that trying to rationalize and/or philosophize away the blatant immorality (to the point of perverse) of these actions is ridiculous.


If you're not even going to bother to understand what someone is saying, then please be kind and do not clutter the thread with your useless responses.The pot/kettle thing again! Way to go Forrest! :applause:


Since you did not get WHY he brought that up (since you brought up "trolling expedition", then yes, the point has gone over your head. Sorry.Actually I blew by a lot of the philosophical tangents as they didn't particularly interest me (as to why I've stated that twice remember). So the trolling suspicions may be off-base. Certainly hope so.


And where does morality come from? Is it absolute or relative? What if I'm perfectly fine with torturing animals -- why should I be punished?:rolleyes: This is the kind of gibberish I'm talking about. If you don't know the answer - and it would not exactly shock me - I'd put your IQ somewhere between one of those dogs and their own poop.

If you want to ramble on about why something is wrong when it very clearly is, go for it. I'll pass.


If people in this thread are going to make vegetarians answer that question, then why can't you?
I have no idea what you mean by "make vegetarians answer that question"- I am certainly not trying to "make" anyone answer any question. If you mean others, ask them.

Once more: murder/torture of dogs for pleasure is wrong. Also water is wet, the sky is blue, and ice is cold, FYI. If these things are still puzzling to you, ask a teacher for assistance. And I really don't couldn't care less if you call it "relative morality" or anything else.

[Lonewulf]

There you go again with "the point." I don't know what you consider "the" point, but I'm simply saying you're doing a classic pot/kettle thing. You accused me of inconsistency (a weak accusation at that) - then do the same thing. Such nonsense makes it harder to take a person seriously.

I accused you of inconsistency? I explained what the person who you responded to was saying. Remember? The one that you accused of being a "troll" and asked what they were saying?

It's a wonder you even remember to tie your own shoelaces.

You really seem to be overly sensitive about all this, although I've no idea why.

Says the person that's been throwing out insults since the beginning. Called someone a troll for making a point, and then you say this:

:rolleyes: This is the kind of gibberish I'm talking about. If you don't know the answer - and it would not exactly shock me - I'd put your IQ somewhere between one of those dogs and their own poop.

Good day. Welcome to my ignore list, where all the trash lies. I have no time for your ilk.

[bigred]

aw darn. Now I won't get to read any more of your pot/kettle mindless dribblings. How will I sleep at night. boo hoo.

[Lonewulf]

"This message is hidden because bigred is on your ignore list."

[bobdroege7]

Well, you're doing my job for me here by pointing out that this distinction between long-haired and short-haired dogs is justified to the same degree that the distinction between pigs and dogs (or for that matter dark-skinned humans and pale-skinned humans) is. It also happens to be patently absurd, so I'm hopeful that people might realize that this absurdity then radiates out to similar distinctions proposed on exactly the same basis (which is to say pulled out of thin air).

The point here is not whether this distinction is important or not important to me, but whether it is important at all, and specifically whether it has any bearing on the capacity of dogs or pigs or people to make moral claims on us. I'm going to (controversially!) propose here that it's totally irrelevant whether the dog yelping out in pain as someone beats it to death has long or short hair, in terms of how the dog himself experiences the beating. This isn't about what I believe--I'm capable of recognizing that I'm not the center of the universe, moral or otherwise--it's about what it means that the dog has some experience of the world, can communicate that to us, and what follows from it.


Yes, well, I'm still waiting for you to point out what this difference between pigs and dogs is, and why it matters, so it's difficult for me to actually try to persuade the hypothetical you of anything: you still prefer to have this metaconversation about how people are capable of holding different beliefs rather than telling me what you believe, and why you believe it.

Honestly, all this stuff about how people's beliefs are important to them is unbearably precious. Yes, I get it. People often refuse to give up a belief in God, for example, even after it's been pointed out in gory detail that there is no reason or value in it, because they're simply too emotionally invested. They invoke faith as a conversation stopper, and that's the end of it. Again, I am not speaking to those people. I'm talking a forum (mostly) full of professed skeptics, who I hope are capable of critically examining their own beliefs, and rejecting them if they don't meet some minimal standard of justification.


I wish you wouldn't jump between contexts like this. Remember that I was talking about coherency here, and responding to your claim the something can be coherent to me, and not to you, and that this is true because of moral subjectivism.

A claim of coherency is not, itself, a moral claim. We do not have to establish that moral facts exist before we determine whether a set of moral beliefs coheres. That's why this point about subjectivity isn't relevant to the debate we're currently having. Again: has it occurred to you that I don't believe in moral facts?

Now, if you're telling me that there's an important difference between pigs and dogs that renders them too dissimilar to be treated similarly, I'm going to ask you what it is and why it matters. If you think you there is no expectation that you should answer this question, then there is no basis for rational discourse, because you're being unreasonable. I cannot, in fact, persuade you of anything (at least not without resorting to appealing to your emotions, which I'm not interested in doing), because you've cut the legs out from under the discussion by asserting a distinction without explanation and insulating yourself from any and all criticism.

Which, incidentally, is exactly the kind of thing that always happens in these threads. As soon as someone points out something that indicts virtually everyone, the post-hoc analysis begins in order to avoid having the chicken come home to roost. That's why it's not useful to have a conversation about morality after it's clear that your sense of identity as a decent person rests on which conclusions you come to: it's like a Christian archaeologist setting out to find Noah's ark, rather than collecting evidence and seeing where it leads him. There was a thread here about a year ago (which was about 700,000 pages long if I recall correctly), during which one poster shifted between radically incompatible moral perspectives in order to avoid dealing with this same problem. I'm not interested in doing this again--telling me that morality is subjective does not insulate you from the expectation that you have some reason for asserting a distinction in kind between pigs and dogs. You've made this claim, so drop the meta-ethics and back it up, or stop with the sideshow.

Here is a difference between dogs and pigs that makes the moral question of whether it is immoral to fight dogs for entertainment and not immoral to eat pigs.

The pig would eat you if it had the chance where the dog would not.

Same for the chicken.

You can raise animals for food without being cruel to them.

[quixotecoyote]

A chicken would eat me? Seriously?

[Cain]

The pig would eat you if it had the chance where the dog would not.

Same for the chicken.

Same for cows, as this classic episode of The Simpsons testifies:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ua129pv-eKE

Although, I'm not sure why we're opening ourselves to the possibility of allowing cows, chickens and pigs to eat us en masse. Maybe, for national security reasons, we should not be raising billions of them at all.

[Darth Rotor]

Although, I'm not sure why we're opening ourselves to the possibility of allowing cows, chickens and pigs to eat us en masse. Maybe, for national security reasons, we should not be raising billions of them at all.
What's that I hear?

"Four legs goooood, two legs baaaaaad!" :jaw-dropp

DR

[mumblethrax]

Here is a difference between dogs and pigs that makes the moral question of whether it is immoral to fight dogs for entertainment and not immoral to eat pigs.

The pig would eat you if it had the chance where the dog would not.

Same for the chicken.
True! The ancient and non-existant compact between The People and the Dog Spirit is binding, and the implicit aggression of the Pig Spirit shall not stand. Bellum omnium contra omnes.

You can raise animals for food without being cruel to them.
Possibly, but that's not really the relevant question, unless you think that modern industrial meat, egg and dairy production is characterized by an attention to animal suffering. Note that I'm not arguing in favor of veganism here, just pointing out the striking disparity in how we approach topics that involve similar issues.

After all, if systematic cruelty is excused by the fact that we don't need to engage in it, then Michael Vick has a perfect defense in the argument that he could have raised dogs in a humane (in the same attenuated sense that practices in the food industry can be described as humane) and legal fashion. For entertainment, even!

[Cain]

What's that I hear?
"Four legs goooood, two legs baaaaaad!" :jaw-dropp


I do not understand the meaning of this throwaway line. At first I thought it was some desperate plea to help me find your sense of humor. Are we talking about genetically engineered chickens, or what?

I dropped my folks off at the airport the other day and saw a dog with three legs. Three is the best number ever. I just hope his/her name wasn't "Lucky." I've seen more than one dog on television with three legs and the owners and anchors thought it was SO funny the caretakers chose Lucky. Sorry, that just bothers me.

[Darth Rotor]

I do not understand the meaning of this throwaway line.
==snip==
Are we talking about genetically engineered chickens, or what?

No, it was a piling on of your original jest with an Animal Farm reference.

No more, no less, and nothing desperate.

A target of opportunity, if you will. I was going to toss in a "the Pheasants are revolting" line (Wizard of Id reference) but as pheasants aren't barnyard animals -- and considering your note on two leggedness -- this precludes them from being in the next agricultural revolution. A chicken, now that you mention it, could not be "a true barnyard animal" per Napoleon's (Orwell's) early dicta.

Regarding hounds: My dog has four legs, which IMO is better than three, for him.

DR

[Cain]

My apologies.

I suppose it is better for a dog to have four rather than three legs, at least if we prize functionality. Unfortunately, even dogs who walk on two legs are mistreated: http://youtube.com/watch?v=29ubFeESQbU&mode=related&search=

[Darth Rotor]

My apologies.

I suppose it is better for a dog to have four rather than three legs, at least if we prize functionality. Unfortunately, even dogs who walk on two legs are mistreated: http://youtube.com/watch?v=29ubFeESQbU&mode=related&search=
No apology needed, but thanks all the same. :)

Can't open the youtube, may try later, but as we are back to mistreating dogs, Mr Vick seems to be at risk of letting a nasty habit cost him a great deal in both the short and long term.

Millions. So, he is already paying a price for this, regardless of how it plays out in court. In a karmic sense, there may be some justice to be had, even if his lawyers find a way to get him off --without resorting to the (rape) stand! :jaw-dropp (yes, a tasteless joke)

DR

[bigred]

"This message is hidden because bigred is on your ignore list."
lol

"This person still posting because they are stupid." :rolleyes:

FYI if you really had me ignored, that doesn't happen; you wouldn't even see my posts at all.

I knew you'd miss me too much to do it. kissy kissy kermy.




Millions. So, he is already paying a price for this, regardless of how it plays out in court. In a karmic sense, there may be some justice to be had, even if his lawyers find a way to get him off --without resorting to the (rape) stand! :jaw-dropp (yes, a tasteless joke)

If he is guilty of the charges being bandied about and doesn't go to jail for a nice lengthy amount of time - and trust me, he won't - justice has once again been treated as a joke.

[bobdroege7]

After all, if systematic cruelty is excused by the fact that we don't need to engage in it, then Michael Vick has a perfect defense in the argument that he could have raised dogs in a humane (in the same attenuated sense that practices in the food industry can be described as humane) and legal fashion. For entertainment, even!


Not much of a "perfect defense"

Judge, sir, I could have walked past the bank, and not robbed it.

And dogs can be raised humanely for entertainment, does Westminster ring any bells?

Greyhounds are raised for entertainment too, and mistreated as well. Google greyhound rescue and read between the lines.

On a personal anecdotal level, no cites to provide, but a rabbit hunter I know, admitted that if one of his beagles ever chases a deer, well he shoots it. The dog not the deer.

I may not make the most eloquent argument, but I see a clear moral distinction between fighting dogs for sport and eating meat.

Fighting dogs is bad and evil no matter what.

Racing dogs for sport may be ok, but it is possible to mistreat the dogs in the process.

Showing dogs for entertainment is probably a good thing, but still there is a possibility of mistreatment.

We should strive to be humane to the animals we raise for food.

[mumblethrax]

Not much of a "perfect defense"
No kidding--I think this might have been my point. The idea that we're excused from the cruelty we inflict on food animals simply because we could raise them humanely rests on a similarly peculiar argument.

And dogs can be raised humanely for entertainment, does Westminster ring any bells?
Isn't that exactly what I said above?

I may not make the most eloquent argument, but I see a clear moral distinction between fighting dogs for sport and eating meat.
But can you actually describe this clear moral distinction? Because if you can't, you might consider that it's not a defensible distinction, no matter how clear it seems to you.

[rtalman]

:bump2
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html
Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy "missiles from Iran," FOX News has learned.
:rolleyes:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If dog fighting doesn't sink his career, gambling will: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/sports/football/15vick.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He's not playing this year. He may never play again.

[dudalb]

If dog fighting doesn't sink his career, gambling will: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/sports/football/15vick.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He's not playing this year. He may never play again.

If they can make the Gambling charge stick,his career is over.
Gambling involvment is still the Big No No for professioanl Athletes in the US ever since the Black Sox Scandal in 1920.

[dudalb]

The details of the beans Vick's fellow dependents spilled are coming out,and it ain't pretty:


RICHMOND, Virginia (CNN) -- Two co-defendants of Michael Vick say the NFL star helped execute dogs that didn't fight well, according to federal court documents.


NFL star Michael Vick after a court appearance last month.

The court papers, filed as Quanis Phillips, 28, and Purnell Peace, 35, pleaded guilty to dogfighting charges Friday, said all three men "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions" in April of this year by methods such as hanging and drowning.

Peace, of Virginia Beach, and Phillips, of Atlanta, said the money behind the Bad Newz Kennels dogfighting operation, based on property Vick owns in Virginia, came "almost exclusively" from the Atlanta Falcons star.

Federal prosecutors had given Vick until 9 a.m. ET Friday to accept a plea deal that would require him to spend at least one year in prison on federal dogfighting conspiracy charges, reports say, but there was no immediate word on what he decided.

Vick's acceptance of the recommendation, described by The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, must receive court approval.

If the 27-year-old Vick rejects the deal, he will face an additional charge under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, a source with knowledge of the investigation told the newspaper.

According to the source, who requested anonymity, conviction under that charge would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The new charge would be considered by a grand jury that convenes Monday.

Federal judges rely largely on congressional guidelines for sentencing.

Peace and Phillips face sentencing hearings on November 30.

He's Toast.

[roger]

"$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" That's 6.3 x 10^19 dollars. Probably pocket change for a NFL player, but still! :D

[andyandy]

ok, last time i checked this was about dig fighting,

when did dog fighting morph into a $63billion lawsuit and charges (well, allegations) of buying missiles from Iran as part of Al Quaeda plot? :jaw-dropp

LOL

i've just seen the civil action paperwork by Riches

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/riches_jonathan_file.pdf

doesn't look like he's had much help on the case.....if he has, he should probably get a new lawyer :D

[wolfgirl]

But can you actually describe this clear moral distinction? Because if you can't, you might consider that it's not a defensible distinction, no matter how clear it seems to you.I'll give it a shot, though I hold no delusions that my arguments won't be dismissed quite easily. Still, it's my firmly held belief, so...

Humans are omnivorous animals. Our bodies (eyes, teeth, digestive systems) work well with being predators and able to eat meat. This is a natural state for us. It is necessary for us to eat to survive. Granted, we can eat a diet completely devoid of meat and still survive, however, many honest vegetarians and vegans will tell you that it is sometimes difficult to get enough protein and some other nutrients in your diet. The fact that this is difficult to do without eating meat and has to be dealt with leads me even further to believe that we are meant to eat meat as at least part of our diet.

The killing and eating of other animals, therefore, I do not see as being immoral, if it is what we evolved to do. I do believe it is immoral to be unnecessarily cruel to any animal just because you have to eat it.

Killing or injuring or being in any way cruel to an animal just for sport or entertainment, however, is an entirely different thing. It is not necessary for our health to do so. Our bodies have not evolved for it. There is no rational justification beyond "it's fun."

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am not a vegetarian. I enjoy eating meat. I wish I didn't. But I consider myself very much an animal lover and even an animal rights activist. I would never hurt an animal for any reason other than to eat it, and even then I will try not to hurt it any more than necessary. I spend extra for free-range chicken and eggs and locally produced dairy products that don't use factory-farming methods. I don't eat veal of foie gras. I am able to live with being an omnivore, though I sometimes ask myself if I'm not just justifying the whole thing because man, do I love a good medium-rare filet!

[Cain]

Humans are omnivorous animals. Our bodies (eyes, teeth, digestive systems) work well with being predators and able to eat meat. This is a natural state for us. It is necessary for us to eat to survive.


Historically speaking, is it not "natural" for humans to struggle to get their daily calories? So how do you reconcile "vegetarianism-is-too-difficult" with naturalness? What do you think is more consistent with our ancestral environment: refraining from eating meat, or having animals domesticated for slaughter hundreds of miles away and shipped to supermarkets via automobile and sold in plastic/styrofoam wrap? The point is moot because what is "natural" is irrelevant. What if raping women confers evolutionary advantage by securing one's genetic legacy? Wearing condoms and using birth control is more deeply at odds with natural biology, evolution, whatever you want to call it, than refusing to consume animal products. People who hunt for sport, for "fun," can probably muster stronger even evolutionary arguments: Our ancestors likely enjoyed the thrill of hunting. By far the most viewed animal-related clip on YouTube has lions squaring off against water buffalo. People clearly enjoy watching animals fight.

Too often people slide from saying "eating is a legitimate and necessary activity" to sanctifying eating meat.

Granted, we can eat a diet completely devoid of meat and still survive, however, many honest vegetarians and vegans will tell you that it is sometimes difficult to get enough protein and some other nutrients in your diet. The fact that this is difficult to do without eating meat and has to be dealt with leads me even further to believe that we are meant to eat meat as at least part of our diet.

If everyone became a vegetarian/vegan, then it would become a much, much easier lifestyle, even normal (by definition).

I think this is the heart of your argument:
The killing and eating of other animals, therefore, I do not see as being immoral, if it is what we evolved to do. I do believe it is immoral to be unnecessarily cruel to any animal just because you have to eat it.

But, as you conceded above, eating animals is not necessary. Here's a thought experiment: Suppose meat can be grown in a lab. It's cheaper, healthier, and, for most people, tastes better. However there remains an older generation of folks, let's ironically term them "naturalists," who want to raise and consume actual animals as we do today. Can they summon the above argument -- "what we evolved to do", "killing and eating of other animals," "not... immoral"?

You seem to really be arguing for weakened will-power, saying it's understandable for people today to eat meat because being a vegetarian is tough. Since when is morality supposed to be easy?

[joobie]

not to derail this thread, but sources today say that vick will plead guilty.

[dudalb]

Cain,you want to be a Vegetarian,fine,but don't force it down other's people's throats. That makes you no better then Pro Lifers or any other groupl

[quixotecoyote]

Cain,you want to be a Vegetarian,fine,but don't force it down other's people's throats. That makes you no better then Pro Lifers or any other groupl

As a non-vegetarian, I can recognize the distinction between arguing for a position and forcing others to hold that position. When those positions are legally exclusive, one has to be 'forced' in terms of law, but no one here has even gotten that far yet (that I can see). Rebutting someone's argument is not forcing your opinion on them.

[Cain]

Cain,you want to be a Vegetarian,fine,but don't force it down other's people's throats. That makes you no better then Pro Lifers or any other groupl

I do not see how I have forced anything down anyone's throat. I have not even argued the government should ban meat production, mostly because it will not happen, and even if it did it would not succeed. People need to change their minds first.

Also, I think it's such a load of crap that vegetarians/vegans are always maligned as forcing their views onto others. I know others share my experience at Thanksgiving, as this conversation happens at least once:

Some family friend or relative: "[Cain] isn't the turkey delicious?"
Then right as I say, "I have not tried it" my father (or mother), in an uber-annoying voice, head sticking forward, mocks "He's a vegetarian." It's difficult to describe how the word "vegetarian" comes out but it's always the same, always emphasized, always drawn out. Veg e tarian. Then the person who asked the question says, "Oh, yeah, I forgot" and everyone briefly talks about just how crazy and misguided the vegetarians are. Do I say anything back? No. I bite my tongue. They're mostly a bunch of conservative, religious, meat-eating freaks and I don't say anything.

I always hear this crap Internet. In real-life, first life, meat-space, it's completely different. Being a vegan isn't just about restricting food choices, but dealing with other people's nonsense. It's sort of like getting a fantastic boob job, and your best friend who used to get most of the attention has now grown to resent you. "Oh, so you think you're so much better than everyone else now, don't you?" People are all too willing to talk about how eating meat is natural (LOOK AT OUR TEETH), and older people lecture on the secrets to longevity. I just get so sick of this ****.

One more anecdote. I scheduled an appointment about ~8 months ago to learn more about the Peace Corps. One of my questions was about being a vegetarian -- how would that work? The 20-something liberal jagoff chick sighs and says, "Being vegetarian here is different. I'm glad you're concerned about animals but these people are poor, and so eating meat is a treat for them. It would be VERY disrespectful to refuse it." I'm boiling inside because she is so ridiculously condescending, which is fine if she had some clue what she was talking about. Instead she fashions herself as this ecumenical, culturally enlightened, well-traveled person who listens to BBC radio, and so I should thank some non-denominational God she's there to correct my foolish faux pas. I'm ready to tell this multicultural idiot that her degree in -- what? -- geography, and the two years she spent in Mali have left her totally unprepared for the philosophical fury she has just unleashed. Again, I didn't say anything (for obvious reasons) and let her inadvertently racist, philistine views pass with only a characteristically arrogant wave of the hand (which probably made her feel MORE superior).

[dudalb]

One more anecdote. I scheduled an appointment about ~8 months ago to learn more about the Peace Corps. One of my questions was about being a vegetarian -- how would that work? The 20-something liberal jagoff chick sighs and says, "Being vegetarian here is different. I'm glad you're concerned about animals but these people are poor, and so eating meat is a treat for them. It would be VERY disrespectful to refuse it." I'm boiling inside because she is so ridiculously condescending, which is fine if she had some clue what she was talking about. Instead she fashions herself as this ecumenical, culturally enlightened, well-traveled person who listens to BBC radio, and so I should thank some non-denominational God she's there to correct my foolish faux pas. I'm ready to tell this multicultural idiot that her degree in -- what? -- geography, and the two years she spent in Mali have left her totally unprepared for the philosophical fury she has just unleashed. Again, I didn't say anything (for obvious reasons) and let her inadvertently racist, philistine views pass with only a characteristically arrogant wave of the hand (which probably made her feel MORE superior).

Physician,Heal Thyself.
Funny,to me...and probably a lot of other people,..you come off just like the Peace Crops interviewer you despise.
And,frankly,I would not care to send a militant Vegetarian..which you do come off as...into a culture in which meat eating plays a important part.
You have a lot of growing up to do,guy.

[quixotecoyote]

Physician,Heal Thyself.
Funny,to me...and probably a lot of other people,..you come off just like the Peace Crops interviewer you despise.
And,frankly,I would not care to send a militant Vegetarian..which you do come off as...into a culture in which meat eating plays a important part.
You have a lot of growing up to do,guy.

all ad hom, no substance.

[Cain]

Physician,Heal Thyself.
Funny,to me...and probably a lot of other people,..you come off just like the Peace Crops interviewer you despise.

So that's what it looks like to a naive observer. Thanks.

And,frankly,I would not care to send a militant Vegetarian..which you do come off as...into a culture in which meat eating plays a important part.

I agree -- sort of. The Peace Corps basically exists to put a nice face on U.S. empire, and I would probably make for a non-ideal representative in some culture where meat eating played a crucial part. I bet that would have been a non-issue in the vast majority of cases but whatever. More importantly earlier you accused me of cramming views down throats, and now you're calling me a "militant Vegetarian" for refusing to allow others cram their lifestyle choices down my throat. That's nonsense, and I encounter this stupid double-standard more often than I care to count. After learning I'm a vegetarian some people want to make moral arguments as to why it's OK to eat meat.The funny thing is I don't do that when I find out people eat meat, and yet I'm the militant one out to impose my view on others.

[wunky]

Stephon Marbury is defending Michael Vick. Comparing dog fighting to hunting:
New York Knicks (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/nyk/;_ylt=Au.D4DCJDBiagcH.IfM5vKOLvLYF) guard Stephon Marbury (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3099/;_ylt=AkUWEv.TD_CjeO1Qu5.9R46LvLYF) defended Michael Vick, calling dogfighting a sport and comparing it to hunting.

Marbury spoke Monday about the federal dogfighting conspiracy charges against Vick while promoting his basketball shoe in Albany, N.Y.
"I think it's tough," Marbury said, according to Albany TV station Capital News 9. "I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors." "I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down," Marbury said. "I think he's one of the superb athletes, and he's a good human being. I just think that he fell into a bad situation."

[Darth Rotor]

Stephon Marbury is defending Michael Vick. Comparing dog fighting to hunting:
Stephon, for all his skills as an NBA guard, seems to have overlooked the infamous Rule Number One: never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.

Having walked a mile in those shoes, I know how hard a rule that is to follow.

DR

[rtalman]

"I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals.because it's legal You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport.that is illegal It's just behind closed doors."and illegal "I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down," Marbury said. "I think he's one of the superb athletes,who allegedly hangs and drowns dogs and he's a good human being.who allegedly electrocutes and body-slams dogs to death I just think that he fell into a bad situation."of his own making.

[roger]

We had 2 APBT articles in the Washington Post yesterday, with opposite messages.

This one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101977.html) basically gives Vicks a pass, promotes blood sports, and makes very egregious reasoning errors.

Then there is this excellent article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101997_2.html) which gives the history of dog fighting, discusses the back alley fights that go on every weekend in DC and elsewhere, the filing of teeth, insertion of shards of glass under the dogs skin, cigarette burns, gunpowder in the blood, etc., in short all the violent, inhumane ways used to get these gentle, loving dogs to fight.

[Alt+F4]

Update: Michael Vick has found Jesus.

Have a nice day.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/27/michael.vick/index.html

[dudalb]

Like VIck being Born Again was not a predictable develooment.
BTW The Courtland Milloy article in the Washngton Post mentioned by Roger is as good a example of bad reasoning as I have seen in a while.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He said, "Through this situation I've found Jesus."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/27/michael.vick/index.html

I say we let him go.

[baron]

We had 2 APBT articles in the Washington Post yesterday, with opposite messages.

This one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101977.html) basically gives Vicks a pass, promotes blood sports, and makes very egregious reasoning errors.

And this Courtland Milloy guy actually gets paid for writing this nonsense? I can honestly say that is the worst-reasoned argument I recall reading in a professional publication.

Then there is this excellent article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101997_2.html) which gives the history of dog fighting, discusses the back alley fights that go on every weekend in DC and elsewhere, the filing of teeth, insertion of shards of glass under the dogs skin, cigarette burns, gunpowder in the blood, etc., in short all the violent, inhumane ways used to get these gentle, loving dogs to fight.

I was impressed by the 30 year sentence mentioned in this article. Unlike many crimes, for which extenuating circumstances might be applicable, there is no excuse for dog-fighting or the cruelty that goes with it. I would personally back a minimum term of 20 years for anyone actively involved, and 5 years for anyone watching.

[slingblade]

I just spotted this in a May, 2007 Reader's Digest my mom has; it's under the humor headline, "Needed: More Padding in Helmets."

"I have two weapons," insisted Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. "My legs, my arms, and my brains."

'Nuff said.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Now the State boys are taking their turn: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/25/vick/index.html


SUSSEX, Virginia (CNN) -- A Virginia grand jury indicted suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick on state dogfighting charges Tuesday, prosecutors announced.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/law/09/25/vick/art.vick.filer.gi.jpg Michael Vick faces sentencing on federal charges in December.


http://www.cnn.com/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The grand jury brought two charges against Vick: one count of killing dogs and one of promoting dogfights. In a plea agreement on federal charges, the quarterback has admitted to bankrolling a dogfighting operation from his home in Surry County, Virginia.
Arraignment for Vick is scheduled for October 3.

[Fitter]

And a bank is suing him. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/09/25/rbcvick.html

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And a bank is suing him. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/09/25/rbcvick.html

Wow. Can it get any worse for him? Who's next to pile on? :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He failed a drug test. House arrest. Ooops! http://www.cbs46.com/news/14210094/detail.html

[dudalb]

Jesus,just when you think VIck cannot get any dumber,he does.
I am not a big fan of drug laws,but to use drugs under his present circumstances is just plain dumb,dumb,dumb.

[bigred]

Jesus,just when you think VIck cannot get any dumber,he does.
I am not a big fan of drug laws,but to use drugs under his present circumstances is just plain dumb,dumb,dumb.

racist.

[timhau]

Jesus,just when you think VIck cannot get any dumber,he does.
I am not a big fan of drug laws,but to use drugs under his present circumstances is just plain dumb,dumb,dumb.

It's for pot. Isn't pot detectable for up to a couple of months after use? That'd make it at least possible that he was busted for smoking before he made the guilty plea (test on Sept. 13th, guilty plea accepted on Aug. 27th according to wikipedia).

Not that a turd who's capable of messing up his life like Vick has done wouldn't be stupid enough to smoke a joint while waiting for sentencing, but that might be what his lawyer (same as Larry Craig's, incidentally) wants to say.

[dudalb]

racist.

Is that the only card the Vick supporters can play?
I am calling Vick a idiot not because he is black,but because he is an idiot. And there are plenty of white ones around.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow. Can it get any worse for him? Who's next to pile on? :)

He failed a drug test. House arrest. Ooops! http://www.cbs46.com/news/14210094/detail.html

Well it looks like he was the next to pile on.

[bigred]

Is that the only card the Vick supporters can play?
I am calling Vick a idiot not because he is black,but because he is an idiot. And there are plenty of white ones around.
No they have plenty of other laughably mindless dribblings too. Pay attention. :cool:

(I was mocking them FYI)

[Lonewulf]

Is that the only card the Vick supporters can play?
I am calling Vick a idiot not because he is black,but because he is an idiot. And there are plenty of white ones around.
Looks like I should be glad that Bigred is on my ignore list. :D

[dudalb]

No they have plenty of other laughably mindless dribblings too. Pay attention. :cool:

(I was mocking them FYI)

Sorry about that.
You did too good an imitation. A lot of the VIck supporters are on that level.

[bigred]

lol - thanks

yes they are. In fact, living in VA I am practically surrounded by them like Custer at Little Big Horn :boxedin:

[rtalman]

yes they are. In fact, living in VA I am practically surrounded by them like Custer at Little Big Horn
WHOA What a racist statement! :duck:

[bigred]

lol - ya bastage

"Them" of course meaning Vick apologists. Plenty of them of all colors here, believe me.

[Cain]

Michael Vick takes PETA course to learn empathy and respect for teh aminals.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-vick-peta&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Minadin]

Michael Vick takes PETA course to learn empathy and respect for teh aminals.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-vick-peta&prov=ap&type=lgns

That's too funny.

Ad Campaign Targets PETA for Killing Over 14,000 More Animals than Michael Vick (http://petakillsanimals.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm?id=210)
In addition to the thousands of animals that were killed at their headquarters, two PETA employees in North Carolina admitted to killing dozens of dogs and cats in a roving "death van" and tossing their bodies into a trash dumpster.

http://petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He showed up early for prison: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3119025

[Puppycow]

He showed up early for prison: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3119025

Could be a good move for Vick. By showing contrition he might get a lighter sentence. I doubt it would have the opposite effect. In any case, the sooner he starts, the sooner it'll be over. I wasn't aware that it was possible to start serving a sentence that hasn't been handed down yet.

[Number Six]

Could be a good move for Vick. By showing contrition he might get a lighter sentence. I doubt it would have the opposite effect. In any case, the sooner he starts, the sooner it'll be over. I wasn't aware that it was possible to start serving a sentence that hasn't been handed down yet.

I wasn't aware you could do that either. My silly theoretical question which won't happen in reality is, suppose he serves 20 days in jail and then they sentence him to 5 days in jail and he has served 15 days too long. If he then gets out and commits some other crime and is sentenced to jail, will those extra 15 days he has served count towards his next sentence?

[Redtail]

I'm guessing he did it so he could try to get it over before next season. There's enough stupid that someone will be willing to pick him up.

[bigred]

He's still alive?

Damn.

[Cain]

All races and cultures have their slobs, but when black men dress for success, they pull it off. Look at Mike Vick in that suit above. I am not a fashionista, or gay, but I can confidently say he looks put together. Too bad he's a scumbag. He could be banging hotties on the road right now, but instead he's off to the slammer.

[HarryKeogh]

Just heard on ESPN radio...Vick sentenced to 23 months.

Woof.

[Darth Rotor]

Just heard on ESPN radio...Vick sentenced to 23 months.

Woof.
Mike Tyson got three years for that rape charge, and he came back to fight again. (No, he wasn't quite the same, but he was still pretty good.)

Michael Vick may or may not get time off for good this or that, credit for the other, I don't know enough detail to predict accurately.

In two years time, there will still be NFL teams with a quarterback problem.

He has two years to do something positive, as a leader, in a prison, to entice SI writers and ESPN writers to start painting an image of a man matured, and a man ready to return to the fold after having sinned, paid a pennance, and repented.

His challenge, and given how tough prison is on anyone, it is a hell of a challenge, is to turn this into a positive experience in his life.

For his sake, I hope he pulls it off. The bet is at pick 'em.

Cain: the man makes the clothes.

*ZZ Top cued up*

They keep runnin' just as fast as they can
'Cos every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!

DR

[ponderingturtle]

For his sake, I hope he pulls it off. The bet is at pick 'em.


Why? There are plenty of careers that having an unrelated felony conviction would prevent you from working in. I do not see it as any kind of problem if he never plays football professionally again.

[BPSCG]

Mike Tyson got three years for that rape charge, and he came back to fight again. (No, he wasn't quite the same, but he was still pretty good.)

Michael Vick may or may not get time off for good this or that, credit for the other, I don't know enough detail to predict accurately.

In two years time, there will still be NFL teams with a quarterback problem.

He has two years to do something positive, as a leader, in a prison, to entice SI writers and ESPN writers to start painting an image of a man matured, and a man ready to return to the fold after having sinned, paid a pennance, and repented.

His challenge, and given how tough prison is on anyone, it is a hell of a challenge, is to turn this into a positive experience in his life.

For his sake, I hope he pulls it off. The bet is at pick 'em.

DRI have it 2-1 against.

Say he gets out in October, 2009. The season's in full swing at that point and he's missed three or four months (counting preseason) already.

Having missed the 2007 and 2008 seasons means he'll have some rust to get rid of. No matter how well he takes care of himself, physically, in prison, he won't be the athlete he would be had he been in training with a team. He's a good - not great - QB, who stands out from the pack because he's exceptionally mobile and is a running threat as well as a passing one. I think when he gets out of prison, he'll be a QB with an average arm and average game smarts, who's lost a step in his running game, pushing 30 years old.

I don't know how many teams will want an average QB, with his notoriety, to be the face of their team. Maybe the Raiders.

[Suddenly]

I don't like Michael Vick, but 23 months is nonsense. There is no parole in the federal system, he will do about 20 months with time off for good behavior

The guidelines suggested no more than 18 months.

[Suddenly]

I don't know how many teams will want an average QB, with his notoriety, to be the face of their team. Maybe the Raiders.

One of the hidden truths about Vick. He stinks as a QB, the one thing that makes him special he can't do in the NFL because he'd never last. He was never an accurate thrower and by accounts lousy at reading defenses

His only hope is to not lose a step and come back as a reciever / kick returner. Good luck while eating prison food and restricted workout access.

[HarryKeogh]

Remember, he can still face up to five years in his state trial.

[Suddenly]

They should just cut off his feet.

He should have done something less serious, like kill someone while drunk driving or interfere with a murder investigation.



Then again, he did go to Virginia Tech....

[BPSCG]

He should have done something less serious, like kill someone while drunk driving or interfere with a murder investigation.You should try to remember to use the sarcasm font, because there are the humor-impaired among us who will now set about beating you with cudgels...

[Suddenly]

You should try to remember to use the sarcasm font, because there are the humor-impaired among us who will now set about beating you with cudgels...

Why? He would most likely do less time.

He's going to most likely do twenty months on the federal charge, pending an appeal w/r/t the upper deviation from the guidelines. If he gets five from Virginia consecutive, lets assume he does one year or so just to get parole based on my brief (just now) look at Virginia law.

Assuming he behaves himself he's going a bare minimum of 34 months, up to a possible 83 months depending on parole and good time.

so more or less three to seven years.

Given possible conspiracy and so on charges from Virginia, perhaps more. There is a laundry list of things he could have done. Attempted premeditated murder is about close, malicious wounding. Not even close when we get to people drinking and driving in a reckless manner, which carries serious risk of killing people.

Leonard Little? DUI causing death. No problem. Another speeding DUI later. Whatever.
Still in the NFL.

That's before we even get to Ray Lewis, he of the deal to turn state's witness and keep out of a murder trial, then reportedly paid off the victim's family to avoid a civil trial. Serious OJ territory.

I'm a human being, you know! It's like in the movies y'know - you can waste the entire Confederate army, nobody cares - 395 000 guys deader'n doornails! But kill one collie, everybody collapses in grief!

[dudalb]

The question is not if other people got less then they deserve,but if Vick deserves what he is getting. I think he does.
I smell a basic Libertarian dislike for laws at work here,folks.

[Suddenly]

The question is not if other people got less then they deserve,but if Vick deserves what he is getting. I think he does.
I smell a basic Libertarian dislike for laws at work here,folks.

Your sense of smell stinks.

When determining whether a sentence is fair it is quite valid to compare it to other actions.

I smell an oblivious unthinking embrace of the American punishment fetish at work here, folks.

etc.

[bigred]

I don't like Michael Vick, but 23 months is nonsense. There is no parole in the federal system, he will do about 20 months with time off for good behavior

The guidelines suggested no more than 18 months.
I agree it's a joke, but better than nothing.....frankly I'm amazed he's doing any time at all.

[Lonewulf]

Your sense of smell stinks.

If someone can smell the stink, doesn't that mean their sense of smell is okay? :confused:

[Suddenly]

If someone can smell the stink, doesn't that mean their sense of smell is okay? :confused:

There is nothing Libertarian about my position. American criminal law, in particular federal sentencing, is absurd. I think the sentence is unduly harsh given the circumstances. I've never claimed it wasn't a crime.

Calling this "Libertarian" exhibits profound ignorance as to what "Libertarian" means.

[BPSCG]

I think the sentence is unduly harsh given the circumstances. I've never claimed it wasn't a crime. Mike Wilbon observes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002051.html):
When two of his co-conspirators were sentenced a few weeks back to 18 and 21 months respectively, we should have known Michael Vick wasn't going to get a year or 15 months. He wasn't going to get less jail time than the people who delivered him to the feds. He wasn't going to get less jail time when it was his money that financed the dogfighting enterprise that was his undoing. Wilbon also points out that you can get drunk and kill someone with your car and get only 90 days. But does that mean Vick's punishment is too harsh? Or does it mean, perhaps, that 90 days for killing someone while driving drunk is too mild by a factor of about a hundred?

[IllegalArgument]

Mike Wilbon observes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002051.html):
Wilbon also points out that you can get drunk and kill someone with your car and get only 90 days. But does that mean Vick's punishment is too harsh? Or does it mean, perhaps, that 90 days for killing someone while driving drunk is too mild by a factor of about a hundred?

I understand your point about the damage done to other humans as compared to dogs.

Having said that, a drunk driver didn't intentionally go out and try and kill someone.

Vick built a dog fighting organization and executed under performing animals, sometimes sadistically.

Then lied to the FBI repeatedly about said organization.

[Darth Rotor]

Then lied to the FBI repeatedly about said organization.
The Martha Stewart problem, among other things.

DR

[Suddenly]

Mike Wilbon observes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002051.html):
Wilbon also points out that you can get drunk and kill someone with your car and get only 90 days. But does that mean Vick's punishment is too harsh? Or does it mean, perhaps, that 90 days for killing someone while driving drunk is too mild by a factor of about a hundred?

I don't know. Ninety days seems a bit low in almost all cases, but it does provide context.

[BPSCG]

I understand your point about the damage done to other humans as compared to dogs.

Having said that, a drunk driver didn't intentionally go out and try and kill someone.

Vick built a dog fighting organization and executed under performing animals, sometimes sadistically.

Then lied to the FBI repeatedly about said organization.That last is a large part of the reason he got the maximum sentence.

But getting back to the drunk driver for a moment...

Next time you read about a drunk driver killing someone, dig into the story for information about his past drunk driving arrests (might take a few days before those details emerge). You will almost certainly find he'd had a string of drunk driving arrests. You'll likely find that they'd been pled down to speeding, reckless driving and so forth, and that his last few would be for driving on a suspended license and driving on a revoked license. And all those are just the times he's been caught driving drunk.

In short, the guy who gets drunk and kills someone has been getting drunk and driving for years, repeatedly.

So giving him five years for killing someone is ridiculous. He's been a clear and present danger to society for years, and when he finally succeeeds in killing someone, we give him the kind of sentence we'd give him for holding up a 7-Eleven. :mad:

[bigred]

There is nothing Libertarian about my position. American criminal law, in particular federal sentencing, is absurd.
No argument there.

I think the sentence is unduly harsh given the circumstances. :boggled:

Given the circumstances?? You mean the circumstances where he killed, tortured/brutalized untold numbers of animals just for the FUN of it? wtf???

What should he have gotten, a few hours community time and "oh you crazy nut, now behave your silly self" tongue-lashing from the judge?

And I thought the OJ thing was unbelievable.

Our society scares the living sh** outta me more and more every day...

[IllegalArgument]

Yep, our justice system has some issues with how different crimes are sentenced.

Especially, between Federal and local cases.

[Suddenly]

I understand your point about the damage done to other humans as compared to dogs.

Having said that, a drunk driver didn't intentionally go out and try and kill someone.

Someone randomly firing a gun into a dark room isn't specifically trying to kill either.

Vick built a dog fighting organization and executed under performing animals, sometimes sadistically.

Then lied to the FBI repeatedly about said organization.

That's the funny thing about federal sentencing. He pleads guilty to crime #1 and then the judge takes other charges and without benefit of a jury trial more or less sentences the defendant to more time. When these adjustments were mandatory even Scalia held this system constitutionally invalid. They aren't binding anymore...

He committed a crime, and a bad one. However, A first offender should only go to prison for long periods of time if he proves a continuing danger to others. Anything Vick learns from losing his freedom will be learned in six months, if that. Then there is home confinement, supervised release, and mandatory community service as suitable means of punishment.

[bigred]

That last is a large part of the reason he got the maximum sentence.

But getting back to the drunk driver for a moment...

Next time you read about a drunk driver killing someone, dig into the story for information about his past drunk driving arrests (might take a few days before those details emerge). You will almost certainly find he'd had a string of drunk driving arrests. You'll likely find that they'd been pled down to speeding, reckless driving and so forth, and that his last few would be for driving on a suspended license and driving on a revoked license. And all those are just the times he's been caught driving drunk.

In short, the guy who gets drunk and kills someone has been getting drunk and driving for years, repeatedly.

So giving him five years for killing someone is ridiculous. He's been a clear and present danger to society for years, and when he finally succeeeds in killing someone, we give him the kind of sentence we'd give him for holding up a 7-Eleven. :mad:

No argument there either.

[Suddenly]

Given the circumstances?? You mean the circumstances where he killed, tortured/brutalized untold numbers of animals just for the FUN of it? wtf???

What should he have gotten, a few hours community time and "oh you crazy nut, now behave your silly self" tongue-lashing from the judge?

No. There is middle ground here. Using confinement as a catch all punishment is ultimately a self-defeating act and a waste of resources.

This is a first time loser who does not present a danger to others. Locking him up for two years solves nothing. Except for a salve w/r/t punishment fetishists and those that prize the lives of animals over the well-being of human beings. They of course would rather he be beaten and sodimized, and still whine.

These are mostly people who don't fully understand what prison is as well.



And I thought the OJ thing was unbelievable.

Our society scares the living sh** outta me more and more every day...

Knee-jerk overreactions are a longstanding American tradition.

[Suddenly]

That last is a large part of the reason he got the maximum sentence.

He didn't get the max. He got five months more than the max he should have based solely on the plea.

But getting back to the drunk driver for a moment...

Next time you read about a drunk driver killing someone, dig into the story for information about his past drunk driving arrests (might take a few days before those details emerge). You will almost certainly find he'd had a string of drunk driving arrests. You'll likely find that they'd been pled down to speeding, reckless driving and so forth, and that his last few would be for driving on a suspended license and driving on a revoked license. And all those are just the times he's been caught driving drunk.

In short, the guy who gets drunk and kills someone has been getting drunk and driving for years, repeatedly.

So giving him five years for killing someone is ridiculous. He's been a clear and present danger to society for years, and when he finally succeeeds in killing someone, we give him the kind of sentence we'd give him for holding up a 7-Eleven. :mad:

In such a case, sure. If he has that many DUI and driving on a license revoked for DUI he's most likely a felon and has visited the crossbar hotel more than once. Recidivism generally alows for a more extreme punishment, possibly for life for a third felony.

Under our armed robbery statute the sentence is no less than ten years; one hundred years or more is not uncommon. Second degree murder is capped at forty.

Sentencing is a mess, mostly because criminal code reform is a risky political subject unless you are calling for longer sentences all the time...

[ponderingturtle]

However, A first offender should only go to prison for long periods of time if he proves a continuing danger to others.

So you must be really upset with the sentance Hovind got.

[Suddenly]

So you must be really upset with the sentance Hovind got.

Upset is a loaded term. I do not think ten years for what amounts to tax fraud is proper. I don't like Hovind and really could give a darn about what happens to him. Ditto Vick. It is the system that bothers me.

I have no problem with a jail term in and of itself. but for a first time visitor a brief stay of a few months is sufficient to impress upon the visitor how unlpleasant it is to totally lose your privacy and freedom. After that home confinement and supervised probation, while less restrictive than prison, still have punitive aspects.

The federal system is out of control. Even this supreme court has called congress on the wild discrepancy between sentences for cocaine base and cocaine salt.

[drkitten]

He didn't get the max. He got five months more than the max he should have based solely on the plea.

Er, no. He got five months more than the general guidelines, which is nowhere near the maximum that he could have drawn. The guidelines are advisory, the maximum is a statuatory limit that cannot be exceeded. And my understanding is that the 12-18 month range is not supported by the actual federal sentencing guidelines, but only the recommendation of the prosecution resulting from the plea deal....

Given his role as an organizer/eader of the dog fight ring, not only is an increased sentence appropriate, but even suggested under the guidelines (§3B1.1.).

[drkitten]

He didn't get the max. He got five months more than the max he should have based solely on the plea.

I just did the math, using the 1 Nov guidelines, and I think I disagree.

He was sentenced for conspiracy to commit racketeering, which is sentenced under 2X1.1 of the current guidelines, and gives a severity "up to" three points smaller than the underlying offense of racketeering, but only if the crime has not actually been completed (which of course it had been), otherwise it's the underlying offense. Racketeering (2e1.1) gives a severity of 19, but we'll cut him a break here and just list the crimes of violence against the dogs (2e1.3) (severity level 12) and the gambling offenses (2e3.1) severity level 12.

As an organizer or leader, he draws a 4 level increase, to level 16. Again, we'll cut him a break and not give him the additinoal modifier for multiple counts (fifty different victims), so his final offense level is 16.

A completely clean defendant will still draw 21-27 months for a level 16 offense. 23 months seems about right. In fact, I think I could write a report that suggested a minimum of 70 months while still following the guidlines to the letter.

[IllegalArgument]

*bows to drkitten, not worthy not worthy.

[Suddenly]

Er, no. He got five months more than the general guidelines, which is nowhere near the maximum that he could have drawn. The guidelines are advisory, the maximum is a statuatory limit that cannot be exceeded. And my understanding is that the 12-18 month range is not supported by the actual federal sentencing guidelines, but only the recommendation of the prosecution resulting from the plea deal....



Given his role as an organizer/eader of the dog fight ring, not only is an increased sentence appropriate, but even suggested under the guidelines (§3B1.1.).

Errr... How does this differ from "He didn't get the max. He got five months more than the max he should have based solely on the plea?" Besides it being shorter.

Note the "based solely on the plea." As in "what was agreed by the parties as a proper disposition." The judge made extra findings of fact, not the least of which was the finding that his plea of guilty and making a public apology wasn't accepting responsibility for his actions. Thus he moves the range upwards, and Vick didn't even get the max from that range, just in the upper limits.

Which is all completely besides the point anyway.

[drkitten]

Note the "based solely on the plea." As in "what was agreed by the parties as a proper disposition."

The prosecutor has no authority to bind the judge w.r.t. what is a "proper disposition." If Vick relied upon what the prosecution offered, then his lawyer is incompetent. Especially since every newspaper article since the story broke has not missed that point. The prosecutor recommends a disposition, but the judge is the one who makes the call.

The judge made extra findings of fact, not the least of which was the finding that his plea of guilty and making a public apology wasn't accepting responsibility for his actions.

Yes. That's called doing his job..

And that one's even specifically supported in the guidelines. (§3E1.1. Acceptance of Responsibility, application note 3.) "3. Entry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional relevant conduct for which he is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) (see Application Note 1(a)), will constitute significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility for the purposes of subsection (a). However, this evidence may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility. A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under this section as a matter of right."

In particular, he lied to the prosecutors about his role in the operation (specifically, trying to avoid the four-point organizer/leader hit I described above). That almost certainly qualifies as "providing materially false information to a probation officer in respect to a presentence or other investigation for the court," which is specifically named in §3C1.1 as obstruction. It also qualifies as "falsely denying any additional relevant conduct for which he is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)," which is a necessary precondition under the application note above. It is specifically mentioned that such conduct "ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct." (§3E1.1, note 4).

Furthermore, the guidelines specifically empower the judge to make such calls and give him wide latitude-- Note 5: "he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review."

The "max" for this crime was five years. He got less than two. GIven the circumstances, he should count himself lucky, since his conduct would justify --- under the guidelines -- a sentence of nearly six years, if the statuatory max didn't intervene.

[Suddenly]

I just did the math, using the 1 Nov guidelines, and I think I disagree.

He was sentenced for conspiracy to commit racketeering, which is sentenced under 2X1.1 of the current guidelines, and gives a severity "up to" three points smaller than the underlying offense of racketeering, but only if the crime has not actually been completed (which of course it had been), otherwise it's the underlying offense. Racketeering (2e1.1) gives a severity of 19, but we'll cut him a break here and just list the crimes of violence against the dogs (2e1.3) (severity level 12) and the gambling offenses (2e3.1) severity level 12.

As an organizer or leader, he draws a 4 level increase, to level 16. Again, we'll cut him a break and not give him the additinoal modifier for multiple counts (fifty different victims), so his final offense level is 16.

A completely clean defendant will still draw 21-27 months for a level 16 offense. 23 months seems about right. In fact, I think I could write a report that suggested a minimum of 70 months while still following the guidlines to the letter.

No.

The plea was to count one of the indictment (http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:hNWOwyT0ZS8J:assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070717/vick_indictment.pdf+michael+vick+indictment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) charging "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities" under 18 USC 1952. This carries a statutory maximum of five years (60 months... so the report for 70 months...) This also makes the proper SG section 2E1.2. 2E1.1 would be 18 USC 1962-1963. So that speculation is baseless, and you don't have to "cut him a break" to start at 12.

The agreement starts with a base of 12 with a stipulation to base 15 because of the violence and an agreement that a base 12 was too small. They then agreed to the acceptance of responsibility which made it a 13. Ergo the 12-18 months. The judge denied the the acceptance of responsibility which made it a 15. The range is now 18-24. 23 is on the upper end of that. This was because the judge didn't care for Vick's behavior.

Based solely on the plea agreement (http://media.gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/20070824/vickplea.pdf) the max is 18 months.

[Suddenly]

The prosecutor has no authority to bind the judge w.r.t. what is a "proper disposition." If Vick relied upon what the prosecution offered, then his lawyer is incompetent. Especially since every newspaper article since the story broke has not missed that point. The prosecutor recommends a disposition, but the judge is the one who makes the call.


I never said it was binding, just that the sentence went beyond the plea agreement.





Yes. That's called doing his job..

Never said it wasn't. I just disagree with his findings and think he is a typical 4th circuit punishment happy troglodyte.
And that one's even specifically supported in the guidelines.

Of course.



In particular, he...

I know, I know.

The text of the agreement contemplated 18 months. Yes, the judge went above that. No, I never said he lacked that power, yes I think he's wrong to do so.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

In particular, he lied to the prosecutors about his role in the operation (specifically, trying to avoid the four-point organizer/leader hit I described above). That almost certainly qualifies as "providing materially false information to a probation officer in respect to a presentence or other investigation for the court," which is specifically named in §3C1.1 as obstruction. It also qualifies as "falsely denying any additional relevant conduct for which he is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)," which is a necessary precondition under the application note above. It is specifically mentioned that such conduct "ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct." (§3E1.1, note 4).

Furthermore, the guidelines specifically empower the judge to make such calls and give him wide latitude-- Note 5: "he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review."


I'm sure it also didn't help that, along with everything else, Vick then went and tested positive for smoking Marijuana while awaiting sentencing. His lawyer got stuck with the rather unenviable task of attempting to explain to the judge that Vick's smoking pot while already in trouble for another crime was a form of "self-medicating."

[timhau]

I'm sure it also didn't help that, along with everything else, Vick then went and tested positive for smoking Marijuana while awaiting sentencing. His lawyer got stuck with the rather unenviable task of attempting to explain to the judge that Vick's smoking pot while already in trouble for another crime was a form of "self-medicating."

Actually, given how long traces of pot stay in your system, it's not certain that he smoked while waiting for sentencing. According to wikipedia, he pleaded guilty in late August, and the positive test is from Sept. 13th.