GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
I will say this, it is rather amusing the drug search at the house, the intial problem, has been overshadowed if not totally forgotten.
NAACP: Vick Shouldn't Be Banned
- Thread starter H.Cornerstone
- Start date
[quote name='pittpizza']I didnt know you wanted to completely remove the IS (law/life lessons) from this conversation and completemove it to OUGHT (the moral context).
So why can one think Vick ought to be punished for dogfighting/killing/torturing dogs when they will eat cows/chickens/whatever? The answer is simple, (and for the sake of consisistency I will go ahead and call you obtuse since you can't see it) DOGS are PETS, at least to us. They provide companionship, entertainment, and many other emotional functions wheras cows and chickens provide...Food. Why?[/quote]
Obviously you don't know what obtuse means, so we'll skip past that so you can look it up. So, dogs are protected animals because they stay with us and make us feel good and chickens are just to provide food. That's a horrible argument for consistency.
So dogs are ingratiated with right to life because they can roll over for a potato chip and chickens just taste good. Boy, you're really onto something here. A downright bastion of platitudes and moral certainty. Forget looking up obtuse, just look in the mirror.
Save your cultural arguments and your personal preferences for someone who thinks they add up to something palpable. If you want to make the argument that cultural norms should rule our behavior and morality, then translate this onto the gay marriage argument. Transitively, by your logic, since the majority of people believe that gay marriage should be banned, our cultural leanings dictate it should become law. After all we all agree that chickens don't deserve the privileges of life that belong to dogs. Because even though they are both animals, and we are all humans, one group gets different treatment because of how they make us feel and what they can do for us as a culture.
Your rationale isn't one. Try again.
Why should we bother making laws prohibiting the "torture" of dogs yet not bother about the killing of spiders or chipmunks. If someone wanted to torture MY dog, that's another story altogether, but his own property? It's none of my business.
So why can one think Vick ought to be punished for dogfighting/killing/torturing dogs when they will eat cows/chickens/whatever? The answer is simple, (and for the sake of consisistency I will go ahead and call you obtuse since you can't see it) DOGS are PETS, at least to us. They provide companionship, entertainment, and many other emotional functions wheras cows and chickens provide...Food. Why?[/quote]
Obviously you don't know what obtuse means, so we'll skip past that so you can look it up. So, dogs are protected animals because they stay with us and make us feel good and chickens are just to provide food. That's a horrible argument for consistency.
So dogs are ingratiated with right to life because they can roll over for a potato chip and chickens just taste good. Boy, you're really onto something here. A downright bastion of platitudes and moral certainty. Forget looking up obtuse, just look in the mirror.
Save your cultural arguments and your personal preferences for someone who thinks they add up to something palpable. If you want to make the argument that cultural norms should rule our behavior and morality, then translate this onto the gay marriage argument. Transitively, by your logic, since the majority of people believe that gay marriage should be banned, our cultural leanings dictate it should become law. After all we all agree that chickens don't deserve the privileges of life that belong to dogs. Because even though they are both animals, and we are all humans, one group gets different treatment because of how they make us feel and what they can do for us as a culture.
Your rationale isn't one. Try again.
Why should we bother making laws prohibiting the "torture" of dogs yet not bother about the killing of spiders or chipmunks. If someone wanted to torture MY dog, that's another story altogether, but his own property? It's none of my business.
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I will say this, it is rather amusing the drug search at the house, the intial problem, has been overshadowed if not totally forgotten.[/QUOTE]
Well, smoking pot and viciously killing helpless animals because they didn't fight good enough aren't exactly the same thing.
Well, smoking pot and viciously killing helpless animals because they didn't fight good enough aren't exactly the same thing.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']Obviously you don't know what obtuse means, so we'll skip past that so you can look it up. So, dogs are protected animals because they stay with us and make us feel good and chickens are just to provide food. That's a horrible argument for consistency.
So dogs are ingratiated with right to life because they can roll over for a potato chip and chickens just taste good. Boy, you're really onto something here. A downright bastion of platitudes and moral certainty. Forget looking up obtuse, just look in the mirror.
Save your cultural arguments and your personal preferences for someone who thinks they add up to something palpable. If you want to make the argument that cultural norms should rule our behavior and morality, then translate this onto the gay marriage argument. Transitively, by your logic, since the majority of people believe that gay marriage should be banned, our cultural leanings dictate it should become law. After all we all agree that chickens don't deserve the privileges of life that belong to dogs. Because even though they are both animals, and we are all humans, one group gets different treatment because of how they make us feel and what they can do for us as a culture.
Your rationale isn't one. Try again.
Why should we bother making laws prohibiting the "torture" of dogs yet not bother about the killing of spiders or chipmunks. If someone wanted to torture MY dog, that's another story altogether, but his own property? It's none of my business.[/QUOTE]
I can't figure out if you're really that stupid, or if you are just being an ass. We are not talking about a right to life here, we are just talking about the right to be free from torture. I would get behind a law preventing the torture of chickens or any other animal if the impetus of the enterprise was only torture. Fortunately (I love chicken!) there is ton of utility in chickens none of which involves torturing them.
BTW, I dont know where you think I asserted that there is consistency in our treatment of animals. Obviously people treat their animals differently. Actually if you had read my post with just a modicum of reading comprehension you would see that I was never attempting to prove or rationalize consistency, I was merely explaining the "is" while you blathered on about the "ought" of moral consistency. Again I wish you would spend less time telling everyone how obtuse they are and fill me in on what exactly your beef is with people treating different animals differently, especially where there is so much variation in their uses and utility to humans, whether they be food or companionship or (hopefully not...) both. Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter? What rights if any do you think animals should have; how about just to be free from torture? Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them?
So dogs are ingratiated with right to life because they can roll over for a potato chip and chickens just taste good. Boy, you're really onto something here. A downright bastion of platitudes and moral certainty. Forget looking up obtuse, just look in the mirror.
Save your cultural arguments and your personal preferences for someone who thinks they add up to something palpable. If you want to make the argument that cultural norms should rule our behavior and morality, then translate this onto the gay marriage argument. Transitively, by your logic, since the majority of people believe that gay marriage should be banned, our cultural leanings dictate it should become law. After all we all agree that chickens don't deserve the privileges of life that belong to dogs. Because even though they are both animals, and we are all humans, one group gets different treatment because of how they make us feel and what they can do for us as a culture.
Your rationale isn't one. Try again.
Why should we bother making laws prohibiting the "torture" of dogs yet not bother about the killing of spiders or chipmunks. If someone wanted to torture MY dog, that's another story altogether, but his own property? It's none of my business.[/QUOTE]
I can't figure out if you're really that stupid, or if you are just being an ass. We are not talking about a right to life here, we are just talking about the right to be free from torture. I would get behind a law preventing the torture of chickens or any other animal if the impetus of the enterprise was only torture. Fortunately (I love chicken!) there is ton of utility in chickens none of which involves torturing them.
BTW, I dont know where you think I asserted that there is consistency in our treatment of animals. Obviously people treat their animals differently. Actually if you had read my post with just a modicum of reading comprehension you would see that I was never attempting to prove or rationalize consistency, I was merely explaining the "is" while you blathered on about the "ought" of moral consistency. Again I wish you would spend less time telling everyone how obtuse they are and fill me in on what exactly your beef is with people treating different animals differently, especially where there is so much variation in their uses and utility to humans, whether they be food or companionship or (hopefully not...) both. Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter? What rights if any do you think animals should have; how about just to be free from torture? Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I will say this, it is rather amusing the drug search at the house, the intial problem, has been overshadowed if not totally forgotten.[/quote]
As if that wasn't just an excuse to check out the dogs in the first place...
As if that wasn't just an excuse to check out the dogs in the first place...
[quote name='pittpizza']I can't figure out if you're really that stupid, or if you are just being an ass. We are not talking about a right to life here, we are just talking about the right to be free from torture. I would get behind a law preventing the torture of chickens or any other animal if the impetus of the enterprise was only torture. Fortunately (I love chicken!) there is ton of utility in chickens none of which involves torturing them. [/quote]
You've obviously never been to a chicken farm or a cattle slaughterhouse. Some would say that the mere raising of animals is tantamount to torture. And we ARE talking about a right to life here. We're asking if Dogs get to have a right to life, or if people get to have a right to property. For a lawyer-to-be, you're pretty dense.
You seem to be the one with a reading comprehension deficiency. I would expect more from a lawyer-to-be. Of course you didn't assert any consistency, that was why I was faulting you. Your rationalization was how useful the animal was or how good they tasted to determine whether or not they receive freedom, or freedom from torture if you prefer. You are the one who cannot exact criteria for inconsistent treatment of animals, save a vague notion of emotional attachment to certain animals over others based upon how they make you feel. This perfectly defines obtuseness, being so unconditionally inexact even you can't recognize it.
You've obviously never been to a chicken farm or a cattle slaughterhouse. Some would say that the mere raising of animals is tantamount to torture. And we ARE talking about a right to life here. We're asking if Dogs get to have a right to life, or if people get to have a right to property. For a lawyer-to-be, you're pretty dense.
You seem to be the one with a reading comprehension deficiency. I would expect more from a lawyer-to-be. Of course you didn't assert any consistency, that was why I was faulting you. Your rationalization was how useful the animal was or how good they tasted to determine whether or not they receive freedom, or freedom from torture if you prefer. You are the one who cannot exact criteria for inconsistent treatment of animals, save a vague notion of emotional attachment to certain animals over others based upon how they make you feel. This perfectly defines obtuseness, being so unconditionally inexact even you can't recognize it.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
I have been to a slaughterhouse. They have a bolt-gun type thing that they put square between the cow's forehead and pull the trigger and it shoots them right in the brain and they die instantly. (This was probably 8-10 yrs ago). They don't make the cows fight or drown them. You probably think I am lying since most people have never been to a slaughterhouse so I will explain why I have breifly: Basically I grew up in central Pennsylvania (which I lovingly refer to as Pennsyltucky because its so hickish) where my uncle raised his own cows. He used to have horses so he has a stable and a chunk of fenced in land. True, this was probably much more humane than the way exremely large beef farmers do but I have been to a slaughterhouse.
You may be talking about a right to life; but I and apparently the rest of the people on this board have been talking about the right to be free from torture, or forced fighting, or whatever it is you want to call what Vick was doing. Remember that this was the context of our discussion.
I never asserted consistency b/c I am not arguing it. I have been trying to help you understand why it exists. There are many factors at play here including apparently silly ones: cute and fluffiness/cultural affinities and not so silly ones: utility for consumption.
I would really appreciate it if you spent less time w/ the ad hom insults and answered some of my questions, which I have asked you repeatedly and will do so again: Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter? What rights if any do you think animals should have; how about just to be free from torture? Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them? What is your problem with the inconsistent treatment of animals when there is so much variation in the animals and thier uses?
You may be talking about a right to life; but I and apparently the rest of the people on this board have been talking about the right to be free from torture, or forced fighting, or whatever it is you want to call what Vick was doing. Remember that this was the context of our discussion.
I never asserted consistency b/c I am not arguing it. I have been trying to help you understand why it exists. There are many factors at play here including apparently silly ones: cute and fluffiness/cultural affinities and not so silly ones: utility for consumption.
I would really appreciate it if you spent less time w/ the ad hom insults and answered some of my questions, which I have asked you repeatedly and will do so again: Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter? What rights if any do you think animals should have; how about just to be free from torture? Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them? What is your problem with the inconsistent treatment of animals when there is so much variation in the animals and thier uses?
Pitt, perhaps I've been a bit harsh with you. If any offense was taken, I do apologize. When my reading comprehension is questioned by someone who gets lost in his own postings, feels the need to overly explain himself to the point of tedium, I tend to be over zealous with insulting replies.
Let me reiterate my thoughts to your questions since you have not been able to decipher my failed metaphors:
Animals do not have rights, they are property. We should not punish people for destroying their own property. No, I don't believe in torturing dogs, but I also don't believe in taking away another human being's right to his own property. Give me a valid and coherent argument for making animals at par with humans and our unalienable rights and I may think differently.
An animals potential use for food or entertainment or cultural value is not a valid basis for granting a protection of a right to life to some over others. Dogs would make good fur coats - would that invalidate their right to be "free"? Why should a cat be allowed to live a long happy life and a cow be murdered with a stiletto ? Doesn't the cow have an equally valid petition to be "free" to live her life as she sees fit? And, logically, should we allow homeless people, or lawyers, to be eaten because they have no cultural, economic, or redeeming value to our society ?
Ridiculous to eat people you say? Not hardly. When your morally relativistic stance is based upon circumstance and practical value instead of principle, all bets are off - you have no basis for making a decision save your tickling fancy or the intimidation of the mob. Homeless people taste good, try some.
Let me reiterate my thoughts to your questions since you have not been able to decipher my failed metaphors:
Animals do not have rights, they are property. We should not punish people for destroying their own property. No, I don't believe in torturing dogs, but I also don't believe in taking away another human being's right to his own property. Give me a valid and coherent argument for making animals at par with humans and our unalienable rights and I may think differently.
An animals potential use for food or entertainment or cultural value is not a valid basis for granting a protection of a right to life to some over others. Dogs would make good fur coats - would that invalidate their right to be "free"? Why should a cat be allowed to live a long happy life and a cow be murdered with a stiletto ? Doesn't the cow have an equally valid petition to be "free" to live her life as she sees fit? And, logically, should we allow homeless people, or lawyers, to be eaten because they have no cultural, economic, or redeeming value to our society ?
Ridiculous to eat people you say? Not hardly. When your morally relativistic stance is based upon circumstance and practical value instead of principle, all bets are off - you have no basis for making a decision save your tickling fancy or the intimidation of the mob. Homeless people taste good, try some.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
How about a moral stance agaisnt torture, isn't that built on principle. Namely the principle that torture (of any kind, whether its your personal property or not) is inhumane and wrong.
Stop talking about a right to life, I never said animals have the same rights as humans, that ridiculous. Shit some humans can even have their right to life taken away from them. I am and always have been talking about a right to be free from torture.
I am going to number the questions I don't think you've answered.
1. Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter?
2. Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them?
3. What is your problem with the inconsistent treatment of animals when there is so much variation in the animals and thier uses?
Ill try to answer your questions: "Dogs would make good fur coats - would that invalidate their right to be "free"?" I never said dogs had a right to be "free" and I don't think they have this right. Why should a cat be allowed to live a long happy life and a cow be murdered with a stiletto? Because in America most people eat cows and not cats. The ones that do eat cats are allowed to do so. I also think you need to take a look at your definition of "murder". Doesn't the cow have an equally valid petition to be "free" to live her life as she sees fit? Nobody ever said that every animal has a right ot be free to live thier life as they see fit, on the contrary most people think we can and should use animals to our benefit, but that torture is inhumane and wrong. And, logically, should we allow homeless people, or lawyers, to be eaten because they have no cultural, economic, or redeeming value to our society? Shakespeare thought so about lawyers at least. Don't know how popular cannibalism is where you're at, in Pittsburgh we prefer fries. This is not a logical comparison because this discussion is about animals, not humans. (Spare me the semantic "humans are in the animal kingdom!" crap.)
This is more of a anti-torture than pro-animal rights point.
Stop talking about a right to life, I never said animals have the same rights as humans, that ridiculous. Shit some humans can even have their right to life taken away from them. I am and always have been talking about a right to be free from torture.
I am going to number the questions I don't think you've answered.
1. Why is it bad to punish people for torturing dogs or any other animal for that matter?
2. Do you think people should be allowed to torture all animals so long as they own them?
3. What is your problem with the inconsistent treatment of animals when there is so much variation in the animals and thier uses?
Ill try to answer your questions: "Dogs would make good fur coats - would that invalidate their right to be "free"?" I never said dogs had a right to be "free" and I don't think they have this right. Why should a cat be allowed to live a long happy life and a cow be murdered with a stiletto? Because in America most people eat cows and not cats. The ones that do eat cats are allowed to do so. I also think you need to take a look at your definition of "murder". Doesn't the cow have an equally valid petition to be "free" to live her life as she sees fit? Nobody ever said that every animal has a right ot be free to live thier life as they see fit, on the contrary most people think we can and should use animals to our benefit, but that torture is inhumane and wrong. And, logically, should we allow homeless people, or lawyers, to be eaten because they have no cultural, economic, or redeeming value to our society? Shakespeare thought so about lawyers at least. Don't know how popular cannibalism is where you're at, in Pittsburgh we prefer fries. This is not a logical comparison because this discussion is about animals, not humans. (Spare me the semantic "humans are in the animal kingdom!" crap.)
This is more of a anti-torture than pro-animal rights point.
MemphisGun
CAGiversary!
Screqw that, if i can go to jail for tha he should go too and be suspended for life. 25 yrs to life! not for abusing dogs, for shitty passing!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='evanft']Well, smoking pot and viciously killing helpless animals because they didn't fight good enough aren't exactly the same thing.[/quote]
Yeah, but the drugs were the reason they were at the house in the first place. I don't know if they were investigating drug dealing or merely posession, but if it was drug dealing that brings more potential harm to a community than dog fighting ever could.
Yeah, but the drugs were the reason they were at the house in the first place. I don't know if they were investigating drug dealing or merely posession, but if it was drug dealing that brings more potential harm to a community than dog fighting ever could.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Yeah, but the drugs were the reason they were at the house in the first place. I don't know if they were investigating drug dealing or merely posession, but if it was drug dealing that brings more potential harm to a community than dog fighting ever could.[/quote]
Drug dealing...
which makes the NAACP stance all the more ridiculous.
Drug dealing...
which makes the NAACP stance all the more ridiculous.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
I personally have no problem whatsoever with drug dealing. At least not if it is just a little pot. Weed never hurt anybody. Shit I wish more dogfighters would puff some cheeb so they would get off of their feet and onto their asses and just chill and play some Bioshock or Metroid and post on CAG instead.
[quote name='camoor']Drug dealing...
which makes the NAACP stance all the more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Which has always been (at least in recent memory), one of the knocks against that organization. They'll take up arms for anyone who's black, simply because they're black and irregardless of any extenuating (spelling!) circumstances.
I have no doubt that there are African Americans who have benefitted from the legal matters that the NAACP has handled, at the same time, a wise man picks and chooses his battles rather than rushing into all of them in the name of overcoming racism. Defending Vick in light of everything he's done (according to all manner of evidence collected and statements from Vick's friends) makes the NAACP look bad and will hurt their reputation in future affairs.
which makes the NAACP stance all the more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Which has always been (at least in recent memory), one of the knocks against that organization. They'll take up arms for anyone who's black, simply because they're black and irregardless of any extenuating (spelling!) circumstances.
I have no doubt that there are African Americans who have benefitted from the legal matters that the NAACP has handled, at the same time, a wise man picks and chooses his battles rather than rushing into all of them in the name of overcoming racism. Defending Vick in light of everything he's done (according to all manner of evidence collected and statements from Vick's friends) makes the NAACP look bad and will hurt their reputation in future affairs.
monkeydeew
Banned
mikey completed that class on preventing animal cruelty, step one towards correcting his life.
bread's done