Okay look, I get special interest groups and at times the need for them. However, if a situation involves a woman NOW and other groups don't immediately leap into action...unless it involves an issue of equality.

Just because a person is black doesn't mean organizations that focus on black interests need to get involved. Yet the NAACP (and other groups) seems to leap into play when it involves someone who is black, and famous even if the issue has nothing to do with the fact that they're black.

Latest example? Michael Vick. Look, I don't follow sports, I couldn't have told you who this guy was prior to the dog fighting story. You want to know what the first thing *I* noticed about him was? That he was an NFL player, that he made lots of money (not all of them do), and that he was apparently a pretty horrible person if the charges against him were true.

I didn't know he was black, because the first article I read about him had no picture.

When I saw what he looked like, nothing changed. So what. There was no surprise or lack of surprise. Now if his name had been Sean Patrick O'Toole and he had been asian...sure I'd have been shocked, after all I don't think there are any asians in the NFL. My real point though is that when people reach a certain level of money, status and celebrity, they really enter a world that transgresses skin color. Their lives are often nothing like any 'average' person's anymore regardless of skin color. The experiences and circumstances which then shape their lives are so unique as to really form a completely different group of people. Those that have the most trouble adapting to it are the ones who seem to ignore it and attempt to live in the same manner as before, or those who surround themselves with the sycophants and hanger-ons which glom onto such people like a lamprey.

So, why the fuck is the NAACP even involved? Well, I don't know. I guess because he's black, that's really the only reason I can see.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/22/vick/index.html?iref=topnews]
Here's their statement.[/url]



Okay again: I DO NOT WATCH FOOTBALL (other than the Eagles games at my Grandpop's house because it's mandatory when you live that close to Philly.) I understand the game a little bit, but I'm not a fan. So take my comments with that grain of salt. But I do understand sports, I played them for years. I was involved in several sports leagues, including a traveling team at one time. I *get* sports.

If the sole purpose of a sport was how good a player was...the teams I was on would have been very different. There were people who got cut not because they didn't play well...but because they weren't part of the 'team'. There were also players who weren't the best, but fostered an extremely good and important team morale. Any 'team' sport is about more than skill.

Paid sports are also about more than skill. Everyone wants to see their teams win, certainly that's where the money is. But at the end of the day, in any league there's only one champion team. So, aside from winning they want their teams to do well. Yet even teams that don't do well have a loyal fan base. We also like rooting for those we feel are underdogs.

Players are celebrities. They personify the team, and they become a valued asset in their own right. I can't name every team Michael Jordan played for...but I can tell you who he is. I don't watch football as I've said, but I remember 'The 'Fridge', and the Bears team that was highly popular in my youth. I remember the 'Super Bowl Shuffle'.

So whether or not he deserves to lose his job over this is an issue. It's not just about his ability to play, which of course hasn't changed and wouldn't change even if he saved a schoolhouse full of kittens, or strangled a puppy. But his 'persona', and the image of the team is certainly affected by it. That's also part of his job, and it affects the entire league. The NFL and other sports groups have come under fire for allowing players to continue playing despite lengthy criminal records (or charges). Those issues affect the image of the sport, and clearly is going to be a consideration of whether or not he keeps his job.

I don't really like football. I root for the Eagles because my family loves them, and it feels like a piece of home. That's what will get me watching, or involved and that's probably quite a few people. I wouldn't want to wear my Eagles hat and shirt though if Vick was playing for them right now. Instead of my Grandpop and Uncle Joe and Uncle Bill yelling at the television or whooping...I'd have an image of someone callously murdering dogs.

Not something I'd want to think about.



I can't believe they actually had the balls to say this.



I can't believe they actually had the balls to say this either. Guess what, cockfighting is illegal too, and we eat chicken. Think about it.



Sure any other NFL person who's run dogfighting rings and killed dogs, etc. Oh wait, that's a rather exclusive club.

I guess the real question is how many convicts are in the NFL, and what are their crimes? Certainly someone who say...litters shouldn't be treated as harshly as a convicted rapist. Are there convicted rapists playing for the NFL? I don't know. I'd certainly hope not. What about murderers. Any murderers playing for the NFL? Again, I hope not. Someone who committed theft? Well...depends really. I have more sympathy for someone who at 15-ish was involved in crime and turned their lives around.

We're all suckers for stories of redemption. We all love the hard luck stories of someone born into lousy circumstances who might make some bad choices along the way, but through hard work and determination made something of themselves. We admire that more than the people who made something of themselves, but also had every opportunity practically handed to them along the way. We have more scorn for someone who fucks up having HAD all those opportunities than we do the person who never had them.

But we're talking about a grown man here. We're talking about a wealthy man. We're talking about a man who had opportunities that most people don't. He chose to involve himself in this. Whether it was for financial gain, or personal reasons, or simple enjoyment...or some combination thereof really doesn't matter. He made those choices knowing full well they were not legal choices. They're certainly not something viewed as moral choices either.

And while the NAACP might try to spin this a bit as our obsession with pets, specifically dogs (which we do have in this country) I'd again remind people that cockfighting is illegal. We don't glorify chickens or roosters. Hardly anyone keeps them as 'pets'. They're animals we primarily use for food, and we even use their names as terms of derision. We will call a callow coward a chicken. We will call someone full of themselves, a bit of a dandy who toots their own horn a preening rooster. I won't even get into the use of the word 'cock'.

Yet we find using such animals for malicious sport rephrensible. Cockfighting is illegal. It's perfectly acceptable to use the eggs of a chicken, to kill and eat chickens. We simply don't find making them suffer for our amusement moral.

It's sad to see one of the oldest civil rights organizations, an organization that fought against Jim Crow laws, that fought against lynchings...an organization that had such a tremendously positive impact on our society...become a group that's seen in the media defending the indefensible because the man who did it was black.

_________________

They have a fucking point. People commit murder every day, and NOTHING receives as much attention as Michael Vick has. The guy has a solid, legitimate point.

The analogies about animals being killed is correct too. Thousands of animals are killed illegally every day -- and yes -- it's just as inhumane as what Vick did, yes it goes unnoticed because they're not in a spotlight.

celebrities receive more attention than non-celebrities.

"minority" celebrities receive even more attention.

it's a fact of our media.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

It's exactly because he's famous is why he's being made an example. We cherish our pets especially cats and dogs. And to run a dog fighting ring is absolutely reprehensible. And he deserves to be punished for his crimes. The NAACP has no business trying to defend his actions. If a person would act so callously to an animal imagine how they treat their fellow human being.

OMGWTFIMUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After the uproar over Imus and wanting HIM fired...they've got to be shitting me.

6,000 word essays on the NAACP = lol

Pick your battles.

except they failed to address that the reason he might be banned for life from the NFL is the for gambling aspect of this enterprise.

but I'm sure they'll uproar and defend that too.


Draconi

I had totally forgotten that. Good point.

_________________

If you're trying to choke a dog to death with your bare hand you're one of 2 things. 1) A fucking moron. 2) One cruel mother fucker. Especially if you're a multi-millionaire football player, he's a fucking idiot in addition to #2, and it's going to cost him his career.

There are all kinds of instances of people caring more about animals then people, and yes, it's fucking stupid. But that's not what is going on here, there is ZERO excuse for his conduct. For fuck sakes, he's only going to get maybe a year and a half on his plea.

And when was the last fucking time someone with as big of a name as Michael Vick got charged with murder? If that shit happened it'd be just as publicized as this is, and quite frankly where the fuck do you even get off trying to make that point? Robert Blake anyone? And he hasn't even been a big name for a decade or more. Vick is getting his ass reamed in public because he's famous and he's enjoyed the life of being famous up till now, now it's biting him in the ass.

People get charged with all kinds of animal cruelty shit everyday, so don't even try to go there. The fact that not everyone who does it is caught does not negate his crime.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Well, I started to respond but then I read DarkOmen. Everything he said.

Phil Spector is on trial for murder right now...however being a music producer who co-wrote some of the most famous songs AND produced the music of some of the most famous artists (of his time and of all time) doesn't warrant the attention of the media like Vick. In the eyes of the public he's just another guilty white guy (like Blake). But yes, you're correct Steve.

Pete Rose got banned from Professional Baseball (and they removed his eligibility to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, a move that is still being fought to this day) and all he did was gamble on games while playing/managing for the Reds. He wasn't brought up on Federal Charges, all he did was gamble. Vick getting banned from Professional Football should be the last damned thing the NAACP has to worry about.

_________________

There has been at least one asian nfl player, Dat Nguyen. He was pretty cool but he got injured and is now an assistant coach.

Also, all NFL players make a lot of money. The minimum yearly salary for a rookie is $285,000 and it increases with experience. Practice squad players get $4700 a week, and are called up on occasion to replace an injured player. Michael Vick actually has the largest contract in the league, with $130 million over 10 years. He'll probably only see half of it though, if he ends up getting cut next spring (which is likely). He has also had multiple endorsement deals, but I'm too lazy to find details on them.

I'm not sure what the point is in getting upset over people or an organization acting as advocates for him. In both our justice system and popular society I think it fair that there be advocates for all sides of an issue. There is no heroism or righeousness in doing so, but it does preserve some measure of balance.

Well, there's Hines Ward, whose half-Korean, but gets identified as black just as Tiger Woods does. I would think he's been the most famous person in the NFL with some Asian blood in him. There was also a place-kicker that played for the Cardinals I believe who was Asian, who played college ball for UCLA. Also there are a ton of Samoans who play in the NFL, if you consider them Asian or not.

As for the NAACP, I'm with Droma, it's OK to be an advocate for your own group, but just realize it's hard to be taken seriously by others outside your group when your support is based on racial bias. Your opinion (or that of your group) has little credence when it cannot discern right from wrong, instead basing decisions solely on skin color. Unfortunately, I think the NAACP is only promoting racism with its positions, because it is making skin color the most important issue, not the crime.

Did you see one of those nappy headed ho'z is filing suit on Imus?

Which caused more damage, the incident itself of the media frenzy to follow?

And I'm sorry there is a special place in hell for people who intentionally drown anything, it's right next to the people who do that to other humans.

The guy is well to do, living the high life there is not excuse for him to do something so mindless.

It's just another race being brought in when it has nothing to do with it.

BTW I've not seen Sharpton/Jackson doing everything they can to stop the self-race-degrading lyrics like they said they would be... hrmm wonder why?

Anyone who tortures anyone/any living animal can die in hell imho.

Hopefully this Vick thing blows over for the NAACP so they can get back to protesting white lacrosse players for doing much, much less then Vick did.

You mean like, nothing illegal?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I think if Vick did anything like what he did to dogs to a human there would be a "similar uproar."

The NAACP merely demonstrates why it is irrelevant.

--J.D.

Weird break of idiom here for me... I agree with the NAACP and disagree with Tarot.

This case was used to set an example to wealthy BLACK atheletes because a very terrible trend has been happening. I think it was a necessary thing to do to single him out, punish him hard, but lets see how he behaves AFTER this. In the end, men/women are judged not on how they fall, but how they get back up. The reality is that Vick fell hard. But, when you are a 100 millionaire before you are 30, you feel invincible. When you feel invincible and have the cultural background that Vick had, you have the potential to fall much harder. Vick is hardly a victim, but there are cultural differences that are being displayed here which can't be ignored.

So, lets get off the soap box, and wait. Watch to see if Vick shows remorse on Monday. Lets see if he gets back up in a mature and respectful fashion. If he comes out of this and says, "Everybody loves Mike Vick" then condemn him.

I will tell you this. If OJ had taken responsibility for his actions, and was out of jail today, he would be world famous yet again instead of being infamous. If Pete Rose had initially taken responsibility, he would be in the hall of fame. While I get
the outrage of how soceity feels about this "sport" and I would never participate in treating animals this way, I think more is made of it in the greater scope of soceities ill's because it is an easy target.

_________________

It's always unfortunate when you see people incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. The fact that the public and the media has responded this way about Michael Vick really restores a little of my faith in humanity.

I'm not going to say the NAACP is complete trash, because I think they're useful in a number of areas(for anyone that has looked at many of the cases they've supported recently, the not-so-popular ones that don't make headlines, you probably know what I'm talking about). I know it's popular opinion, particularly among the uneducated, that the NAACP is merely a relic of the civil rights past and we don't need them anymore because we've moved on.

However, the guy who made those comments is a complete douche. The comparison between killing animals and dogfighting... you'd have to be a completely brainless moron to believe in that comparison. The most obvious difference is what these animals go through. Those who are hunted for sport and food are usually spared any longterm serious painful trauma. Dogfighting is nothing less than torture. Not only physically, but mentally as they are forced to constantly struggle painfully throughout their lives. The way dogs fight is extremely vicious, even by nature's standards. They are left with all sorts of painful injuries, and only for the amusement of humans. That's just wrong, any way you cut it.

If you believe this utter shit has any redeeming value, 100,000 years ago would like its neanderthal back.

You're jumping to an awfully big conclusion here by suggesting that people involved in or supporting this type of entertainment are unable to tell right from wrong. In the majority of cases, the facts indicate that the person does know the difference, they just don't care what society feels is acceptable or they feel that the rewards justify it. Or in some cases they just think that society's ideas of right and wrong are screwed, and abide by their own sense of right and wrong.

This is the kind of bullshit that gives the NAACP the problems and lack of credibility it has.

It's a stupid statement in pretty much every way.

But the bottom line to me is this. He's blind to the one distinction that makes this different from hunting. Regardless of whether you think they are morally the same, ONE IS ILLEGAL, the other is not. Idiot.

This woman has posted, to me, the most insightful and intelligent review of what has happened, why it's right and wrong, in relations to race.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ill/070821

Vick should go to jail, but he also should be given the CHANCE to rehabilitate his image.

_________________

Ok, I will play the devils advocate here - to a degree. First off, I think what happened with the dogs is a horrible, horrible thing. Secondly - I don't give a shit about the gambling - people gamble everyday - the reason this issue got everybody up in arms is because of the animals involved.

Now, that being said, as horrible as an act as it is, I believe he should be fired from the NFL - never allowed to return, but I do not think he should be jailed.

I think the NFL has the right to not be associated with such a scumbag.

As for seeing jail time - I disagree with this because the animals were his property. Not everybody values animal life they way I do, or the way you do. I would never ever ever think of doing such a thing to an animal under my care - however I do not believe everybody has to subscribe to my way of thinking.

Animals are not afforded the same rights as human beings. I think its deplorable that a person would treat an animal that way, but at the end of the day the animal is property - with no rights. He damaged his property and the property of other dog owners that consented to having their property compete.

I think this issue is amplified because of our love of dogs - I love dogs too, don't get me wrong. But what this man did was PROPERTY. I do not believe he should lose his freedom for any length of time because of that.

How many of you have known somebody who forgot to feed their fish and they died? Thats horrible - but they aren't cute and cuddly so nobody is calling the wrath of god down on them for it. If somebody forgets to feed their cat till they die - well you get a huge reaction out of that.

People will not hesitate to smash a spider or glue trap a mouse. These are animals. House Pets get a huge reaction out of people because we relate to them, but in fact, they are just animals.

This reminds of a conversation I had with an X of mine. I asked her if she believed that her dog would go to heaven when she died. She, of course said yes. Then I followed that up with "What about a spider you kill in the bath tub"? Does that have a "soul"? Can it find sanctuary in the kingdom of God?

Yes, I firmly believe that the mistreatment of helpless animals is one of the must disgusting things a human can do - especially an animal in our care. I could dig up a few threads about my stance on this - if you are in charge of an animal, it is your obligation to care for it.

I think that one person who used to post here, who will remain nameless since he is not here to defend himself, was a skuz for not looking after an animal in his care - HOWEVER I would never want to see him jailed for his negligence.

Human life and liberty is way more important than that of an animal. - Replace "Dog Fight" with "Fish Fighting" (a popular "sport" among college kids) - and see what kind of reaction you get from people.

I really gotta start proofreading before I hit submit =(

~Temporary segue~

Some of the Intarweb and media comments people have been making about the whole case really gets my goat. Like those saying, "Look at Whitey hunting deer and ducks and no one complains!" There is a vast difference between what licensed hunters do and an illegal dog fight ring. Hell, look at how cows get slaughtered for your steaks versus a deer hunt --- a well-shot deer, and that is something every ethical hunter aims for, will die as quickly if you puncture the vitals like you should.

I just hate how hunters get lumped into the "inhumane" animal killing arena. Most people (apparently 95% of the population) will just jump to knee-jerk conclusions of what it's like to hunt, have never been to hunter safety, and do not know what killing an animal as a legitimate, ethical hunter actually entails.

Now I'm not saying all hunters are like that --- there's some folks near us who regularly shine deer at night, and those are the type of people you'd love to hotline DNR on, as well as idiots who will take wild shots at ducks at distances they can't possibly get clean kills on --- but the stereotype of an ignorant hillbilly animal-abusing hunter doesn't fit most of us.

My answer to the frequent question, "How can you kill poor defenseless animals??" is: "Do you eat meat? At least I know the meat I'm eating lived better and died more humanely than your chicken or pork or beef."

~end segue~

Key word: justify. It might be an issue of semantics, but when they try to justify something they're probably trying to make it to be whatever "right" in their world is. In other words, they know difference and still do it: in that case, they're STILL doing what they believe is right, for them at least. The fact that they feel they have to justify it somehow with the "rewards" only compounds that they feel the ends justify the means.

In the case of their own sense of right and wrong: Morality is, of course, subjective. But we can make some reasonable suggestions at least without declaring them as fact either. Their sense of right and wrong, if it includes the torture of animals, is in my opinion a very skewed version of right and wrong for the reasons I stated above.

Usually people like this will say: "Well, it's wrong BUT..." and end with a "it benefits me and in the end that is what is better for the world". Doing evil shit for no reason is extremely rare from what I've seen, usually people do things for REASONS, and often in the case of evil deeds it is about the ends justifying the means in some way, shape, or form.

My own personal opinion on this in general by the way(this part is not based on anything concrete), is that people who would do such things are raised in such a way that they have a severe lacking of compassion. When those who raised them lack compassion, it transfers over frighteningly well. Sadly, I think often this does not end with just animals or anything lesser, but humans as well.

Are you suggesting it should be the case that animals should be considered nothing but property and no rights should exist, or making a claim about the current situation? Because we do have laws against animal cruelty - it may be your property but you can't do whatever you want to it.

Not everyone values human life the way you or I do, so should we cancel human rights as well? What is the significant distinction you draw in NOT affording them rights? One is ok to subject to horrific pain and treatment and the other is not, why specifically?

Draagun, you might THINK that dogs should be considered property, and owners of said property should be able to do with them what they want, but the fact is that dogs are NOT treated the same as property by the law. And that's all that matters.

Having given you the logical argument, I'll say that you're a douchebag if you think that animals should even be considered property, held in the same regard as furniture or an automobile. They're not, and shouldn't.

Thanks for bringing the stupid people perspective to the thread.

I don't really agree with current laws regarding animal/owner rights (as I understand them). For example, if a farmer does not take care of his sheep and they die, he may be penalized under a subjective law saying "your negligence caused suffering". - He is already being punished financially for his negligence. He has harmed no person other than himself. Then you are going to take away his freedom because of the death of his property. If you can apply it to sheep, why not fish? What about mice - if say they are being bred for resale. Why is one animal rated higher than another?

Of course, in regards to humans, I don't feel that way - and humans aren't property. If my dog kills your kid, the dog gets killed and I will get in trouble - I am responsible. If my brother(or kid)kills your kid, I am not responsible.

I think the distinction for me is the belief that every man has a right to live unmolested by other men. Animals are not given that right... For example, Dolain molests animals daily. Seriously though we are always fucking with animals... And as cruel as the torture suffered by those poor dogs was at the hand of their owner - cruelty is subjective - others think hunting or killing for food is cruel. It is a compass in a person - I find moving from house to house or rearranging my furniture to be cruel to an animal in my care - not super cruel, but still not pleasant for the animal. This Vic guy - he would not find that to be the case. Everybody has a different idea of what a pet/animal is.

I love animals, and when I own an animal I do everything I can to provide the best life possible for that animal. But If I do happen to neglect it (for whatever reason) - I do not think I should lose my freedom - it's my property.

Actually, pets are treated as property by the law -- for the most part. Obviously, you can't be inhumane to an inanimate object like a car.

http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_property.htm
I didn't read this whole thing but part of it caught my attention -

You see how subjective this is, as far as what is considered to be "cruel". It is ALL a matter of opinion.

I believe in not subjecting animals to unnecessary cruelty - At the same time, I believe no man should be locked up for mistreating an animal that belongs to him.

And animals *are* property.

Orinthal James Simpson

He was even "innocent" and the NFL has nothing to do with him...

and remember - cockfighting was legal in Louisiana up until just recently - and bullfighting is HUGE around the world.

I'm not trying to be a douchebag, and I'm not intentionally trying to get a rise out of people - this is a hot topic - considering how many people are animal lovers - and like I said, I am too - and I think this Vic guy is f*ed in the head. But I just think we need to point out the hypocrisy here and put things in perspective as to what an animal is. We often give our animal friends human characteristics, and this really touched a nerve with a lot of people. But as I stated before, would we be going batshit crazy if they were fighting and betting on Fish? Scorpions? Snakes? Ferrets? Spiders? I just wanna say again for the record - I love dogs.

Ray Lewis was also charged with murder. He is still practically a poster boy for the league.

*does the Ray Lewis dance*

*murders you*

*does the Ray Lewis dance again*

My name is Adam "Pacman" Jones, and I'm a wrassler!

I agree with Draagun for the most part, attempting to give animals basic rights is hypochrisy at its finest.

The nation wants to give certain animals rights, but not other animals. You can't kick a dog, but you can lay out poison for mice. You can't kill a cat infestation, but you can sure as hell kill off a spider infestation. If you want to kill a chicken for dinner, it better be quick and painless; but if you want to get rid of your insect problem, it's ok to use whatever slow acting agent you wish.

You didn't provide a logical argument, you gave a simple fact. Unlike Draagun, I do believe that all creatures of kingdom animalia should be treated as property and nothing more, or as having rights and nothing less. One or the other, instead of this reactionary bullshit where we protect all things cute and tell everything we don't like to die slow, miserable deaths. Granted, I would personally prefer it if we just treated them like property, but I am willing to go with the other because inside of five years the entire nation would change their tune and go the complete other route.

Yes, because everything in life is black and white, right?

Homo sapiens is of the kingdom animalia. What's your current pricetag? I'm sure I can find a buyer.

NAACP head says Vick must account for actions
Associated Press

Updated: August 23, 2007, 2:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Falcons quarterback Michael Vick "is not a victim" and should be held responsible for his actions involving a dogfighting ring in Virginia, the national president of the NAACP said Thursday.


"He absolutely must account for what he has done," Dennis Courtland Hayes, interim president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said in an interview with The Associated Press. He had earlier given similar comments to NBC's "Today" show.

But Hayes cautioned against condemning the Atlanta star too quickly.

"It's real clear that Mr. Vick himself would acknowledge that he has made a mistake," Hayes said. "I think there is reason to believe in his redemption."

"While no dog deserves to be mistreated, the backdrop includes the perception among some African-Americans that the criminal justice system treats them like animals and that nobody seems willing to do anything about the disparity."
NAACP national president Dennis Courtland Hayes

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2988279

_________________

Obviously spiders aren't going to have much capacity to feel pain, I think that's a given. With mice, I think you have an issue there that is twofold: 1) A mouse/rat infestation can pose a very serious threat to humans in the form of disease, etc. and 2) They lack significant brain capacity. They obviously feel pain, but they seem to show fewer true signs of it than, for example, a cat or dog. Those two reasons *combined* is what makes it justifiable.

And good luck controlling an infestation like this without killing a few:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMxhc8WwGU

When we have larger, more significantly self-aware animals we often try to tranquilize them when they get too close to civilization and relocate them. Granted, many of these larger animals are essential to a struggling ecosystem and quite a few are probably close to extinct. And yea, we often shoot them too. But I think the fact that we make an effort not to always kill them unless we have to goes to show that we have at least some respect for the fact that they are self-aware animals capable of feeling pain.

I don't see any hypocrisy whatsoever though in giving an animal the basic right not to be tortured needlessly, or inhumane treatment in general. In what areas does humanity do that where it is a necessity in some way? I don't think there are too many double standards to draw from that one.

Every country that anyone happens to live in that is reading this board has a constitution guarateeing basic human rights. Obviously the constitution trumps federal or state law (or as I would prefer, a lack of law), therefore humans would be excluded automatically. My apologies for not spelling out what I felt was obvious.

And if we had specific guidelines like such and such animal must be capable of some measureable amount brain activity, or capable of feeling a measurable amount of pain, I would have much less problem with our current methods. Currently we do not, it is handled on a purely emotional basis from everything that I've seen.

I don't disagree.

It's not really about the killing of the animals, we kill animals all the time including cats and dogs (put to sleep daily). However I would look much differently at Venen if he told me that instead of stepping on that spider he found in his bed last night he told me he took that spider pulled it's legs off one by one, poked it a few times with a knife, popped one of it's eyes out then slit it down the middle and watched it die slowly for the fun of it. Have a animal fight for it's life to the death and enjoying that makes me wonder about the state of your mental health.

That's what makes this whole story so sad for me that someone took pleasure in this. As far the attention he's getting, hello? are we new here it's been known for sometime now that if you put yourself in the spotlight (actors, sports figures, politicians) you will be held accountable in that light. I'm not sure if he should go the jail or not the animal lover in me says YES, but I do think the reasons behind why he found pleasure in this should at least be explored.

Venen:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=119

Simc:
What if he only pulled off one leg and felt a mild sense of satisfaction? Do you see what I am trying to say - torture to you is par for the course for another. Everybody judges cruelty towards animals differently because we all have different ideas of what cruelty is and what animals are. It is the subjective nature of the law and the loss of liberty of a Man who harms his property that I disagree with. When we lock up a man for a year, you are saying that mans life for that year is less important than an animals life. I do not agree with that. Man>Animal.

Now, you and I would think Venen was a sicko if he did that to a spider - but we wouldn't be calling the cops. But if he did it to a cat? - YIKES.

Some people just do not place value on animal life. Some people (most of the US) only place value on certain animals - Dogs, Cats - things of that nature. Some people want to place too much value on animal life (Cats are Companions, not Property). There is a broad spectrum out there of our value of animal life.

No Rights ----------------Some Rights----------------Human Rights
Vic-----------------------me and you------------------P.E.T.A

I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle. I could be in favor of say -fines being levied - or in this case since he lost his multi-million dollar career - that should be sufficient. - However going to jail and losing his freedom is something I do not agree with.

I want to see less government (law enforcement) involvement in peoples lives - not more. This is a prime example of the government stepping in and telling a Man what he can and can not do with his property.

Well as far as the one leg thing, I would still find it troubling that he would cause pain to another living thing just to see if it gave him pleasure. It's not about a spider or a cat (I will say yes I would be more upset if he pulled the cats leg off more because I would hear the cats pain from its cries my hearing is not good enough to hear a spider cry in pain) so I guess I have bigger problem when I can hear the pain that we cause by our actions, so to me if we must kill and lets face it we are the top of the food chain then do it quick and with as little suffering as possible to the animal in questions, as most do with spiders I'm not touching mice and such since I think they should be treated the same fast as possible if you must.

It still comes back to the causing another pain for your own pleasure no matter what degree.

So as far as rights go, it should be about the degree of suffering caused and pitting any animal in a life and death struggle is wrong to me and if you think the dead dog is the one to feel bad about think about the suffering of the dog that won I'm sure he didn't come out without some serious injuries.

I don't know if I even have a point, but the various levels of regret we feel over killing/hurting animals carries over to our interactions with humans, too. As was mentioned, we feel worse about pulling a cats leg off because of the obvious pain we cause in the cat. It's sound and it's eyes cause us to find this more inhumane than pulling the leg off the spider who has very little obvious pain. The same is true for humanity in war. We work hard to find to dehumanize our opponents so that it seems "ok" to kill them. When possible, we kill from a distance so we don't see what we're doing. We avoid making relationships with the people we are going to kill deliberately so that we can do it with as little pangs of conscience as is possible.

I have no point really, just thinking out loud.

I agree, it is a terrible thing.

I think where this stems from with me is my belief in the rights of man. I believe a man should be able to pursue his happiness wherever it may be as long as it does not impede upon his fellow man. I also believe prostitution should be legal, as well as growing hemp on your property and doing whatever sort of drug you wish to do. I also categorically believe that smoking bans impeded on the rights of business owners.

It irritates me that the Govt. steps in and tells us what is good for us - Give me the choice as a person and let ME decide what is right for me. The Govt. takes away our liberty and feeds us cockamamie excuses why we should not be allowed to smoke pot in our home or pay a woman for sex. If some people in power had their way about it, they would also take away a womans right to choose.

These are not powers that should be given to the central Government. Ok - not to get off on a completely different rant - but I think it is important to show you where I am coming from - I don't want to derail the thread on "how prostitution increases health costs for everybody" - or any of that nonsense -

As previously stated, every man should be able to peruse their happiness as long as it does not impede another man.

And Fribur, I agree with you about War. Fuck animal rights - what about peoples rights. where is the People for the ethical treatment of people? It blows my mind that our govt. can go kill people, but if I go next door and punch my neighbor, I am going to go to jail

/offtopic on




This has nothing to do with why we kill from a distance in war. We do it from a distance so that WE have less of a chance of dying ourselves. I don't know about anyone else, but if it's a kill or be killed situation I'd rather take them out long before they ever got close enought to attempt to kill me.

/offtopic off

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... vick1.html

Read the indictment yourself, on a quick skim you can look at page 6 #17. Page 12 #53, page 17 #83. This is a pattern of shit that went on for years, he called the place Bad Newz Kennels, Vick is the last person to try to defend.

I can't say I much give a shit for mice and rats, they're pests, and I kill them on a regular basis to feed to my boa as well.

I grew up hunting and raising dogs, I don't have a problem killing animals, but it's done quickly and with as little pain as possible. Dog fights were something you tried to break up as quickly as possible, not something you cheer on, bet on, and encourage.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

For the time being, we really don't need to measure anything, even though we should take steps towards doing so more accurately - we still have a pretty good idea of which animals are self-aware and have the brain function to feel pain.

That being said, we don't need to know anyway. The bigger part of my point is that we have to kill those rats out of *necessity* for decent and healthy living. We need to kill spiders inside the home so they do not lay eggs and infest. Many cultures, though not always completely required, kill animals for food to sustain themselves. Killing for food, while it is not always out of necessity, usually has some sort of REASON attached besides just killing for shits and giggles. I don't like killing for sport much, but at least the food is usually eaten.

Even more importantly: what about the point I made about animal rights, torture etc.? Why would we need to know about brain function or anything else to not torture an animal? We have no need to do such out of any kind of necessity.

You said: "attempting to give animals basic rights is hypochrisy at its finest." What about not torturing ANY animal is hypocritical? Now, granted spiders/insects can probably be excluded from this category. I think we can at least agree that spiders probably don't feel pain. Rats and mice though? If you are intentionally torturing just for the fun of it, I'd say that goes without saying that can easily be an animal right without hypocricy. As far as poisons and such for counteracting infestations, I believe most rat poisons work fairly quickly though I could be wrong.



QFT, Simc =)



Not sure what you're getting at there. I agree completely that we should not torture pigs.

Kenyana, that's certainly true, but it's not the *only* reason. The reason I pointed out is also a factor.

We still employ snipers. While it's still technically ranged combat they see their faces and what they do to them.

I have to go with very inaccurate on this. We kill from a distance because it is more cost effective, and less risk intensive. Body bags take money to make, fill, ship and unload. Body bags are a black eye to your administration, especially when as per the norm, propaganda fuels your war effort.

Those that are specialized in killing from a distance are some of the coldest people you will ever meet in your life. If they have an ounce of conscience for their actions, then whoever gave them the training failed at their jobs. It is near a form, if not the purest form, of brain washing. It's not just hype printed on the back of a Splinter Cell game box.

Without establishing acceptable limits, we have no place where we can draw the line. This enables people to continue establishing guidelines based on their perceptions of these animals rather than facts (don't shoot bambi!).

Again, I don't disagree. But it makes no sense that we can kill a rat infestation for the safety of everyone involved, but we can't kill a cat infestation despite the fact that it also is a safety issue.

We don't, as long as it applies to all animals. But we can't arbitrarily decide which animals get protection, and which don't. If we are going to treat some animals different than others, then we need a firm guideline establishing who gets protection and who doesn't. Otherwise you get what we've had up until now, reactionary lawmaking in response to the anthropomorphising of animals.

Various poisons work at different speeds with varying levels of side effects during the process of dying. Most poisons that are available aren't exactly humane though, nor are mousetraps or the glue (the glue being the worst of all imo), because of this poisoning a mouse or rat is usually not different from torture. Pests can be killed humanely, but we are under no obligation to do so. Why is that ok, but poisoning a dog is not?

I read Givin's post and thought of the movie 'Jarhead'.

The NAACP perpetuates racism more than any other organization in existence because people want to take them seriously, but can't. They spotlight poor examples for the country to focus on with their outlandish claims of unjust treatment and hypocritical stances that trivialize real issues. Imus had no chance of redemption, yet we need to see if Vick is remorseful when he next speaks to the press before passing judgment on him. The NAACP is constantly crying wolf, and the sheep who are left suffering are the minorities that need real representation.

Being black isn't why I liked Vick when he first came into the NFL, and it’s certainly not the reason why I despise him now.

Scientific tests have already been done on many different animals, includin mice. In the cause of a mouse, I will agree it's hard to say how much pain they feel compared to say, a cat. It's hard to distinguish between the two, in which I would invoke my former point - that in these cases, we need to kill them out of necessity(which, yes, you agree with). But, you bring up the issue of cat infestations. In this case, I would argue that cat infestations are far more easy to deal with WITHOUT killing the animals, as there are usually far fewer cats involved than, for example a mouse or rat infestation. We usually deal with them as such, without killing them.

I don't see a double standard there. We still do it out of necessity.



We don't arbitrarily do it. We pick certain animals out of necessity for human life, and depending on the situation.



Necessity. Though I would insert that we shouldn't use slow-acting poisons unless we have no other choice to get rid of an infestation problem. The case of a slow-acting poison to fix infestation problems is the only case I can think of that could be considered cruel where we actually have a reason or need for it.

So animals cruelty rights seem relatively simple then, and the law could read vaguely as follows: You shall not torture an animal purposefully or willfully, or use cruel treatment thereof, unless there are no other options and a human's well-being and health is at stake.

I mean, we've killed mountain lions and other animals for the safety of humans when other options often have been exhausted. I think in most cases, even with the law as it currently stands, we would probably still allow the killing of dogs and cats in such a circumstance. I think there have probably been a few cases where a pit bull or a rottweiler have been killed out of necessity as well, and people weren't convicted of anything.

So I guess I'm still not seeing the double standard or hypocrisy. It's all mostly there in the current animal cruelty laws(varying state by state, of course).

This should actually read as: More animals are targeted more than others for obvious reasons. But I don't think any animal is completely free of being killed particularly out of a self-defense type situation. Heck, the same would be true of a human-on-human situation if the person was threatening a life with a gun.

Oh yea also:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/mi ... index.html

/CHEER