Drug probe leads to Vick property, discovery of ailing dogs

We can all argue the moral significance of a multitude of criminal acts and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you feel strongly about something you believe shouldn't be a crime, make efforts to have it decriminalized or move somewhere where it isn't a crime. However, if you go the extra step and actually commit the offense, don't cry when you get punished even if you feel what you did wasn't a crime to begin with. I don't know if Mike Vick is guilty of what people are alleging. If he is, he is going to have to deal with the consequences on all levels, criminal and otherwise. Thats kinda how it works.

 

If your dog catches it, and plays with it for a little while, and you live in a neighborhodd where it's frowned upon to shoot a gun right next to the street, is it considered humane to snap his neck to put him out of his misery?

 

A quick kill of any sort would be preferable than a long drawn out death. Anybody disagree?

 

Absolutely. As I have said before, if you don't like a law, change it. But until it is changed, obey it. We are a nation of laws.

 

I see your point that people feel for "cute" animals, dogs, otters, etc and not for animals we regard differently, cows, pigs, etc. Intelligence in the species is a factor but that is an oversimplification of the issue and not really what this is about.

I also see your point and fish could very well be suffering greatly when yanked out of the water, but there is no evidence to substantiate this and until there is, fishing will continue.

This seems to be a correlation but it's not. Cows and chickens suffering is a travesty to watch but nobody is laying $ down and enjoying the suffering of these animals per se. The money made is upon their death, not their suffering. We are eating them. When the industries and moralists can find a happy medium for the use of these animals for food and reducing their suffering during the butchering process, it will happen.

No purpose is served during dogfighting other than the suffering of the dog. There is no higher moral issue. It is not even the same as trophy hunting, as the design in that case is to kill the animal quickly, and not make it suffer.

Some people it just doesn't bother I suppose, but I am not one of them. Having seen both kinds of fights, I have to admit it is something I truly believe should be stopped. I think you either get this or you don't. I doubt people can be convinced.

 

Anyone involved with dogfighting should have his nuts cut off and fed to pigs.

And yes, I do value the life of my dogs over pretty much anyone else. People have choices, and if they are fighting it is usually the result of some poor choices.

The dogs have no choice. If I had to choose the life of a random stranger or my dogs, I would choose my dogs 100% of the time.

If we don't have rooms in prison for these people, then free some of the potheads and tax evaders. Summary execution of these people would work for me as well.

 

so this is a thought crime? enjoying the suffering? killing an animal is ok, but not if you enjoy it? perhaps these cretins should cry crocodile tears at the fights to pacify us.

i agree, but what i happen to think shouldnt always be the law (most of the time). what i do not like and what makes me sad or uncomfortable shouldnt necessarily determine the law.

i would probably like your dogs more than the average stranger as well. but again, our preferences are irrelevant. we have decided as a society that we can kill animals, dogs included, even if they are cute.


if we all decide as a society that it hurts our feelings to think that dogs are fighting, fine, i guess we can outlaw it, it doesnt matter that much to me. it does make me interested in my question from earlier, about how smart/cute an animal has to be before i can no longer let it fight. i am pretty sure you guys are gonna let me fight my fish, which i actually did enjoy watching, but i am might be on shaky ground if i let two antagonistic squirrels go at it.

maybe we shoudl allow dogs to fight, but only dogs that were at the pound and scheduled to be put down anyways. i mean, if i were a dog, and i was due a lethal injection for no reason other than nobody wanted me, i would rather fight it out and see if i could kill other dogs and make some people some money.

 

How do you extrapolate that? Killing a chicken or a cow for food has a different purpose than dogfighting. I have to actually explain this to an adult? If you think the suffering and inevitable death of dogs bred to fight each other for the purpose of gambling is the same as killing any animal for food or fur, than you simply won't get it.

Lots of three year olds enjoy burning ants and blowing up frogs with firecrackers because children are inherently narcissistic. If you find a grown man doing something like this,(enjoying the suffering of animals) in your neighborhood, you might consider moving. You can make it about how cute or intelligent the animal is but it isn't. It is about the purpose of the activity. Cruelty is the only purpose of dogfighting, it is not merely a byproduct.

 

It's ok, TheDude. Martin wasn't ever like the other boys growing up...

 

the religious right