Marbury proving he is one of the stupidest people alive

You can carry this to a ridiculous conclusion if you like, but there are checks and balances in our government designed to protect the citizens from unfair laws such as you suggest. Enough people believe that dogfighting is morally incorrect and believe they have a right to dictate that aspect of society. We are a bit more evolved socially than to think we will outlaw left handed people, though in my grandmother's day, that is exactly what happened. She had to write right handed. Obviously we got past that.

Here is a quote from one of my posts that you have not bothered to read:

You claim to be against torturing dogs but ask me to give you one reason why it is wrong morally as opposed to other animals. In my earlier threads, I made no distinction between dogs or other sentient organisms. I have answered this question, though you should be able to answer it for yourself.

 

Funny, a couple post ago, it was our "American Right" to impose our beliefs on others if we're the majority. Now, it's not.

I did read it it. And brought into question your feelings about other less appreciated animals.

Yes you did. In this post here, after I asked why is it legal to torture mice, but not dogs.

Because morally it's wrong to do it to dogs, but not morally wrong for mice.

 

The majority rules and checks and balances are not mutually exclusive. They work in conjunction in this country.

You can question how I feel about less appreciated animals but I clearly made no distinction between dogs and other animals if the sole purpose was to torture them.

Let me ask about your motivations. You claim that you are against torturing dogs. Why? Are you for a law prohibiting this? Why? If you are in favor of these two things, then with whom are you arguing? Not me. Martin is the one who believes that there is no moral distinction between hunting, killing cows, fighting fish, or dogfighting.

Do you agree with martin that there is no moral distinction for any circumstance where a human kills an animal? Do you agree that Americans have no right to decide that this is illegal on moral grounds and impose their will on others?

 

You would think that a guy like Marbury ,who went to college,would know that deers is not plural.I wonder if he uses mouses and gooses and mooses in his language arsenal.

I hate rats and mice like no other human being .If I would have had a mouse in my house like Martin had,I would not have been able to sleep until he was deceased.I will kill them by any means necessary.

My family hunts,although I don't.I simply don't have the patience to be a good hunter.But I love squirrel sauce piquant ,rabbit stew and venison.

I am a dog lover.I have a 90 lb. lab named Jake and there are a few streets in my neighborhood I avoid because someone has a pit bull chained to an obstacle in their yard.I can just picture the pit bull going nuts ,breaking the chain,and attacking my dog or me.I am not worried about any other dog breed.A german shepherd may bite me and it would hurt,obviously,but he would leave my body parts intact.Pit bull bites would require plastic surgery.

I am opposed to Dog fighting,and anyone caught should pay,including Vick.

But I think we need to euthanize all pit bulls used for fighting and sterilize all Pit bulls so as to eventually get rid of the entire breed.

Sounds harsh,but how manytimes have i heard a news story of a pet pit bull,who has been extremely docile its entire life ,suddenly killing the year old baby,or the family pit bull ,who suddenly attacks the neighbors eleven year old kid.

 

This is what happens when the issues are distorted in the interests of philosophical debates about governance.

I'm probably more pro individual liberty than anybody on this board, other than MAYBE martin. However, it's easy to lose our sense of responsibility for the wildflife that surrounds us. Sure, we kill animals to eat. Some people kill (hunt) animals for sport. Whether or not those actions are agreeable to our personal philosophies is relevant, but outside the scope of this discussion.

The fact of the matter is that we're talking about dog fighting AND AND AND the means of killing animals in a manner that involves torture. There's simply no slippery slope argument that lends itself to bringing in sport hunting comparisons (which I oppose, btw.)

Individual liberties aside, only the most naive among us would have trouble distinguishing between an animal that carries disease and those THAT WE CREATE on our own, like fighting dogs. And again, it's not like we're killing rats for sport. We're killing them to protect our own safety. Wild creatures are not managed in such a way as to ensure our own protection against infectious diseases.

Drawing a comparison is akin to saying we shouldn't protect our homes against termites or fire ants.

Of COURSE there's sentimentality with dogs. I also don't think the reaction would be entirely different if he was caught electrocuting buffalos for sport. Agree or not, most of us have in our ethos a belief that we should treat most, if not all (we're generally not Jains) creatures with a modicum of respect, which in turns furthers our own prosperity.

 

i dont think that. i think it is progressively worse to kill smarter animals. but i do not not mean in a worse in a legal sense, i mean in my personal opinion, which as i mentioned earlier, isnt really relevant. if you happen to think cows are more valuable than dogs (and billions of people think this), or dogs are for eatin, then that's your thing. we, as a society have already determined that killing animals by the billions is ok, even pigs and cows, which seem pretty charming to me.

right so why would you impose your personal philosophy about dogs on others?

i dunno, to me, dog hunting and taking a bow and arrow on a buck so you can chase his bloody ass through the woods and mount his head on your mantle are not that different. it would feel terrible if killed a big ass deer. i have killed rabbits before and it was horrible. but unlike you guys, i am willing to concede that i am a sheltered pussy and not try and stop you from doing your thing.

we should treat animals with respect. we also should call our moms more often and not cheat at golf. but i do not feel like it is my (our) place to enforce these rules.

i do not like when we use our power as a group to enforce morals on each other, even if i agree with the morals.

i remain firmly with ron mexico on this one.

 

people should and do have the right to dictate morals to me. it is immoral to steal, and i am happy to have that law forced upon everyone.

i did not say americans have no right to decide what is illegal. i am questioning whether they make the right decisions. if i told you i favored lower taxes, would you yell back "too bad jerkoff, the majority has decided and you are screwed! find your own damn utopia!". for the zillionth time, i am not questioning the sovereignty of the american people to self-rule. i am not saying we have no right to pass laws. i am asking if we should pass them. i cant believe you do not understand this. you keep pretending that something is just because we decided it is.

i am just wondering where we should draw the line. if i steal from you, i can see where you have been hurt. but if michael vick abuses dogs, i dunno how much that really hurts you or anyone else. it hurts the dogs, but dogs do not have rights.

i know that if we are all honest, we would argue that it does hurt us. it hurts our feelings. but i think we should refrain from enacting laws over hurt feelings.

no distinction? so i am just as guilty if i burn ants with a magnifying glass, or enjoy the fishfight i mentioned earlier?

 

Killing an animal for foo is different IMO. Us developing guns, cammo, & deer stands is about the same as a Tiger learning how to hide himself, punce on then over power it's prey. It's a part of nature.

However, if your sticking a firecracker up a frog @$$ just to watch the bastid struggle with life and die, your no better off than a thug who drowns a dog.

I'll ask you this one again. Roughly 75% of the country is a member of one christian religion or another. So it is basically against our morals to believe in any other savior/god. So should we just impose our will on others?

 

Religious freedom is one the foundations of our country and has nothing to do with the majority deciding that dogfighting is immoral and imposing their will by passing a law making it illegal. You are side stepping the issue and not answering the question. Do Americans have the right to impose their morals in regards to dogfighting and if so, why?

 

No, we do not have the right to impose our morals on anyone. I don't have to imploy the same morals as you do. I have to follow the same laws, but my morals are mine regardless of what any majority says.

Which is why I brought up the religion thing. Just cause the majority agrees with a certain way of thinking, doesn't mean we can force it on others.