Leave Michael Vick Alone...

[WillMagic]

Shoe Lace,

very true - i find the fact that they were bred to fight pretty irrelevant.

Honestly I don't like defending animal cruelty. As I've said, I think the act is disgusting and immoral.

But property rights are property rights.

[Shoe Lace]

I read your initial reply about property = property. I agree completely but I disagree on what should be considered property which is why I don't like the idea of dog fighting.

I'm not one of those "god created every living entity as equal being" or some animal rights activist but I don't think we (humans) have the right to pit animals together in a fight to the death for entertainment because those animals shouldn't be our property in the first place.

We have the ability to determine the fate of anything living on this planet. This however shouldn't give us the right to do whatever we want to anything that's not human.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
We have the ability to determine the fate of anything living on this planet. This however shouldn't give us the right to do whatever we want to anything that's not human.

[/ QUOTE ]

It gives us the right to do whatever we want to anything that's not human as long as it furthers our species. Dog fighting does more to detract from the species than further it.

[Shoe Lace]

[ QUOTE ]
It gives us the right to do whatever we want to anything that's not human as long as it furthers our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this falls pretty deep into a gray area. I don't see it as a direct right. It's more of a "well, we're at the top of the food chain. x must happen to y species in order for us to advance. What is going to stop us from NOT doing it?".

Meat is a good source of protein and for the most part it tastes good. We slaughter cows and other animals to tap into this resource. It's not our right to do this. We choose to because we can.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It gives us the right to do whatever we want to anything that's not human as long as it furthers our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this falls pretty deep into a gray area. I don't see it as a direct right. It's more of a "well, we're at the top of the food chain. x must happen to y species in order for us to advance. What is going to stop us from NOT doing it?".

Meat is a good source of protein and for the most part it tastes good. We slaughter cows and other animals to tap into this resource. It's not our right to do this. We choose to because we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we disagree, I think it clearly is our right to.

[Shoe Lace]

[ QUOTE ]
Then we disagree, I think it clearly is our right to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, no arguments here.

I'm curious though, since you included "not human" in your sentence what's your take on consuming human fetuses if it were scientifically proven to be abnormally more healthy than standard meat and we had the means of mass producing them (ie. it wouldn't be grown inside of a mother-to-be)?

Would you get disgusted to the point of almost wanting to wish me harm for even bringing it up or choose the fetus as a source of food without second guessing it?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Shoe Lace,

very true - i find the fact that they were bred to fight pretty irrelevant.

Honestly I don't like defending animal cruelty. As I've said, I think the act is disgusting and immoral.

But property rights are property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dogs aren't bricks. Dogs have feelings and bricks don't. Were the guys also electrocuting the losing dogs, as I read somewhere?

You may "own" a dog, but your "property" rights don't extend to the point of needless and gratuitous cruelty to any of God's living, feeling creatures, just for the sake of immature amusement. If you believe that property rights extend that far then you should have no objection if advanced space aliens were to take over the Earth and force you to box bareknuckle to a KO and then roast the losers over a slow fire. You're their property, right? If humans have that absolute an extent of property rights over a less advanced life form, then surely a more advanced life form should be able to own people without limitation on what they can do with - or to - them...right?

If the dogs had turned on the people instead of on each other and ripped them up pretty good -- say 200 stitches apiece -- I think it would have taught the immature and insensitive bastards a good and well-deserved lesson.

I must also say that it amazes me how even the ACists seem to be ideologues in their own fashion as well, to the extent of removing common sense or any degree of empathy for others if it conflicts one iota with their ideology-- in this case, the insistence on ABSOLUTE property rights? What's wrong with conditional property rights in certain cases, I'd like to know? And why can't you envision ownership of an animal that doesn't include the right to be sadistic to the creature?

I suppose it just gets my goat that some on this forum think property rights must include even that. Sometimes you have to choose between being an ideologue or being a human being.

I'm not terrribly opposed to killing animals for food, but I AM strongly opposed to treating aniumals with cruelty merely for gratuitous, sadistic pleasure. That's something kids might do before they develop a sense of empathy for other creatures and people. No one has the right to treat others - or other feeling creatures - with cruelty merely for the sake of cruelty: ownership or not.

Perhaps a better way to look at it, if you can't get your head around that, could be that the ownership of an animal is actually more of a custodianship than an absolute ownership. You may "own" the dog, but the dog also owns itself to some degree, and nothing you can do can completely remove that. The dog will make some decisions and do what it wants to do, on occasion. The dog and you share ownership of the dog, with your ownership being ultimately stronger but never absolute. When you own a brick you have absolute control over that brick, and the brick cannot feel or act on its own. When you own a dog you have partial control over that dog, and the dog can think, feel and act on its own.

So what I am saying is I think maybe you ought to rethink your definition of ownership, to allow for varying types of ownership, some conditional or limited, for certain things or situations. You already would accept the conditional ownership of a condo, conditional upon that you have to follow the rules of the homeowners' association, right? So if ownership of a piece of real estate can be conditional, why can't ownership of a dog be conditional as well?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that property rights extend that far then you should have no objection if advanced space aliens were to take over the Earth and force you to box bareknuckle to a KO and then roast the losers over a slow fire. You're their property, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Humans cannot be property. And perhaps we can extend rights to animals when they petition for them...

[ QUOTE ]
I must also say that it amazes me how even the ACists seem to be ideologues in their own fashion as well, to the extent of removing common sense or any degree of empathy for others if it conflicts one iota with their ideology

[/ QUOTE ]
I can feel sympathy for dogs who fight without feeling people who force dogs to fight need to be fined or jailed. In fact, wouldn't people be free to charge that ACists who think people who fight dogs should be jailed are hypocrits when it comes to property rights?

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a better way to look at it, if you can't get your head around that, could be that the ownership of an animal is actually more of a custodianship than an absolute ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides not liking people who do otherwise, why should we grant animals rights? Why do animals get rights but plants do not? And who is to decide when someone is "aggressing" against the animal?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then we disagree, I think it clearly is our right to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, no arguments here.

I'm curious though, since you included "not human" in your sentence what's your take on consuming human fetuses if it were scientifically proven to be abnormally more healthy than standard meat and we had the means of mass producing them (ie. it wouldn't be grown inside of a mother-to-be)?

Would you get disgusted to the point of almost wanting to wish me harm for even bringing it up or choose the fetus as a source of food without second guessing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the state of the fetus and whether there are other alternatives , not necessarily as healthy, but sufficient. A little less radical than "fetal cannibalsim" is growing fetuses for stem cells or other medical purposes, whether in vitro or in utero. My personal opinion is that a fetus isn't human until it has conscious thoughts, though I can understand arguments for different states determining "humanity".

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that property rights extend that far then you should have no objection if advanced space aliens were to take over the Earth and force you to box bareknuckle to a KO and then roast the losers over a slow fire. You're their property, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Humans cannot be property.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that might makes right when it comes to species, then you should have no objection if someday or some century, some more powerful species than humans, enslaves and tortures humans.

[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps we can extend rights to animals when they petition for them...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about positive rights, just the right of animals to not be tormented purely for the sake of sadistic glee.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must also say that it amazes me how even the ACists seem to be ideologues in their own fashion as well, to the extent of removing common sense or any degree of empathy for others if it conflicts one iota with their ideology

[/ QUOTE ]
I can feel sympathy for dogs who fight without feeling people who force dogs to fight need to be fined or jailed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people who force dogs to fight need to be fined or jailed; I just think they should be put into a pit, unarmed, against a very angry, hungry pit bull. GUARANTEED they'd never try that crap again.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, wouldn't people be free to charge that ACists who think people who fight dogs should be jailed are hypocrits when it comes to property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea, and I don't know what that matters.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a better way to look at it, if you can't get your head around that, could be that the ownership of an animal is actually more of a custodianship than an absolute ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides not liking people who do otherwise, why should we grant animals rights? Why do animals get rights but plants do not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals FEEL; plants don't. Animals don't get anything approaching human rights but they do deserve to not be tormented purely for sport.

[ QUOTE ]
And who is to decide when someone is "aggressing" against the animal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone with a lick of sense and decency who isn't blinded to basic compassion by a slavish adherence to some formulaic ideology.