The Mike Vick case... am I a life nit?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
1) people willing to treat animals in this manner are almost certainly willing to treat people in a similar fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this just something you made up, or do you have evidence to support this claim?

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but I don't believe in jailing people because they are "willing" to commit violence against other people. If a dog abuser moves up to people abuser, I'm all for locking him up. But not because he might do it.

[ QUOTE ]
You are talking about the blatant disregard for the right, feelings, etc of another living being.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I don't believe in "animal rights," and I explained why. Can you explain why you do? Lots of things are "living beings," but only humans have rights. If you want all "living beings" to have rights, then why aren't you outraged at the squashing of insects, cutting down of trees, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody gets upset with vets for painlessly putting a dog down. We are talking about electrocuting till dead, a living animal for no purpose other than it didn't fight well enough and someone with $100 million didn't want to pay $1 a day for food. this isn't "killing" a dog. This is torturing a dog until it's dead. There's a difference here. There would be outrage if he shot the dogs in the head...but the outrage would be much less simply because it's a quick, painless death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that torturing a dog is much worse than euthanizing it, and I've never said otherwise. Are you just making a strawman here?

[ QUOTE ]
2) If you decide which crimes are "important" and which crimes aren't, you are going down a slippery slope. there are unsolved murders in every major city. Do you propose that we pull every cop off of every street and have them work on the single unsolved murder because it's the worst crime possible? You can't simply ignore other crimes because you think there are other ones that are more important. I seriously doubt there are other federal crimes out there that they decided to not prosecute because they were devoting too much time to Michael Vick. You can't honestly believe the police in America can prevent all "pain" in humans as you put it by ignoring dogfighting?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is there a slippery slope? I just gave you a bright line. Prosecute crimes against people, not against animals.

[ QUOTE ]
3) With all due respect, you don't sound like a libertarian/government minalist. You sound like an anarchist. We the people of the United States as a democracy by an overwhelming majority i'm sure, do not condone dogfighting. Further we have seen fit to make it a criminal activity, generally a felony in every single state. Furthermore, it's also a federal crime. Since the will of the people is to criminalize these acts, the government did. If the overwhelming majority of America thought this was ok, there would be outrage in defense of Michael Vick. That isn't the case obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "it should be the law because it IS the law" argument is weak, as I've previously explained. I understand that Vick actually broke the law and I'm not arguing that he didn't. I'm arguing that the law should be different.

And, "most people agree with me so I'm right" is also weak. I could name any number of examples from American history where the majority opinion was hopelessly wrong. America is a republic, not a democracy, and the goal is to protect individual rights (of "persons," if you read the Constitution) against the majority/mob rules.

So the fact that most people think Vick deserves jail time is not a good argument that Vick deserves jail time, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe libertarians are more along the lines of "i'm doing something that doesn't hurt you or anyone else." Well dogfighting hurts dogs. Dogs are provided protection under our laws, therefore you can't participate in activities harmful to them. Libertarians aren't for dogfighting, they are for letting people gamble, go to strip clubs, watch porn, drink, etc. They aren't for animal torture. Surely you can see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for what other libertarians believe, but again, dogs are not people, and so therefore, "dogfighting hurts dogs" does not violate your made-up libertarian creed that "i'm doing something that doesn't hurt you or anyone else."

Libertarians think the government is way too big and that there are way too many laws, so again, "we have this law" is not convincing. There needs to be an independent reason for the law.

And so far, your reasoning seems to be that dogs are "living beings" (i.e., just like humans) and they deserve protection (just like humans). But I don't agree that they're just like humans, so your reasoning is not convincing to me.

[Anacardo]

I just want to say that the use of the term 'life nit' makes me want to slam OP up against a brick wall until he promises to never, ever use that combination of words again. This may in fact make ME a 'life nit,' so there's some sweet irony going there.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked WHY you would have pain receptors if they didn't work, not to hear once more that there is a theory that maybe they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was going to comment last time, but your use of "pain receptors" muddys the water.


The issue is this: lower animals have nociceptors. You're assuming they have "pain receptors", which is sort of assuming your conclusion. These receptors dont necessarily induce pain.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like a wasteful evolutionary development.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this:

- nociceptors develop early in our lineage... these are used to detect harmful stimuli... when one fires, the organism innately moves away from the environment

- as the brain grew within the lineage, the ability to process these messages differently allowed for "pain"


It appears you're thinking that the claim is that these animals have these "pain receptors" just sitting there, and arent feeling pain. Of course not. The higher organisms just have the brain power to take the message in the nerve cells found it lower organisms, and convert it to the feeling of pain. What was once the innate reaction to leave, has become the perceived feeling of pain. That doesnt mean that the innate reaction to leave is a waste.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, whatever happened to vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Umm... i was responding to the question "Why would animals have pain nerves if not for a reason? What reason is there to presume animals cannot feel pain?"

Do you presume invertebrates arent animals?

2. Ive never actually claimed fish DONT feel pain. I just said it was a debated question (which you said was a ridiculous claim, and one that I later proved correct. You seem to be saying now "well... it shouldnt be debated!!"

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think anyone would it is not possible for certain animals to feel pain. Making statements about another organisms experience is just about impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
So far, it seems your answers, while I'm sure well-intended, are unfolding along the line of "just because" or "it has been theorized," which kind of comes out to the equivalent of "go away kid, ya bother me." I'm just asking for a little more meat as opposed to flat denial.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're really all over the map on this subthread.


Recap:

- I claim that fish might not even be able to feel pain, that that claim is currently debated, but their ability to feel pain almost certainly doesnt allow for them to be tortured

- You say that my claim is ridiculous (specifically, that whether or not fish can feel pain is debated)

- I prove the claim

- You have no way to support your statement of it being "ridiculous", so you change the subject, saying you dislike the scientific definition of pain... you provide a counter determination mechanism that prevents testing of the question "does organism X feel pain?"

- You ask about why lower animals have nerves similar to those that perform a function in higher animals, if those lower dont experience that function (assuming, for some reason, that those similar nerves cant perform some alternate function)... I give a response



Whats interesting, is that I NEVER CLAIMED THEY WERE RIGHT... I SIMPLY CLAIMED IT WAS DEBATED . If you want to learn more, I suggest you read up on the subject, or speak to RDuke55. (I did however state that I didnt feel fish have the capacity to be tortured... if you wish to debate that, Im game)


FWIW, I, nor I doubt, any serious scientist, would ever respond to "Why is it not possible?" with anything other than "its certainly possible... it just seems unlikey"


So, its kind of ironic that you attempt to brush of my statements as someone saying "it has been theorized," when my claim, is, LITERALLY, that it has been theorized.

[IWEARGOGGLES]

This whole thing kind of makes me remember a Gorilla Biscuits song:

" Man's best friend is beautiful and affectionate, an ideal pet.
Cats are the same, we make up their names and our love for them is real.
Listen up, I gotta ask you, how can we be so cruel?
You say you care, that's a lie.
My true compassion is for all living things and not just the ones who are cute so I do what I can.
I wanna save lives and I've got a plan.

Under the table he'll eat your dinner like the veggies we can't stand.
What kind of meal would he make?
We don't want to ask it.
Tradition is all that keeps him alive.
Listen up, I gotta ask how can we be so cruel?
You say you care, that's a lie.
My true compassion is for all living things and not just the ones who are cute so I do what I can.
I wanna save lives and I've got a plan.

Why am I so upset.
Don't even own a pet.
I am not trying to press my will.
I am not the first to say...
THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Full is all you want to feel.
We eat to stay alive, but it's their lives we steal.
I think we'd like to change,
but most of us are stuck, that's why cats and dogs have
ALL THE LUCK"

I think the public would have a completely different reaction if it was a cow/chicken/lizard/other ugly animal fighting ring. Just because it was dogs that were tortured makes it much more cruel in the public eye.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
I just remembered something I heard once, which is that dogs dont feel any pain when they are fighting because their adrenaline is so high.

[/ QUOTE ]
does anyone where to check if this is true or not?

[4 High]

"As I said, I don't believe in "animal rights," and I explained why. Can you explain why you do? Lots of things are "living beings," but only humans have rights. If you want all "living beings" to have rights, then why aren't you outraged at the squashing of insects, cutting down of trees, etc."

People are training Trees to fight to the death? I must see this.

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]



People are training Trees to fight to the death? I must see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably those tree people from lord of the rings.

[Jasper109]

Drew,

I'm basically the antithesis of an animal lover.

Some months ago I derided people for posting pictures of their dogs, and was slammed for it.

I agree that people are much more important than animals.

Having said all of that, I still think that you are very much in the wrong here.

Michael Vick is a despicable human being. He gets pleasure out of watching animals fight each other, and when they aren't good enough at it he kills them or has them killed in very sick ways.

This disgusting excuse for a "person" should be locked up just in case he decides to take up another "hobby" that might be even more vile or despicable.

And yes, I laugh at dog lovers, think PETA goes way too far, etc, etc. This is much, much different.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain why you do? Lots of things are "living beings," but only humans have rights. If you want all "living beings" to have rights, then why aren't you outraged at the squashing of insects, cutting down of trees, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand how people can think this is a solid argument.

Do you think the difference might have something to do with the relative abilities of dogs and plants to experience pain?