Leave Michael Vick Alone...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just forget it, BCPVP. When you stop being a slave to some rigid ideological precepts and come back to being a human being, maybe there will be something we can talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously BCPVP, let us know when you break free of the bonds of the ideas of clowns like Locke, Aquinas, and Jefferson. Then we can have an intelligent conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go a step further for a moment, and apply that to ALL philosophers and statesmen for a moment, and imagine we had never heard of any of them or their ideas. Would then he (or you?) then claim that humans have the right to become the gratuitous tormentors of animals? That humans have the right to inflict cruelty solely for the sake of inflicting cruelty? Of course not. So it is the blind adherence to ideological constructs that is the problem.

The same thing happened with the Nazis, to a greater degree: their attachment to their ideology trumped their humanity. Same with the followers of Mao. That is what enabled them to lose their humanity: their absolute belief in an absolute ideology, and their perceived implications of that ideology.

The error BCPVP is making is that he is considering dogs to be equal to inamimate objects in his definition of ownership. The degree to which he is losing his compassion and humanity to this blind ideological construct and attachment is the degree to which he thinks a person should be allowed to torment a dog because it is his "property". Nobody has the right to torment an animal solely for the sake of cruelty. A child might do it, but a child would know it is wrong, and not claim he or she has the right to do it.

Yet an educated adult in the throes of a total ideological attachment thinks humans have the right to torture animals to death for purely gratuitous reasons!

Ownership really has nothing to do with it either way. The right to torture purely for pleasure does not exist.

I don't believe Jefferson or Aquinas would have agreed that ownership of an animal gives one the right to torture it solely for the sake of gratuitous pleasure. They would probably have thought that a man whipping his horse long, needlessly and unmercifully, probably himself would have deserved to be horsewhipped.

Let's use a little common sense and compassion, and realize that NO philosophy on Earth can properly confer the right to inflicting needless and sadistic cruelty upon any other feeling living creature.

BCPVP's definition of ownerwship of animals incomplete and flawed, and his compassion and humanity are lacking and in danger, to the extent that he takes his favored philosophy to protect, as a right, the enactment of unvarnished sadism against helpless creatures.

The dog-fighting Vick engaged in was bad enough, but electrocuting the losing dogs??? That is going yet a step further into the realm of gratuitous cruelty.

As I said, I don't think years in prison would be necessary. I think these guys would quickly and deeply learn the error of their thinking and the wrongness of their ways if they were each forced to face an angry pit bull, unarmed, in the pit for 5 minutes. Should that be done? Well, I don't know, but it's arguably safer than prison, anyway.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post John. Property rights aren't absolute. This is about the morality of the treatment of dogs IMO. Ideology shouldn't necessarily trump morality.

Governments are going to continue to get involved with breeding dogs IMO. A recent initiative regarding mandatory spaying and neutering recently was quelled in California. I know a similar law was watered down in Texas. In New Mexico a state wide initiative was quelled as well. I'm positive we haven't seen the last of these initiatives in any of these states. A fairly recent law in Albuquerque requires a special and expensive license to have dogs that are capable of reproducing. The reason for these initiatives from my understanding is that there are a lot of dogs being euthenized by the government because basically people give them up i.e. they don't want to take care of them anymore. My basic objection with governments approach to this point is in getting their cue from the likes of PETA. IMO the people that can shed the most light on what government might do are long term, responsible breeders who are interested in the health of dogs. I fully acknowledge that what I consider resposnsible may be a great deal different than what other people feel is responsible. I was in a local grocery store the other day and noticed a couple of ads that had puppies for sale. I'd lay some very long odds that the breeders posting those ads had no health testing done on the sires and dams of those litters. One was a litter of Golden Retrievers. I guarantee that if you try and buy a puppy from a breeder thats a member of the Golden Retriever Club of America you'll not only find that the sire and dam have had their health clearances, you'll also find that you'll not necessarily get a puppy if you want one. A lot depends on what the breeder thinks of you as a potential owner of a member of the breed. Government is going to be more involved as the problem with euthanizing more dogs escalates IMO. How government proceeds is something that concerns at least me anyway.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't believe Jefferson or Aquinas would have agreed that ownership of an animal gives one the right to torture it solely for the sake of gratuitous pleasure. They would probably have thought that a man whipping his horse long, needlessly and unmercifully, probably himself would have deserved to be horsewhipped.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Jefferson would have supported the government's actions against Vick, I just don't know what to say to you. I can see him disapproving of or speaking out against dog fighting, but there is no way that he would have been in favor of denying someone's freedom for up to 6 years for fighting dogs. And there is simply no way he would have been in favor of the State horsewhipping someone who was a little overzelous with the whip.

And I'm pretty sure that he would be appalled that this is a matter that the federal cops would be involved in. Although, he would be appalled by the mere existence of federal cops.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't believe Jefferson or Aquinas would have agreed that ownership of an animal gives one the right to torture it solely for the sake of gratuitous pleasure. They would probably have thought that a man whipping his horse long, needlessly and unmercifully, probably himself would have deserved to be horsewhipped.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Jefferson would have supported the government's actions against Vick, I just don't know what to say to you. I can see him disapproving of or speaking out against dog fighting, but there is no way that he would have been in favor of denying someone's freedom for up to 6 years for fighting dogs. And there is simply no way he would have been in favor of the State horsewhipping someone who was a little overzelous with the whip.

And I'm pretty sure that he would be appalled that this is a matter that the federal cops would be involved in. Although, he would be appalled by the mere existence of federal cops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jefferson might not have advocated the state punishing the man, but I doubt he would have objected very much if a couple of the man's neighbors were to have taken it upon themselves to intervene, and if the man persisted, to have given him a good thrashing.

Ownership of animals carries with it the responsibility to not wilfully and severely abuse those animals.

I have trouble understanding how several people in this thread can be arguing otherwise. Surely Locke, Jefferson and Aquinas would not have taken the position that ownership of an animal gives its owner the right to severely abuse the poor creature.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we can extend negative rights to animals whenever they petition for them...Better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should babies have rights? Can they petition for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was addressed.

Since the baby will one day become a moral agent, it has rights.


Im curious if any of those who believe that are also pro-choice, and Im interested in hearing how they reconcile the two.

Beyond that, Im still waiting to hear about people who are mentally challenged beyond the ability to ever become a 'moral agent', and if I have a right to own them / torture them.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we can extend negative rights to animals whenever they petition for them...Better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should babies have rights? Can they petition for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was addressed.

Since the baby will one day become a moral agent, it has rights.


Im curious if any of those who believe that are also pro-choice, and Im interested in hearing how they reconcile the two.

Beyond that, Im still waiting to hear about people who are mentally challenged beyond the ability to ever become a 'moral agent', and if I have a right to own them / torture them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Being a "moral agent" is not the comprehensive defining criteria it has been erroneously purported to be.

Nobody has the right to wantonly and gratuitously to torture any helpless, living feeling being, for the sole purpose of entertainment or sadistic pleasure.

What is so hard to understand or accept about that??? Yet we have people all wrapped up in their complicated ideologically constructed paradigms, who think that those paradigms somehow confer the right to inflict wanton torment upon other creatures.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Jefferson or Aquinas would have agreed that ownership of an animal gives one the right to torture it solely for the sake of gratuitous pleasure. They would probably have thought that a man whipping his horse long, needlessly and unmercifully, probably himself would have deserved to be horsewhipped.

[/ QUOTE ]
And there is simply no way he would have been in favor of the State horsewhipping someone who was a little overzelous with the whip.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about someone being merely "a little overzealous".

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Jefferson might not have advocated the state punishing the man, but I doubt he would have objected very much if a couple of the man's neighbors were to have taken it upon themselves to intervene, and if the man persisted, to have given him a good thrashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and because torturing dogs is [censored] up, I don't think anyone here is going to object to the man's neighbors beating him up. That is how dog torturing being so terrible gets accounted for, no one is going to ever defend him. And if they do they are going to suffer consequences. I'd be suprised if any of the people you are arguing with are going to jump to protect the dog torturer's "property rights" in a scenario like this. They might think that he theoretically deserves it, but because dog torturing is effed up the dog torturer will get no defense.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Jefferson or Aquinas would have agreed that ownership of an animal gives one the right to torture it solely for the sake of gratuitous pleasure. They would probably have thought that a man whipping his horse long, needlessly and unmercifully, probably himself would have deserved to be horsewhipped.

[/ QUOTE ]
And there is simply no way he would have been in favor of the State horsewhipping someone who was a little overzelous with the whip.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about someone being merely "a little overzealous".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, you were talking about someone being an arbitrary amount more overzealous than "a little overzealous." If you think Jefferson is going to think that the state should intervene because a man treating his horse badly, you've lost touch with reality.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

Jefferson might not have advocated the state punishing the man,


[/ QUOTE ]

But state intervention on this matter is the issue we are addressing!

[ QUOTE ]

but I doubt he would have objected very much if a couple of the man's neighbors were to have taken it upon themselves to intervene, and if the man persisted, to have given him a good thrashing.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Vick's neighbors want to try to thrash him, they are more than welcome to try

[ QUOTE ]

Ownership of animals carries with it the responsibility to not wilfully and severely abuse those animals.

I have trouble understanding how several people in this thread can be arguing otherwise. Surely Locke, Jefferson and Aquinas would not have taken the position that ownership of an animal gives its owner the right to severely abuse the poor creature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people don't abuse animals because the animals are their pets or valued property. And Locke, Aquinas, and Jefferson were simply not concerned with the "rights" of animals, because such a notion is absurd. We eat them, for chrissake. Depriving a man his liberty for 6 years because he mistreated his animals is equally absurd. He can eat his dogs, but he can't make them fight? How is this offense worth 6 years of his life?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the baby will one day become a moral agent, it has rights.


Im curious if any of those who believe that are also pro-choice, and Im interested in hearing how they reconcile the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is the debate I've been having in my head for the last week or so. In high school I was pro-life, in college I actually went completely the other way to being hard-line pro-choice, now I'm not so sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that, Im still waiting to hear about people who are mentally challenged beyond the ability to ever become a 'moral agent', and if I have a right to own them / torture them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this falls under the "trust" concept rather than the full ownership concept - the next of kin have a trust in the comatose person. They don't have the right to torture/kill that person persay, but at the same time they also can't be held captive and forced to pay for the life support necessary to keep that person alive. It's their choice.