Leave Michael Vick Alone...

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

An "arbitrary amount" my foot. You know we were talking about a severe abuse situation, not someone merely being a little heavy-handed. If you saw a man raining down 100 heavy blows with the whip on a horse within a 5 minute period, would you consider that "arbitrary amount" to be "too much" or is it entirely up to the Observer or Actor? This is splitting hairs and nonsense.

If you must split definitional hairs, just make the hypothetical an amount that you and basically everyone would consider "too much" and take it from there. The man does not have the right to inflict SEVERE ABUSE on the animal; I am sure you know what "severe abuse" means, or at least you'd surely know it when you see it.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. But, I guess that sort of leads to the question: what separates the comatose person from a high level animal, if not the ability to act as a moral agent, to one day become a moral agent, or to petition for rights (all of which this hypothetical person lacks)?

Why dont animals get these trust rights?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Well, he might not have advocated it, or he might. Guess we'll never know for sure, eh?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

It would probably be a better lesson if the horse would kick him into next Tuesday.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, NO, you're missing something there. Most people don't severely abuse animals because most people are fundamentally decent human beings who have some sense of responsibility and compassion.

[ QUOTE ]
And Locke, Aquinas, and Jefferson were simply not concerned with the "rights" of animals, because such a notion is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not absurd that animals have a right to not be wantonly tortured and severely abused for no good purpose. Humans have the responsibility to exercise their powers over animals with some measure of responsibility and compassion.

[ QUOTE ]
We eat them, for chrissake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Killing for food is the way of the natural kingdom, of which we are part as well. Killing for food is much different than wanton torture.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was worth six years of his life. My personal opinion is that it is worth about 200 stitches in a leg or arm; the injuries to have been given to him by one of the animals he was trying to abuse. The man was in effect assaulting the animal unjustly and for no good purpose and greatly endangering its health and well-being and even its life -- ALL FOR NO GOOD REASON AT ALL. IF the dog had understood that (and it's a pity the dog wasn't capable of doing so) the dog would have been 100% justified in turning on the man and ripping his leg wide open.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. But, I guess that sort of leads to the question: what separates the comatose person from a high level animal, if not the ability to act as a moral agent, to one day become a moral agent, or to petition for rights (all of which this hypothetical person lacks)?

Why dont animals get these trust rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming the comatose has some chance, however slim, of regaining his faculty as a moral agent. And therein lies the difference.

EDIT: If the comatose person literally has a zero percent chance of coming awake (Terri Schiavo) then I do not know what the rights should be. I don't know if that person is really alive at that point. But currently we allow the families of that person to cut off life support, acknowledging their "ownership" of that person.

[UATrewqaz]

We can debate what Jefferson or Ben Franklin or any other historical figures may have thought about this or that, but my retort to all that is...

So what? Who gives a crap what Jefferson would think about something? Jefferson isn't God, he was just a dude like anyone else, perfectly capable of being flat out wrong. Sure he may have been smart and successful, but that doesn't make his would be opinion on anything 100% correct.

As to the main topic of discussion, the reason you see so many people having to contort themselves so in defense of Vick is because their entire world view is dependent on a completely amoral society and even something as blatently obvious as saying "Vick torturing dogs is wrong" totally throws their whole system into the garbage can.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
We can debate what Jefferson or Ben Franklin or any other historical figures may have thought about this or that, but my retort to all that is...

So what? Who gives a crap what Jefferson would think about something? Jefferson isn't God, he was just a dude like anyone else, perfectly capable of being flat out wrong. Sure he may have been smart and successful, but that doesn't make his would be opinion on anything 100% correct.

As to the main topic of discussion, the reason you see so many people having to contort themselves so in defense of Vick is because their entire world view is dependent on a completely amoral society and even something as blatently obvious as saying "Vick torturing dogs is wrong" totally throws their whole system into the garbage can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you even read the thread?

[UATrewqaz]

Only the first couple and last couple of pages, but no I did not read the whole thread.

"Do not squander time for that is the stuff life is made of."
Benjamin Franklin

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. But, I guess that sort of leads to the question: what separates the comatose person from a high level animal, if not the ability to act as a moral agent, to one day become a moral agent, or to petition for rights (all of which this hypothetical person lacks)?

Why dont animals get these trust rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming the comatose has some chance, however slim, of regaining his faculty as a moral agent. And therein lies the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]


there are situations where the chances of this happening are about equal to a scientist developing a drug to increase the brain power of an ape to that of a really simple human (ie. about 0).


I assume, therefore, that apes get trust rights?


Dont get me wrong, I know this is far fetched, but, if you get to cling to a 0.0000001% chance, I dont see why I cant cling to a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance


(just to clarify, your use of the word 'regain' is somewhat of a misnomer, since I was talking about someone who had severe mentals problems at birth).


EDIT: just to clarify, so people arent like WTFWTFWTF... there is evidence to suggest that some apes have moral capabilties beyond that of some humans

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So according to BCPVP and Will I can put my stereo system as loud as I want to because its my property, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

An argument could be made that you are "polluting" your neighbors property with sound, and that they could take action to stop it. Also homeowner's associations have rules against this sort of thing, and when you sign a contract saying you will not do x and then you proceed to do x there can be an appropriately forceful response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will if we had AC , loud stereos wouldnt be a problem for the reasons you listed.
However in the current world ridicoulosuly loud music on unapropiate times are rightly banned because its very annoying for other people.
In that same way AC could also deal with dog torture on different manners, however in the current world just letting dog owners do whatever they want is not optimal IMO. Remember that this is the same current world that doesnt let people fire someone for his personal life

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken.

I think there is still a difference. Noise pollution actually reduces the value of nearby property (check out real estate near the airport) - so it can fundamentally be seen as an act of aggression and a violation of property rights.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

An "arbitrary amount" my foot. You know we were talking about a severe abuse situation, not someone merely being a little heavy-handed. If you saw a man raining down 100 heavy blows with the whip on a horse within a 5 minute period, would you consider that "arbitrary amount" to be "too much" or is it entirely up to the Observer or Actor? This is splitting hairs and nonsense.

If you must split definitional hairs, just make the hypothetical an amount that you and basically everyone would consider "too much" and take it from there. The man does not have the right to inflict SEVERE ABUSE on the animal; I am sure you know what "severe abuse" means, or at least you'd surely know it when you see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the man seems out of control, then of course you could walk up to him and say "Hey buddy, take it easy." He'd probably stop beating his horse then. Or he'd tell you to go and [censored] yourself and keep beating his horse. I just don't think it's the state's job to tell people how to treat their animals; if you people think it should be a matter for the federal cops, we're just going to have to disagree on the matter.