<p>Agree that both = animal cruelty, but somehow (again, in my book) the willful torture is just beyond the pale.</p>
<p>"While it took a while "</p>
<p>I guess we are looking at the same thing differently. Kill pens are going away. </p>
<p>I took exception to “little fat pony still wearing the pink halter with “my buddy” embroidered on it”, it’s not done like that. It doesn’t help a cause to “enhance” what goes on.</p>
<p>It doesn’t surprise me that a person engaged in dog fighting would also personally torture animals. I don’t see much difference between the two activities. Both are reprehensible. I also think that any person who engages in either activity could do very cruel things to humans, too.</p>
<p>Yeah - the issue isn’t killing animals - we do kill animals for food, because they’re sick or injured, and yes - even just because they’re pets with no one to take care of them. But the animals aren’t killed for the pleasure of watching them suffer, they’re killed because for practical reasons it is more rational for them to be dead than alive. </p>
<p>The issue is hurting animals for the personal pleasure of watching them suffer - either by being killed by another animal in a fight, or by being painfully killed by a human. The dehumanizing effect of that activity is worth criminalizing, and that is what Vick was involved in. Zoosadism is an entirely different category of behavior from simple animal neglect or intentionally killing animals for practical reasons.
(Wikipedia article on zoosadism)
</code></pre>
<p>It’s worth criminalizing what Vick did. It’s not just a “cultural difference.”</p>
<p>I want to speak up for farmers. Some of the posters are equating a farmer’s killing with the types of activities that Vick was involved with. No and no. I grew up on a farm in the rural South. Of course the family killed animals - that’s what put meat on the table. But no one killed for the pleasure of watching an animal suffer. We killed to eat and did it as humanely as we could. If a fish was too small you threw it back to live. If an animal were hurt, you put it out of its misery. You didn’t whip dogs or horses. We never tortured and my family would have looked with revulsion at anyone who mistreated an animal. So cut it with the “farmers kill too so what’s the difference” stuff. Just doesn’t hold up. And while you’re at it, saying “it’s okay in Japan” doesn’t hold much water either.</p>
<p>
I agree. And it’s really unfair that some are labeling dog fighting & animal torture as accepted parts of black, poor, or Southern culture.</p>
<p>“And what do you think of George Bush and his handlers?
I’ve thought about this and put it “in proportion.” Vick needs to go to prison. Actually, I think he should be strung up in the town square, but that’s just me.”</p>
<p>If Vick goes to prison, then Bush should be right there with him. He’s equally reprehensible, only he makes sport of people instead of dogs.</p>
<p>“In the short-run, seeing him rot in jail for a while (and lose his career) gives people like me great satisfaction. In the “long-run,” it will teach him that you can’t live your life like a criminal, figuring because you’re a big football star (it is football, right?), getting paid big bucks-- that laws, decency, and living like a civilized person simply don’t apply to you. In the long-run, he’ll realize he has to pay for his criminal actions and, hopefully, be redeemed (though probably a fat chance of that). In the long-run, I don’t think he should ever be allowed around animals again, though I do hope he finds someone who takes a great liking to him in prison.”</p>
<p>Jack–Don’t get me wrong. Part of me would absolutely love to see Vick trapped in a den full of enraged, riled-up pit bulls. But couldn’t he be put to better use as the public face of animal abuse? Or not.</p>
<p>"It’s worth criminalizing what Vick did. It’s not just a “cultural difference.”</p>
<p>True. Though I must admit to being more concerned about those without “diagnostic criteria for conduct disorders”, but commit acts which result in unspeakable deaths to hundreds of thousands of people, and are lauded for it. Why, they even get to give commencement addresses!</p>
<p>Strange country.</p>
<p>Anyway - regardless of whether he personally “delighted” in killing animals (I’ve seen no evidence of that), do we know where Vick got the idea of bankrolling dogfighting in the first place? What exactly WAS at work (assuming, as others are wont to do, and I have no information which would suggest otherwise, that it wasn’t something he culturally grew up with as acceptable conduct?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I think that’s a really good idea. Put him in prison and <em>also</em> use his face on posters, ads, etc., as the “public face of animal abuse.” Works for me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guess is, he has a violent streak fueled by years of playing a violent sport (and getting paid an outrageous sum to do so), and probably years of heavy steroid use. Just a guess. Or maybe he was born with too many Y chromosomes, and he channeled all that agressive violent behavior into the fine sport of football. After a while, it wasn’t enough, so he had to do something else violent. Some tiny bit of a conscience (or something) in the far back recesses of his tiny mind prevented him from torturing and killing humans, but that might have been next. My 2 cents and best guess.</p>
<p>I think he just did it for fun. What turns on some ppl does not turn on others. I’m not condoning his actions but comparing them to some of Bush’s actions is not fair to Vick. And saying that he ought to be corporally punished is well…extremely unreasonable. Again, I’m not saying that these actions shouldn’t be reprehensible, but ppl take life all the time and I really don’t think the reason behind it is so much for someone to be punished so horribly for hurting animals. Comparing him to rapists and murders is making a mountain out of a molehill. I believe his apology and embarassment is enough.</p>
<p>
From the cow’s, chicken’s, etc’s perspective, it is just as dead as are the dogs killed by Vick and crew. The dogs were Vick’s property just as the cows are the farmer’s property. Vick had the right to kills his dogs just as the farmer has the right to kill his cows.</p>
<p>And if gambling is so bad, why is the government engaged in gambling on a regular basis?</p>
<p>Today’s animal abuser is often tomorrow’s rapist or murderer. </p>
<p>If the rest of you cannot fathom the distinction between pet animals and farm animals in our society, you must have slept through your social norms classes. The law says there is a distinction and Vick clearly broke the law. We as a society make the laws. EOS.</p>
<p>Those who continue to justify Vick’s behavior obviously aren’t reading this folder and understanding the consensus amongst the posters: there’s a HUGE difference between raising animals for the purpose of food and clothing, which doesn’t involve exploiting violent behavior for entertainment and monetary gain purposes, and raising animals for the purpose of profiteering off violent, neglectful, and abusive activities, which has been shown to be a precursor to violence with humans. Farmers who maintain animals as their vocation do not get their thrills with the neglect, abuse, and killing of their livestock. I doubt the raising and slaughter of their livestock are precursors to violence against humans.</p>
<p>barrons - cross posted with you… completely agree. I was talking with some of the women at my work out facility today about this forum, and they were horribly disturbed and shocked that there are people out there who cannot differentiate between pet animals and farm animals.</p>
<p>The law doesn’t necessarily differentiate between pets and farm animals - it’s the cruelty or abuse that is the problem - not necessarily the killing. I could have my horse put down just because I can’t afford it, but I can’t attach alligator clips to its anus, electrocute it and claim it died of colic to collect insurance. Dog fighting is animal cruelty per se.</p>
<p>
razorsharp</p>
<p>There is a huge difference. A good farmer, like a good person, respects his animals and does not mistreat them. A quick, humane kill of an animal raised for food and treated well throughout its life cannot be compared to an animal trained to fight, and forced to fight to the death in a long, painful and bloody way for the “entertainment” of spectators who don’t have the slightest interest in the welfare of the animals. And Vick’s killing of the animals who didn’t fight with enough cruelty to be interesting to the spectators turned into a spectator event itself. That’s why society has deemed one to be legal and the other not.</p>
<p>Sometimes physicians do things to their patients that are as painful as what torturers do. It’s the intent and the objective that make a world of difference, both to the patient and to the physician. </p>
<p>If you can’t see the difference between these two things, there’s not much else to say. (By the way, wives and children used to be considered private property too. )</p>
<p>Edit - teriwtt and cartera - cross posted with you. Agree completely.</p>
<p>
Actually there is NO difference between a cow killed for food and a dog killed for the fun of it. Both are dead. Only from the perspectives of humans is there any difference. </p>
<p>When you eat your steak or chicken tomorrow, you are an animal killer just like Michael Vick is an animal killer.</p>
<p>rzorsharp, capital punishment is legal in this country. Do you see a difference between trying to put a person to death and legally mandating certain protocols that must be followed in that execution; versus torturing the person for hours in a horribly painful way before killing him? Or would you say “both are dead” so what’s the big deal?</p>
<p><a href=“By%20the%20way,%20wives%20and%20children%20used%20to%20be%20considered%20private%20property%20too.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
In other words, it is wrong to think of dogs as private property just as it was wrong to think of wives and children as private property? Is that what you are saying? If so, I agree. If cows are not the farmer’s private property, he has no right to kill them. Those who eat the cut up cow are co-conspirators (ok, cow-conspirators, if you will).</p>
<p>My point is that there are too many holyer than thou people out there who demonize Vick while enjoying a chicken who had its neck broken in half (but for a good reason according to humans).</p>
<p>(ok, maybe I should have said holyer than cow people)</p>