<p>
Humans are human and have human rights. Dogs are property and don’t have human rights. To flip your argument, are you saying it would be ok to raise humans, kills them humainly of course, and then eat them for food? Wouldn’t food be a good purpose to raise and kill humans? Adopting your argument then that would be ok.</p>
<p>barrons:
Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows.</p>
<p>The list of breeds most involved in both bite injuries and fatalities changes from year to year and from one area of the country to another, depending on the popularity of the breed.</p>
<p>Pit bull types (there are three separate dogs that people label “pit bulls”) and Rottweilers are the two types of breeds that when they bite are more likely to cause a fatality. This is of course because they have a stronger bite.</p>
<p>Start applying breed specific legislation to one breed of dog and once pit bulls are gone people will be on to the next “dangerous” dog. You can find a bad dog in any breed but probably the one stable factor in a “bad dogs” life is a bad owner. </p>
<p>What you should be looking at is the real record of a pit bull - not just the negative facts. These are two good articles to read, one concerning Vick. </p>
<p><a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/24/pitbull.culture.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/24/pitbull.culture.ap/index.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.fataldogattacks.com/[/url]”>http://www.fataldogattacks.com/</a></p>
<p>You completely misread my post. I am drawing a distinction between treatment versus finality, not between the creatures involved. Some have pointed out that in Korea and elsewhere, dogs are used as food. Some others then commented that pets are pets while farm animals are different. I don’t agree with that - as cartera pointed out, it’s not the type of animal involved, but rather the (mis) treatment. </p>
<p>I am not in any way equating dogs with humans. I am saying that to say “dead is dead” and that the manner of death is inconsequential, is an argument that doesn’t have the slightest validity. You do not yet evidence an ability to understand the suffering of others. And instead of trying to turn my previous comment around in a way that is nonsensical, you could attempt to address it.</p>
<p>I am not in any way defending Vick. He is seriously lacking some sort of humanity chip. I have no respect for people who hunt either, though. In both, animals are killed for sport. My cousins always had a wager on who would bag the first deer - so they gambled on it too. There are some really bad shots out there so many animals suffer terribly before they die when hunted. I remember finding a shot and still suffering deer on the farm when I was young - it died as I stood there in horror. That was cruel. How is it not cruel to do the kind of canned hunting that VP Cheney does when birds are pen raised solely for the purpose of being released to be shot like skeet? Some are planted upside down in thickets so as to be disoriented and easier to shoot. People who do that should be right there next to Vick behind bars in my book. Hunting is violent and involves killing for sport - how do we justify that? Is the only difference that the hunter doesn’t intend to be cruel?</p>
<p>
And so, Razorsharp, from exactly what perspective should we view the conduct of a human?</p>
<p>
I’m gonna bet the feeling is mutual. </p>
<p>If you don’t hunt deer they will starve to death in great numbers until their population again reaches the capacity of the land to carry them. A carefully managed hunting program with licensed and regulated hunters and dedicated enforcement efforts is the most economical and efficient way to handle such populations. IMO to argue otherwise shows a total lack of understanding of the issues confronting landowners and the states. </p>
<p>I’m sure there are many things that happen on my ranch you would view as cruel. I kill predators. I have a semi-automatic rifle in my truck at all times. I have dogs whose purpose in life is to protect my stock by killing predators. I sell animals I raise to ranches I “know” are going to hunt them. </p>
<p>You wouldn’t agree. I can live with that. </p>
<p>Vick’s a pig and an idiot. He was not hunting. He was not protecting his herd. He was inflicting pain for his amusement and financial game. There is a word we use for people with that type of cruelty - and no, I’m not going to say “Republican”. They are sadistic and they need to be punished.</p>
<p>
From the perspectives of humans and from the perspectives of animals being killed. I listen to all these people obsessed with the consequences to the environment of human behavior. Mother earth does not feel pain, yet many people treat earth like it is a person who is suffering and has a desire to be free of the effects of humans. Many of these same people have no difficulty killing animals yet animals actually do feel pain and have a desire to live. They have a desire to care for their offspring. They desire to be left alone, just as do humans. Few people seem to care about animals unless they are pets. Yet from the perspective of the animal, there is actually no difference whether the animal is a human pet like a dog or a human food like a cow. The only difference is the hypocracy shown by people who eat meat.</p>
<p>Just curious-- how do we know what an animal “desires”? Sounds like anthropomorphism.</p>
<p>
If your sole point is mistreatment of animals, I agree that a dog that is tortured before death is more mistreated than a cow that is not tourtured before death. What I believe you have failed to admit is that the cow that is killed without tourture is still mistreated. The cow is mistreated because it is killed. The authority to kill (mistreat) the cow comes from the fact that the farmer owns the cow. Vick owned his dogs and thus why do you or anyone else have the right to judge his mistreatment of his dogs? </p>
<p>Maybe this analogy will help clarify my point (maybe it won’t). If you steal $5000 from your neighbor, it is wrong. If you steal $500 from your neighbor it is still wrong, it is just a smaller amount. If Vick is wrong because he tourted and killed dogs, people who eat meat are just as wrong for doing part of what Vick did, namely killing cows. </p>
<p>I am not a fan of Vick’s behavior, but I see the debate as a lot of sinners throwing out the first stone. Those who kill cows and chickens for food, have no business criticizing Vick for his behavior that was only a little bit worse than their behavior.</p>
<p>
How do you know other human’s have desires – they communicate it to you. If you try to kill a lion (without sneeking up on it with a gun), the lion will fight you because it desires to live. If someone tried to kill you the same way, you would run or fight because you desire to live.</p>
<p>If we judge Vick by his motives and intentions and dogs were killed for his amusement, I still fail to see how that is completely different from hunters who kill for their amusement, except by degree. I’ll separate out the ones who are hungry and the ones who say as they walk out the door, “Honey, I’m going to bag a few of those starving deer, because somebody’s got to do it.” There is even less difference between Vick and his ilk and those who raise animals to be hunted. How is raising deer to be hunted helping control the deer population? How is that different from raising dogs for fighting? Is the only difference in the knowledge that the dogs will suffer more? In some areas, the numbers of stray dogs and cats are a real problem - not unlike the problem with the deer population - so is there a problem with rounding them up and putting them in a fenced environment for hunting? Wouldn’t killing problem animals that already exist be more ethical than breeding others to be killed? Maybe, but it wouldn’t be as much fun so we are back to the “enjoyment” piece. People who don’t have a problem with a picture in the local paper of a hunter proudly displaying the head of a big dead buck might pause when they see the head of a big dead labrador. Again, I’m not defending Vick and I’m not advocating hunting stray dogs, but asking why breeding animals and then killing them for sport is tolerated?</p>
<p>OT: </p>
<p>I don’t want my livelihood to be misunderstood which it appears cartera is eager to do - I raise these. <a href=“http://www.redstagacres.com/[/url]”>http://www.redstagacres.com/</a> </p>
<p>My ranch and ranches like mine sell the animals in an open auction or by private treaty just like the animal that yielded the hamburger you or some family member of yours will have for lunch in a couple of hours. Some end up in breeding programs, some end up in processing plants, and some are harvested on game ranches. The rancher retains no control over how the buyer uses the animal. Game ranches pay a premium beyond meat price and therefore will usually outbid meat buyers for larger bucks, or even for younger bucks showing great antler potential. The breeding operations are usually somewhere in the middle between meat buyers and the game ranches, but since one buck will cover 15-20 does, they are only rarely competing for the same animals.</p>
<p>Google red deer farming and you’ll find that in several countries red deer venison is gaining ground on beef for it’s reported health benefits. We enjoy the meat and eat it often.</p>
<p>oh, now we are going to wax philosophically and have existential conversations about free will and emotions in humans and dogs? This should be interesting…</p>
<p>(“desire” doesn’t equal darwinian survival of species behavior)</p>
<p>“If we judge Vick by his motives and intentions and dogs were killed for his amusement…”</p>
<p>I still fail to see any evidence of that. Has it been posted somewhere? What I’ve heard is that he did bankroll (“invest”) in this operation, own the property, and kill some doggies. I still don’t know what his motives or intentions are, where they came from, where he got the idea, or whether he found it amusing.</p>
<p>well said, mini.</p>
<p>Curm - I didn’t misunderstand anything. Now I understand even more. You breed and sell animals to be “harvested on game ranches.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that a euphemism for cornering an animal up against a chain link fence and shooting it? Now that is not hunting - that is harvesting? And I thought picking apples was harvesting. What’s with the picture on the website of the man - is that actually your farm and you - cuddling the fawn? So you are domesticating the deer and making sure that it trusts the guys who will be cornering it against the fence to shoot it. That seems fair. I think that says it all. You are absolved from any connection to what is the most cowardly thing to ever be called a sport because you have no control no over where the animals you raise end up? Here is a quote I found on a “game ranch” website from one of its satisfied customers. </p>
<p>“I wanted to let you all know how much we appreciated everything that you did to make our hunt excellent. We enjoyed everything that you did for us from breakfast and lunch to skinning our game for us. We will recommend you to anyone that is looking to go on a hunt. Your animals are excellent and well taken care of and a lot of fun to hunt.”</p>
<p>I’m wondering if “fun” means that they trotted over to have their little antlers scratched before being shot or if they successfully eluded them for a few hours - how cute that they thought they could get away. That customer is different from Vick only be degree.</p>
<p>You are right, mini. There is no evidence that has been produced that Vick enjoyed it. My point was that some posters are distinguishing what Vick did from others’ actions because he did it for amusement. To those people, I queried why that is different from hunting?</p>
<p>“If your sole point is mistreatment of animals, I agree that a dog that is tortured before death is more mistreated than a cow that is not tourtured before death. What I believe you have failed to admit is that the cow that is killed without tourture is still mistreated”</p>
<p>Vick as any pet owner has, the right to put down any animal. However, it should be done as “humainly” as possible. Cattle for slaugther are put down in as humaine a manner as possible. While I’m sure you will disagree (maybe cause meat is murder…I know, I know) you could be using the word “mistreated” a bit loosely. Do I mistreat my children if I say “no” to something? under your previous post, the answer would be yes. I believe their are government inspections with the processing of food animals that prevent excess cruelty in the process.</p>
<p>Had Vick called in a vet and had the vet put down his dogs, little issue would be had. However, because he was engaged in an illegal activity, he couldn’t do that. He still had the option to be as humaine as posssible, but chose not to. </p>
<p>I would hope that if your anti meat stance is that strong that you own or use no byproducts from this process. I would also hope that you eat no vegatables that aren’t native to this land, as the people whom planted them destroyed the natural vegatation to make fields for your food. </p>
<p>There’s a fine line about the meat is murder dogma, Vegatables are murder too as they are an endresult of the murder of natural environments. Killing trees for your home or daming a river to provide electricity for your computer are also bad things depending on your point of view. Because you’ve drawn a line at comsumption of meat as bad, could someone else label you as bad because you use products and consume products that truly aren’t natural or pure? You choose not to comsume meat, fine. not a problem. Others choose to consume meats, shouldn’t be a problem either.</p>
<p>“You are right, mini. There is no evidence that has been produced that Vick enjoyed it. My point was that some posters are distinguishing what Vick did from others’ actions because he did it for amusement. To those people, I queried why that is different from hunting?”</p>
<p>Well, it is different from hunting in that, while we don’t know whether Vick did it for amusement, we DO know that most hunters do it for amusement.</p>
<p>I think most of the arguments here, though philosophically interesting, don’t amount to a hill of beans. The issue is pure and simple: it’s about DOGGIES! (we would have strung him up without trial had he been fighting cockapoos.)</p>
<p>
This simplistic view of the world probably explains a lot. The simple fact of “owning” something does not carry with it the right to do anything you want with it. People’s right to use their property is always bounded by other’s rights to not be harmed by that use; the saying “your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose” captures this concept pretty well. Ownership does not convey absolute freedom. As a society we can and do prohibit the torture and other intentional abuse of animals in a variety of ways for a variety of good reasons - whether that abuse is at the hands of the animal’s owner or not.</p>