Vick's dog fighting problems - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #31 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

I believe some animals do have rights. Their rights are few and limited, but protects them from animal cruelty. There are, however, no animals who have a right to life, only humans have that.

Well, since animals don't kill one another for fun (i.e. 'cruelty' - though if you've ever watched a predator rip its prey apart, that certainly seems 'cruel'), your idea of animal "rights" seems only to be concerned with the unique restriction of what humans can do. That is to say, your point doesn't seem to be "animals are entitled to..." but rather, "humans may not..." After all, good luck explaining to a badger that he has no 'right' to eviscerate a baby rabbit.

Traveler · #32 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

but rather, "humans may not..."

We have a lot of "Human's may not" laws on the books though. Try justifying that none of them should exist...

Anyway i guess you could use one of the laws already on the books to argue that Human's shouldn't destroy the property of other's, like say another person's animal. But of course how can animals have rights if they "belong" to someone? Does someone's car have rights? But then again if you trashed up someone's car you would be prosecuted no?

drgoodtrips · #33 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

We have a lot of "Human's may not" laws on the books though. Try justifying that none of them should exist...

Why would I do that? Most restrictive laws are made to protect people's rights - you can't kill me because I have a right to life as recognized by our government, whether implicitly or explicitly.

However, my libertarian tendencies make me believe that "humans may not" laws are nanny-state 'busybodyism' if they do not protect one of my rights (i.e. drug laws, 'decency' laws, etc). Protecting animals, to me, would fall under this category, unless the animal was someone's property. Preventing someone from pulling the legs off of a rabbit or beating a goose to death doesn't protect anyone's rights - it just appeals to people's sensibilities. Historically, such as when black people were considered animals, it hasn't always held that subjective and whimsical sensibilities are the most reasonable basis for law.

Quote:

Anyway i guess you could use one of the laws already on the books to argue that Human's shouldn't destroy the property of other's, like say another person's animal. But of course how can animals have rights if they "belong" to someone? Does someone's car have rights? But then again if you trashed up someone's car you would be prosecuted no?

Well, you're asking the wrong guy. I've already stated that I believe, categorically, that the idea of animal's having 'rights' is preposterous. They are completely incapable of recognizing rights or respecting them in other animals, so what's the point? When a human goes out and kills another human in cold blood, he forfeits a lot of rights. Since animals would and do kill one another constantly without remorse, what is the point of them having rights? They're basically all sociopathic maniacs that operate according only to instinct.

Traveler · #34 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

However, my libertarian tendencies make me believe that "humans may not" laws are nanny-state 'busybodyism' if they do not protect one of my rights (i.e. drug laws, 'decency' laws, etc). Protecting animals, to me, would fall under this category, unless the animal was someone's property. Preventing someone from pulling the legs off of a rabbit or beating a goose to death doesn't protect anyone's rights - it just appeals to people's sensibilities. Historically, such as when black people were considered animals, it hasn't always held that subjective and whimsical sensibilities are the most reasonable basis for law.

True, as we can now see with the nonsensical garbage we call affirmative action and hate crime laws. Totally pathetic. However...

Quote:

Well, you're asking the wrong guy. I've already stated that I believe, categorically, that the idea of animal's having 'rights' is preposterous. They are completely incapable of recognizing rights or respecting them in other animals, so what's the point? When a human goes out and kills another human in cold blood, he forfeits a lot of rights. Since animals would and do kill one another constantly without remorse, what is the point of them having rights? They're basically all sociopathic maniacs that operate according only to instinct.

I don't neccessarily agree with you last point about animals all being spciopathic maniacs (heck babies go off instinct when they're born on how to feed and stuff) but you're basically saying the animal has no rights unless it belongs to someone? So if there's an abandoned item of property (i know at some point it has to have belonged to someone but say it doesn't anymore and it doesn'tbelong to the state) then people have a right to trash it and destroy the living crap out of it? Are unowned animals basically the same as "things" then?

drgoodtrips · #35 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

True, as we can now see with the nonsensical garbage we call affirmative action and hate crime laws. Totally pathetic. However...

Neither one of those are biggies in my book, either.

Quote:

I don't neccessarily agree with you last point about animals all being spciopathic maniacs (heck babies go off instinct when they're born on how to feed and stuff) but you're basically saying the animal has no rights unless it belongs to someone?

The 'sociopathic maniacs' was tongue in cheek. There are plenty of herbivores that never intentionally harm others. My point is that man's best friend might be perfectly happy to maul a cat or a possum that it happened on. What's the point of animals having 'rights' when they are incapable of understanding them, would never respect them, and do not expect them? The animal kingdom is a cruel, cruel place. So yes, I'm saying that an animal has no rights, whether it belongs to someone or not. However, if it does belong to me, and you light it on fire, I'll prosecute your ass for destruction of property (among other things).

Quote:

So if there's an abandoned item of property (i know at some point it has to have belonged to someone but say it doesn't anymore and it doesn'tbelong to the state) then people have a right to trash it and destroy the living crap out of it?

Sure, why not? If you go out into the forest and happened on an abandoned car, you think anyone cares if you take a couple of whacks with a crow-bar?

Quote:

Are unowned animals basically the same as "things" then?

Absolutely, in terms of legal standing. Now, I'm not advocating animal cruelty, but I don't see any logical difference. The only exception I can see bearing meritorious consideration is the idea that animals are 'public domain', but that could be a slippery slope.

Si modo · #36 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I noticed you said, "I believe the fear is..." and then proceeded with an argument (not a logical one, in my opinion, which I will explain). Is that your belief, or are you explaining the logic of others?

The argument seems to be that killing animals for non-utilitarian purposes is likely to cause children to grow into serial killers, rather than exist as a manifestation of the lack of empathy and sadism demonstrated by people with sociopathic or psychotic personalities. That is to say, we could prevent people from committing serial murders if we stop them from killing animals or wetting their beds, neither of which seems to make sense to me. Furthermore, even making these activities illegal seems pretty useless for guaranteeing human safety. A sociopath is unlikely to refrain from killing dogs simply because it's illegal and, the percentage of people that are serial murderers who kill animals as children as a function of society at large is so negligible as to be virtually useless for determining tangentially related serial murders.

Serial killers kill a pretty small section of the population to begin with, being that it is an unusual crime. And, I'm not sure how many of them would grow into what they are regardless, the effect of the legality of killing animals notwithstanding. So, perhaps this policy might save a dozen American lives per decade or something. I understand the value of human life, but aiming public policy at such minimal aspirations seems nonsensical.

I could see a more convincing argument being that allowing such casual violence would lead to a general devaluation of human life in society (not by specifically serial predators), but that still seems like a reach to me, and a foray into the arena of preemptive law enforcement.

I agree that animal cruelty, bedwetting, and firestarting do not cause sociopathology. Rather they are like a "psycho-marker", in the sense that the presense of a certain antigen or enzyme in a biological system is a biomarker of a disease pathology.

I agree with Speakeasy's postulation that the animal curelty marker may indicate a propensity to "up the ante". However, the triad should be present for a correlation to exist between these psychomarkers and one being a sociopath.

As we have stiff sentences for certain degrees of crimes, some sentences are based on a low chance of those committing those crimes ever being rehabilitated. In the chance that those who do get caught practicing animal cruelty also have the other two traits present, then the laws are in place to protect the public.

Of course, with what I just said, one may argue that we should incarcerate bedwetters, too

. I'm just throwing out some initial thoughts.

Traveler · #37 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Neither one of those are biggies in my book, either.

Same way animal rights aren't in mine.

Same stupid principles (or lack of) and ideas lead to the laws though.

Quote:

The 'sociopathic maniacs' was tongue in cheek.

I thought you wqere being serious.

Quote:

Sure, why not? If you go out into the forest and happened on an abandoned car, you think anyone cares if you take a couple of whacks with a crow-bar?

Well i hate the environment but i can't (legally) go out and destroy it. That sucks but oh well. I think there is the angle or public safety and public disturbance dependant on where it is.

Quote:

Absolutely, in terms of legal standing. Now, I'm not advocating animal cruelty, but I don't see any logical difference. The only exception I can see bearing meritorious consideration is the idea that animals are 'public domain', but that could be a slippery slope.

Possibly, though you didn't say what you thought about those who can't defend themselves being attacked, like disabled folk or people who are very young (children and even younger maybe) or maybe animals like in this instance. Should there be any distinction?

Speakeasy · #38 (**permalink**) 08-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I noticed you said, "I believe the fear is..." and then proceeded with an argument (not a logical one, in my opinion, which I will explain). Is that your belief, or are you explaining the logic of others?

I'm explaining what I think the logic of others is. Personally, I find it ridiculous that those three things would be used to identify a serial killer. It sounds like some sort of 1950's test similar to "if you kid has round eyes, they're a commie" or something.

But, I do think that that line of thought is a large driving force behind animal cruelty laws. The idea being, that if someone can torture and kill an animal, that them torturing and killing a human isn't too far off. Torturing and killing an animal for sadistic purposes shows a complete and utter lack of respect for life, and if they can do it to an animal...

drgoodtrips · #39 (**permalink**) 08-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

I agree that animal cruelty, bedwetting, and firestarting do not cause sociopathology. Rather they are like a "psycho-marker", in the sense that the presense of a certain antigen or enzyme in a biological system is a biomarker of a disease pathology.

I agree with Speakeasy's postulation that the animal curelty marker may indicate a propensity to "up the ante". However, the triad should be present for a correlation to exist between these psychomarkers and one being a sociopath.

As we have stiff sentences for certain degrees of crimes, some sentences are based on a low chance of those committing those crimes ever being rehabilitated. In the chance that those who do get caught practicing animal cruelty also have the other two traits present, then the laws are in place to protect the public.

Of course, with what I just said, one may argue that we should incarcerate bedwetters, too

. I'm just throwing out some initial thoughts.

It seems to me that, even with the existence of these psychopath tells, you can hardly start locking people up based on what they might do. While it's certainly in the interest of public safety to try to nip anti-social behavior in bud, I think that creating sentences for lesser/non-crimes because they might be indicators of future major crimes is a very dangerous precedent. It'd be like jailing kids for underage drinking for a few years because they might go on to get drunk and kill an innocent mother while driving under the influence.

drgoodtrips · #40 (**permalink**) 08-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Possibly, though you didn't say what you thought about those who can't defend themselves being attacked, like disabled folk or people who are very young (children and even younger maybe) or maybe animals like in this instance. Should there be any distinction?

Of course there should. The ability to have rights is not, in civil society, dependent on one's ability to enforce them - this would simply be anarchy and a self defeating proposition for governance. You're describing a scenario where "might makes right". If I'm bigger/stronger/faster than you, or else, I can simply get the jump on you, I can take your toys and play with them in my sandbox.

My point about animals isn't that they can't 'defend' themselves (generally, they can and do - viciously). My point is that animals have no expectation that they will be given rights, no concept of what they are, and no inclination to respect the rights of other animals. Killing the young/weak/handicapped is exactly what animals do. In a 'society' (i.e. animal society) where this is the expected and normal behavior, the concept of 'rights' is meaningless.

We lock up or execute humans who kill the weak simply because they can because we expect them, in terms of social contract between citizens, not to do so. In essence, we remove all of their rights because they do this. Why would animals be any different? We can't expect them to be "good actors" and live up to the responsibilities that come part and parcel with rights in a society - so why bother giving them any rights? And, you can't apply this to the handicapped/children/elderly, because these members of society to not gratuitously violate the rights of others. If they did, they'd be locked up and stripped of their rights, ala the criminally insane.

drgoodtrips · #41 (**permalink**) 08-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm explaining what I think the logic of others is. Personally, I find it ridiculous that those three things would be used to identify a serial killer. It sounds like some sort of 1950's test similar to "if you kid has round eyes, they're a commie" or something.

But, I do think that that line of thought is a large driving force behind animal cruelty laws. The idea being, that if someone can torture and kill an animal, that them torturing and killing a human isn't too far off. Torturing and killing an animal for sadistic purposes shows a complete and utter lack of respect for life, and if they can do it to an animal...

Okay, that's what I assumed. And, it does meet the burden of "common sense", but, in terms of policy, it seems like both a slippery slope fallacy, and a slippery slope in earnest (making things crimes to prevent other crimes).

White Rabbit · #42 (**permalink**) 08-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

It seems to me that, even with the existence of these psychopath tells, you can hardly start locking people up based on what they might do. While it's certainly in the interest of public safety to try to nip anti-social behavior in bud, I think that creating sentences for lesser/non-crimes because they might be indicators of future major crimes is a very dangerous precedent. It'd be like jailing kids for underage drinking for a few years because they might go on to get drunk and kill an innocent mother while driving under the influence.

I agree - very well stated point and a very important one for liberty.

I loathe any attempt to make thought a crime.

Dog-fighting ought to be illegal on its own merits.

Miranda · #43 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

RICHMOND, Va. - Michael Vick and his attorneys were still negotiating with federal prosecutors Thursday, hoping to strike a deal on a plea agreement, according to a lawyer familiar with the case.

The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press because of the ongoing discussions.

The Atlanta Falcons star quarterback pleaded not guilty to dogfighting conspiracy charges last month. But since then, one of his co-defendants has changed his plea to guilty and agreed to testify against Vick, and two others are scheduled to do likewise Friday.

Prosecutors, meantime, have said they will seek a superseding indictment this month. Legal experts say the growing parade of prosecution witnesses and the prospect of additional charges increases the pressure on Vick to negotiate a deal.

Vick, prosecutors negotiating deal - Yahoo! News

OK, feelings of laws for/against dog fighting, etc. aside - here's why this makes me mad.

Was it worth it? The NFL has rules in place against any gambling, a lifetime ban. Repeat - a lifetime ban. So, for all of the money, the endorsements, the people who looked up to him, if Vick gets just that (because I can only assume that funding dogfighting/gambling might violate that rule) was is worth losing all of it?

For every NFL/MLB/NBA star who has fucked around and lost so much money for that...was it really worth it? These people have talent - no doubt. You don't get to where they are without it. I suppose it just really hits me in the wrong spot that they wasted it, essentially.

And for whoever said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Heh, ask Micheal Vick.

O'Sullivan Bere · #44 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miranda

OK, feelings of laws for/against dog fighting, etc. aside - here's why this makes me mad.

Was it worth it? The NFL has rules in place against any gambling, a lifetime ban. Repeat - a lifetime ban. So, for all of the money, the endorsements, the people who looked up to him, if Vick gets just that (because I can only assume that funding dogfighting/gambling might violate that rule) was is worth losing all of it?

For every NFL/MLB/NBA star who has fucked around and lost so much money for that...was it really worth it? These people have talent - no doubt. You don't get to where they are without it. I suppose it just really hits me in the wrong spot that they wasted it, essentially.

And for whoever said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Heh, ask Micheal Vick.

Absolutely. Just today, now former NBA referee Tim Donaghy copped a guilty plea to gambling on NBA games, including his own, by tipping off two well known local bookies in my area.

He is only 40 years old and already made $260,000 per year in salary and was regarded as a top referee so he would have made more as years went by.

For giving out info, he got paid $2,000 and later up to $5,000 per game if the bookie's pick won. He bet himself. And his ability to throw a call and give referee information only made a slight edge given it has to be deadlocked to matter. They majority of games are not nailbiters. Thus, he threw his lucrative career and his freedom away for chump change with only slightly less than random chances to collect minus his own losses when betting on games.

Former ref Donaghy pleads guilty; bets began in 2003 - USATODAY.com

Si modo · #45 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Absolutely. Just today, now former NBA referee Tim Donaghy copped a guilty plea to gambling on NBA games, including his own, by tipping off two well known local bookies in my area.

He is only 40 years old and already made $260,000 per year in salary and was regarded as a top referee so he would have made more as years went by.

For giving out info, he got paid $2,000 and later up to $5,000 per game if the bookie's pick won. He bet himself. And his ability to throw a call and give referee information only made a slight edge given it has to be deadlocked to matter. They majority of games are not nailbiters. Thus, he threw his lucrative career and his freedom away for chump change with only slightly less than random chances to collect minus his own losses when betting on games.

Former ref Donaghy pleads guilty; bets began in 2003 - USATODAY.com

I've heard about this story, too. Although the ball players have rules against gambling, as they should, a REF doing it???!!!??? That cooks me. The integrity of the game is so important and this causes me to lose faith in my second favorite ball game - the round ball.

Football is my favorite.