What's Wrong with Killing Dogs?
So it's a federal crime to be mean to dogs? Who knew?
What's wrong with what Michael Vick did? I have no inclination to do what he did with dogs, but I have no comprehension of what all the fuss is about. Most people who are upset about killing dogs or letting them attack each other have at some point in their lives caught a fish, which is as extreme a form of murderous torture of an animal as I can imagine. Not only have most of them caught a fish, they have actually eaten many more of them than they've caught. Which is weirder, killing an animal or eating its dead flesh? Most of us have never eaten dog meat, but in some countries it is a delicacy. Is there something evil going on in those countries? Are they violating the natural order of things? Should we invade them or get the UN to intervene? They are killing and eating dogs for god's sake!!!
What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws? And how does that same natural law allow for fish being clubbed to death on boat decks if they haven't died already from the hook-in-mouth trick we so enjoy pulling on them?
Our reverence for dog life resembles our reverence for human life. Up to a point. It's okay to kill your dog if you think your dog is too sick to go on living much longer or if you just can't afford medical help for your dog. And, don't worry, no legal authority is ever going to ask you to prove that your dog was really sick enough to kill or even sick at all. If you don't have the stomach for killing your dog yourself, you contract with a dog killer -- otherwise known as a veterinarian -- to do the dirty work for you. No federal law against that yet. Our dog reverence is so shot full of loopholes that there is no describable moral order to it at all.
Americans revere horses too, but it's okay to shoot your racehorse in the head in public if it so much as breaks a leg--something I saw the first time I went to a racetrack. And it's more than okay--politicians consider it a leadership demonstration--to hunt. Shoot 'em, kill 'em, cook 'em, eat 'em is the American way for a lot of pretty birds and every four-legged animal other than dogs, cats, and horses.
Between bites at McDonald's today there will be a lot of outrage expressed about Michael Vick getting off easy. I won't understand a word of it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
shows you how intellection can distort the sense for reality.
All animals are different, all human acts are different. Dogfighting sucks. Law addresses it. Somebody should've told Vick. sorry.
Lawrence,
I completely agree with you (didn't think I would ever find a such 100% agreement on an issue on this site).
There are so many grey areas here that to throw Mr. Vick in jail for killing an animal(s) is completely ludicrous.
This is a totally emotional reaction to this situation and Vick is going to pay a price only because of his celeberty.
It is dispicable what Vick has done here but it is a moral issue not a legal one.
DOGFIGHTING IS ILLEGAL. What part of that don't you understand????
Invading Iraq, stealing pensions, torturing prisoners, etc are illegal.
But you hope Vick will do more time than those vile government and corporate criminals?
What part of "this is all a distraction" don't you understand?
I'd say the issue is neither moral nor legal. It's psychological. Animal fighting doesn't just include cruelty and brutality against creatures, It glorifies and encourages more and greater cruelty against innocent creatures, including people.
A lot of people have been trotting out this argument.
Where is the proof?
Serial killers were not young dog-fighters (an underground sport to many, many in an invisible world a lot of yall don't see ever).
I completely disagree, Bladernr. Just because this case is getting coverage doesn't mean he wouldn't be charged if he wasn't an NFL superstar.
Lawrence, are you a funny man? Because all laughter dies when the whip comes down. If you don't get it, talk to people who rescue dogs, or go to a shelter--spend some time helping the wounded & maimed, come back if you have to, in case you still don't get it. Do we tolerate intentional cruelty and violence being visited upon animals, because, hey, the beef industry is doing just fine, thank you? Ask yourself a question: is misery part of the invisible hand of the free market? The same thinking leads to blowing the heads off people in faraway lands, all because we can.
++++
"Invisible hand". Adam Smith's famous "invisible hand". Excellent point, MJS! Michael Vick was acting in his own best interest, which, according to classical economic theory, is, by definition, a GOOD thing for society. (I'm a yellow dog progressive Dem already, does this mean I need to become a full fledged socialist??!*#?)...:)
Man and dog have a special, almost symbiotic, relationship that predates history. Dogs have an inhrent trust of man, and a dog raised by a man feels himself to be part of a family; a pack, if you will. He looks to the man for protection and security. Vick violated a sacred bond%2
Yes, and a dog would do anything it can for it's person. The dog has no understanding of what is happening and why... this betrayal of trust in itself is heartbreaking.
We're not talking about Lassie here, accountability, this is about pitbulls trained to fight. Their owners don't trust them any more than they trust their owners. They are vicious, dangerous animals. That doesn't justify in any way the sport or the process of developing fighting dogs, I'm just saying they are more like unpredictable, dangerous wild animals than pets.
Not all dogs are created equal, MelFamy. Check out this article from the Tacoma News Tribune about a pitbull mauling this week....
"Pit bulls attack, maul woman in bed"
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/updates/story/138165.html
again, years and years of inbreeding and selective breeding have created this. This is something that "MAN" has done.
Personally I would not have a pitbull because of this unpredictability though I know many people who have them or have had them and their dogs were as sweet as could be. Still I never felt comfortable with them.... But this was bred into them. This isn't a choice they made. Hell, a Shitzu will bite you too... but they weren't bred for killing.
Great post, MelFamy: it's also sometimes the reverse about protection and security.
Lawrence,
The difference with regard to dogs, cats and horses, are that these animals are by definition "companion animals."
Furthermore, anyone who has read the Vick indictment and his subsequent statement of facts will agree that his actions are barbaric. Not to mention strictly for the furtherance of his illegal venture.
However, while many feel on a personal level that his punishment will not be sufficient, they need to understand that a lesser sentence is part of the enticement of a plea deal.
The bottom line is that we are a nation of laws. Dog fighting and animal abuse are crimes (for more on that see http://www.crueltyisacrime.com), where as hunting and fishing are not. So you are being obtuse when you ask "what's wrong with what Michael Vick did?", and you know it.
Recently on Animal Planet there was a show where some people killed a horse brutally because it lost a race. They slit it's throat in front of other horses and proceeded to take a chainsaw to it. They took pictures while they did this. They did it to other horses over time and the authorities were looking for serial animal killers.
They were caught. They were tried and convicted and the other horses were rescued. So your argument is invalid, because there is a difference between euthanasia and torturous killing. Your accusations of hypocisy and your condemnations are really lame.
lunaoscura, you're absolutely correct.
His accusations of hypocisy and his condemnations ARE really lame.
PA Firefighter
I think what is being argued here is the effacy of these laws.
While the acts here are dispicable I think we are asking too much of our government to mitigate such behavior.
So the "law" exclusively determines ethics and morality? If something is legal, it is by definition okay, and if something is illegal, it is by definition wrong? There are parts of the world where dogfighting is legal (common in S. America). I'm certain those parts of the world, presumably governed by laws, believe they, too, are a "nation of laws". Are you suggesting that the United States is uniquely a "nation of laws"? If not, you are no doubt arguing that in another "nation of laws", where dogfighting is legal, it is perfectly okay, and on a par with legal hunting, fishing, bullfighting...etc...?
Agreed... good point... to substitute morality with law would be to involve yourself in cultural relativism
And, in some parts of the world it is "legal" or at least socially acceptable, to kill female infants or one's wife. Should we then consider that behavior and that mindset as normal and acceptable because it is legal somewhere.
By the way, rabbits are "companion animals" also, and very docile whether or not domesticated. What's your take on Mitt Romneys fondness for shooting rabbits?
disgusting.
I think all Mitt ever shot off was his mouth. His handlers told him the base liked hunting.
... I was very dismayed to see Lawrence had written this article, sarge. I'm not sure as to whether he's doing a satirical riff ala the infamous J. Swifts "feed the children of the poor to the rich" quote ("A Modest Proposal"), or if he's serious in his mistaken views. And many of our fellow HuffPo-ers are equally as unpleasantly surprised as we were, judging by the tone of the responses here..! O_o ...
Another thing Mitt wants you to know, judging from the charming family photos - he doesn't shoot blanks. Live ammo, baby.
I knew someone who had a pet clam.
By whose definition exactly ??
I wrote a post pretty much like the ones above.. but I'm not certain whether he meant to get us to think or if he actually meant what he said per the letter.
I do think it says something of the mental state of these men that they could set up the dogs so that they could kill each other.. and then if they didn't die in the ring they did them in with their bare hands by drowning or hanging. Could they do that to people if we didn't have laws against it?
There IS a difference (although our factory system of raising animals to make product out of them IS indeed cruel in many ways)
Killing for food is quite different than killing for fun.
The first step of many serial killers is the torture and killing of animals.
I don't think the killing of race horses or dogs is OK either.
Killing for any other reason than self-defense or Eating is wrong and leads to a callousness that respects no life.
Read up or better yet get involved with some dog fighting rings. It is brutal.
People who put down a pet because it is ill and has no quality of life anymore are being merciful. We should afford the same mercy to the Human animal.
As a business the NFL can do what it feels in in the best interest of the game: and believe me the NFL would lose some fans and money if they EVER tolerate this kind of behavior.
What is right and what is legal or not are two different things. It shouldn't be so.
How would Vick feel if the NFL executed "underperforming" players?
Mr. O'Donnell:
"What's wrong with what Michael Vick did?"
PA Firefighter:
He killed dogs because they weren't killing other dogs fast enough, or weren't fighting to the death. THAT is what's wrong with what Michael Vick did.
Mr. O'Donnell:
"What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws?"
PA Firefighter:
Since the dawn of time, dogs have been a partner with Man in the struggle for survival. They helped us hunt and provided protection from predators for our families and homes - sometimes at the cost of their own lives. In modern times, the dog functions not only as a watchdog for our homes, our families, and our businesses, but also as a rescue animal in snow, water, ice, and fire. Dogs find survivors, track criminals, and guide our blind. The species Man owes much to the species Canine. We OWE them. And we owe them at least the courtesy of jailing people like Michael Vick.
Mr. O'Donnell:
"And how does that same natural law allow for fish being clubbed to death on boat decks if they haven't died already from the hook-in-mouth trick we so enjoy pulling on them?"
PA Firefighter:
Fish have done none of the things that I listed in the paragraph above. No tuna ever saved a human life. No gilled swimmer has the ability to partner with man like the dog has. Hence, they are food.
PA Firefighter
The NFL does execute, figuratively, poorly performing players. Ever read any of a double dozen sports novels, on that topic? Shit, with all the movies, you don't actually have to read anything. Furthermore, after using them to the max, the NFL does not even take care of the old decrepit players, the ones who walk around with chronic life long injuries.
"Since the dawn of time, dogs have been a partner with Man in the struggle for survival."
Well said. For anyone who doesn't see the difference between a dog and a deer, or a dog and a fish, I'd suggest they speak to someone whose life has been saved by a Search and Rescue dog or a bomb-sniffing canine . . . or that they talk to a blind or otherwise physically challenged human whose life has been changed by the addition of a dog. We ask much of our canine friends, and they give it willingly, because they understand what it means to be the member of a pack. As they have protected us, so should we protect them. Anything else is inhuman.
PA Firefighter, I so agree. Although I can't be remotely objective about this topic, others can. Anthropologists and other scientists believe humans and dogs evolved together. Neither of us would be here without the other. Only half the puppies in feral litters survive, while 95 percent of puppies survive in human care. Without dogs, our ancestors could not have successfully hunted many types of animals or herded many types of livestock. Partnering with dogs allowed humans to produce enough food to specialize, thus giving us art, music, and literature (and yes, habitat destruction, pollution, and weapons of mass destruction, too, but these weren't Fido's ideas).
PART 1
Mr. O'Donnell:
"What's wrong with what Michael Vick did?"
PA Firefighter:
He killed dogs because they weren't killing other dogs fast enough, or weren't fighting to the death. THAT is what's wrong with what Michael Vick did.
Nopartygal:
I am guessing that Mr. O’Donnell knows this obvious and easy answer to what was more an allegorical question on his part, delving into a more complex area of the issue. To spell it out: I think he meant to point out the moral inconsistencies of the general outrage at how Vick treated dogs vs how the people who are voicing this outrage treat all or many other living beings around them on a daily basis. All this with not only legal but moral (in a subjective sense) impunity too. In short, they are living in a moral fairytale (void, if you will...) that suits them because it remains comfortable to their immediate needs.
Mr. O'Donnell:
"What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws?"
PA Firefighter:
Since the dawn of time, dogs have been a partner with Man in the struggle for survival. They helped us hunt and provided protection from predators for our families and homes - sometimes at the cost of their own lives. In modern times, the dog functions not only as a watchdog for our homes, our families, and our businesses, but also as a rescue animal in snow, water, ice, and fire. Dogs find survivors, track criminals, and guide our blind. The species Man owes much to the species Canine. We OWE them. And we owe them at least the courtesy of jailing people like Michael Vick.
Nopartygal:
I think this relationship between man and canine has been synergistic enough to acquit man of the debt you impose upon him (man) with the above. Let’s just say that overall, the way man has sheltered, fed and provided security for the dog is compensated for by dog’s natural herding, hunting and guarding instincts. When a man has
Thought you'd like some input from someone who is not a dog person, but is unexpectedly around dogs and getting to observe dog ownership objectively.
I'm spending a while in a household where two dogs are resident. Actually, at the moment both of them are sitting on my feet while I write--they're small dogs who like to use toes as chinrests. A particularly pleasant way to anchor a writer to a keyboard, I must say.
I've never really understood this fanatic attraction dog lovers have for their pets.
But I suspect, having observed it hands-on (well, actually, feet on, too) that it is the mirror of what dogs bring into a home.
They aren't just symbolic of loyalty, trust and companionship; they are the physical embodiment of it. Most people would be fortunate to be able to present to the world the level of charm and warmth dogs so effortlessly possess.
And in times where enough paranoia is in the air, there is something deep-down comforting in knowing that there is a presence that will bravely and inherently guard you body and soul. It doesn't take long to trust even the smalllest dog to do that. And it's a job any dog takes very seriously.
I am positive that the Vick response is simply an atavistic outrage to the abuse of trust. Dogs trust their owners unquestioningly in a way that is beyond rationalizing. It is a bond with the natural world for both parties. For an owner to jeopardize and betray a being so trusting is rightfully a source of disgust and indignation.
There is no rational explanation for what Vick partook in. Only excuses.
It's despicable. And it’s a tribute to our own human nature that so many are outraged.
Now, if we can only figure out how to feel this same way about hurting each other.
Gala
hotmail.comotmail.com
The NFL will not lose fans and money. You can't boycott something you never patronized? The PETA demo is NOT the same as the hunting-gun-toting-republican-white-male-hyper-militaristic-macho demographic.
PETA does NOT understand their enemy in this case. They may get love at 49er games, but definately not in the NFL's geographically southern divisions.
Ummm,praytell do you know which city Vick performs in? To assume that southern football fans do not share outrage at Vick is stoopid! I lived in New England for 50 years before living in the south and I'll tell You there is a much better sense of community and compassion for people and animals here. And don't get me going about behavior at sporting events. Attending a Yankee/RedSox game in The Bronx is a survival adventure compared to attending a game at Tropicana field,
All generalizations,particularly yours, are false.The"hunting-gun-toting-republican-white-male-hyper-militaristic-macho demographic." would be a very small group at any sporting event I've ever attended. There would be people that may be some of it,true. Not many would be all of it.
kudos Doctor !!
I pray that this post was something along the lines of "A Modest Proposal", because dogfighting is clearly wrong. And while there is a certain amount of hypocrisy when we, as human beings, create a chain heirarchy of animals that outlines which creatures will be saved and which can be discarded, there is at least SOME precedent. First and foremost, you bring up hunting as an example. But some would believe hunting (fishing, included) is as morally depraved of an action as dogfighting. Just because some people thing that killing other sentient beings for pleasure is acceptable doesn't make it so, and therefore does not make fighting dogs for sport acceptable. There's a huge logical fallacy in that argument. Second, there is a reason for placing dogs above fish. Dogs are and have been for many centuries companions and helpers and contribute value to our society. Fish, on the other hand, do not. Now, that isn't to say that fishing for a trophy is morally acceptable, but fishing and hunting as a means of sustenance has precedent and value to our survival as humans. Michael Vick tortured these dogs for sport and for profit, which is analogous to hunting and fishing for sport and profit. Therefore, BOTH actions are completely morally wrong,
exactly what I was thinking when I wrot emy first post and decided to delete it.. .and you said what I was tryign to say in my secodn post SO much better.
jackbauer0396: If you have time, can you check this out and let me know what you think???
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_robert_s_070823_hare_splitting_3f_romn.htm
I completely agree with that op ed. I feel that an action cannot stand by itself and be morally weighed without taking into account consequences and intentions. You must weigh why each person did what they did, and what happens as a result. And there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy here, even WITHOUT bringing into the forefront racial issues. Hunting is an elitist sport, done by the bourgeois and the privileged. Dogfighting is seen as a poor, urban man's sport. But deep down, I would argue, is there really any difference at all? If Mitt Romney is actually being sincere, and hunts small, defenseless animals with an outcome that does not foster human survival (aka, a food source) merely for the pleasure of it, and also for the financial benefits of helping his cause to be elected President, he is deriving pleasure from another sentient creature's pain. And though pitbulls may not be defenseless, they are still capable of feeling pain and should not be treated as an end. I do not agree with the author's conclusion, however, that Michael Vick does not deserve prison time. He does. He is a role model for America's youth. Our children, for better or for worse, mimic the actions of those they look up to. Similarly, I feel that slaughtering defenseless creatures, "varmints", as he so eloquently calls them, should warrant jail time as well, or in the very least procure an unsympathetic opinion from the general electorate. Unfortunately we live in a country where actions as barbaric as hunting are revered. To quote Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."
Why is Michael Vick taking all the weight. How does Ghouliani's wife get a free ride, being a dog torturer of another sort?
She was paid for her torturing of dogs, seems that is really what get folk all bent out of shape here.
Animals have been tortured forever so that y'all could have acne fighting medicines. Dogs are still tortured so that all the chemicals that keeps y'all's skin from looking like a road map past 50.
Is all that going to stop when Michael Vick goes to jail?
If this case was made against an ordinary man, he would probably suffer the same consequences, but it would not end up on the front page of every newspaper. Michael Vick is not a martyr, his case is just illuminated because of his high-profile status.
Lawrence
Please read the post by the Belz and then you may begin to get it!
There is a difference between killing an animal for sustenance, and killing an animal for pure sadistic pleasure and coldhearted profit.
Likewise, there is a difference between painlessly putting an animal to sleep at the veterinarian’s office, and killing an animal with barbaric brutality.
Would it matter to you if a loved one dies quietly while sleeping, has a stroke, or is brutally murdered? Would you feel the same if an emergency room medical team failed to save a loved one as you would if that loved one were viciously killed by a sadistic gang of criminals?
"There is a difference between killing an animal for sustenance, and killing an animal for pure sadistic pleasure and coldhearted profit."
I agree. Only problem is: we don't kill animals for sustenance; we kill them for enjoyment. We in the United States live in the land of plenty. We have access to plenty of plant-based sources of protein. But instead, we eat animals. Why? Because we enjoy the way they taste when cooked. We don't even crave meat; we crave carcinogens. Few people find meat to be appetizing in its natural state - raw. That hardly qualifies us as natural meat eaters.
People living without our luxuries eat animals for sustenance, but we in the US do not. Why? Pleasure. Why are they killed? Profit.
Steak tartare tastes pretty darn good to me. Carpaccio and sushi too.
There is not one hominid population in the history of the earth that didn't eat meat. It's absurd to say that we're not natural meat eaters, and it's difficult for us to get our necessary nutrients without eating meat or buying supplements.
If you want to be a vegan, that's your choice. Please do not inflict it on any babies you may have. Young children simply do not thrive without animal products.
How about sushi? Raw fish on rice tastes quite good, and it's not cooked. I could go on about the nutrients in meat and the difficulties that go with being a vegetarian, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the real reason dog fighting is illegal.
It's illegal to fight dogs for the same reason it's illegal to fight poultry, which is quite edible and far from man's best friend. It has nothing to do with what happens to the animal, and everything to do with what it does to the people who are involved in it. Unlike killing animals for food or even for sport, the cruelty to the animals is not tangential to the human activity. Much like watching the gladiators of the Roman Colosseum, it encourages people to publicly express cruelty. The cruelty of it is the whole point. That's why we as a society don't like it.
I agree with everything Sumocat says...but I would also add: when you buy a pound of meat in the Supermarket, it represents approximately 15 pounds of vegetable or grain foodstuff that that animal had to eat in order to create that one pound of edible meat. How many humans could we have otherwise fed?
It took a whole lot of energy and water as well. Remember not too long ago that the U.N. said that the meat industry creates more global warming than cars. And how much longer can we afford to deplete the water table to feed these animals?
What Vick did may not have been a wonderful thing but it sure as hell wasn't one percent as bad as what every single meat eater in America is responsible for by being a meat consumer.
Congrats to Lawrence O'Donnell for being politically incorrect and telling it like it is.
I spent 2 years living in a tree in Northern CA. As she talked to me one night in a storm, Lina, (the name of the tree I lived in) told me she had a soul, as did all the trees, as did all the living plants of the forest. I learned that plants are a higher life form than animals. Some people may be able to see that a giant tree has a soul, but they go ahead and mow down the corn stalks because they don't see that corn has a soul too. Some people even kill plants for pleasure, and set flowers in their window! Can you imagine the horror Lina feels when that happens. As a human and an animal, I now eat only other animals, and leave the higher forms alone. Peace and Love and Hare Krishna,
Djanggau
we eat large amounts of meat because of a depression era campaign to get people to consume more wheat. 1 pound of meat = 10 pounds of wheat or other grains. This encouraged buying more from the farmer, which was then re-spent in farm supplies.
It's mostly economic.
good points.
How could he not get it?
Gee, TexasDem, I always used to think I liked Lawrence O'Donnell, didn't you? Well, live and learn.
I will never look the same at him again. Ever.
I don't know. I'll bet he'd be pretty good seared slowly on a spit and dipped in wasabi.
Your comments are right on! I usually agree with O'Donnell on just about everything but not this time. For someone to train a dog to fight and then kill it because it didn't perform...well, there is something seriously wrong with anyone who does that. I don't think they could ever be "cured", Vick is seriously flawed.
They can't be so-called 'cured'? So what? Throw away the key? No redemption? You've got to be kidding me?
Do you also oppose training people to kill and making them fight. I don't mean Iraq, I mean WWF.
Vick is a creep and I hope he loses all respect and every dime he ever made. To bad the survivors of the dogs that were killed couldn't sue.
AMEN! After hearing this "line of thinking," you can understand the DLC and the DC "Clinton Kiss-Ups" of the Democratic Party a little better. No wonder we have an almost automatic "visceral antagonism" to them! They have no empathy! They have no soul!
No one has a soul. soul is a myth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
