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.

 

Comments

[elakelaiset]

You lost me.

[nitewriter7]

Dog fighting a sign of an uncouth America

With all the millions of dollars the very BEST thing Vick could think to do with it all his resource, money, and fame is dog fight
A base idea at best - never occurred to use his money to set up an after school program, art classes, music, (a few visit to the children's ward isn' what I mean)
a sign that his man had little cultural enrichment or education. Wasn't taught the deeper meaning of history and culture. That isn't a black/white things, it's a lack of eduction thing. Where were there decent teacher and guidance to advise this man.

[thelastgentleman]

Okay, it is true that, alas, we live in a hypocritical society. It is also intellectual cowardice to wring our hands in angst and ignore the critical point here: Michael Vick is not Huck Finn down at the old fishin’ hole….
Michael Vick is a criminal sociopath.
He repeatedly, in a cool, deliberate, premeditated fashion, tortured, maimed, and brutalized animals that were fully capable of fear, pain and terror ... not during a brief lapse in judgment, not for material gain .... but for pleasure.
The exact point along the hierarchical continuum from amoeba to Lassie at which we began to empathize with the creature can be debated (a fly? a fish? a chicken?) but by the time we come to the dog, we all (sociopaths excluded) innately understand that dogs are social creatures that perceive pain, pleasure, and fear in a manner with which we can empathize. As Immanuel Kant wrote, “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
Take a look at the literature documenting that those who torture animals will likely commit violence against people as well. I’m not aware of the link between fishing and serial killers, but I’m willing to be educated.
Experts argue about the exact nature of a sociopath, but Wikipedia gives us a pretty good starting point: "They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience. However, they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs." As evidenced, for example, by a carefully crafted apology through one’s attorney.
Is sociopathy a disease or a choice?
I don’t know. I don’t care. Let the courts work that out.
I do know that we live in a decadent culture that not only loves its Big Macs, but tolerates anyone, no matter how vile and repulsive, as long as he entertains us.
Can the lions and gladiators be far behind?

[LIDC]

Killing "Man's best friend" is wrong.

[escobar]

The issue is, the man knowingly committed a felony.
Right now, there are people doing twenty years in prison for the same exact thing. What is the difference?
In fact there are people doing twenty years for poession of pot! The demon weed.
In the US you can shoot your wife, cut her throat and that of a delivery boy, and get away with it. You can kill a limo driver who admires you so much he is unsuspecting when he walks into your mansion with your drunken entorurage. You can steal pensions and ruin the old age of thousands of people. You can start a war on a lie. You can destroy the Social Security millions depend upon to eat and stay indoors.
Punishment depends upon how much money you have.
The real question is, should he be considered rich enough to do as he pleases?

[whistlertony]

Over 15,000 years ago, dogs and humans formed a partnership based on trust - a relationship that is much older than any civilization existing today. Betrayal is a trait peculiar to humans. Fortunately most people recognize betrayal's horribly negative aspect and try to avoid it. Some people - for example, Michael Vick, dog eaters, and Lawrence O'Donnell - do not.

[Wilburrr]

So... would dog fighting be OK if we ate the losers?

[trailblazer]

You all misunderstand what a philanthropist Michael Vick is. He was merely following in the footsteps of his hero, Nobel Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, granting small loans to people too poor to be given a traditional loan, enabling them to start their own business. According to Michael, he never shared any of the profits from Bad Newz Kennels' ventures. He enabled these poor young men to rise from poverty and become successful businessmen. Such an altruistic heart, and so misunderstood.

Lock the sonofabitch up for the maximum sentence, and never let his stupid ass return to the NFL.

[olivegarden]

It is a matter of violence. I am a vegan and appreciate your analogies; however the bar must be set somewhere. Dog and cats are considered companion animals these days. Vick should be considered dangerous.

[uffdacyd]

What bothers me about the Vick story - why is it that people are outraged over this story but don't feel the same way when an athlete is charged with abusing his wife or girlfriend? I guess it is okay to abuse a woman but not a dog. Interesting priorities.......

[Tennessean]

In South Korea, dogs are killed to eat. But, not just killed; in some instances, in rural areas, where cultural norms have not completely evolved, dogs are skinned alive. It is believed that this process activates certain hormones which make the meat of the dog more tender, and thus, better eating. They also keep dogs in cages in the zoo, alongside the lions, tigers and bears. Oh, my.

Do you think this cultural norm in South Korea justifies torturing and brutally murdering dogs that are forced to fight to the death in barbaric gambling rings so that sociopaths can make illegal money off of them?

What about our own cultural norms which allow us to deny the hideous barbarity we are all supporting every day in other countries, where we celebrate those who carry out our "patriotic" duty to shower people with napalm and burn them alive, to blow them into bits by dropping bombs on them? We aren't shocked at all by the fact that we've murdered more than a million children in the past two decades by forcing them to drink radioactive water, so that their organs fail, or they are born with hideous birth defects. What sort of a sadistic society would cause such suffering, without a twinge of guilt? And, indeed, applaud our leaders for it and demand that everyone show yellow ribbons in support of it?

Such a society should be considered sick shouldn't it? We pay men like Vick and turn them into gladiators of sadism on a playing field; then we're shocked and outraged when they choose to do it off the playing field as well as on the playing field. Past cultures used to sacrifice humans to lions and cheer as the lions slaughtered and devoured human beings, too.

Oh, but we're not like them, now, are we?

Nah.

[rpence]

Mr. O'Donnell is extraordinarily intelligent and extraordinarily brave to offer this column. Kudos!

[scrawf]

I have always liked Lawrence O'Donnell, but frankly, this column is appalling. I can't understand why he can't understand. Vick wasn't eating the dogs that he killed. He was allowing them to fight each other, and killing the losers in very sadistic ways.

You don't think that wetting a dog down and electrocuting it is wrong? Strangling a dog with your bare hands is fine? Are you kidding me?

Vick is a sadist, and I hope that he never plays football again. He deserves exactly what he's going to get.

[RedBullBear68]

Dude.
The tone of this blog smells a little of looking for a fight, but whatever.
First off torturing animals is one of the diagnostic criteria for serial killers.
Secondly, humans have a habit of anthropomorphizing things and especially when they are familiar. When you mistreat something that others see as human-like people react as they did towards Vick. Dogs and horses have been humans companions and co workers for a long time. We have bred them for this purpose so in a sense we have an obligation to treat them well.
I think you understand.

[mouselion]

A lot of misconceptions here in this thread:

Whether or not a vegan, vegetarian or meat diet works for you depends on your body and blood-type.

O blood-types, the oldest, generally need a certain amount of animal fat of some kind in the diet. The "newer" blood-types, A and B, do better with a vegan diet.

Pit Bulls are no meaner -- or nicer -- than any other breed of dog. They're just dogs. It's how they are treated and trained by their owners and other humans that makes them whatever is they are, a ferocious beast or a cupcake of a dog that a child can pull the ears and tails without a problem.

People don't need to hunt today, at least in mainstream America. But some native peoples still do as an important part of their culture and lifestyles. People in some third-world countries still need to hunt to survive. They wouldn't have a problem killing a dog to eat, but neither would they probably have a problem with dog or cockfight (at least in some cultures).

Suffice it to say that Americans are evolving as a society to be more humanitarian and compassionate, although there are setbacks, such as Vick and Bush/Cheney. We HAD a reputation for being a bit more socially evolved in this respect, but the hold-outs are trying to create a less enlightened way for us (they seem to be succeeding).