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
It's hard for me to believe that a co-writer and sometimes actor of the West Wing doesn't have the sensitivity to understand the issue at hand. Or, Lawrence O'Donnell wrote the article to stir a debate.
We are not perfect, we don't treat all animals the same way but we are improving. We should get credit for that.
We must also keep in mind that we are part of the animal kingdom, a species ourselves and part of the food chain. It's natural to treat some animals, marine life, plants in different ways if we are to survive.
Vick ran the Abu Ghraib prison for dogs and like the Bush admin, he will mostly get away with it.
First you beat them(training) then you torture them(fighting) then you kill them if they are too hurt to torture further.
I agree with all the people who who are disgusted by the things Michael Vick did. But I cannot understand the public policy behind his likely receiving a sentence longer than many manslaughter convictions. Nor can I understand how the NFL has room for numerous wife-beaters and even a former murder defendant but has no place for somebody who killed his own dogs.
Mr. O'Donnell, you lost a fan today by your post! Have a good day, sir!
Hopefully Lawrence was using this as a method to point out human hypocrisy.
Obviously anyone who gets pleasure from mutilating, torturing and killing animals like Vick did, are unfeeling and cruel. We feel great revulsion at this inhumane exhibit...
But it does make one wonder why we aren't up in arms against our government officials who have done the same to people? Why aren't we dragging Cheney et al to court? Why do we sanction torture & killing of people...b
Strange lot we humans are.
And having said that, I'd like to add that "What is wrong with killing dogs" is that causing pain to a sentient being purely for pleasure is a sign of a sick mind. If a fisherman fishes so he can enjoy the death of the fish he is just as crazy as people who dig dog-fighting.
Wasn't this discussion supposed to be about Michael Vick? Seems everyone got distracted by arguments about veganism..
Right on Curmudgeon and Billie! For those of you who simplify this to " there is a big difference between killing for pleasure/sport whereby the animal suffers and killing the animal for food" are just ignorant about modern animal "factories
And for those that keep saying, "Humans and dogs are companion animals" remember that it is not inherent or instinctual, but cultural.
Since when has logic ruled human behavior?
I can watch an Orca swallow hundreds of salmon and I think the Orca is cute. Then I watch an Orca gobble a seal and I feel sickened by the Orca's viciousness. My apologies to the animal kingdom, I know it's not logical, but dogs matter more to me than cows and pigs. Just like seals matter more to me than salmon. Hunting sucks, but slaughterhouses I accept as an unpleasant but beneficial part of our culture. So what? Boo hoo, it's illogical.
Oh, and don't be a roundeye and glob a bunch of wasabi on your sushi. You might as well slather wasabi on tofu because it's going to taste the same anyway.
I think that part of the dissonance with the post has to do with perspective: dogs are perhaps afforded extra protection or higher status because of the social relationship with people, while other animals, without that relationship, are just, well, animals.
However, should morality depend on the relationship between the two? Apparently, it does. For instance, if someone is shot in their house in America, it's called murder. If it's in Iraq, it's either "sectarian violence" or "collateral damage". From the perspectives of the victims families, the feeling and outrage is the same.
This was what I took from Lawrence O'Donnell's post.
Cheers, great post
It would be more productive to reach out with help to those who participate in animal cruelty to deter further criminal actions and future human victims. Sometimes the best help is for the animal abuser to get caught and appropriately punished as a means to change their thinking and future behavior, not as some form of hatred or condemnation.
As a role model to millions of children, Michael Vick now has a chance to help change the lives of so many. While it is appropriate to punish him for his self-admitted criminal animal cruelty, we should all encourage him to stand up and be a role model for making a positive change in his own life and the countless children who look up to him and may be on a path to abuse, crime and eventual incarceration. The best thing for everyone would be if Michael Vick could pull his life together and turn this around as a benchmark moment which enlightened rather than divided.
Then those dogs did not die in vain.
While there's a grey area in what is acceptable in human treatment of animals, all too often we allow for the harm of an animal for a culturally acceptable reason. There are still many who see no harm in continuing on with senseless abuse. I'm talking about illicit pleasure in watching a painful death. This is an area of personal discernment for most people, but there are commonly accepted ideas that the torture and neglect of an animal is inhumane, offensive and often criminal.
As far as dog fighting goes it is also criminal because the majority of participants are criminals beyond the illegal dogfight, often involved with illegal drug traffic, gambling and other organized crimes. The dogfight is just a profit center for our societal vampires, preying on the blood lust and the need to prove the virility of thugs, bully's and abusers.
It is also a fact supported by numerous studies that cruelty to animals is an early childhood behavior commonly found among criminals in our prisons and also that many if not most of those reporting childhood cruelty to animals were also sexually abused as children.
It can be easily concluded that animal cruelty is clearly associated with anti-social criminal behavior and is probably a result of a child acting out from its own abuse and sense of helplessness. They victimize an animal to regain some sense of control in their lives, even if it is just for a moment. The subsequent guilt leads to darker and darker actions and we eventually see the results in our overcrowded prisons and rehab clinics. In fact the majority of serial killers were also involved in animal abuse and mutilation.
Maintaining vigilance against animal cruelty in any form is a positive way to respond to this greater societal problem; especially with a subject the majority can agree upon and legislate against, like dog fighting. While other actions of animal cruelty still remain a part of our society, it does not mean we should step backwards and condone because of our hypocrisy.
Humanity is a work in progress.
"It is also a fact supported by numerous studies that cruelty to animals is an early childhood behavior commonly found among criminals ..."
For example, the turd in the White House, who used to blow up frogs with firecrackers.
Cruelty to animals in childhood is, in fact, THE best single predictor of antisocial personality disorder (aka sociopathy) in adulthood.
I for one am sick of all the killing Americans love so much. I am not a vegan--but the idea that there's nothing wrong with killiong dogs make me think the author has been watching too much TV. Americans have developed a blood lust. Here in California, farm animals are being shot by "angry youth" in drive by shootings. Gee, do you think just maybe our cultural penchant for killing has reached those misguided youths.
I am sick of the blood lust. The author's posting makes me sick. We are losing our natural connection to animals and the planet. This author seems to thinks that's okay. It is not. We have lost our compassion, our empathy and regard for life. I find that embarrassing and shameful.
I don't think you're getting his point. He's being ironic. He's not advocating the killing of dogs - quite the opposite. He's pointing out how hypocritical people are about the treatment of animals, how selective they are about which animals are ok to torture and kill (i.e. the ones we eat) and which ones aren't (i.e. the ones we choose for pets).
I still think there is a crucial distinction to be made between killing animals for food and killing them painfully for fun.
LOL
Didn't you know, Lawrence?
Jesus ate fish ...
... but as far as we know, he didn't dine on dingos.
8
.
I have eaten many fish and caught many fish. The fish's mouth is made of tough cartilage -- it's not the same thing as having a hook in your mouth, or a dog's mouth. The fish is instinctively struggling to get free of the hook, but how much pain it feels is debatable.
Like most fly fishermen, I have had the experience of catching a fish, removing the (barbless) hook, releasing it ... and a few minutes later catching THE SAME FISH again. Obviously it wasn't too traumatized by the first experience.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
