• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Does anybody else think it's bull the way NFL is teating Vick?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,106
476
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
I'm with ya dude. The other night I had the urge to take my dog, tie him to the front tree, pour gas all over him, and light it. But I decided not to cause it's illegal. Stupid laws. :frown:

 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
i find it ironic that hundreds of people are protesting the torture and killing of dogs, after all a dog or pet is property right?

but

its perfectly ok to for a woman to have a viable fetus sucked out of her belly or in some cases have just enough of the baby delivered and the doc cuts its neck to kill it.

hummm i think killing a baby is much much more vial than killing a dog. but thats just me.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
i find it ironic that hundreds of people are protesting the torture and killing of dogs, after all a dog or pet is property right?

but

its perfectly ok to for a woman to have a viable fetus sucked out of her belly or in some cases have just enough of the baby delivered and the doc cuts its neck to kill it.

hummm i think killing a baby is much much more vial than killing a dog. but thats just me.
The difference is between killing and torturing and killing. One is accepted and one is not. If you can prove that cutting the spinal column of a fetus is torture, then I guess you'd have a point.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,106
476
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Torturing animals has nothing to do with property rights.

 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Are you not using your property to perform illegal acts?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,106
476
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
i find it ironic that hundreds of people are protesting the torture and killing of dogs, after all a dog or pet is property right?

but

its perfectly ok to for a woman to have a viable fetus sucked out of her belly or in some cases have just enough of the baby delivered and the doc cuts its neck to kill it.

hummm i think killing a baby is much much more vial than killing a dog. but thats just me.
Good point, its pretty damn disgusting isn't it?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Torturing animals has nothing to do with property rights.
Not if the fauna in question is private property.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,106
476
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Torturing animals has nothing to do with property rights.
Not if the fauna in question is private property.
It doesn't matter, there are some things you just aren't allowed to do. Its like arguing that growing pot in your backyard is ok because its on your property.

BTW - I remember you being pretty anti gun, but seeing your thoughts here on private property I guess you'd be ok with me having a fully functional tank along with ammo as long is its on my property, its private property right?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Torturing animals has nothing to do with property rights.
Not if the fauna in question is private property.
It doesn't matter, there are some things you just aren't allowed to do. Its like arguing that growing pot in your backyard is ok because its on your property.

BTW - I remember you being pretty anti gun, but seeing your thoughts here on private property I guess you'd be ok with me having a fully functional tank along with ammo as long is its on my property, its private property right?
I think you should be allowed to grow pot in your backyard. Also, I believe a free society should not let there be things that "you just aren't allowed to do," unless there is a compelling reason for those rules. Something being in bad taste should not be that reason, IMO, if it's done on private property.
Where am I anti-gun? I am not reflexively against any sorts of controls on guns, especially with background checks to make sure they don't fall into hands of criminals and mentally ill. Fully functioning tank is an actual danger to others. Michael Vick doing what he wants with his private property on his private property is not.
Last I checked, property rights were a real thing, while animal rights is a concept that is still up to debate. So property rights should trump animal rights, IMO.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do we really need the federal government defending dogs? Seems to me like if the owner of the animal is fine with it, I don't see what the crime is. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to me, animals are property, not persons.
It seems one of those things that is made a crime more for PR and feel good reasons than anything else.
Well thank goodness for people with more sense and compassion than you.

:thumbsup:
So you think the feds putting people in jail for arranging or attending dog fights is compassionate?
I think animal abuse is in bad taste, and maybe should incur a penalty if done in public places, like other things that are in bad taste, like indecent exposure. But at what point do you start infringing on peoples property rights wrt their animals?
Torturing animals has nothing to do with property rights.
Not if the fauna in question is private property.
It doesn't matter, there are some things you just aren't allowed to do. Its like arguing that growing pot in your backyard is ok because its on your property.

BTW - I remember you being pretty anti gun, but seeing your thoughts here on private property I guess you'd be ok with me having a fully functional tank along with ammo as long is its on my property, its private property right?
I think you should be allowed to grow pot in your backyard. Also, I believe a free society should not let there be things that "you just aren't allowed to do," unless there is a compelling reason for those rules. Something being in bad taste should not be that reason, IMO, if it's done on private property.
Where am I anti-gun? I am not reflexively against any sorts of controls on guns, especially with background checks to make sure they don't fall into hands of criminals and mentally ill. Fully functioning tank is an actual danger to others. Michael Vick doing what he wants with his private property on his private property is not.
Last I checked, property rights were a real thing, while animal rights is a concept that is still up to debate. So property rights should trump animal rights, IMO.
I'm abandoning the idiocy this thread has become. But I have learned interesting, if disturbing, things about what people are capable of rationalizing.

Enjoy your debate on whether torturing animals to death should be illegal or merely considered bad taste.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
That's the problem with some people here. Instead of having a normal merit based discussion, it's all about emotions and drama. That's why we get a lot of stupid laws, because something "feels" right at the moment.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,327
783
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
He's just another cog in today's "guilty until proven guilty" society. As soon as the news gets ahold of an accusation, it is assumed that the person is guilty, period, even if (or after) he is later acquitted by a jury. I'm not saying that all acquittals are correct, but either we believe in our justice system or we don't, and I think that many people don't at this point, which has led to the current mindset. It's sad to see that it has come to this and I disagree with it vehemently, but understand the practical reason for why people think this way.
It doesnt matter, even if his only connection to it is them using his property it still tarnishs the leagues image and thus they have EVERY right as a private employeer to punish said person.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,327
783
126
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I think what many of you miss is that these are Federal Charges.

I heard the conviction rate is as high as 95 percent.

Man is in a whole mess of trouble.
Not to mention his judge is known to allow defenses to present there case with out much intervention, but when his hammer comes down at sentencing, it comes down hard. If Vick is convicted his career is done because he will almost certainly be serving jail time.

Vick's screwed because the charges against him and the evidence the feds have is disturbing, its going to be hard for a jury not to convict. And with a hardass judge a bench trial wouldnt be much better.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,327
783
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Right, because boxing and cage fighting is to the death, and when the loser doesn't die, but is too injured to make any more money, they drown him or beat him to death with bats. Yeah, ironic.
Boxers and Football players die every year from engaging in their sport, yet no one is screaming to ban them. (Sorry, Sweden already banned boxing)
This is overreaction by the Peta, animal rights fascists.
Can't believe I'm bothering to respond to your tortured argument. On the extremely rare occasion that a boxer or football player happens to die, it is by accident, and not the very foundation and purpose of the sport. There is a difference between dangerous activities that engender the chance for severe injury, and activities of which the purpose is to inflict severe injury. We don't ban skiing, NASCAR, surfing, crossing the street, or appearing on talk shows even though people sometimes die doing these activities because their main purpose is to do something other than die.

Before you start blathering about how in boxing the intention is to severly injure the other boxer, recognize that they voluntarily get in the ring, they wear gloves, have a ref ready to break up a match when it gets lopsided, and ringside doctors ready to administer aid if it becomes necessary. They don't get put in cages after the fight, they aren't tortured to become mean, and they don't drown the loser.
And you are using tortured argument to condemm this. It is very close to boxing and football, except for the choice issue. Cock fighting is just as brutal and is legal in some states. I think people were ignoring this and other animal abuse issues until a RICH, BLACK CELEBRITY got caught doing it, and then the press got hold of it.
You are incorrect. Every state in the nation has made cock fighting illegal.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,327
783
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
That's the problem with some people here. Instead of having a normal merit based discussion, it's all about emotions and drama. That's why we get a lot of stupid laws, because something "feels" right at the moment.
So based on your comments, you would allow murder if it was done on a persons private property?
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
That's the problem with some people here. Instead of having a normal merit based discussion, it's all about emotions and drama. That's why we get a lot of stupid laws, because something "feels" right at the moment.



I think the problem here is that some people "feel" it is their right to torture and kill dogs.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
That's the problem with some people here. Instead of having a normal merit based discussion, it's all about emotions and drama. That's why we get a lot of stupid laws, because something "feels" right at the moment.
So based on your comments, you would allow murder if it was done on a persons private property?
Huh? People have a right to life from the Constitution. Show me where there are such rights for dogs?
 

AAman

Golden Member
May 29, 2001
1,432
0
0
This man appears to be severely mentally ill...he shouldn't be on the field, in commercials, or even employed...the same laws that are now being used against juveniles who commit cruelty to animals offenses (now considered pre-cursors for murder/rape/torture and the like) should be used to imprison him for his, and everyone else's good.

'Professional' sports players represent the worst of America, they are emblematic of the problems of our society and the collapse of any substantial moral standards into moral relativism (and just pure amoral greed). The fact that you care that this, well I'd call him an animal but that would be insulting to the actual ones, can't play in his fake 'professional' sport (where steroids and other illegal substances trump talent and dedication/love of the game) is despicable.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: ayabe
This just isn't about dog fighting, but the horrible, cruel, and sadistic ways in which he allegedly killed the dogs, sorry but that's just sick.

Anyone trying to downplay the seriousness of this kind of behavior is f'ing retarded.
Gimme a break drama queen - when a dove doesn't die after being blown from the sky you rip thier heads off to end it. I just caught about 50 crappie tonight and after taking them out of my live well all suffocated in bag I put in the fridge to fillet in the morning. What's the difference?
A little something called laws. You don't have to agree with them, but prepare to face the consequences if you don't follow them.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
i find it ironic that hundreds of people are protesting the torture and killing of dogs, after all a dog or pet is property right?

but

its perfectly ok to for a woman to have a viable fetus sucked out of her belly or in some cases have just enough of the baby delivered and the doc cuts its neck to kill it.

hummm i think killing a baby is much much more vial than killing a dog. but thats just me.
Captain Segue, is that you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY