• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NAACP: Let Vick Play!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

OK, where is this right of "humane treatment" for animals in the Constitution?
Also who defines humane? Some people can say putting a leash on a dog or neutering it is not humane. You wouldn't do it to a human.

Why must something be in the constitution for it to be a law again? Do we need an amendment for everything humanity deems as good and right?

Where is it in the constitution that I can't walk around downtown naked making lewd comments to people? If I want to do it, why does society have a right to stop me? It goes with my right to a pursuit of happiness, right?

That is public behavior and harassment that infringement other people's right to pursuit of happiness.
What Michael Vick was doing on his property with his property creates no such infringement. All the people involved were willing participants on private property. Just like you can walk naked around your own house and make lewd comments.
 
Also, I am not saying we as a society CAN'T pass laws that unduly infringe on people's freedom to live lives that don't negatively impact on other people's rights. I am saying we SHOULDN'T pass them.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp

That is public behavior and harassment that infringement other people's right to pursuit of happiness.
What Michael Vick was doing on his property with his property creates no such infringement. All the people involved were willing participants on private property. Just like you can walk naked around your own house and make lewd comments.

It's not infringing on their rights at all. They don't have to look. Say I don't make any comments at all. Where is it in the constitution that I can't stroll around naked? How does that infringe on peoples' pursuit of happiness?

The fact is that it's a law of morality that society has adopted. Just like wha tI posted above, which you avoided commenting on:

Maybe because the vast majority of civilized people have acknowledged that animals are living, breathing, feeling creatures. It's called humane treatment, and it's evolved from thousands of years of interaction with them. From this sense of humanity, we have realized that as the dominant creature of this planet, we have a moral responsibility toward animals, among which include human treatment.

It's a moral issue, and I'm sorry that you never had the love of a pet to reinforce this concept in you.
 
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp

That is public behavior and harassment that infringement other people's right to pursuit of happiness.
What Michael Vick was doing on his property with his property creates no such infringement. All the people involved were willing participants on private property. Just like you can walk naked around your own house and make lewd comments.

It's not infringing on their rights at all. They don't have to look. Say I don't make any comments at all. Where is it in the constitution that I can't stroll around naked? How does that infringe on peoples' pursuit of happiness?
What do you mean they don't have to look? They have to look around to not bump into people or run them over. In places where they don't have to look, I don't see a problem. Those places are called private. Vick was fighting dogs on private property.

The fact is that it's a law of morality that society has adopted. Just like wha tI posted above, which you avoided commenting on:

Maybe because the vast majority of civilized people have acknowledged that animals are living, breathing, feeling creatures. It's called humane treatment, and it's evolved from thousands of years of interaction with them. From this sense of humanity, we have realized that as the dominant creature of this planet, we have a moral responsibility toward animals, among which include human treatment.

It's a moral issue, and I'm sorry that you never had the love of a pet to reinforce this concept in you.

I didn't avoid commenting on it. I said we should not pass these laws that dictate our morals on people whose actions don't harm anyone else's. We could pass them if we wanted to, but we should not. Otherwise you'll have a theocratic state that restrains people's freedom in the name of purported "moral values." Maybe you have realized you have a moral responsibility towards animals, just like some have realized they have moral responsibility to not eat any animal flesh at all. But you shouldn't force your moral values on others.


 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

OK, where is this right of "humane treatment" for animals in the Constitution?
Also who defines humane? Some people can say putting a leash on a dog or neutering it is not humane. You wouldn't do it to a human.

Why must something be in the constitution for it to be a law again? Do we need an amendment for everything humanity deems as good and right?

Where is it in the constitution that I can't walk around downtown naked making lewd comments to people? If I want to do it, why does society have a right to stop me? It goes with my right to a pursuit of happiness, right?

That is public behavior and harassment that infringement other people's right to pursuit of happiness.
What Michael Vick was doing on his property with his property creates no such infringement. All the people involved were willing participants on private property. Just like you can walk naked around your own house and make lewd comments.

I feel that ugly people harass me by being in my presence and infringes on my right to pursue happiness. Can we make some laws restricting them from appearing in the public unless they wear some sort of mask?

Btw, once upon a time, all humans were naked and probably didn't have a problem with it nor did they feel it was harassment. So, why should we allow this moral rule to dictate our lives but not others?
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Thanks for another thread full of this crap. adios.

Kind of hard to avoid that topic when the article itself refers to the torture and killing of animals as the equivalent of hunting. Whatever the case, they can appeal to the NFL to let him play but they have no right to demand for it. They can protest, gain support, etc. and that would be legitimate as long as they don't turn it into a race protest.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't avoid commenting on it. I said we should not pass these laws that dictate our morals on people whose actions don't harm anyone else's.

Obviously it's a moral which the vast majority of society throughout history has held. We feel that animals, while not our equals, are living creatures on this planet just like us, and that causing undue harm on them for amusement is the sign of a sick individual. Therefor, society outlaws this deviant behavior. This is not a new concept. The action does not harm an individual, but we see it as harming society as a whole. It's the same with walking around naked... it doesn't interfere with your rights at all... it only interferes with what society has deemed moral.

We could pass them if we wanted to, but we should not. Otherwise you'll have a theocratic state that restrains people's freedom in the name of purported "moral values."

You're saying we shouldn't pass these laws, because we'll have a theocratic state. Problem is that we have passed these laws already. We've had them since western civilization arose. Where is the theocratic state?

This isn't a religious issue, although most people derive their morals from their belief in God, but the rest of us have an intrinsic knowledge of what is right and wrong, and in this society, we have deemed inhumane treatment of animals for amusement as being wrong.

Maybe you have realized you have a moral responsibility towards animals,

You make it seem like I am in the minority... when you yourself are in the extreme minority on this issue, fortunately.

just like some have realized they have moral responsibility to not eat any animal flesh at all.

That's fine, but you are skirting the line again between issues.

But you shouldn't force your moral values on others.

I'd rather try and help you develop your sense of morality, as it is severely lagging behind the rest of western civilization.

Edit: Just for added effect

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~ Mahatma Gandhi

"Of all the creatures, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he's the one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."

~ Mark Twain
 
Can't the NAACP just shut up for once? This has nothing to do with race. Let Vick get what he deserves. The punishment should include NOT returning to the NFL.
 
Originally posted by: bbdub333


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~ Mahatma Gandhi

"Of all the creatures, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he's the one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."

~ Mark Twain


Truth
 
Let Vick go to Jail. Maybe there is an animal abuse treatment center? Haa! Haa!

The strange thing is dog fighting and football are almost the same thing. The idea is to take your opponent out or cripple him so he can not win. Don't you see the similarities. The only thing is there are some rules and players get padding. Oh yeah; we dont kill the players if they lose. Well, at least not on purpose.

Every time Vick loses a game bring him out after the game tie him up and give him some shock therapy. Then we can call it even.
 
I wasn't saying there are limitations, people use those kind of examples to bolster their anti-gun arguement.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

cruelty to animals is not a right
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

all this before the shortbus picked you up?

 
The time and place for the existance of the NAACP has come and gone. Welcome to the begnning of time thru the 60's.

The very existance of the NAACP is racist.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

Look you can't even do with your own body what you want and that is the most private kind of property, so why would this be any different?
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The time and place for the existance of the NAACP has come and gone. Welcome to the begnning of time thru the 60's.

The very existance of the NAACP is racist.
To state the truth is racist - how dare you😛

 
I went to a huge job fair once that was put on by the NAACP, I didn?t know it tell I got in line to register I wasn?t even sure I was going to be let in. It was weird but hell I was there so I went in. I was the only white guy there looking for a job and one of the few people that was wearing a suit. Last time I let my friends get over on me.

Everyone was in line for sony, and avoiding the dozen law enforcement agencies hiring like the plague. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: rpanic
I went to a huge job fair once that was put on by the NAACP, I didn?t know it tell I got in line to register I wasn?t even sure I was going to be let in. It was weird but hell I was there so I went in. I was the only white guy there looking for a job and one of the few people that was wearing a suit. Last time I let my friends get over on me.

Everyone was in line for sony, and avoiding the dozen law enforcement agencies hiring like the plague. 🙂

lol, thats awesome. I'll have to try and pull that on some of my friends :thumbsup:
 
Every crime you commit you have to give up another pad? Or maybe a # of pads related to the seriousness of the crime!
 
I'm hearing the state of Virgina wants to pursue 40 yrs worth of charges.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Vick's charges include more than just dog fights. When you add illegal gambling and cross state lines, you proly going to prison even if you're betting on *rock, paper, scissors*. That mafia/racketeering type stuff.

Then, to top it off, you've got a high profile professional athlete whose in a position to alter teh outcome of games - whether throwing it or just shaving points. This is a very serious *no no*.

Fern
 
Back
Top