Posted on 08/22/2007 5:04:23 AM PDT by PurpleMan
“No, it is not the ‘natural state of things’, we do not have to be cruel to animals (Pro.12:7). “
Then you know nothing. Crawl out of your hole and get out more(and I mean to third world countries not Florida).
And I didn’t say anyone HAD to do ANYTHING. In nature, dogs and other creatures are (oh for heaven sake...my heart flutters) killed in more heinous ways than this. Humans do it to the animals, and animals do it to each other. Why you are so confused by this is so fascinating.
Bringing up how animals die in nature has nothing to do with how they should be treated by man.
Nature is cruel enough without man adding to the cruelity for the mere sport of it.
So, you admit that they way they die in nature is cruel....that it is the natural way of things. Good.
And we’ve come full circle. By your logic, horse-racing, slaughter houses, and hunting in general could be outlawed. Since killing these animals IS cruelty all bets are off.
I’m not equating these things with dogfighting, only saying that we don’t HAVE to do these these things; there are alternatives. PETA would be proud of you.
Ofcourse the way they die in nature is cruel, but that doesn't mean it is good or right!
And we’ve come full circle. By your logic, horse-racing, slaughter houses, and hunting in general could be outlawed. Since killing these animals IS cruelty all bets are off. I’m not equating these things with dogfighting, only saying that we don’t HAVE to do these these things; there are alternatives. PETA would be proud of you.
Well, if you are not equating these things with dog-fighting then why bring them up?
The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.
Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.
If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.
Being concerned for the well-being of animals doesn't mean one is aligned with PETA.
The Bible teaches it.
PETA thinks that animals have rights-they don't.
Man however, has a responsibility as steward of God's creation to handle it correctly.
Conservatives have this uncanny ability to get on the wrong side of issues simply because the Left gets involved in them for the wrong reasons.
“Well, if you are not equating these things with dog-fighting then why bring them up?”
Already answered in my prior post. Your arguments could just as well be made to outlaw hunting, slaughterhouses, etc.
” The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.”
Death is the ultimate cruelty. What occurs over the last few minutes of your life doesn’t make it more palatable.
“Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.”
We’re not adding to anything. Suffering has and always will exist. If anything, we maintain the status quo.
“If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.”
You say it has nothing to do with PETA, or the imparting of human rights on animals, but that last statement does coincide with your prior thoughts.
What’s confusing me here is that you don’t seem to recognize sadism, and the fact that there is an inherent sickness to getting enjoyment out of inflicting pain that goes beyond inflicting death. People can bicker day and night as to whether torture or execution is more cruel, but there is a sickness about inflicting pain and taking pleasure out of watching animals suffer that is different than even hunting. I’m surprised that you don’t recognize it. Also, it should be noted that numerous people DO consider torture a worse fate for animals than a quick death, so it doesn’t really work as a mantra. Quite simply, it’s not an indisputable fact, regardless of the situation, and it doesn’t work to dispute “dog-fighting is cruelty”.
Anyway, I do think it’s a key point that you view death as the ultimate cruelty for an animal. Even if it’s true, you are almost deliberately ignoring the fact of sadism and its existence and the nature of it in the case of Vick (and any case in which an animal is tortured before death) because of your insistence that “death is the worst cruelty”. Maybe it is. But the reason and nature of things arises again; there is just a plain difference between killing animals for a living and inflicting unnecessary pain upon them, and those who inflict unnecessary pain on an animal for their own enjoyment when it is preventable are truly sick. By pain, I mean torture, because sadism is an enjoyment in inflicting pain, not death. If you can’t recognize that, then I guess I have nothing more to say.
I guess that would be good and fine if they were simply fighting the dogs. The pleasure probably comes from the gambling, not some sadistic interest in the torture of animals. I’m not saying that nobody enjoys the suffering, only that lumping all involved as sadists is clearly an overreaction. By your logic, anyone who watches boxing is a sadist because of the suffering.
Also, I’ve said nothing about whether Vick is wrong or right. I’ve only said Marbury has a point. Which I know is an unpopular position, but nevertheless stand by that opinion.
Reacting emotionally to a situation is the wrong way to go.
It is no wonder you are confused.
Already answered in my prior post. Your arguments could just as well be made to outlaw hunting, slaughterhouses, etc.
Well, then you are equating them with dog-fighting.
You clearly have a hard time dealing with concepts.
Hunting is not cruel in that no animal is being tortured for sport.
In the slaughterhouse, the animal should be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible, not tortured for sport.
See the difference?
You are like a liberal who cannot see the difference being for the death penalty but against abortion.
Or cannot see the difference in killing in war and murder.
[ ” The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.” ]
Death is the ultimate cruelty. What occurs over the last few minutes of your life doesn’t make it more palatable.
Ofcourse it does.
I am sure you would rather die in your sleep then be tortured.
So, your entire premise is simply wrong.
Everything dies, but death doesn't have to be made a sport, as is dog fighting.
[ “Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.” ]
We’re not adding to anything. Suffering has and always will exist. If anything, we maintain the status quo.
No, if you take dogs out and force them to fight you are adding to their suffering.
They have no volition, you are controlling their fate and making them suffer.
So, you are immoral for doing so.
[ “If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.” ]
You say it has nothing to do with PETA, or the imparting of human rights on animals, but that last statement does coincide with your prior thoughts.
Ofcourse it does.
I base my view on the Biblical view that man has been given stewardship over creation and thus should care for it.
PETA thinks that animals have rights, which they don't, only humans have 'rights' since rights entail volition, the ability to make moral choices, which animals cannot make.
You on the other hand, do make choices to add or alleviate suffering.
And God commands us to alleviate it, not add to it.
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel'(Pr.12:10)
Over and over you equate humans with dogs; that is your problem not mine. You say that you don’t... yet you do it over and over. It isn’t about whether I don’t want to be tortured before I die, and would rather die in my sleep. It’s about freakin’ dogs. Comprehend Amigo! (READ SLOWLY; IT MIGHT HELP)
YOU are like a liberal, because you think humans and dogs have the same rights. They shouldn’t, but people like you have made it so they do. You are no different than the PETA supporter that believes animals are our equal.
In a prior post someone explained it as property rights. That statement is dead on. And you have wildly concluded that my property somehow has similar rights to my own. You, my friend, are dead wrong.
And it is you who said that the issue is death.
So, for both man and animal, they would rather die without pain then with it.
Not a hard concept to grasp-if you actually try to think it through.
YOU are like a liberal, because you think humans and dogs have the same rights. They shouldn’t, but people like you have made it so they do. You are no different than the PETA supporter that believes animals are our equal.
No, because I understand that while animals do not have rights, man, being the steward of God's Creation, does have responsibilities.
What is being exposed is your own inability to grasp fundamental differences in concepts.
The Bible teaches man to be kind to both man and beast.
In a prior post someone explained it as property rights. That statement is dead on. And you have wildly concluded that my property somehow has similar rights to my own. You, my friend, are dead wrong.
Well, property rights are not viewed outside of other rights and responsibilities.
Since an animal is not an inanimate object, one has a responsibility to treat it differently then one.
But that is why these type of laws have to be made, for the 'its my property' nitwits who think that an animal can be treated like a piece of furniture.
Well we’ve been round and round on this one.
You pretend to speak for the animals and I speak for mankind. It has nothing to do with conceptualization. I understand your point (and respect it), I simply disagree.
Killing animals (as your PETA friends would agree) is not ‘being kind’ to animals. Not that I really care, but that is my point. Since you like to project, answer this question. Would you rather be tortured and live, or be killed swiftly?
Animate/Inanimate is immaterial. Having the state say, you can kill this way but not this way, is overstepping their authority. Because it is MY property not the state’s.
First, I do not speak for animals, I am speaking for the morality of man (Pr.12:7).
Second, I have nothing to do with PETA, which approaches animals from a secular world view, not a Biblical one.
As for your question, I guess it would depend on the torture and the amount of pain and damage done-now wouldn't it.
Moreover, the animal would have no concept that he has at least survived since he has no concept of death.
The animal lives only in the moment.
Animate/Inanimate is immaterial. Having the state say, you can kill this way but not this way, is overstepping their authority. Because it is MY property not the state’s.
And why do you say that it overstepping their authority?
The notion that you have the freedom to do anything you want with your 'property' without any concern to the type of property (animate or inanimate) and those around you (society), is simply Libertarian rationalization taken to the extreme.
You do not live in a vacuum, you live in a society, that has laws and responsibilities, which is what gives you the ability to own private property in peace, and not live in anarchy.
A cruel people are a wicked people and a wicked people do not long keep neither their freedom or property. (Pr.14:34)
“As for your question, I guess it would depend on the torture and the amount of pain and damage done-now wouldn’t it.”
I don’t think so. Life is precious. I’m not all that surprised you are dodging the question though.
“Second, I have nothing to do with PETA, which approaches animals from a secular world view, not a Biblical one.”
Yes. and I’m approaching the issue from a practical standpoint. While I imagine you are a christian, your interpretations of the bible are much different than mine on this issue. Are you a protestant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.