Five (Atlanta) Falcons fined for uniform violations over Vick-related support

Not only should they be fined more than that, they should be suspended from the first games of next season.

you need to read some books from the other point of view. one from a former Bush speechwriter with religious undertones might be a good start, Dominion.

“Animal cruelty laws are immoral” This is simply a ridiculous statement. Moreover, your justification based on “culture” and history is frightening when one considers what society once justified under the same pretexts. I’d rather not engage you further in this because I sense it would be like trying to convince a muslim father why it’s wrong for him to “dishonor” slaughter his daughter for her dress and behavior. You’re simplistic line-drawing between humans (rules of conduct) and animals (no rules) are repulsive. I ask only that you read some literature on this from the opposing point of view.

Just to let you know I have...I’ve even read a lot of Peter Singer’s work and you can’t get more animal rights then that. My argument was mostly an explanation, not a justification but my argument there would be that (very simply) that it is immoral to prevent or punish someone for engaging in activities which aren’t immoral. Morality here is defined as respect for the individual rights of other individuals.

Vick was not engaged in an activity which violated the rights of another individual therefore what he did was not immoral. So punishing him when he did nothing immoral is wrong.

You can disagree of course but I hope I was at least clear in my argument here.

I wouldn't suggest reading animal rights activists' work necessarily (distingiushing between welfare vs. rights perspectives), but rather those who write about animal welfare and address morality, particularly from a conservative perspective, as did Scully in the aforecited book. I'd also recommend: 87 Iowa L. Rev. 1; 70 Law & Contemp. Prob. 59; 1 J. Animal L. & Ethics 139. Raymann: "[I]t is immoral to prevent or punish someone for engaging in activities which aren’t immoral. Morality here is defined as respect for the individual rights of other individuals." Where does this extremely narrow definition of morality stem from? Why would you limit morality to conduct concerning individuals' rights? From MW: 2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b: particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4: moral conduct : virtue Moral: a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action Putting aside your definition, and respecting the fact that you framed the argument as you did, I'll respond to it directly... Raymann: "Vick was not engaged in an activity which violated the rights of another individual" Wrong for several reasons. First, there are those who will be affected, threatened, and otherwise impacted by these fights. The empirical linkage between animal abuse is well established (oft' cited Jefferey Dahmer), and more specifically observers/trainers, etc. of these sorts of practices, are similarly linked to other crimes, violence, and abuses that would directly violate the rights of others. Thus, there is a reasonable liklihood a spectator, dog fighter, etc. could "violtate the rights of another individual" through violence and ancillary crimes. This linkage is so generally accepted that it's one of the primary impetuses behind the law. The same applies to humane slaughter statutes in light of a similar, though to a lesser extent, trickle down effect - i.e. domestic violence. (see Eisnitz's book titled Slaughterhouse). It is well known that "Numerous law enforcement raids have unearthed many disturbing facets of this illegal 'sport.' Young children are sometimes present at the events, which can promote insensitivity to animal suffering, enthusiasm for violence and a lack of respect for the law. Illegal gambling is the norm at dogfights. . . . Firearms and other weapons have been found at dogfights because of the large amounts of cash present. And dogfighting has been connected to other kinds of violence—even homicide, according to newspaper reports. In addition, illegal drugs are often sold and used at dogfights." Second, where do you think these dogs come from? Now, even if Vick were able to prove none of his did, many of the victims come from dog dealers, puppy mills, and other shaddy (often illegal) sources. Some get their dogs from regular dogowners. There is a documentary on a major dog dealer (CD Bard or something like that) and other sources showing the widespread theft of people's dogs. Thus, dog owners' property rights may have been violated. Even if not by Vick in this instance, the law is in place for this reason as well. Dog fighting further violates individuals' property rights by being a public and/or private nuisance. Property owners near whose homes these barbaric activities take place are faced with several problems stemming from dog fighting. Correlated with violence and crime, dog fighting brings terrible elements into one's neighborhood. It increases other individuals' risk of being victimized as part of the thuggery that comes part and parcel with dog fighting. Thirdly, there's the social costs. For example, where do some of these dogs end up? Shelters. Who pays for some of those shelters? Taxpayers. So, now, because of this conduct, my money is redistributed to care for dogs used and abused by dog fighters. "For animal shelters, the consequences are staggering. Nationwide, pit bulls and pit bull mixes comprise up to a third of dog intake; in city facilities, that figure can be as high as 70 percent." In one case in Houston, it cost "$133,000 to care for pit bulls seized from a single property. Taxpayers in Franklin County have footed a nearly $520,000 bill to house dogfighting victims since 2002." As an individual taxpayer, I feel as though my rights have been violated by this hideous practice. Lastly, the rights of society have been violated. The people's legislature enacted a law. Vick can't simply ignore it because he thinks it's part of his culture. Doing so violates individuals' rights to live in a lawful orderly society. Raymann: "punishing him when he did nothing immoral is wrong." Gambling is largely thought to be immoral, though of course not by your restricted definition. Gambling is the underlying basis of these fights, thus, it's immoral. Unjustified violence is immoral. Abusing one's status as more powerful and having dominion over another is immoral by most people's point of view. I respect your clear argument and understand your position in terms of being desensitized to it and viewing it as a common occurrence, but this, nor defining the definition of morality doesn't change the hanieousness of what animal fighting is nor its ill effects on individuals and society. Animal fighting causes animals pain and suffering. Inflicting prolonged, unncessary pain and suffering on another being, regardless of where it falls on the scale between man and beast, is immoral, but any reasonable definition of morality.

Vick was not engaged in an activity which violated the rights of another individual...so punishing him when he did nothing immoral is wrong.

You work in Washington? I hope not for the Justice Department.

Sorry to take so long in getting back, I’ve been away from my computer for a few days.

I appreciate that you framed your argument in a direct response to mine. And the crux of it is here:

Where does this extremely narrow definition of morality stem from? Why would you limit morality to conduct concerning individuals' rights?

I could simply reflect that back to you, why expand morality to conduct beyond issues concerning individual rights? But let me answer your question first. This is more of an ethical question then a moral one (I know most people don’t know the difference). In this context lets called ethics applied morality (not exactly right but enough to show my point). Ethical behavior can only be judged in the actions between one individual and another. We all have individual rights but they are useless without the right to defend them. Outside of that, I can think of no rational moral system that would justify the use of coercion other then to protect the rights of the individual.

Now you made several points within my argument so show why it was wrong…let me address those. The first is the tendency for people involved in animal fighting to themselves become violent and eventually violate the rights of others. I actually have three arguments against that. The first is that even if you were right, your argument is not sufficient enough to ban animal fighting. A person can be perfectly normal and otherwise enjoy animal fighting, just because a person has a tendency to treat animals in one manner does not mean he would treat people the same. If you’re argument were true we’d have to keep one eye open on all the butchers out there. Second, there is the cultural argument…maybe you’re right that the effects are watching animal fighting are substantially bad enough to ban them…but that’s not true everywhere. Bull fighting is still practiced in several countries and the criminal tendencies you allude to aren’t even arguments there. Even in my home state of Louisiana where cockfighting was recently banned, the reason for it’s ban wasn’t that it made people violent or contributed to a violent culture…it was based on animal cruelty and the perception that people would see Louisiana as a backward state, especially considering the attention we had after the hurricanes (why help people who fight animals and all that nonsense). The third is addressing your criminal correlation argument. Now you’re absolutely right here but for the wrong reasons. Animal fighting is against the law…it’s the state that turns honest citizens into criminals by changing the law. I was raised with cockfighting being perfectly legal, there is no way my father would have let me near those people if he thought for a second there were criminal elements involved. Your argument here is really, really wrong. You’re basically saying that after the government has made a particular activity illegal and turned all it’s participants into criminals, dealing with that activity is immoral because it’s full of criminals. Now I don’t disagree that there are real criminals involved in animal fighting…but that does on with just about every human activity.

Next is the nuisance argument, doesn’t hold water. Every cockfight I’ve been to has been out in the country where the nearest neighbor was a good ways off. I’ve never been to a dog fight but I knew where they were and they also were in the country. Now for the social costs…I actually chuckled at that one. Ok fine, lets just tell the thieves who take our money not spend it on shelters. I mean, when you cited the cost of sheltering seized dogs my mind just rang out “Then don’t seize them!”

Finally you leave my framework all together when you mention the “rights of society”. Honestly I don’t even know what that is? You know I have a hard time believing that anything other then an individual has rights. How can a society have them without violating the rights of the individual? All you’re saying there is that the majority has absolute control over the minority and that might makes right.