Posted on 08/22/2007 5:04:23 AM PDT by PurpleMan
Stephon Marbury, NBA star, "...You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."
(Excerpt) Read more at wjbf.com ...
Straw man. There are no proponents here of 'empowering the government to ban everything we don't like.' We are addressing dogfighting specifically. And everything is not a slippery slope.
For instance, if the PeTA types can get 70% of the people to agree that hunting is wrong, should government ban hunting? Because as our population get's more concentrated in the cities and suburbs, the day when 70% will agree to that proposition gets closer every day.
I have suspected that many here have been screaming so loud in opposition due to an underlining fear of a subsequent attack on hunting. Well rest easy. Hunting is a part of our heritage that is still widely acknowledged as acceptable behavior. I'm sure you don't equate morally the killing of animals humanely for food with the viscous, deplorable activity of dogfighting. There's really no need to make that connection. Now I don't hunt, but in no way begrudge anyone for doing so; I think most people who don't hunt feel this way. Sure there are PETA types who would disallow it, but they are considered kooks and are largely irrelevant.
Or if the HGI types can get 80% of the people to agree that a certain type of rifle is bad, should government ban those rifles? We have already seen that happen. Was that right? We should not rely on government to demonstrate our intolerance or discourage all behavior we don't approve of. We should not be willing to give government that much power.
Whether you realize or not (i suspect not) you are advocating anarchy in favor of the rule of law. Not good. I think elsewhere you mentioned that we should shun people or apply pressure to discourage abhorrent behavior...you don't really believe that will work, do you? I'm not a huge fan of govt-- the less the better-- but the reality is that we must have one, and part of its job is to make laws.
Besides, when has the government been any good at discouraging anything? There were already laws against everything Vick did, but he did everything but take out an ad in the Yellow Pages to promote his operation.
In the preceding paragraphs you extolled the dangers of an overlording government drunk with power, whimsically banning this and that; in the this one you dismiss it as essentially impotent. This is a political board and inherent in it is a preference for a conservative style of government, not an absence of one.
I think there are two camps of people who oppose the punishment of vick. One group is comprised of vile, cold-hearted creatures who should be affixed to a rocket and properly blasted off to Uranus, and the other camp that is genuinely concerned about a perceived slow erosion of freedom and distrust of governmental intrusion.(A healthy skepticism is not only great, but a duty) I'd place you in the latter group. I don't expect to change your mind but I believe there is another consideration with which you may not be cognizant. The ramifications of this case could be more profound than the quelling of dogfighting. It very well could shine a light on a subculture rotting in the underbelly of society.
So what you’re saying is that because one form of barbarism that you abhor is legal, you’re okay with barbarism as a general principle.
Hey - I may disagree with gridlock on this, but I don't agree with blasting anything off to his anus. He doesn't deserve that. Although I think Michael Vick might need to watch himself in the shower. ;)
I don't know where you live, but here in Florida, we are certainly allowed to spank our children. However, when we cross the line from spankings to abuse, evidenced by bruises, broken bones, etc., then government has a legitimate right to step in and see to it that the child is protected. While I don't argue that dogs should have the same rights as a child, I do argue that a dog has more rights than a lampshade. Perhaps you disagree. If you do, you're wrong, and I'm right.
Point taken. That was probably a poor planet choice on my part, but it was purely accidental. I just know Iâd like the sick puppies far removed from civilization. Perhaps Pluto— itâs really out there. Oh, wait, there is some debate about itâs planet-worthiness! We should send them up there and conduct some good old fashion field research.
If there is no rational reason to support laws, but rather laws are based merely on societal revulsion, then whatever inspires societal revulsion at a point in time is subject to banning. Right now it is dog fighting, where as fifty years ago, nobody cared much about dogfighting. It was acceptable. The changing public attitude has led to this law.
Attitudes about dogfighting is not the only attitude that can change. The next thing to inspire general societal revulsion might be something near and dear to you.
Now if there was a theory of law behind banning animal cruelty, such as the notion that animals have a right to be free from cruelty, that is something that can be debated and tested. I would say such arguments are bunk, but at least they are arguments. The ban on dogfighting appears to be based on nothing more that public opinion.
As far as hunting being a part of our heritage and thus protected, I would note that dogfighting is part of our heritage as well, yet here we are. Furthermore, I would note that you felt the need to temporize your support for hunting, specifying that it must be done humanely and for food. These conditions would pretty much end hunting as we know it. Good hunters go for the clean lung shot to bring down the game quickly and cleanly, but often they fail to get it. The animal can be wounded and take hours to die. This is not humane at all. Furthermore, many hunters hunt for sport, and don’t care about the meat. This would not be permitted under your stated conditions.
I realize that we have government and that government will make laws restricting freedom. It is the nature of the beast. My point is that these laws should have a level of reasoning deeper than the fact that society just doesn’t like something at this point in time.
Furthermore, It is worthwhile opposing government regulation even if they are ineffective. In fact, many would say that ineffective regulation should be opposed most vigorously, because it tends to make criminals of many people but punishes only a few. So punishment becomes a matter of prosecutorial discretion, rather than a matter of law. For instance, if you are a well known but obnoxious sports personality, you might be prosecuted more vigorously than some yahoo that nobody ever heard of.
Of course animals have the right to be free from a cruel human hand. You are not suggesting otherwise, are you?
The ban on dogfighting is in place for several reasons. Yes, we have determined in society that it's not acceptable. In addition, related criminal activities (gang involvement, stealing for bait purposes, drug dealing, money laundering, violent crime against people, and on and on) permeate the the dogfighting racket. Recall that subculture I mentioned earlier? That is what I'm talking about here.
I don't see any need to carry on with this...Thanks.
Chuck Rosenberg was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in March 2006 to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He was subsequently nominated to that position by President George Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate, unanimously, on June 13, 2006.
As the chief federal law enforcement officer for the District, which includes offices in Alexandria, Newport News, Norfolk and Richmond, Mr. Rosenberg supervises the prosecution of all federal crimes, and the litigation of all civil matters in which the federal government has an interest. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/usattorney.html
Animals do not and can not have rights. If animals have rights, our entire legal system will be turned upside-down.
That pitbulls are vicious monsters that are only good for mauling children and other pets, and they should all have been exterminated yesterday is a popular position on this board.
Right up until they’re involved in dogfighting at which point they’re our loyal companions again whose death or mistreatment is a moral outrage. Out come the pictures of the injured beasts to elicit, I suppose, sympathy. Fighting is as instinctive and presumably pleasurable to them as eating or f-—ing, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for them?
We’re then righteously told that animal abusers are sociopaths who would just as quickly abuse humans - by people who are openly fantasizing about the abuser himself (that is, a human) being homosexually raped in prison before being dismembered on live TV by packs of dogs in the Georgia Dome.
The hypocrisy is off the charts, and the logic is off the deep end.
Nobody’s fantasizing about anything. I made a simple comment which is made every day as a joke when talking about someone who’s going to prison. If I was the first person to joke about Michael Vick needing to watch his backside in the shower, I’ll eat my shorts.
As for my earlier comment about dog abusers deserving to be doused in blood and thrown to a ravenous pack of pit bulls, I never suggested it be done on live TV at the Georgia Dome. That was YOUR suggestion - I was only commenting on the disgusting nature of what they (the abusers) are doing to the animals in the first place. They deserve a taste of their own medicine. If you want to put it in lights and sell tickets to the event, that’s up to you. I won’t be there.
Now, don't be ridiculous.
Dogs yelp when they are in pain and do suffer.
They are not machines.
It’s a freakin dog. You want to incarcerate a human being for pitting one dog against another, but in nature it happens all the time. That’s the irony of PETA. They like to talk about the natural state of things, but seem to know nothing of it. Nature is cruel and suffering is plentiful. Ever heard the phrase, “it’s a dog eat dog world”.
You haven't seen the photoshopped graphic that's been posted on every other thread about this, where Vick is suited up on the field being attacked by two pitbulls, soaked in blood, his left arm torn off?
Clearly, animal abuse is not a prerequisite for sociopathy.
I think that people have a natural reaction to want to see “an eye for an eye” so to speak. Since that’s the way Vick treated the animals, many people think he should suffer the same fate. That’s why we don’t allow individuals to seek retribution but instead have granted the state the authority to do so on our behalf.
It is a dog, one of God's creatures.
PETA has nothing to do with this.
No, it is not the 'natural state of things', we do not have to be cruel to animals (Pro.12:7).
We are a nation of laws to protect the weak and defenseless from those who would hurt them.
The strong are to protect the weak, not abuse them. (Rom.15:1)
Blame the NBA if you want, but blame the NFL first, it actually has a dogfighting conviction to its credit!
Fair point.
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.