Posted on 08/22/2007 5:04:23 AM PDT by PurpleMan
“I paid about eighty bucks to go see the Bobcats get blown away by Phoenix last December, and I was so high up my neck started to hurt from looking down at such a steep angle.”
....I believe it!....my mother-in-law’s company just quit buying tickets....they still have Panthers and UNCC basketball but dropped the Bobcats....if you give a client a NFL ticket it’s good business....give them an NBA ticket and there are safety concerns about a melee after the game.
That is not logical at all. Society can see harm without making something illegal. Society should be able to discourage something without making it against the law.
We are supposed to leave the next generation a little bit better than the last. I don’t know why you would not want any laws against animal cruelty.
Promulgation of a million little laws against this, that or the other is not the way to make things better for the next generation.
” You can do what you want with your lampshade. Spray-paint it, pee on it, cut it into little pieces, burn it - whatever you want to do to it. But you cannot do that to an animal. If you do, you are not only breaking the law but you are a sick who deserves to be tied up, doused with and thrown into the middle of a pack of ravenous pit bulls. I agree that there is a dichotomy here when it comes to abortion, but just because abortion happens to be legal in this country doesn’t mean that we should stoop to the same level when it comes to the treatment of animals.”
I hope you can see the inconsistency in your argument. In the first instance regarding dogfighting, you rely on the existence of the statute/law to justify your position, i.e., it must be wrong because it’s against the law — this is what I call “legal positivism” and I don’t think much of it because it’s not true moral reasoning.
Then you turn around and admit that abortion is wrong even though it’s against the law, directly contradicting the basis for your earlier reasoning.
You are not, BTW, the only person posting here that falls into that trap — many here are reasoning the same way. But simply arguing that “illegal = wrong” implies that the law (and therefore politicians) are the source of for moral reasoning.
Now that CAN’T be correct.
According to the laws of VA, Vick’s actions were illegal.
Because he transported the dogs across state lines to fight them and gamble on the outcome, his action violated the federal law...not to point out the obvious, but that is why we are even attempting to have this discussion.
Further, as someone who grew up in the “rural” areas you reference, I believe, Snore, you would be one of those neighbors who would receive a visit from your neighbors. You see, there are some folks in rural areas who use the lack of neighborly oversight and close neighbor proximity to engage in the most detestable actions.
Then there are the rest of us who, when faced with a rogue dog chasing our stock, would simply go speak to the neighbor...which usually solves the problem quite nicely and humanely.
Finally, perhaps you should remove your helmet, as I believe it may be compromising your circulation. That you cannot fathom the subtle nuances between wantonly and illegally killing an animal soley for your amusement and profit and killing an animal that poses a threat to man or beast essentially means that nothing any of us say to you will be able to penetrate your substantial, and seemingly impenatrable cranial pan.
And, that’s too bad.
You are a flaming idiot. When your dog that runs cattle is injured, do you let it die a slow, painful death? Do you slowly strangle it? No. By your own admission, you shot it quickly to put it out of its misery. Same with horses and other animals. And the private property argument was used in the 1800’s in defense of slavery. Does Dred Scott ring a bell? Like someone else posted, if you can’t tell the difference, something is wrong with you!
Actually, I abhor dog and cock fighting. I am against animal cruelty, in general. I am kind and generous to the animals in my care.
I just don't think my opinions should be codified in the law. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for five years for disagreeing with me.
Okkkk, so let me ask you - in your world there would be no law against seeing a stray dog walking harmelssly down the street and grabbing it’s neck and choking it to death? You would ask the cop on the beat to just keep walking and ask the nearby citizens to “discourage” the act only if they feel the need to? Tell you what, become an activist to get rid of any and all animal cruelty laws. See if you can get that on the Libertarian platform for 2008. Or you can just bitch and moan we are such a repressive society and having laws against dog murder puts us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
That is a sick suggestion. Could you go join some other message board?”
Apparently, you have been chewing on some of those lead-base painted Mattel toys as you are not able to ascertain sarcasm when you read it. Another Dilbert, sigh....
By some of the comments on this thread, a lot of sick SOB’s have joined FreeRepublic.
I don’t understand the marketing strategy the Bobcats seem to be following. Their attendance has been dismal, and though the team is showing signs of improvement, they’re a doormat even in the weak eastern conference. You’d think they’d be falling over themselves to build up a local fanbase through cheap ticket promotions. Instead, they seem intent on pricing themselves out of the city.
You see this reasoning when the NFL decides to base it's decision on whether or not to punish Michael Vick on the outcome of the legal proceedings. The NFL has abandoned it's moral responsibility to the State.
999 times out of 1,000 there will be no cop on the beat there to see the dog get strangled. The problem with animal cruelty laws is that people subsitute "illegal" for "immoral" very easily, and are satisfied to rely on the police officer who isn't there.
It is the growing bullying, statist wing of FR that I find embarrassing.
The good news is that more and more Euro players who actually have skills are replacing the thugs.
Please answer my question as I answered yours. Are you against any law that would forbid going up to a harmless stray dog in the street and choking it to death? Yes or no please!
Something can be illegal and immoral at the same time. I understand your splitting of the hairs; nevertheless, the issues here fall into 2 distinct categories. What Vick did was illegal; therefore it is appropriate to talk about his actions in this context.
What Vick did is immoral because we are a society that rejects cruelty towards animals for solely one’s own amusement as a virtue. Because of the differing worldviews of the members of this society, different people will arrive at this conclusion for differing reasons.
I arrive there because I believe God created the world and all that populates it. Thus, the world belongs to God. I am commanded to exercise responsible stewardship over His creation. He does not approve of cruelty (I’ll not go into every scriptural reference); thus, I cannot engage in it. And, as a steward I should seek to ensure that it doesn’t occur.
Others, using a different worldview as the foundation will arrive at it from another angle. Those who espouse the idea that it should be legal for virtually every whimsical action of man to be legal are in the decided majority and should study seriously what man decides to do with all his freedoms.
Unfortunately, when man is left to his own devices, he frequently chooses the basest actions to pursue. Thus, the society, to prevent such base actions or at least punish them once they have occurred, can, through their representative, enact laws reflecting their collective morality.
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.