Spinoff: Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should have been executed for torturing dogs

[Anonymous]

Michael Vick was convicted and served his time, no matter what he did, he served the time for the crime. People are just pissed because he is doing well again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

But they weren't torturing animals for pleasure. You are applying an outside perspective to something you didn't understand. They weren't thinking, "It's so fun to hurt something!" They were thinking, "We enjoy dog fighting and this is part of dog fighting." Were there unsavory elements to it? Yes. But let's check the sanctimony at the door and gain a little perspective.

Are you kidding me? They were thinking, "You know what's fun? Dog fighting! You know what happens in a dog fight? One dog kills another dog in front of an audience!" Torture for pleasure and profit, period. Normal people with normal consciences do not participate in deliberate cruelty to animals for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

But they weren't torturing animals for pleasure. You are applying an outside perspective to something you didn't understand. They weren't thinking, "It's so fun to hurt something!" They were thinking, "We enjoy dog fighting and this is part of dog fighting." Were there unsavory elements to it? Yes. But let's check the sanctimony at the door and gain a little perspective.

Are you kidding me? They were thinking, "You know what's fun? Dog fighting! You know what happens in a dog fight? One dog kills another dog in front of an audience!" Torture for pleasure and profit, period. Normal people with normal consciences do not participate in deliberate cruelty to animals for fun.

you think the cow I ate for lunch wasn't tortured beyond belief at the slaughterhouse? I ate it for fun, intentionally. dog-fighting is a cultural activity that has been going on for thousands of years. Disgusting, yes, but no more so than many other activities that our culture finds acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

But they weren't torturing animals for pleasure. You are applying an outside perspective to something you didn't understand. They weren't thinking, "It's so fun to hurt something!" They were thinking, "We enjoy dog fighting and this is part of dog fighting." Were there unsavory elements to it? Yes. But let's check the sanctimony at the door and gain a little perspective.

Are you kidding me? They were thinking, "You know what's fun? Dog fighting! You know what happens in a dog fight? One dog kills another dog in front of an audience!" Torture for pleasure and profit, period. Normal people with normal consciences do not participate in deliberate cruelty to animals for fun.

you think the cow I ate for lunch wasn't tortured beyond belief at the slaughterhouse? I ate it for fun, intentionally. dog-fighting is a cultural activity that has been going on for thousands of years. Disgusting, yes, but no more so than many other activities that our culture finds acceptable.

Thankfully, most human beings and our justice system have more compassion and intelligence than you do, and do not think that eating a hamburger and organizing a dog fight are equivalent.

[Anonymous]

so what if we fought cows and ate dogs?

[Anonymous]

You must be bored, contrary, or without a moral compass if you are arguing in favor of dog fights. Assuming it's one of the first two options, and I'm going to vote "contrary," because surely if it was boredom you'd have time to capitalize.

[Anonymous]

I don't think pp was arguing in support of dog-fighting, just pointing out the hypocrisy of meat eaters not acknowledging the fact that cows, pigs and lambs are also tortured at slaughterhouses. This video is tame compared to most.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/video-shows-cow-torture-at-dairy-farm-10762713

[Anonymous]

Note on dog-fighting vs meat-eating -- at least the dogs have a fighting chance to survive (pun intended, but the point is serious). I oppose dog-fighting and am a meat-eater with conscience problems, in case that's relevant to interpreting my comment.

To put it another way, would you rather be a gladiator or soylent green?

[Anonymous]

Tucker Carlson should have been executed for his performance on Dancing with the Stars.

[Anonymous]

Thankfully, most human beings and our justice system have more compassion and intelligence than you do, and do not think that eating a hamburger and organizing a dog fight are equivalent.

New poster here - no offense, PP, but you should read a book on factory farms. On the cruelty spectrum, they're no so far from dogfighting as you might think. And I don't say that to excuse dogfighting in any way - just to point out that a lot of the righteous indignation we see about Vick is spewed by people whose hands aren't exactly clean. People in glass houses, and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Torturing animals for pleasure is sociopathic. There is something dreadfully, frighteningly, fundamentally wrong with anyone who participates in such an activity, profits from it, or condones it. PP who is not bothered by it, I'm looking at you.

But they weren't torturing animals for pleasure. You are applying an outside perspective to something you didn't understand. They weren't thinking, "It's so fun to hurt something!" They were thinking, "We enjoy dog fighting and this is part of dog fighting." Were there unsavory elements to it? Yes. But let's check the sanctimony at the door and gain a little perspective.

Are you kidding me? They were thinking, "You know what's fun? Dog fighting! You know what happens in a dog fight? One dog kills another dog in front of an audience!" Torture for pleasure and profit, period. Normal people with normal consciences do not participate in deliberate cruelty to animals for fun.

you think the cow I ate for lunch wasn't tortured beyond belief at the slaughterhouse? I ate it for fun, intentionally. dog-fighting is a cultural activity that has been going on for thousands of years. Disgusting, yes, but no more so than many other activities that our culture finds acceptable.

Thankfully, most human beings and our justice system have more compassion and intelligence than you do, and do not think that eating a hamburger and organizing a dog fight are equivalent.

The PP called dog fighting disgusting. It's not like (s)he condoned it. The point they are making, which is valid, is that many people find meat eating repugnant. So do about a billion people on this planet, who have chosen not to eat meat and have lived nonetheless, making meat eating a demonstrably voluntary activity. I am a meat eater, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the vegetarian moral position in one breath and condemning other animal activity in the next.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone on here the manager or supervisor of an egregious factory farm? Then the dog-fighting apologists might have a more analogous argument.

This thread isn't about whether it's okay to eat meat or whether farming standards are acceptable. Dog fighting is wrong. If you think it's okay, there is something wrong with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone on here the manager or supervisor of an egregious factory farm? Then the dog-fighting apologists might have a more analogous argument.

This thread isn't about whether it's okay to eat meat or whether farming standards are acceptable. Dog fighting is wrong. If you think it's okay, there is something wrong with you.

I don't think anyone here has said dogfighting is OK, or is a dog fighting apologist. The point is that unless you feel the same ire about people who work in and own factory farms and slaughterhouses as you do Michael Vick, your righteous indignation is a tad hypocritical. Is it because dogs are cute and cows and chickens are not? Is it because the purpose of factory farms is to feed, and the purpose of dogfighting is to entertain? But then what about sport fishing? Is a fish entitled to less protection than a puppy? Many people are trying to raise nuanced points related to this discussion - but you are intent on reducing it to "dogfighting bad." I'd like to think that a self-identified "softie lib" (if you're the same poster) brings more intellectual honesty to the table than a Fox News contributor. Apparently not. That's disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone on here the manager or supervisor of an egregious factory farm? Then the dog-fighting apologists might have a more analogous argument.

This thread isn't about whether it's okay to eat meat or whether farming standards are acceptable. Dog fighting is wrong. If you think it's okay, there is something wrong with you.

I don't think anyone here has said dogfighting is OK, or is a dog fighting apologist. The point is that unless you feel the same ire about people who work in and own factory farms and slaughterhouses as you do Michael Vick, your righteous indignation is a tad hypocritical. Is it because dogs are cute and cows and chickens are not? Is it because the purpose of factory farms is to feed, and the purpose of dogfighting is to entertain? But then what about sport fishing? Is a fish entitled to less protection than a puppy? Many people are trying to raise nuanced points related to this discussion - but you are intent on reducing it to "dogfighting bad." I'd like to think that a self-identified "softie lib" (if you're the same poster) brings more intellectual honesty to the table than a Fox News contributor. Apparently not. That's disheartening.

I am not that poster, although I might also describe myself that way. I'm not interested in a discussion about farming integrity because I don't think it matters for purposes of evaluating dog fighting, especially not on DCUM, although of course I recognize that there are many ethical problems and challenges in our farms. That one thing might also be wrong doesn't make another thing less wrong. Farming can be bad; that has nothing to do with whether dog fighting is not also bad. It's not hard to distinguish a person merely EATING an anonymous hamburger from a person purposefully ORGANIZING a dogfight. Eating is different from watching torture for entertainment. Pest control is different from watching torture for entertainment. Hunting (as vile as I think it is) is different from torture for entertainment. That people might also have problems with eating meat and exterminating rodents and hunting does not make dog fighting any less wrong. Other things might also be wrong. It's irrelevant.

We do not torture animals for entertainment in this country. It's cruel, and it's a felony, and it's indicative of a real moral failing for someone to participate in it or condone it. I'm shocked that this is so controversial. Get up in arms about farms all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that encouraging and enjoying dog fighting is wrong.

Torturing creatures just to watch them suffer is wrong. It's not a moral gray area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone on here the manager or supervisor of an egregious factory farm? Then the dog-fighting apologists might have a more analogous argument.

This thread isn't about whether it's okay to eat meat or whether farming standards are acceptable. Dog fighting is wrong. If you think it's okay, there is something wrong with you.

I don't think anyone here has said dogfighting is OK, or is a dog fighting apologist. The point is that unless you feel the same ire about people who work in and own factory farms and slaughterhouses as you do Michael Vick, your righteous indignation is a tad hypocritical. Is it because dogs are cute and cows and chickens are not? Is it because the purpose of factory farms is to feed, and the purpose of dogfighting is to entertain? But then what about sport fishing? Is a fish entitled to less protection than a puppy? Many people are trying to raise nuanced points related to this discussion - but you are intent on reducing it to "dogfighting bad." I'd like to think that a self-identified "softie lib" (if you're the same poster) brings more intellectual honesty to the table than a Fox News contributor. Apparently not. That's disheartening.

A PP on the first page specifically said that dog fighting "does not bother [her] at all."