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

[Anonymous]

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.

1. Sure we do. What about sport fishing? How is that any different than dogfighting?

2. So in your view, the purpose for which an animal is tortured and killed bears directly on whether it is right or wrong. On one hand, I think that is a reasonable position. On the other, it's just something you tell yourself to allow you to sleep better at night - it sure doesn't matter to the animals.

[Anonymous]

I just can't get too worked up about dogs, or any other animal. Americans are very weird about their dogs. What someone wants to do with their property should be their own business.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think the purpose and manner of death bear directly on whether something is acceptable. Do you think that putting your elderly sick dog to sleep is the same as sending it to death in a dog fighting ring? Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get too worked up about dogs, or any other animal. Americans are very weird about their dogs. What someone wants to do with their property should be their own business.

There's something wrong with your conscience, compassion, empathy, and intelligence.

[Anonymous]

9:29, Are your children your property to do with as you please, perhaps beat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think the purpose and manner of death bear directly on whether something is acceptable. Do you think that putting your elderly sick dog to sleep is the same as sending it to death in a dog fighting ring? Of course not.

Sorry, that's a flawed analogy. You're conveniently ignoring part of the analysis:

So in your view, the purpose for which an animal is tortured and killed bears directly on whether it is right or wrong

. "Elderly sick dogs" aren't tortured.

You say that "the purpose and manner of death bear[s] directly on whether something is acceptable." OK - you think the is it OK to torture and ultimately kill an animal if it is for a purpose that you find acceptable? Is that right?

[Anonymous]

I've traveled to countries where you can buy dogs in cages to eat, or you can buy guinea pigs to eat. For some reason Americans go crazy over dogs. Personally I think it gross to have an animal in your house or in your bed. I wouldn't get any enjoyment or satisfaction out of seeing two pit bulls fight each other, but I also wouldn't get any enjoyment out of shooting an arrow into a deer and then gutting it, or setting a fish hook through the throat of a beautiful marlin, or having a pack of hounds rip apart a fox. The dynamics between humans and animals is an interesting one - but I guess my point, to the extent I have one, is that why do we elevate dogs higher than the rest? And so I'm not going to get too worked up about what happens to dogs until we get worked up about what happens to all animals. And since that is not going to happen, well ...

the greyhounds racing in florida get the same treatment by the way. as soon as they are too slow, they are put down. just like a fighting dog that won't win fights. pretty gross, but that is what humans do to animals.

[Anonymous]

If you think that fishing is "torture" along the same lines as dog fighting, I hope you've never stepped on a cockroach. All animals are the same, right, and all killing apart from euthanasia is torture? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

"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."

You don't really need a lecture on the many reprehensible things that have been going on for thousands of years, which are acceptable depending on the culture you are in? Why don't you entertain us with a defense of female genital mutilation next?

[Anonymous]

I think sport-fishing for marlin or sailfish to be much worse than dogfighting. You don't eat those fish, it is purely for sport. It is man with weapon vs animal, not predator animal vs predator animal, which is what animals do in the wild everyday.

Catch and release is ok, but still pretty rough on the animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think that fishing is "torture" along the same lines as dog fighting, I hope you've never stepped on a cockroach. All animals are the same, right, and all killing apart from euthanasia is torture? Ridiculous.

Compelling argument there, calling something "ridiculous" without any more analysis. But let's unpack this a little bit anyway. A fish is swimming along, looks at a yummy piece of lunch, gobbles it down, and finds herself impaled on a sharp metal hook. She desperately tries to get away, but the hook gets embedded deeper and deeper into her throat. Once she's dragged near the boat, she's impaled by more sharp hooks, pulled onto the boat, and then gutted, sometimes while she's still alive. And this isn't for food - the fish is mounted on a wall so the fisherman brag about his prowess.

That's not torture? And if it's OK to do to a fish, but not a dog, it must be because the fish deserves less protection than the dog. Why is that?

My point is this - all of us draw the line at what is right and wrong somewhere. Discussing where that line is, and if there are any inconsistencies in how we determine what is acceptable or not, is enlightening. That is, if you have enough courage to honestly examine your own beliefs. Apparently, you prefer to just dismiss anything that might make you question the way you view the world around you.

[Anonymous]

I always think of threads like these when posters on here lament, "Why don't I have any close friends?" This is probably why. Why defend dog fighting just for the sake of a rousing internet squabble?

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone here is defending dog-fighting. Just, at least in my case, pointing out the hypocrisy in getting outraged about dogs but not other animals, thinking that Vick more than paid whatever debt was owed to society and that Tucker Carlson's comment was offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone here is defending dog-fighting. Just, at least in my case, pointing out the hypocrisy in getting outraged about dogs but not other animals, thinking that Vick more than paid whatever debt was owed to society and that Tucker Carlson's comment was offensive.

As has already been pointed out, there was indeed a poster on the first page who specifically stated that dog fighting did not bother her at all. There has been a more recent poster who said that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property. Yes, people are defending dog fighting, either outright or by arguing against fishing, a separate issue entirely which has no bearing on whether dog fighting is right or wrong.

However, I don't think anyone said Vick hasn't paid his debt to society or that Tucker Carlson was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think that fishing is "torture" along the same lines as dog fighting, I hope you've never stepped on a cockroach. All animals are the same, right, and all killing apart from euthanasia is torture? Ridiculous.

I'm not that poster. But how do you know that dogs are more deserving than fish or deer? On what basis, other than cuddliness, do you make the distinction?