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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Maybe because dogs have been domesticated over thousands of years. Dogs are highly intelligent companion animals with a great range of feelings. That's why they are used as service dogs for the blind, those with seizures or other medical disorders. Other therapy dogs are used in nursing homes, cancer wards, children's hospitals and the like because of the many studies that show they can lower stress and anxiety in these patients. Dogs are also dependent upon humans for food and shelter because humans have bred them to rely on us.

You mean that we penned them in and controlled their breeding for thousands of years, and we euthanized the ones that acted out against us, until what was left was a breed of animals that pleases us. So now they are dependent on us, they have learned to be nice to us, they look cute for us, and they provide useful services.

But I don't see how animal rights should be decided upon how human-friendly they are. Is that the moral value of an animal, how docile/useful to us they are? Is a wild animal less worthy merely because they want to live free?

Your argument is essentially that dogs are built to serve humans. I'm sure that dog fighters agree with that notion. But it seems a shaky foundation to suggest that an animal's treatment should be determined by how useful and friendly an animal is to us. It seems utterly anthropocentric.

To me, animals have intrinsic value.

Really? Then shouldn't you be against dog fighting? Why argue with the folks who think it's a bad thing? Start another thread about how terrible fishing is if you'd like.

This is what's wrong with DCUM: many people would rather pick a fight than agree or ignore, no matter the topic.

I AM against dog fighting. Did you read where I said I was NOT that poster?

But that other poster did ask a very reasonable question: what makes violence against one animal OK and another animal criminal? You can't just pretend it is irrelevant. Your answer was pretty darn close to "dogs are cuddly and make me feel warm and fuzzy". Well it seems to me a pretty shallow foundation for morality, whether it is that they make us feel good or lead us around the neighborhood, the basis of their rights is how meaningful they are to us.

This is a wolf. It is the genetic source for modern dogs. It is social, it is free, it lives in the wild. As of 2009, you can shoot this animal.


This is a Shar-pei. To some, it is an exotic pet. To me, it is a freakish genetics experiment.


You cannot shoot this animal. But read the Shar-pei society's owner's manual. It is no more than a list of genetically-induced diseases. http://www.cspca.com/PubEd/OwnerGuide.pdf

What is the difference between the wolf and the shar-pei? The wolf is physically a superior specimen. It is smarter and plenty social. It's big problem? It is free.

If you are against dog fighting, then stop posting in defense of dog fighting. Start another thread if you want to argue that hunting and fishing are equally bad.

I am not posting in defense of dog fighting. I am posting against your weak logic.

Hunting and fishing are relevant, despite your repeated declarations. Unless you are a vegetarian, you have decided that some violence against animals is acceptable, and some is not. In order to avoid total hypocrisy, you need a consistent method to decide which violence is acceptable and which is bad. That is what the earlier poster is getting at. Yours is that dogs are useful to us. It's not a defensible position. So instead of trying to shout down this discussion, you should be thinking about how you really decide right and wrong on animals.

IF you can't handle that, fine. But stop pretending that the point is unrelated.

At least three posters over the past four pages have addressed and answered your questions and you've ignored those posts or pretended to misunderstand them. Stop being deliberately obtuse as if you're unable to recognize that humans, by necessity, differentiate between species in terms of their intelligence, emotions, temperament and purpose, among other things. You're arguing because you're offended that other people are too offended by dogfighting. Why fight people who are against an abhorrent practice just because there are other abhorrent practices in the world as well? Pointless.

Happy new year. I hope you learn to pick your battles in a more productive manner in 2011.

I was specifically addressing YOUR comments above, starting with Maybe because.... If you felt they were redundant, why did you post them? If they are insufficient, why don't you correct them instead of telling me why I am wrong to bring it up in the first place? Somehow I am guessing you are an animal lover. Yet you seem to have no idea or interest in the rights of animals. You just want things to be your way. It's obvious that dogs should be protected, and stupid to think other animals deserve the same.

I was not the "Maybe because..." poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Maybe because dogs have been domesticated over thousands of years. Dogs are highly intelligent companion animals with a great range of feelings. That's why they are used as service dogs for the blind, those with seizures or other medical disorders. Other therapy dogs are used in nursing homes, cancer wards, children's hospitals and the like because of the many studies that show they can lower stress and anxiety in these patients. Dogs are also dependent upon humans for food and shelter because humans have bred them to rely on us.

You mean that we penned them in and controlled their breeding for thousands of years, and we euthanized the ones that acted out against us, until what was left was a breed of animals that pleases us. So now they are dependent on us, they have learned to be nice to us, they look cute for us, and they provide useful services.

But I don't see how animal rights should be decided upon how human-friendly they are. Is that the moral value of an animal, how docile/useful to us they are? Is a wild animal less worthy merely because they want to live free?

Your argument is essentially that dogs are built to serve humans. I'm sure that dog fighters agree with that notion. But it seems a shaky foundation to suggest that an animal's treatment should be determined by how useful and friendly an animal is to us. It seems utterly anthropocentric.

To me, animals have intrinsic value.

Really? Then shouldn't you be against dog fighting? Why argue with the folks who think it's a bad thing? Start another thread about how terrible fishing is if you'd like.

This is what's wrong with DCUM: many people would rather pick a fight than agree or ignore, no matter the topic.

I AM against dog fighting. Did you read where I said I was NOT that poster?

But that other poster did ask a very reasonable question: what makes violence against one animal OK and another animal criminal? You can't just pretend it is irrelevant. Your answer was pretty darn close to "dogs are cuddly and make me feel warm and fuzzy". Well it seems to me a pretty shallow foundation for morality, whether it is that they make us feel good or lead us around the neighborhood, the basis of their rights is how meaningful they are to us.

This is a wolf. It is the genetic source for modern dogs. It is social, it is free, it lives in the wild. As of 2009, you can shoot this animal.


This is a Shar-pei. To some, it is an exotic pet. To me, it is a freakish genetics experiment.


You cannot shoot this animal. But read the Shar-pei society's owner's manual. It is no more than a list of genetically-induced diseases. http://www.cspca.com/PubEd/OwnerGuide.pdf

What is the difference between the wolf and the shar-pei? The wolf is physically a superior specimen. It is smarter and plenty social. It's big problem? It is free.

If you are against dog fighting, then stop posting in defense of dog fighting. Start another thread if you want to argue that hunting and fishing are equally bad.

I am not posting in defense of dog fighting. I am posting against your weak logic.

Hunting and fishing are relevant, despite your repeated declarations. Unless you are a vegetarian, you have decided that some violence against animals is acceptable, and some is not. In order to avoid total hypocrisy, you need a consistent method to decide which violence is acceptable and which is bad. That is what the earlier poster is getting at. Yours is that dogs are useful to us. It's not a defensible position. So instead of trying to shout down this discussion, you should be thinking about how you really decide right and wrong on animals.

IF you can't handle that, fine. But stop pretending that the point is unrelated.

At least three posters over the past four pages have addressed and answered your questions and you've ignored those posts or pretended to misunderstand them. Stop being deliberately obtuse as if you're unable to recognize that humans, by necessity, differentiate between species in terms of their intelligence, emotions, temperament and purpose, among other things. You're arguing because you're offended that other people are too offended by dogfighting. Why fight people who are against an abhorrent practice just because there are other abhorrent practices in the world as well? Pointless.

Happy new year. I hope you learn to pick your battles in a more productive manner in 2011.

I was specifically addressing YOUR comments above, starting with Maybe because.... If you felt they were redundant, why did you post them? If they are insufficient, why don't you correct them instead of telling me why I am wrong to bring it up in the first place? Somehow I am guessing you are an animal lover. Yet you seem to have no idea or interest in the rights of animals. You just want things to be your way. It's obvious that dogs should be protected, and stupid to think other animals deserve the same.

I was not the "Maybe because..." poster.

Then I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the person in the chain of replies.

[Anonymous]

You were responding to two people in that same chain. That was my point. In any case, hopefully this is done.