Enough of Lovie after vick endorsement

[akshaz]

Again, I go back to intention. Hunting (and I include fishing in that), is basically a sporting version of eating. Instead of going to Dominick's, you do it yourself. The intention is not to see the animal writhe in pain and dance a gig when it is being brutally mauled or mauling. The end result is to enjoy the tasty morsel and get some odd pleasure of doing it yourself (I too am not a hunter and coulnd't enjoy that personally...).

 

I seriously doubt your example would come to fruition, but in theory, I do not have a problem with it. If cities were truly over-run with stray dogs (much like dingos in Australia), and people had to get a dog shooting licence to shot the dogs, I would not have a problem. It would be sanctioned by the govt and popluation as a whole by default. There would obviously have to be some rules/regulations in how to properly shoot, when to, how to dispose, etc... Not just electrocuting or strangling loser dogs and burying them in one's backyard... Not everything illegal is immoral and not everything immoral is illegal. In the case of dog-fighting, it happens to be both immoral and illegal.

 

I believe that you are singling out a few forms of hunting (like deer, turkey, duck) and extrapolating from there. Where in fact, most hunters simply hunt the biggest thing they can legally (and sometimes illegally) afford to hunt. Most serious hunters do it strictly for the sport of it. They have no interest in eating what they kill. It's purely for the trophies. Your example fails when you go to almost any hunting supply store. I've been to some in GA. They have stuffed bears, elk, wolves, coyotes, snakes, alligators, and almost any other animal that moves, breathes or swims. Very few are considered truly edible. Yet there they sit, a trophy for some hunter's pleasure. Also, these animals almost assuredly suffer. Very few hunters kill on the first strike. They shoot, then walk to the target where the animal lays wounded, usually panicked and trying to escape but cannot. Then the hunter, because of his "mercy", puts the animal out of its misery.

 

In regards to your point on fish, have you ever fed your fish bait fish purely for the entertainment? What about snake feeding for entertainment? Why isn't that so immoral?

 

Clearly other animals suffer in almost every example I've discussed. The only difference in this whole discussion is that most people like dogs more than others and consider their lives more worthy of saving/protecting. Mike Vick is only a devil/demon/outcast because he chose to fight/kill the wrong type of animal. As illegal as chicken fighting is, he would probably be considered a joke if he was found to be practicing in that "sport". No way would he have endured this level of punishment or vitriol.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I can see how you can compare dog fighting (cruelity) to hunting, but you have to understand one is legal and one is illegal. I enjoy hunting for numerous reasons: sitting in the woods enjoying nature, that slim chance a once in a lifetime trophy comes by, the stories to tell to your buddies about the experience, and of course filling the freezer with some meat. Hunting is not cheap and probably will end up costing you a lot more than going to the supermarket, but it's an experience thats worth it to me.

 

Dogs in our culture are known as mans best friend, kind of like cows in India are sacred. Dog fighting and cock fighting are more serious because of the gambling involved in the law enforcements eyes. The public sees it more as animal cruelity. The ring Vick ran was pretty big and serious, it wasn't like a neighborhood kid taking his pit bull down to the park and betting another kid that his dog would win. This involved hundreds of thousands of dollars exchanging hands. Its really no different if he got busted for being the biggest bookie in ATL, except w/ cruelity to dogs being and extra penalty.

 

IMO, this is one of the most serious crimes commited by an NFL player in a while. What Stallworth/Little done are worse IMO b/c human life was lost, but Vicks crime was a planned, under ground racketeer.

[jason]

I think this is a rationale perspective. It's a very fair question whether or not Vick can help us. He was never the best QB, but a great athlete. Maybe we have a place for him. Maybe not.

 

I just believe it's hypocritical to throw him out of the league permanently for his crime when there are, IMHO, far worse crimes committed by players. He has paid his debt to society and lost almost everything he has worked for. If a team thinks he can help them win and wants to bring him in, he should be allowed to play.

 

I think you mean "far worse alleged or charged without conviction crimes".

[jason]

I believe that you are singling out a few forms of hunting (like deer, turkey, duck) and extrapolating from there. Where in fact, most hunters simply hunt the biggest thing they can legally (and sometimes illegally) afford to hunt. Most serious hunters do it strictly for the sport of it. They have no interest in eating what they kill. It's purely for the trophies. Your example fails when you go to almost any hunting supply store. I've been to some in GA. They have stuffed bears, elk, wolves, coyotes, snakes, alligators, and almost any other animal that moves, breathes or swims. Very few are considered truly edible. Yet there they sit, a trophy for some hunter's pleasure. Also, these animals almost assuredly suffer. Very few hunters kill on the first strike. They shoot, then walk to the target where the animal lays wounded, usually panicked and trying to escape but cannot. Then the hunter, because of his "mercy", puts the animal out of its misery.

 

In regards to your point on fish, have you ever fed your fish bait fish purely for the entertainment? What about snake feeding for entertainment? Why isn't that so immoral?

 

Clearly other animals suffer in almost every example I've discussed. The only difference in this whole discussion is that most people like dogs more than others and consider their lives more worthy of saving/protecting. Mike Vick is only a devil/demon/outcast because he chose to fight/kill the wrong type of animal. As illegal as chicken fighting is, he would probably be considered a joke if he was found to be practicing in that "sport". No way would he have endured this level of punishment or vitriol.

 

One point regarding your comments...

 

I know of no hunters who train any of the animals you have mentioned to fight until the death. Others may die because of the hunt, or because we're hungry, but I've never seen a hunter in a deer-stand make two bucks go at it until one is butchered alive by the other's rack.

[madlithuanian]

I'll take your word on what is fair game in GA. I've never been, other than in Atlanta for one day on business. I would imagine, most those trophies were from the past, when such activity was more accepted, but I could be wrong. There are store in Los Angeles that have similar...but it's noted there that these items were before a certain year,etc...

 

I've fed lizards crickets and have enjoyed the hunting prowess they display...albeit small. It's not immoral because the creature feeding needs to eat. Dogs don't need to fight one another.

 

I think I will just conclude that we simply disagree. You think you have a valid anaogy and I don't think you do.

 

 

 

I believe that you are singling out a few forms of hunting (like deer, turkey, duck) and extrapolating from there. Where in fact, most hunters simply hunt the biggest thing they can legally (and sometimes illegally) afford to hunt. Most serious hunters do it strictly for the sport of it. They have no interest in eating what they kill. It's purely for the trophies. Your example fails when you go to almost any hunting supply store. I've been to some in GA. They have stuffed bears, elk, wolves, coyotes, snakes, alligators, and almost any other animal that moves, breathes or swims. Very few are considered truly edible. Yet there they sit, a trophy for some hunter's pleasure. Also, these animals almost assuredly suffer. Very few hunters kill on the first strike. They shoot, then walk to the target where the animal lays wounded, usually panicked and trying to escape but cannot. Then the hunter, because of his "mercy", puts the animal out of its misery.

 

In regards to your point on fish, have you ever fed your fish bait fish purely for the entertainment? What about snake feeding for entertainment? Why isn't that so immoral?

 

Clearly other animals suffer in almost every example I've discussed. The only difference in this whole discussion is that most people like dogs more than others and consider their lives more worthy of saving/protecting. Mike Vick is only a devil/demon/outcast because he chose to fight/kill the wrong type of animal. As illegal as chicken fighting is, he would probably be considered a joke if he was found to be practicing in that "sport". No way would he have endured this level of punishment or vitriol.