Michael Vick: The problem of forgiveness and intrinsic value [W:251]

[RGacky3]

Sustenance isn't the same thing.

Evil is a hypothetical construct. There is no objective "more" or "less" evil. Evil can't be measured with empirical data.

Ok, then why is Michael Vick diong something wrong if there is no "objective" evil. Also you don't need meat for sustenance.

If harming animals is wrong, then does the fact that it helps you get nutrition make it less wrong? Back to the murderer killing for no reason vrs the murderer killing for organs dilema.

Eating animals doesn't mean that people are practicing animal cruelty.

Ok, but it's common knowledge that our meat comes from industries that treat animals extremely cruel.

 

[X Factor]

What's PITA? Is there a charity for Gyros?

I donate to Sour Dough.

 

[calamity]

This is a ridiculous comparison. Dogs can't give consent. Football players don't play until death.

The pig which provides the bacon people don't really need also could not give it's consent, nor did the chicken whose eggs were stolen to round out breakfast. The dogs were bred for fighting, like the chicken and pig were bred for eating.

The humans on the gridiron may be giving their consent, but watching them crippling each other is no less animalistic than what Vick did.

 

[X Factor]

Seriously, there's no point in arguing with anyone who can't understand how Vick's behavior was cruel.

 

[Your Star]

What Vick did was wrong, clearly. But that does not make him unforgivable, I think he has done enough and has severed his time to society to be able to move past all that.

And this is coming from a Falcons fan who went through this whole nightmare and watched this situation crumble the franchise for a bit.

 

[calamity]

The race baiting you are engaging in is weak.

Dealing cocaine to consenting humans is different than killing dogs and putting them in rape racks without their consent.

Rape? We are talking about freaking dogs here. Right?

The Chinese skin dogs alive and sell us the fur after they sew it into jackets and stuffed animals. They also eat them. Bottom line is that a dog is just another ****ing animal.

 

[X Factor]

What Vick did was wrong, clearly. But that does not make him unforgivable, I think he has done enough and has severed his time to society to be able to move past all that.

And this is coming from a Falcons fan who went through this whole nightmare and watched this situation crumble the franchise for a bit.

To each their own. Serving (or severing) time doesn't change his fundamental character. I don't care that he's back in the NFL or making money or whatever. In fact, I enjoy it just a bit when he gets ground into the turf.

 

[X Factor]

Rape? We are talking about freaking dogs here. Right?

The Chinese skin dogs alive and sell us the fur after they sew it into jackets and stuffed animals. They also eat them. Bottom line is that a dog is just another ****ing animal.

You're sick, man. Anyone who condones skinning animals alive is.

 

[Thorgasm]

Ok, then why is Michael Vick diong something wrong if there is no "objective" evil. Also you don't need meat for sustenance.

If harming animals is wrong, then does the fact that it helps you get nutrition make it less wrong? Back to the murderer killing for no reason vrs the murderer killing for organs dilema.

Sustinence is an acceptable benefit from killing an animal, humanely. Murder is infringing on the rights of the victim.

Ok, but it's common knowledge that our meat comes from industries that treat animals extremely cruel.

There are laws against that. While they aren't enforced enough, it is still unacceptable.

 

[Thorgasm]

The pig which provides the bacon people don't really need also could not give it's consent, nor did the chicken whose eggs were stolen to round out breakfast. The dogs were bred for fighting, like the chicken and pig were bred for eating.

The humans on the gridiron may be giving their consent, but watching them crippling each other is no less animalistic than what Vick did.

You still don't see the difference between sadistic entertainment and eating being a basic life requirement.

If you think football is like putting dogs in rape racks and hanging dogs, I can't help you understand. It's above my pay grade.

 

[calamity]

You're sick, man. Anyone who condones skinning animals alive is.

I certainly do not condone Chinese practices nor do I buy their products. I also do not condone what Vick did. But, I'm not about to get all excited over it because in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. Vick Killed a few dogs; he went to prison, lost millions of dollars. It's done. Move on.

 

[calamity]

You still don't see the difference between sadistic entertainment and eating being a basic life requirement.

You don't see football as a form of sadistic entertainment? You'd have made a great Roman cheering in the Collesium.

If you think football is like putting dogs in rape racks and hanging dogs, I can't help you understand. It's above my pay grade.

You aren't credible as long as you call dogs being bred rape. :roll:

 

[Thorgasm]

What Vick did was wrong, clearly. But that does not make him unforgivable, I think he has done enough and has severed his time to society to be able to move past all that.

And this is coming from a Falcons fan who went through this whole nightmare and watched this situation crumble the franchise for a bit.

I understand where you are coming from. Throwing money at dog charities and a couple photo ops isn't enough for redemption in my eyes. I am disappointed the league forgave him. I do wonder if it were a non-star player, if they would have reinstated him. IMO, he's worse than Pete Rose, who still isn't allowed in MLB.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. But I wonder, although dogs do have their value, do we value dogs value intrinsically, or based on some sentimental value? I mentioned Michael Vick in the title because it seems that some portions of society say Michael Vick's actions have labeled him cruel and inhumane thus deprives him of the quality of being called "human" because he caused pain to sentient beings. Although Michael Vick's actions were cruel, how do we view those who test animals under scientific conditions for the purpose of advanced cosmetics, research concerning diseases, or what about animals being in captivity? Surely the psyche of such a wild creature can be seen as breaking down their intrinsic value.

Though I think many Americans place way too much value of pets and have misplaced ideas about animals in general, it's rather difficult to draw a comparison to a rich guy fighting pitbulls and something even as needless as animal testing for cosmetics.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'm not losing sleep over whether multi millionaires are forgiven. What he did was heinous. Research that kills animals is unfortunate but has also contributed greatly to eradicating disease, of far greater benefit to society and even other animals than some football player will ever manage. He killed those dogs for the hell of it, for sport. It's not about "paying debt to society" in those circumstances, like i'm standing in the way of him making a living, if we can call the nfl a real job. With forgiveness, you're asking for an emotional assessment, and i think he's a monster.

It's not even so much killing animals for sport(I have no issues with hunting), but the manner that he killed them. Dog fighting is a pretty nasty affair

 

[RGacky3]

Sustinence is an acceptable benefit from killing an animal, humanely. Murder is infringing on the rights of the victim.

Again .. you don't need meat for sustinance ... If animals have rights then why isn't murder an infringement on their rights?

There are laws against that. While they aren't enforced enough, it is still unacceptable.

Yeah .... Not really, they let factory farmers get away with essencailly torture.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You're EXACTLY right, why is it less moral to use a dog for dog fighting, than it is to test drugs on a rat? Other than the fact that some people can relate to loving a dog, i.e. it's sentimental.

I love how people totally ignore the entirepost, whether or not he's a millionaire has nothing to do with the ethical question.

testing drugs on a right would serve some higher social purpose and the manner in which the rat died wasn't made cruel and brutish purely for entertainment

 

[Thorgasm]

Rape? We are talking about freaking dogs here. Right?

The Chinese skin dogs alive and sell us the fur after they sew it into jackets and stuffed animals. They also eat them. Bottom line is that a dog is just another ****ing animal.

This post reeks of ignorance. Dogs are very special animals. They have a special relationship with people. They have worked with humans for over a millennium. Horses too, which Asians also eat. I don't want to go to war with them because they eat those animals. I do think if it's only for entertainment, it is wrong.

I don't advocate skinning any animal alive, except for fish.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The irony is that the same people who whine about Vick' s cruelty to dogs, which was business, since dog fighting is a gambling endeavor designed for entertainment purposes, entertain themselves by watching and gambling on athletes like Vick smash each other's bodies to bits on the gridiron. Football is human dog fighting without the teeth.

you do understand humans are capable of higher thought and free will?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

People do their time and come out redeemed for a crime all the time. The grudge against Vick goes deeper than that. It's probably racial.

Denny McClain was caught dealing cocaine and worked for John Gotti, but yet no one demonizes him nearly as much as they do some Black QB who killed a few dogs. Sheesh.

lol, people will try to make anything a race issue these days

 

[chromium]

It's not even so much killing animals for sport(I have no issues with hunting), but the manner that he killed them. Dog fighting is a pretty nasty affair

Yeah i don't mind deer hunting or something when they're going to starve or get run over anyway. Maybe i'm also biased in thinking that dogs have more value, or are at least way more affectionate, than a lot of people.

 

[Thorgasm]

You don't see football as a form of sadistic entertainment? You'd have made a great Roman cheering in the Collesium.

I don't watch football for the injuries and blood. It's a byproduct of the sport.

You aren't credible as long as you call dogs being bred rape. :roll:

What do you call being bred against their will?

Maybe you have never seen one.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I don't watch football for the injuries and blood. It's a byproduct of the sport.



What do you call being bred against their will?

Maybe you have never seen one.

^that silly mentality mentioned above^

 

[Thorgasm]

Again .. you don't need meat for sustinance ... If animals have rights then why isn't murder an infringement on their rights?

I am not a rabbit. I eat meat. Dogs are animals. They don't have as many rights as people do. They still have rights.

Yeah .... Not really, they let factory farmers get away with essencailly torture.

Who is "they"?

 

[Thorgasm]

^that silly mentality mentioned above^

So you support rape racks for dogs?