Cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc....all domesticated animals. For some reason, we just place more value on dogs and cats. But they are still animals just like the rest. Ok, they may be special friends to some....which is cool....but they are still animals. The funny thing is some thing we are idiots for giving animals that bark and meow so much affection, to the point where they get money left to them in wills, get fed while we let bums and little kids starve, etc.
Icehouse pretty much said all I wanted to say. Animals are animals. There's a reason they don't have the same rights as humans. And why people don't go to jail when they run over some animal on the road.
This subject already has sharp opinions on both sides. Earlier a poster compared dogs to children. Ok, I guess in their own crooked mind. I've owned dogs and I've seen guys fight dogs on the way to the gym in the hood. My dog served the purpose of protection or just as a pet, not 7th member of the family. When he got to expensive to maintain or didn't perform his duties, he was taken to the pound. My father was easier than gramps because he wouldve taken him out back and put a bullett in his head. Man should have dominion over everything, the fish of the sea,the birds in the air, and every living thing that moves. Now that's in genesis and people can twist it anyway they want and believe or not believe it. All i'm saying is nowhere does it say dogs and cats are human like. So if you wants to treat a dog or cat like a family member, go ahead,but if someone else decides to treat a dop or cat like a dog or cat, then that's their thing. Like I said earlier also, most of the opinions fall on racial lines. That's part of the outrage in the whole deal.
And if you choose to treat a dog or cat like an unfeeling inanimate object, don't be suprised when the animal cops show up on your doorstep and throw your @ss in jail. [rquoter] <dd>Title 9. Offenses Against Public Order and Decency. Chapter 42. Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses. <b>Sec. 42.10. DOG FIGHTING.</b></dd> (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: <dd>(1) causes a dog to fight with another dog; (2) for a pecuniary benefit causes a dog to fight with another dog; (3) participates in the earnings of or operates a facility used for dog fighting; (4) uses or permits another to use any real estate, building, room, tent, arena, or other property for dog fighting; (5) owns or trains a dog with the intent that the dog be used in an exhibition of dog fighting; or (6) attends as a spectator an exhibition of dog fighting.</dd> (b) In this section, "dog fighting" means any situation in which one dog attacks or fights with another dog. (c) A conviction under Subdivision (2), (3), or (4) of Subsection (a) may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of a party to the offense. (d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) that the actor caused a dog to fight with another dog to protect livestock, other property, or a person from the other dog, and for no other purpose. (e) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (5) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. <b>An offense under Subdivision (2), (3), or (4) of Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.</b> An offense under Subdivision (6) of Subsection (a) is a Class C misdemeanor. [/rquoter] [rquoter] <dd>Title 9. Offenses Against Public Order and Decency. Chapter 42. Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses. <b>§ 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.</b></dd> (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly: <dd>(1) tortures an animal; (2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody; (3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody; (4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; (5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; (6) causes one animal to fight with another; (7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; (8) trips a horse; (9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; or (10) seriously overworks an animal.</dd> (b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research. (c) For purposes of this section: <dd>(1) "Abandon" includes abandoning an animal in the person's custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person. (2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature and wild living creature previously captured. "Animal" does not include an uncaptured wild creature or a wild creature whose capture was accomplished by conduct at issue under this section. (3) "Cruel manner" includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering. (4) "Custody" includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person's care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal. (5) "Necessary food, care, or shelter" includes food, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health. (6) "Trip" means to use an object to cause a horse to fall or lose its balance.</dd> (d) An offense under Subsection (a)(2), (3), (4), (9), or (10) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a state jail felony if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section. (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the animal was discovered on the person's property in the act of or immediately after injuring or killing the person's goats, sheep, cattle, horses, swine, or poultry and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(8) that the actor tripped the horse for the purpose of identifying the ownership of the horse or giving veterinary care to the horse. (g) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under this section that the person had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code. (h) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful: <dd>(1) use of an animal if that use occurs solely for the purpose of: <br>(A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or (B) wildlife control as regulated by state and federal law; or <br>(2) animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock. </dd><b>(i) An offense under Subsection (a)(1), (5), (6), (7), or (8) is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section.</b> [/rquoter] A State Jail Felony will earn you 2 years. You can be just like Michael Vick. It is also the same period in jail as criminally negligent homicide. If you manage as a repeat offender to get the 3rd degree felony, you get no less than 2 years and no more than 10, plus a $10,000 fine.
Ottomaton: Not sure what you're trying to say. The point is that we shouldn't treat dogs and cats like they're near-human status, rather than just animals. Of course there are some laws protecting animals. But they're not unique to dogs or cats. Or if they are, they shouldn't. If I raise a rooster and use it for ****-fighting, then torture it to death if it loses, then I would expect to receive the same punishment as someone who does the same with dogs.
Sorry, but that is a religious belief I don't subscribe to. As for it being "racial," my opinion is that you are wrong. I would react the same way were it a white man from College Station.
I think what he may have meant by racial is that approval or disapproval is separated by racial lines on this issue.
Wait a second..you honestly believe Genesis is a license from God to treat animals cruelly?? Where's the "be a good steward" part???
Isn't that pretty much proven, that more black people want to give him a second chance than whites? I'm pretty sure multiple news outlets have examined the racial divide over this single issue and shown this.
I wouldn't know about that, as I haven't seen it, not credibly. I just don't believe that there is a racial divide centered on the humane treatment of domesticated animals. I haven't experienced it over many years of knocking around the planet. Not in the States, at any rate.
My issue is (1) they are, to a degree, definitely dissimilar. As I said, there are likely thousands of cases where you could debate the fairness of the punishment. Stallworth being the most recent, and involving another NFL player, makes some sense to bring up.... BUT, (2) every time you or most people have brought up the comparison it has gone: "Stallworth barely spent any time in jail so Vick must have been punished enough" as if that's the automatic conclusion? When did I ever in my posts indicate that I think Stallworth's "punishment" was fair? In fact, I did the opposite. The conclusion from the comparison, to me, isn't that Vick was punished enough, but that Stallworth wasn't punished nearly nearly enough. Which is why my “argument” – which isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion – hasn’t been killed.
What does just as a pet even mean...to you? The use of dogs as protection isn't really necessary anymore, primarily because there are much better and cheaper ways to protect yourself. But as a pet...what exactly did that mean. I'm fine with people not liking dogs, or cats, or pets. But to have a pet, and not treat it as a member of the family, makes little sense to me. Why have the pet, then? Adding religion into this debate is in no way helpful. We are not all religious, and we are not all Christian. There are pages and pages of stuff in Genesis that clearly aren't anywhere close to factually accurate. Alternatively, there are and have been throughout history, religions and cultures throughout the world that have revered animals. You may be right, but like Deckard, I think it would also be fair to say that those outraged by the acts would be similarly outraged if it was Peyton Manning instead of Michael Vick. I know I would.
I was talking about the racial divide over the acceptance of Michael Vick getting a second chance. That's what I think leebigez meant but I could be wrong.
Out of curiosity did you see the movie Cast Away with Tom Hanks? Just curious as to how you felt about his pal, Wilson? I feel sorry for you - you clearly have never appreciated the true purpose of a pet.
What is the purpose of a pet though? Some people get them as companions, some people get them for protection (still), some people get them for the kids to play with, some people get them to teach kids responsibility, the subject of life and death, etc., some people get them to do jobs, so on and so forth. The purpose of a pet can vary from person to person.
Predominantly, most people get pets for companionship and friendship, be it for themselves, their children or their family. I'd argue, in today's age, for the most part, getting a pet for any other reason makes little sense, as almost universally there are better and cheaper ways to accomplish whatever that other task is. That said, there are certainly instances where dogs do certain tasks really well. Seeing eye dogs. Drug sniffing, bomb detection, herding, helping hunters, etc. Though I'd contend that even in an overwhelming majority of those cases, the pet continues to be valued as much if not more for the companionship and friendship they provide. Lee, specifically, mentioned that they had dogs for protection or just as a pet. I have no idea what just as a pet means for him...do you? Do you have a dog? If so, why? If not, if you would get a dog, why?
That still does not change the fact that people get pets for different reasons. The majority of people may get pets for companionship but the fact is some do not, regardless of there being cheaper or alternative methods to doing so. Maybe but I have personally seen cases where this is not the case. I know a guy who has 5 beagles that stay in a pen year around. The only time they get out is during rabbit season. They're fed and taken care of but not shown any real affection and like I said only get out for certain periods during the year. I know a guy with a lab that does the same thing except for ducks. I know several people who have outside cats for the sole purpose of keeping mice, rats, and other varmints at bay. I know a person with a herd of goats that have the sole purpose of keeping the 5 acres that they occupy free of weeds, bushes, and other nuisance plant life. I'm sure there are thousands of cases like this too. Each of these people regard these animals as pets but not as companions and each of these has a different purpose other than companionship and friendship. No but I am saying that people who have pets do not necessarily see them in the same light as you. You said he has never appreciated the true purpose of a pet. I'm saying a pet can have different purposes for different people. Maybe his is different than your own. I have a dog but that does not change the fact that some do not view their dogs, cats, etc. the same way I do.
Fair enough...I'd just re-iterate that the people in the examples you provided, for the most part, don't seem very smart. They are spending way too much energy, effort and money to accomplish a task that could otherwise be accomplished much more efficiently. Moreover, pet ownership statistics indicate that the vast majority of pet owners have them for reasons other than purely functional. I'm not discounting that there are people out there who own pets for the reasons you cited. But I am coming at it logically...owning pets for those reasons make little sense in today's world.
