NAACP Atlanta Head: Vick Would be Treated Better if He Killed a Person

Seems your morals lead that the only reason we can use animals is for life saving reasons.

You do not ENJOY steak or a lamb chop. Because this is not needed for you to live. Its really just for enjoyment. You could easily live without eating any animals.

My guess is (if you are not a vegan) you believe that your net improvement of "human entertainment" of eating a lobster or shrimp or ribeye instead of some tofu and beans and rice is worth more than the animals life. I certainly do. Just because you choose your entertainment as eating instead of sport changes little.

Before you talk about well just a little more to go to dogfighting let me restate the moral grounds.

Happiness of eating steak for humans combined with humane death of cow.
vs.
Gambling (generally troublesome) for humans with torture and death battles for dogs. (dogfighting)

 

Hey, I have no problem admitting that I love eating flesh man. I am not saying you are bad for liking to hunt. I'm saying it just seems a lil backwards to be against dogfighting if you kill animals for entertainment. Well, let me change that....I do understand the arguments that they suffer more in dogfighting....but they still suffer in hunting, etc. Death is suffering....

 

The difference is that a dog in dogfighting isn't having a good life either. It has a horrible life, and a cruel end. The animal hunted might just have a cruel end, but still have a decent life.

 

Pitbulls were bred to live that kind of life. I'm sure slaughterhouses would torture cows if that would cause more savory meat. Have you ever heard of fois gois?

 

I completely disagree. Zoos aren't set up for entertainment at the expense of animals. I think you should read more about what zoos do for animals...even outside of the confines of the zoo, itself.

Again..comparing this to what dogfighting is and all it involves...and specificallly, what Vick plead guilty to...is disingenuous.

We don't profile bull-riders and zoo-keepers as potential killers...we do with people who treat animals as cruelly as these guys did.

 

and yet, people own pitbulls and do not torture them.

i'm trying not to be rude...but this is getting ridiculous. i would encourage you to read more about dogfighting...what happens at a fight...the rules of the fight...other animals killed so these dogs can be "trained"...and how the losers are dealt with, IF they survive the fight.

sorry...but that's a far cry from the comparisons being made. comparing the intent of a zookeeper with someone who makes a hobby of horrificly torturing a dog is beyond ridiculous.

 

Yes and no. Mr. M's approach to pets is most excellent.

But compare:
* cat confined to a studio apartment in an urban setting, doomed to boredom and obesity
to
* an animal at the San Diego zoo, given fairly large (not large enough) chunk of real estate and some areas without human observors.

yeah, still big differences, but you know, I see a lot of the former. I guess I'm sensitive b/c I know some wonderful folks working at the SF Zoo, and they put their all into making it a fairly good, non-insanity-inducing life for the animals, and they do a pretty good job in most cases.

I also think there's a myth about the wonderful "life in the wild" for animals, but that gets back into the book, The Life of Pi.

Anyway, not the topic of the thread and Max is totally correct: it is ridiculous for anyone to compare a zoo to dogfighting. It's just not even close, and should probably be a punishable offense!

 

Well for starters, deer and other wildlife haven't been domesticated by man like dogs. It's not like there are people having pet deer, you know what I mean?

 

My great, great grandparents had a pet deer, and I have a photo to PORVE it!

 

Why does this not surprise me?

 

This means VINCE YOUNG will rule the NFL!
In marketing, game time, and hearts and minds.

 

lol. 'zactly. But it is true. The deer even has a rope and is posing in the family photo!

 

Pitbulls don't have to live that kind of life at all. They can be perfectly nice, gentle pets.

 

I think I have stated multiple times that keeping animals at the zoo is not on the same level as dogfighting, IMO. The point was there are many ways that we cause harm to animals that we don't even think twice about (i.e. zoo's, hunting, etc).

 

OK so you do kill animals for the entertainment of eating them. Are you not also a "lil backwards"?

 

i'll agree with that, generally...but given the degree in scope, i'd say it's irrelevant to a discussion regarding people who intentionally seek to torture animals to watch them die in pain.

 

Not saying that he wasn't guilty or that he didn't deserve it. The post was in reply to the NAACP assertion that murder does not get this negative media attention. I provided an example.

 

Have we as a board really become this silly?

To make comparisions between the viscious and cruel nature of running a dogfighting ring with owning, feeding, and caring for a housecat?

To compare it to a zoo (where the animals probably live better than some of us)?

This is officially the silliest thread I have ever read. We have gone completely off the deep end trying to make comparisions, and I regret that I will never get back the 15 minutes I spent reading it.

Yikes.

 

Zoo, yes…hutning no…as some hunters don't want to watch an animal suffer (and I'm sure we both can agree that SOME do), but they still take enjoyment in killing the animal for whatever reason…right?

 

I think I have already admitted I have no issue with killing animals so I can eat. I'm just not trying to sugercoat it….