Michael Vick

[Arthur Dent]

I think you're really over-stating what PETA is about. And even if so, what is wrong with the principle that animal lives are as precious and valuable as human ones? It doesn't mean that death doesn't occur, or that you have to anguish over the death of an ant. Nobody is that naive. There needn't be simple answers but I'm just not sure what you would expect an organization dedicated to ethical treatment of animals should do instead. And actually I think there is nothing wrong in having a more inclusive attitude, including plants. Maybe the planet wouldn't have been ravaged so badly if we treated animal AND plant life with more respect.

It seems like PETA has been demonized for so long by conservative groups that people begin to see them as the problem. And you don't have to agree with everything that PETA stands for - I don't - but I'm not sure what problem they have with their approach. That is, unless you are opposed to protest and civil disobedience of any form, which of course I know you aren't but some people are (amazing to think that in America of all places, but alas it's true).

I'm not interested in demonizing PETA and perhaps they have gotten a worse reputation than they deserve, but often the way the organization and its members conduct themselves just make them look silly. If animal lives really are as precious and valuable as human one than it does follow that the death of a human should be as upsetting as the death of cockroach. Why not argue instead that all life has value or simply work to reduce the level of cruelty to animals? Absolutist positions will just turn people off.

[clement]

Those were my words, not PETA's. I wish I hadn't worded it that way because it caused you to pull out a rather insignificant part of my post to discuss, rather than the main gist of the message.

[ghostrunner]

If hunting entailed physically engaging a deer, and tearing bits and pieces of it off until it gradually died, then I might find it as bad as dog fighting. A gunshot is really a pretty quick death, compared to what goes on in these fights. And many hunters do eat what they kill. That makes a difference to me. Most hunters don't have any malicious intent. Beef and chicken processors, whatever their methods, don't have malicious intent. And those animals are put to good use by society - clothes, food, by products for other manufacturing.

Ultimately this isn't about the dogs for me. It's the human behavior and the psychology that goes with it. Taking pleasure in it is the problem. I feel the same way about bullfighting.

[thrill]

If hunting entailed physically engaging a deer, and tearing bits and pieces of it off until it gradually died, then I might find it as bad as dog fighting.

I almost killed a deer with an axe.

[ghostrunner]

If hunting entailed physically engaging a deer, and tearing bits and pieces of it off until it gradually died, then I might find it as bad as dog fighting.

I almost killed a deer with an axe.

you also like soccer

[docellis]

My pitbull ate kittens.

[clement]

If hunting entailed physically engaging a deer, and tearing bits and pieces of it off until it gradually died, then I might find it as bad as dog fighting. A gunshot is really a pretty quick death, compared to what goes on in these fights. And many hunters do eat what they kill. That makes a difference to me. Most hunters don't have any malicious intent.

I never said and never implied that hunting a deer was as bad as dog fighting. And I specifically referred to hunting purely for sport (i.e., not for food). But the point is that one (dog fighting) is a felony and the culprit is demonized as some sort of monster; and the other (hunting for sport) is completely accepted, unquestioned and even glorified at times (like when a kid shoots a gargantuan wild boar).

Beef and chicken processors, whatever their methods, don't have malicious intent. And those animals are put to good use by society - clothes, food, by products for other manufacturing.

Ultimately this isn't about the dogs for me. It's the human behavior and the psychology that goes with it. Taking pleasure in it is the problem. I feel the same way about bullfighting.

Huh? So if Michael Vick did all this but took no pleasure and had no malicious intent, then it's okay? And how exactly is one supposed to measure pleasure and malicious intent? That doesn't make any sense to me. Cruel is cruel. Inhumane is inhumane. You know it when you see it, and I don't understand how it can simply be excused because there is some derivement of use by human society.

And the cruel and disgusting treatment of animals at these chicken processors is not at all necessary, it's just cheaper. The fact that the chickens are supposedly put to good use (because they're eaten) is hardly an excuse to force them to live unnecessarily painful and horrible lives. The only excuse one can make is that they are weaker and we are stronger and higher up in the food chain, so they basically have no choice but to accept whatever fate we instill upon them. I guess that's the beauty of intelligence.

[ghostrunner]

I never said and never implied that hunting a deer was as bad as dog fighting. And I specifically referred to hunting purely for sport (i.e., not for food). But the point is that one (dog fighting) is a felony and the culprit is demonized as some sort of monster; and the other (hunting for sport) is completely accepted, unquestioned and even glorified at times (like when a kid shoots a gargantuan wild boar).

Whoa, hold on. I'm just answering honestly how I judge it. I don't know how much "hunting for sport" as you call it, really goes on. I'm sure some deer hunters hunt for only the sport or the experience, and others eat the deer. But it's all sport, in some sense. Nobody needs to hunt for food. But if they did, would that mean it wasn't cruel? If cruel is cruel? Just seems like you have an very black and white view of it.

Huh? So if Michael Vick did all this but took no pleasure and had no malicious intent, then it's okay? And how exactly is one supposed to measure pleasure and malicious intent? That doesn't make any sense to me. Cruel is cruel. Inhumane is inhumane. You know it when you see it, and I don't understand how it can simply be excused because there is some derivement of use by human society.

And the cruel and disgusting treatment of animals at these chicken processors is not at all necessary, it's just cheaper. The fact that the chickens are supposedly put to good use (because they're eaten) is hardly an excuse to force them to live unnecessarily painful and horrible lives. The only excuse one can make is that they are weaker and we are stronger and higher up in the food chain, so they basically have no choice but to accept whatever fate we instill upon them. I guess that's the beauty of intelligence.

Let's just say I see a kid torturing a chicken for fun - I'm more worried about the kid than I am the chicken. That's about as plain as I can make it.

I also have to say that most of the alleged treatment of chickens I've read about doesn't bother me, because they're chickens. If they were dogs, cats, monkeys, or dolphins, I'd feel differently. Chickens are a notch above fish, in my opinion. Is fishing cruel? You snag a hook in a fish's mouth, wrestle with it, and then suffocate it by bringing it out of the water. Of course, if you put it back in the water, it goes on it's merry way and doesn't act stunned or traumatized. The point is, everyone has there own line of demarcation on this kind of thing.

Having said all that - I'd be opposed to [expletive]-fighting, because there is no purpose to it and it's cruel. If that's not philosophically sound, what can I say?

I guess a question on my end would be - why does intelligence absolve us from being part of the food chain? You hear so much about humans messing with nature. If we all go vegetarian and stop killing animals, doesn't that affect nature too? Orcas kill sea lions who kill penguins. Just because we've advanced means we have no part in that? You can argue that's also arrogant. Animals kill other animals, and sometimes in cruel fashion, for a purpose. Why should we be different? Likewise, no other animals pit two other animals against each other for their enjoyment.

[Radbird]

I don't know how much "hunting for sport" as you call it, really goes on. I'm sure some deer hunters hunt for only the sport or the experience, and others eat the deer. But it's all sport, in some sense. Nobody needs to hunt for food. But if they did, would that mean it wasn't cruel? If cruel is cruel? Just seems like you have an very black and white view of it.

Apparently, quite a bit of it goes on. Although "sport" isn't the first thing that comes to mind (from a descriptive point of view anyway).

From the "Vick and Dick" article I posted back a couple of pages, this is in reference to the type of "hunting" our VP (Dick)and other high rollers partake in:

According to an article on the Humane Society website, in 2003 Dick, along with former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach (what is it with quarterbacks?), U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and several GOP fund-raisers went pheasant "hunting" at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township, Pa., where 500 pen-raised pheasants were released from nets, so that Dick and his entourage could gun down 417 of them. After lunch, according to the site, they also knocked off a hundred or so penned-up mallard ducks. The article didn't mention what they did during happy hour.

While the sports media debate whether or not Vick should play football this season, perhaps the mainstream media should start engaging in a debate about how we treat animals in this country. The Humane Society pointed out in 2003 that in the U.S. there are more than 3,000 canned bird-shooting operations, more than 2,000 private hunting facilities with mammals, including exotic "game" like zebra, in addition to the scores of illegal dog- and [expletive]-fighting outfits we don't know about.

I have many friends and relatives who hunt, and they are quite passionate about it. While they may not "need" to hunt for food, they do harvest the animals and use the meat, pelts, and other parts. And they are out in the wild, not shooting animals released from cages moments before.

[ghostrunner]

I have many friends and relatives who hunt, and they are quite passionate about it. While they may not "need" to hunt for food, they do harvest the animals and use the meat, pelts, and other parts. And they are out in the wild, not shooting animals released from cages moments before.

I agree, that whole thing is BS. I don't even see the sport in it. It's skeet shooting with animals.

But that's a case in point, I think. What makes it cruel? The method of killing is no different than when someone hunts birds in the wild. I don't even know if it's cruel, but it's certainly senseless and I don't have any respect for it.