2nd Chances

I am struggling morally with the fact that Michael Vick got a second $100 million dollar contract. Why should people get second chances after doing something as horrific as murdering dogs for fun?

I don't condone his actions in the least, but for the most part he does seem to have straightened his life out since he got out of prison. You may be able to find some comfort in the fact that A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed, although he is guaranteed at least $40 million in it but B) most of it will not be going to him, but paying his lawyers and all the back money he owes to creditors and the Atlanta Falcons as well.

I think everyone deserves a second and maybe third chance.

Professional sports organizations don't care if someone is a criminal...just if they can win. It's all about the Benjamin's, reguardless of if it's moral or not.

I didn't really pay attention, but wasn't he found guilty? Didn't the courts punish him? I.E. Didn't he do prison time?

Maybe this will make you feel a bit better then...

vick's $100 million contract is much more hypothetical than reported

In short Vick is not even guaranteed $40 million, more like $35.5 million with a $3 million bonus if the Eagles win the Super Bowl in the next two season. Furthermore, the sixth year of the contact will disappear in November because as soon as Vick appears in 35% of his team's games in one season the sixth year is voided. It was added to the contact only to allow it to be advertised as a $100 million deal. If he reaches every incentive (which would require winning multiple Super Bowls in the next three years) the deal is *only* a five-year, $81 million contract.

Lies, damn lies, statistics, and sports contracts

Dan Y.

There is no way that can be true that everyone deserves a second and third chance. A child rapist or a mass murderer does not deserve a second chance. Now we all make mistakes. For example, a DUI is a bad mistake and at the time a very very bad decision. Punching someone in the heat of an argument I feel is the same. Systematically taking innocent dogs and electricuting them or drowning them or hanging them over the course of a few years is not a one or even two time mistake. it is a systematic pattern of abhorent, remorseless behaviour that would have continued if he had not gotten caught. Before you tell me "well they are just animals". For the record many many dogs in this country are used as airport marshalls, drug dogs, patrolling police dogs that try to help keep our airports and garages safe and various other places in society safe. If he perhaps in a fit of rage had killed a dog that lost a fight, I might be able to see that as a mistake that should not happen again, but not a systematic execution of dog after dog for his pleasure.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I didn't really pay attention, but wasn't he found guilty? Didn't the courts punish him? I.E. Didn't he do prison time?

Yes he did pay his debt to society but that doesnt give those dogs a second chance at life. I feel the same way about murderers and pediphiles who are convicted. Some crimes dont have a sentence long enough for them. I also dont think 2 years was long enough in prison.

I don't believe in gods, but I feel very strongly that the Christian concept of forgiveness and redemption is the cornerstone of a just society.

Quote: hook3670

Before you tell me "well they are just animals". For the record many many dogs in this country are used as airport marshalls, drug dogs, patrolling police dogs that try to help keep our airports and garages safe and various other places in society safe.

And more than that. Dogs are by far the most useful animal in human society. They're loyal companions, protectors and even guides. Whereas we've been replacing work animals with machines for over a century, dogs have become more ubiquitous. They're essential to law enforcement in several capacities (arson dogs, tracking dogs, bomb-sniffing dogs, etc), they're useful in the military, they serve as guides and helpers for people with various disabilities, and a lot more.

Dogs are special, then, not just animals. Most dogs are even raised to behave around people, and for sure most can tell people apart from animals. In an emotional and behavioral sense they're the clsoest thing to being human. In that way, they may be considered as family.

And yet they are animals. We love dogs, overall, in the West and elsewhere, and we use them, too. But we also kill off or neglect the excess dog population. For the most part such killing is done humanely, but ti's still killing. And in a way it's even necessary, as otherwise a large population of feral street dogs would be a nuissance at best and a health hazzard at worst.

Quote:

If he perhaps in a fit of rage had killed a dog that lost a fight, I might be able to see that as a mistake that should not happen again, but not a systematic execution of dog after dog for his pleasure.

Well, fighting the dogs is a form of abuse in the first palce, but otherwise I agree.

Vick should not ahve gone to prison, but the NFL should have banned him for life.

At that he's also lucky that the game has toned down the level of violence allowed in the field. If Vick played by 60's or even 70's rules, he'd surely have been injured badly by now by a dog-loving lineman.

What major sports have some kind of implied or implicit agreement that players are to act under some kind of gentlemanly code of conduct on, and off, the field.

Quote: Wizard

What major sports have some kind of implied or implicit agreement that players are to act under some kind of gentlemanly code of conduct on, and off, the field.

All major sports have a code of ethics for there players on and off the field.....Vick was suspended form football for a time after his conviction....
But of the 100 million only 40 is guaranteed(as the NFL has non guaranteed contracts).....And Vick is not even gonna sniff that 40 million.....he is on a court ordered budget for the next 2 years....AND that 40 million will be divided up between his creditors......

On a different note.....this was a reach for the Eagles IMO...Vick is really injury prone.

Probably most 'professional sports' have some kind of 'code of conduct' agreement. But they're like laws, made to be broken.

edit to say: Here's a tough one for you guys. Can anyone name the married(at that time) whore chasing golfer that used to be number one and now is not? You only get three guesses!

Quote: Nareed

Vick should not ahve gone to prison, but the NFL should have banned him for life

Do you not understand what Vick did?

- An extensive multi-state dog fighting enterprise named "Bad Newz Kennels" was allegedly operating from the Vick property since at least 2002.
- A federal grand jury indicted Vick and 3 others on multiple counts, stating that Vick and three other men spent six years "knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting in an animal fighting venture.
- The grand jury also charged the men with establishing a kennel to represent dogfighting competitions, purchase and train pitbulls in dogfighting competitions and "destroying or otherwise disposing of dogs not selected to stay with the ongoing animal fighting venture."

Vick signed a plea agreement and signed this statement of fact.

He shouldn't have gone to jail? He should have gone to jail AND the NFL should have banned him for life. He's lucky he's still not sitting in a jail cell today.

Quote: boymimbo

Do you not understand what Vick did?

I do.

I just don't think animals have any rights, except insofar as they are someone's property. Therefore the sate should not take judicial notice of such tings, meaning no prison unless he also stole the dogs he butchered and abused.

Note that whatever the state does or does not do, private parties, be they people or corporations or consortia, are another matter. So the NFL could, and should have, banned him for life for such abhorrent actions. And if the wording of his contract permitted, it should have been rescinded without penalty to his employer.

In how many professions would a person be allow to continue a career after what Vick did. I would have never obtained another job.

Quote: matilda

In how many professions would a person be allow to continue a career after what Vick did. I would have never obtained another job.

Not codoning what he did... But he was convicted.... Served his sentence... And was released... So why shouldn't he be able to get a job? Exactly what jobs should ex felons have? The dollar value is determined by his ability to do the job. There are specific jobs that a previous felony conviction disqualifies you from. Pro athlete is not one of them.

Quote: Nareed

I just don't think animals have any rights, except insofar as they are someone's property. Therefore the sate should not take judicial notice of such tings, meaning no prison unless he also stole the dogs he butchered and abused.

What about animals that are not someones property? Is it ok to go into the wilderness and torture and kill all of the ocelots that you can get you hands on? Where does it end, a human is an animal, right? So I guess it is possible, with this viewpoint, for us to go down a road where we can butcher and abuse a fellow human without fear of prosecution.

Quote: avargov

What about animals that are not someones property?

Like animals you hunt?

Look, hunting goes on, usually, in land owned by someone or by the government. You're on that land by tacit permission, but there are such things as hunting permits and such. That can be regulated. Lands with owners are subject to the owner's wishes. Government lands are subject to federal regulations. Both can ban cruelty to animals in their lands.

Quote:

Is it ok to go into the wilderness and torture and kill all of the ocelots that you can get you hands on?

No. But it is ok to make animals suffer for medical experiments, or to test the safety of a product, or to raise them for food. Because making them suffer is a consequence, not the objective.

I don't even thin it's ok to hold bullfights. For one thing it's not a fair fight. I mean, the bull doesn't have a chance and the manner of killing is prolonged and painful. If a matador wants to fight a bull to the death barehanded, fine. But with a sword in hand, the bull will die.

I oppose bullfighting morally, but not legally

Quote:

Where does it end, a human is an animal, right? So I guess it is possible, with this viewpoint, for us to go down a road where we can butcher and abuse a fellow human without fear of prosecution.

No. A human being is a person with rights.

Quote: Nareed

Like animals you hunt?

No, like the stray dog that is minding his own business trotting down the sidewalk in front of my home. He is not owned, and has no rights, can I , in your opinion, run outside and kick the shit out of him, and then leave him there to bleed to death in the street?

Quote: Nareed

But it is ok to make animals suffer for medical experiments, or to test the safety of a product, or to raise them for food.

Only if it is done in a responsible manner. I remember my wife showed me a picture of a rabbit with acid poured on its side for no other reason than to see how long it would take to eat through the rabbit. That ain't cool. Same for animals raised for food. Should be done in a humane and responsible manner.

Quote: Nareed

A human being is a person with rights.

Very interesting for a man who firmly believes we are creatures of evolution. That means we are a gnats-ass away from the apes, but they should have no rights? There was a book by F. Paul Wilson...gosh, I can't remember the name.....but sorta touches on this.....I only hope, for your sake, somebody doesn't proclaim that he has evolved just a little bit further than you, then he gets to decide who dies. Didn't that kinda happen in Germany 'bout 70-80 years ago?

Quote: avargov

No, like the stray dog that is minding his own business trotting down the sidewalk in front of my home. He is not owned, and has no rights, can I , in your opinion, run outside and kick the shit out of him, and then leave him there to bleed to death in the street?

I already said no.

Quote:

That means we are a gnats-ass away from the apes, but they should have no rights?

Show me an ape that can comprehend the idea of rights and I'll change my mind.

Quote:

Didn't that kinda happen in Germany 'bout 70-80 years ago?

I had family members murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. I don't take kindly of you to compare them to animals.

Quote: Nareed

I already said no.

Not really. You only cited examples of when animals can and perhaps should be protected.

Quote: Nareed

Show me an ape that can comprehend the idea of rights and I'll change my mind.

Maybe I can't, but I can show you a lot of humans who still don't feel like other humans should have any rights. As you probably know, it has taken federal legislation in the past 50 years, (50 YEARS!!!), to give "rights" to other humans. Not too long ago, they were property as well. Humans aren't very good at deciding what is the moral and proper thing to do.

Quote: Nareed

I had family members murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. I don't take kindly of you to compare them to animals.

My Hungarian-Jew grandmother died in East Chicago, IN with a serial number tattoo on her left forearm. My grandfather died before I got to see his or hear his stories. I am just as close, if not closer, than you are to the Holocaust my friend. I wasn't comparing them to animals, and you know that. Merely making the point that you, or I, are in no place to say who or what should or shouldn't have rights.

I will say, thought, that regardless of what he did, Vick does sort of please me in a way. It seems that his ordeal, from getting caught to present day, has changed him for the better. Many people are a certain way, get caught, and seem to do the minimal required to "get out of trouble", while still being essentially the same skallywag they were beforehand. Many often continue their devious actions once the probation ends. He seems a changed man, and for that, I at least give him credit.

Well said Face!

Quote: avargov

Maybe I can't, but I can show you a lot of humans who still don't feel like other humans should have any rights.

So? No enlightened person will deny any other humans ave rights until they commit an action that negates them, either temporarily or permanently. What troglodytes think doesn't matter, only what to do about them.

But tell me, if animals have rights why do you favor experimenting on them or eating them? Experiments involving people require consent by the person involved. Experiments involving animals don't.

Quote: Face

I will say, thought, that regardless of what he did, Vick does sort of please me in a way.

To me all that just says Vick isn't fully contemptible.

If you want someone to look up to in the NFL, there are many better candidates. Lots of players, in all positions, who've been going on unremitting effort for years to reach the place they are now, and who behaved reasonably well on and off the field. If you want a concrete example involving tenacity and persistence, I can't think of no one better than people like Warren Moon or Kurt Warner.

Quote: Nareed

So? No enlightened person will deny any other humans ave rights until they commit an action that negates them, either temporarily or permanently. What troglodytes think doesn't matter, only what to do about them.

But tell me, if animals have rights why do you favor experimenting on them or eating them? Experiments involving people require consent by the person involved. Experiments involving animals don't.

Please tell me, exactly, what an "enlightened" person is Nareed. Would that be anyone who shares your viewpoints?

I never said I "favor" experimenting on them or eating animals. I said that if that is going to be done, it should be done in a responsible and humane manner. I believe that most "enlightened" people would share that view. But I suppose I could condone experimenting on profoundly retarded humans instead, they have no capacity to comprehend what "rights" are either.

To me Vick is nothing compared to Chris Brown's return to glory. Did everyone forget?

Quote: poosmells

I am struggling morally with the fact that Michael Vick got a second $100 million dollar contract. Why should people get second chances after doing something as horrific as murdering dogs for fun?

This is simply the free market in action. Right or wrong, Vick has skills that are in demand in a profession that has the potential for huge earnings. If he worked at a Taco Bell when he was involved in the dog fighting ring, he probably would have gotten a longer sentence, and would have had minimal job opportunities when he got out. Now if it was JaMarcus Russell who was involved instead of Vick, nobody would have offered him a second chance after jail, simply because his skills aren't in demand.

You don't have to like someone to recognize their skills and accomplishments. Those are separate from their personalities. We have a guy at work who is a real condescending a**hole to most of the building. However, he can also sell screen doors to submarine commanders! If I ever had my own business, I'd have to seriously consider hiring him. I personally think Ben Roethlisburger is a scumbag for how he treats women. But I'd be an idiot to think that makes him a bad quarterback.

As far as the moral part of the issue, there's very little any one person can do about it if the economics are strong enough. Some people have boycotted games in which Vick has played, with basically no impact to the NFL. Until and unless a ton of people pressure the Eagles, the NFL, and their advertisers, nothing will change.

(Assuming Vick keeps his nose clean from now on. Personally, I see him getting busted with pot within 18 months, followed by a significant suspension.)

Mary Jo Kopechne

Quote: poosmells

I am struggling morally with the fact that Michael Vick got a second $100 million dollar contract. Why should people get second chances after doing something as horrific as murdering dogs for fun?

Quit yapping and clean your plate.

Quote: avargov

Please tell me, exactly, what an "enlightened" person is Nareed. Would that be anyone who shares your viewpoints?

You tell me. I'm not picking fights nor slinging mud at those who disagree with me.

But, would you say then, in view of the direction of this thread, that an enlightened person does not believe other people have rights?

Quote:

I never said I "favor" experimenting on them or eating animals.

Are you then a vegan who'd rather die than take medication tested on animals? Come on, make your position clear and stop trolling.

Here's my view: animals don't have any rights. Animal cruelty is abhorrent, but not properly speaking a state matter. All human beings have rights, regardless of age or intelligence; the exception being convicted felons, who by their actions in violating the rights of other people default on any claims to their rights. The default can be temporary, as in prison and/or probation, or permanent, as in capital cases.

If you disagree with any of that it's your prerogative. if you want to fight over it, look elsewhere.

Wow! Slinging mud? You really do need a vacation. And I do not have to take a clear position on this (although I have), I am asking you for your position, which it appears (finally) that you have given. You started the line of thinking with you comment about animals having no rights, I have merely played Devil's advocate since.

I do have to say, however, over the last couple of days you have been rather testy. I wasn't picking a fight at all with you, just trying to peel back the layers to see what you truly meant by your comments. It's sad that you seem to get so defensive when someone calls you out on a subject, when I read you doing the same to others quite often here. Oh well, I shall go back to my lurking now, my boredom is about over for the night. Have a good evening Nareed, and BTW, I think the name of the book I referenced earlier was "SIMS".

Quote: Nareed

If you want someone to look up to in the NFL, there are many better candidates. Lots of players, in all positions, who've been going on unremitting effort for years to reach the place they are now, and who behaved reasonably well on and off the field. If you want a concrete example involving tenacity and persistence, I can't think of no one better than people like Warren Moon or Kurt Warner.

Agreed, and the same goes for anyone famous, really. I was just pointing out that it was nice to see what to me is a heartfelt, sincere change in a person. The tabloids, the news, media in general, all show example after example of people in these positions taking it too far, and more often than not, being right back there after a few months without regret or remorse. The Lohan family, Tom Sizemore, Charlie Sheen, it gets sad after awhile. Stories that someone paid his price and is better for it are incredibly rare, and to see that Vick not only corrected the behavior (dog fighting) but also went beyond to improve himself as a person (work ethic) is encouraging. Sure, his praise may not be as deserved as those who have been good and right all along, but it's still worth admiring, IMO

Quote: avargov

Wow! Slinging mud?

"Oh, so you think it's okay to kill people" "Oh, didn't the Nazis do that?" "Oh, so you think it's okay to torture stray dogs" What do you call that? Flattery?

Quote:

I am asking you for your position, which it appears (finally) that you have given.

You did NOT ask. You misrepresented what I said and accused me of all sorts of horrible things. You were way over the line on that and I responded in kind.

Next time just ask.

Quote: hook3670

There is no way that can be true that everyone deserves a second and third chance. A child rapist or a mass murderer does not deserve a second chance.

Michael Jackson got waaaaay more chances than he deserved. He would've been beaten to death by any of the fathers of those little boys if he'd been a Taco Bell grunt. But even after admitting on national ...no wait...WORLDWIDE TV interviews TWICE, that he saw nothing wrong with inviting all the neighborhood's 12-year-old boys over to sleep in his bed and giving them wine (Jesus Juice), he was still mourned as a hero after he killed himself with drugs. So, yes, the general public is capable of off-the-chart forgiveness.

Michael Vick meets his match:

Quote: Nareed

"Oh, so you think it's okay to kill people" "Oh, didn't the Nazis do that?" "Oh, so you think it's okay to torture stray dogs" What do you call that? Flattery?




You did NOT ask. You misrepresented what I said and accused me of all sorts of horrible things. You were way over the line on that and I responded in kind.

Next time just ask.

Please stop Nareed. I did not misrepresent anything you said. Perhaps you should look at some of your posts to others, you do the exact same thing. I never went over the line at all. It seems you are doing the misrepresenting here my friend. I was merely playing Devils advocate using your own views, and how views just like that have been the root of evils. I never accused you of anything Nareed. You are just on the defensive, which is ok, I would be too if I shared a stupid view like you did. (yes, that was the first time I actually said anything against you personally). I think that perhaps I see your view as thinking you are "better" than another form of life, which is why I was "asking" for clarification. You see, if you are going to look at animals like that, perhaps you will look at people that you view as "less" than you with the same contempt.

Forgive me if you think it was over the line, I guess the Wiz can ban me if that is the case.

Quote: avargov

Please stop Nareed. I did not misrepresent anything you said. Perhaps you should look at some of your posts to others, you do the exact same thing. I never went over the line at all. It seems you are doing the misrepresenting here my friend. I was merely playing Devils advocate using your own views, and how views just like that have been the root of evils. I never accused you of anything Nareed. You are just on the defensive, which is ok, I would be too if I shared a stupid view like you did. (yes, that was the first time I actually said anything against you personally). I think that perhaps I see your view as thinking you are "better" than another form of life, which is why I was "asking" for clarification. You see, if you are going to look at animals like that, perhaps you will look at people that you view as "less" than you with the same contempt.

Forgive me if you think it was over the line, I guess the Wiz can ban me if that is the case.

Nareed slings plenty of mud; anyone who doubts that should review the thread where the addition of the LGBT subforum was discussed. His MO is to do his damage and then shrink back and start putting up force-fields with things like, "I can't help that I'm ..." or "you don't know what it's like ..." that play to stereotypes that you never bring up. It's like a little child who picks a fight with a bigger kid and then hides behind his parents when the bigger kid responds. Total chickenshit.

If you anticipate that and use it, he'll block you soon enough and you won't have to worry about him.

As far as second chances ...

We give ourselves second chances all the time, so it would seem the height of hypocrisy to not extend second chances to others. I can see how it could be hard sometimes, like an animal lover extending a second chance to Michael Vick. But being a good and consistent person is sometimes hard.

Quote: avargov

Please stop Nareed. I did not misrepresent anything you said. Perhaps you should look at some of your posts to others, you do the exact same thing. I never went over the line at all. It seems you are doing the misrepresenting here my friend. I was merely playing Devils advocate using your own views, and how views just like that have been the root of evils. I never accused you of anything Nareed. You are just on the defensive, which is ok, I would be too if I shared a stupid view like you did. (yes, that was the first time I actually said anything against you personally). I think that perhaps I see your view as thinking you are "better" than another form of life, which is why I was "asking" for clarification. You see, if you are going to look at animals like that, perhaps you will look at people that you view as "less" than you with the same contempt.

Forgive me if you think it was over the line, I guess the Wiz can ban me if that is the case.

I agree with your use of the Nazi reference. I too have family that was in concentration camps. There's no clear line as to what makes a human different from other animals if you are not religious (as many here are not), and, therefore, feel we should treat animals better than we do.

Of course if you are religious you can make the argument we are God's chosen ones. Doesn't that sound a bit egotistical given all the wars and poverty we have? Whoops wrong thread!

Quote: avargov

Forgive me if you think it was over the line, I guess the Wiz can ban me if that is the case.

Here's your first post, in case you've forgotten:

Quote:

What about animals that are not someones property? Is it ok to go into the wilderness and torture and kill all of the ocelots that you can get you hands on? Where does it end, a human is an animal, right? So I guess it is possible, with this viewpoint, for us to go down a road where we can butcher and abuse a fellow human without fear of prosecution.

Now, if you're not smart enough to understand that when someone says "animals have no rights," they're not saying "humans have no rights," that's your problem. but you didn't ask for clarification, you wentr on to state that by denying the existence of rights for animals I was also denying it to people.


In the first place such questions as you did ask were emotionally loaded. In the second place you were accusing me of a despicable belief, not asking for clarification. In the third place you are missrepresenting my view because you state that humans are animals, when I do not believe such a thing.

Naturally now you'll go on to say I'm wrong, oversensitive, blah blah blah blah. Some men are good noisemakers. So I'll just say this: I've been bullied by people with a lot more animus and a greater opportunity to hurt me than merely trying their inept best to make me look bad. It's been years since I stopped being pasive at such attacks. If you want to go on nothing will stop you, but you won't find what you're looking for.

Edited to add: just to forestall further pointless nitpiciking. Human beings are animals biologically speaking. But we are not animals morally speaking. Animals are amoral, meaning they are outside the realm of morality. They act as they do and don't make moral choices. A dog, for example, can be trained not to attack people, but that's the moral responsibility of the owner, not of the dog. Wild animals not domesticated, like lions, tigers or other big cats, cannot even be reliably trained not to attack people. Witness what happened to one half of the Sigfried and Roy duo, and they had lots of experience handling big cats.

That's one big part of the reason why humans have rights and animals do not.

I think I will just step back and allow others to comment on this nonsense you are spewing now.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I didn't really pay attention, but wasn't he found guilty? Didn't the courts punish him? I.E. Didn't he do prison time?

After posting the above, I kinda ignored this thread.

But something caught my eye when I was scanning thru it.


Does the NFL have a Code Of Conduct?

If so, and assuming it was in place when he first started playing, then we'd need to ask what the Code specifies.

The 'Code' might be for sportsmanship type rules, and completely ignore the laws of society. I.E. Once the court sentence is satisfied, maybe the code is also satisfied, and only if the infraction is small enought to be ignored by the courts does the Code inflict it's own punishment.

Boittom line: We don't have enough facts to make a decision.

DJ: Yes they do. It is why Rothelesberger(sp?) was suspended. He was never convicted, or even charged with a crime. Goddell is the judge and jury as well.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Does the NFL have a Code Of Conduct?

I found this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10111/1052222-66.stm

Quote: Nareed

Human beings are animals biologically speaking. But we are not animals morally speaking. Animals are amoral, meaning they are outside the realm of morality. They act as they do and don't make moral choices. A dog, for example, can be trained not to attack people, but that's the moral responsibility of the owner, not of the dog. Wild animals not domesticated, like lions, tigers or other big cats, cannot even be reliably trained not to attack people. Witness what happened to one half of the Sigfried and Roy duo, and they had lots of experience handling big cats.

That's one big part of the reason why humans have rights and animals do not.

In your opinion.

Just because animal does not make moral choices should not devoid them of rights. The reason that animals are generally devoid of rights (actually they do have rights - there are animal cruelty laws throughout the land) is because humans decide what to extend rights to. For example, the right for a mother to terminate their unborn child -- apparently in this country, rights aren't extended to fetuses. Who decided that? The Supreme Court. There are humans who are mentally retarded to the point where they don't have morality... do they have rights? Do we have the right to abuse and kill babies or young children before they've developed morality? There's a whole religion that extends rights to cows.

Michael Vick went to jail because of gambling and animal cruelty. In my opinion, anyone who wilfully abuses an animal or terminates its life for no cause belongs in jail, especially in Vick's case, where he systematically abused and killed dogs for years.

Quote: boymimbo

In your opinion.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:

Just because animal does not make moral choices should not devoid them of rights.

Not if they are property and/or inhabit owned lands. Legally.

Quote:

The reason that animals are generally devoid of rights (actually they do have rights - there are animal cruelty laws throughout the land) is because humans decide what to extend rights to.

That's a much more complicated argument. Rights are inherent, innalienable, not granted or given or bought. To be sure they can be violated and force can be used to keep people from exercising their rights. But you don't own your life because the state says you do.

Quote:

For example, the right for a mother to terminate their unborn child.

It's so hard to tell a mother's sex in these PC days. Remarkable....

Anwyay, a fetus under or around 3 months into gestation is not an actual person, but rather a potential one. As such, and because a woman is not an incubator, abortion is moral within that time frame. Afterwards,a dn yes the division point does contain some arbitrarity, it ceases to be except in cases of dire emergency, such as pregnancy complications that threaten the life of the mother, or injuries to the mother that require removing th fetus for successful treatment.

Quote:

There are humans who are mentally retarded to the point where they don't have morality...

But there aren't. There are some who do not have adult morality because they are not mentally developed enough to be adults. But they are, morally, equivalent to children at worst. This means they can't be held fully responsible for all their actions, but they can and do carry some responsibilies as far as they are able. Even the most retarded human is vastly superior in reasoning ability to the "smartest" animal.

Quote:

do they have rights?

Of course they do. it would be wrong to murder them, steal from them, rape them, etc. But as their undertsanding and reasoning abnilities are limited, then as in the case of children they require a legal guardian responsible enough to aid them in some choices or, in a few cases, to make choices for them.

Quote:

Do we have the right to abuse and kill babies or young children before they've developed morality?

Why would you claim that?

Now, while morally animals don't have rights, that doesn't mean it's moral to torture them. There are such thigns as self-respect and self-esteem. Ask yourself what kind of person has fun by being cruel to animals, then tell me whether or not you think he should be able to live with himself; or ask whether there's somethign wrong with him. Besides animals do have feelings. Because they can feel, in particualr because they can feel pain, it's wrong to inflict purposeful pain on them for no good reason. I can make exceptions for animals raised for food and animals used in medical experiments. I'm on the fence when it comes to hunting. and I oppose torturing animlas for fun, for recreation, for sport, and so on.

As for Michaeal Vick, I still don't think he deserved to go to prison. Which matters exactly nothing since he did go to prison. But if you wanted to punish him, and to get justice for the dogs he killed, I'd throw him naked in a pit with 20 pitbulls bred for dog fighting and see how he does against wild dogs on equal terms. This scenario will never happen, but it would be just punishment.

We also give and take rights from human beings... for example criminal acts can lead to a removal of a persons right to liberty. Different societies decide on different values of criminal acts which will remove your right to liberty (and other human rights).

Animals do have some level of rights that can be extended to them. Plus I find it's splitting hairs to argue that animals have no rights, but we can say that behaviours to animals maybe morally abhorrent. By extending our morality to include the animals and treatment of, we are effectively saying the animal has a right not to be killed or hurt indiscriminantly.

As for Vick... I thought he should have had a ban after his release from prison for breaking the code of conduct (especially after Rothelisberger was banned and NOT convicted), but the NFL is so arbitrary in its player conduct rulings. I can't argue though that he's tried to rehabilitate himself, and I think it's only fair that any ex-con is given a chance to succeed without their time served being constantly thrown back at them.

Quote: thecesspit

Animals do have some level of rights that can be extended to them. Plus I find it's splitting hairs to argue that animals have no rights, but we can say that behaviours to animals maybe morally abhorrent. By extending our morality to include the animals and treatment of, we are effectively saying the animal has a right not to be killed or hurt indiscriminantly.

Not at all.

If we did, then we wouldn't raise cattle for food as it would be a violation of the cattle's rights to have them killed, however humanely, indiscriminately in order to cut off their flesha dn eat it, to turn their bones to powder for several sues, and to make leather out fo their hides. You wouldn't do that to people, would you? But we do it to cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ostriches, fish, molluscs and others by the thousands or the millions every day all over the world.

It's one thing to say animals should be treated humanely, within reason and with reasonable exceptiosn when they serve human needs, and a very different one to say they have a right not to be killed.