Some of you may be aware that Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons football team was charged with running a dog-fighting ring. But, this just takes the cake: two other NFL knuckleheads (who must have bonked their melons one too many times) actually defended Vick and dogfighting in general. In an inappropriately giggly interview, Clinton Portis and Chris Samuels ridiculed the authorities and trivialized the horrors of dogfighting. (Of course, one of them later issued an “apology”).

In my opinion, dogfighting is a heinous, barbaric blood sport that has no business in a civilized society. It is against the law in all 50 states, and yet dogfighting rings flourish all over the country. In some states, it’s “fun” for the whole family.

The Humane Society and California Congressman Tom Lantos both sent letters to NFL Commissioner Goodell, “urging strong action against any athlete involved in dog fighting.”

The HSUS notes that many athletes have been/are involved in blood sports:

The president has signed the bill making animal fighting a federal crime (something I can finally admire him for )! The bill allows for a maximum of 3 years federal imprisonment.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

Well the courts should do this with any crime. As discussed in other threads that doesn't always happen. So yes.

Dogs. I have one. He's very nice. I suspect I'd have to liquor him up and say rude things about his mother to get him fight. If there's some way to bet on licking and rolling around though bet on Jack.

So anylou... here's the thing about dogs. They're kinda property and sure we've put them a little higher on the food chain than say scorpions (who, as a matter of record do not lick but who do fight) but that doesn't mean they're any less property. Now, since all 50 States hae banned this idiotic "sport" I think that says that a good majority of Americans are really against this and as a crime it should have some punishment. 3 years?

Three years is a long time to do just about anything. I think maybe that 3 years is, in fact, long enough. However, in deference to all dog lovers let's make the second offense 15 years. Mandatory.

No.

So, BaphometsAdvocat, you don't have a problem with a person who is a convicted federal criminal playing professional sports? Wow. I was pretty sure professional athletes had been knocked down a peg or two on the public admiration scale for some of their personal shenanigans, but I guess some folks don't care what they do when they're off the field/court, etc.

How sad.

1. No. Mandatory prison sentences for forcing animals to fight strikes me as using a sledgehammer to kill a fly; it's pure overkill. The prisons are already overcrowded with idiots who commit offenses against people. I'm not in favor of clogging them up even more with more idiots who commit offenses against animals.

2. No. Deprive an athlete of their career because they are caught dogfighting? There are guys in baseball, basketball, football, boxing and hockey whom have killed people in car accidents, discharged firearms, abused, distributed and sold drugs, taken illegal steroids, committed acts of domestic abuse, rape, burglary, theft, and other crimes and misdemeanors. And now we're going to ban them for dogfighting? Let's get real. Crimes against human beings are worse than crimes against animals and if we're allowing athletes to participate in sports despite less-than-sterling legal records, turning one pit bull against another pit bull doesn't strike me as something someone should lose their freedom and job over.

I am not defending dogfighting and I think Michael Vick is a selfish, immature idiot who is throwing away his career over his inability to make smart personal decisions, but I'm not going to throw him in jail or off the Atlanta Falcons for it despite what PETA might be demanding.

I disagree. People who abuse animals have been proven to be more likely to harm or kill people.

Um, yeah. Just because others have committed worse crimes doesn't mean lesser crimes aren't worthy of prosecution. Just because a guy has a lot of money for having athletic prowess doesn't mean he should be treated any differently than the average Joe Thug running dogfights. Dogfighting generally goes hand-in-hand with firearms, illegal drugs and gambling. It's a vicious, bloody spectacle that attracts the lowest of lowlifes. While some may believe animals are nothing more than property to be done with as a person pleases, I don't. Just because the law sees animals that way doesn't mean the majority of the population does. And please, "deprive" an athlete of his career? The rest of us suffer with at-will employment and none of us are guaranteed a job if we break the law. Why should athletes be any different?

It isn't PETA making the demands (IMHO, they are an extremist organization), it's the Humane Society of the United States and a US Congressman (so far).

And I presume you have some statistical analysis to back that up, my dear DaffyGrl?



They shouldn't be treated differently, but they are and we both know that. That's one reason they get paid millions for doing something a lot of us do in our backyard on the weekend. We know that celebrity athletes like celebrity entertainers and celebrity politicians and celebrity celebrities (paging Paris Hilton) are treated differently from the rest of us normal working stiffs. F. Scott Fitzgerald said a long time ago, "The rich are different" and the same thing applies to the rich, slightly rich and the uber rich. I don't have to read you chapter and verse of how double-standards give some of us a leg up over the rest of us, do I?

I can sympathize DG, with your outrage over this. I think it's disgusting and exploitative too. But I don't think it's going to cause a sudden crackdown on this kind of behavior.



If the Atlanta Falcons or the NFL want to suspend Vick, as his employers they have that right. What a special interest group or a politician wants is really beside the point. Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right as the league commissioner has made clear recently. But Vick has not even been charged, let alone convicted of any crime yet, so I'd prefer to extend to him the presumption of innocence and allow the legal machinery to grind onward.

And regarding dog-fighting only attracting the "lowest of lowlives" how much do you wanna bet if you created a reality show called "American Dog-Fight Night" you'd not only get someone to pick it up and televise it, but you'd get a good share of the Nielsen audience watching it?

STOP THE PRESSES! CHECK WITH NORAD FOR UPDATES ON FLYING PIGS! SNOWBALL'S SURVIVING IN HADES!

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?
Celebrity shouldn't be a consideration in sentencing, for good or ill, but it is. Martha Stewart was railroaded because of her celebrity. OJ's trial became a media circus because of celebrity.

As for mandatory sentencing in general, its reasonable. Whether or not its reasonable in this particular instance, not on your life!

3 Years mandatory sentence for dogfighting? Bad idea. Very bad idea. First off, there's a reason why "dog fighting" is a sport and "sheep fighting" isn't. Dogs fight each other naturally, sheep don't. From a philosophical and moral standpoint, there's nothing wrong with an animal behaving within its nature, and there's nothing wrong with people profitting from it. How "enhancing" that nature plays is a subject of some debate.

Dogs are not people, and elevating crimes against them above crimes against people is foolish. If you want to implement a mandatory 3 year sentence for boxing promoters, well, at least you'll have some modest rationality in play.


Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?
What Nighttimer said.

Nighttimer, there’s a rather large list of publications here:
Bibliography
And there are many, many psychiatric journals that link animal abuse to anti-social behaviors, domestic abuse, child abuse, violence, etc.

Plug in “animal abuse psychopathy” in Google and you’ll get over 200,000 results.


Oh, hell no, why would I want to protect someone who has free will and chooses to have his brains bashed in? If they're stupid enough to put themselves in that situation, then they deserve whatever they get.

Dogs don’t have the luxury of free will. They are intensely loyal creatures, and the creeps who own them take advantage of that nature to do what they, the human, is not willing to do – fight another living being to a bloody death using only the weapons they were born with.

And btw, dog fighting is not a "sport", it is a FELONY crime. And now it's a federal crime. You wouldn't be advocating breaking this country's laws, now would you?

Dog fighting is vicious, cruel and immoral and has absolutely no place in civilized society. Anyone who indulgences in it, condones it or refers to it as "sport" is a barbaric cretin and needs a little self-examination, if not full-blown therapy. To state that it's ok because the dogs are just doing what comes naturally is absurd. That's like saying child rape is fine because after all, raping a child must "come naturally" to the rapist. Perhaps rather than put them in jail we should allow them to post photos on the Internet of their deeds and make a little cash.

If Michael Vick is truly involved in this garbage it would be my hope that the Atlanta Falcons and the rest of the teams in the NFL would encourage him to go out and find another line of work. Playing football in the NFL is not a right, it is a priviledge for those few gifted enough to do it. But, there are, or at least should be standards applied to those athletes other than pure athletic ability. Almost every contract in the NFL contains a "morals clause" and if it turns out Vick is involved in this, that clause should be invoked.


Aquilla

Yo Bikerdad. Please explain what this has to do with Daffy's topic. It looks like an inebriated sig line that crashed at the top of the page.

Speaking of sig lines, don't you think you should give Benjamin Franklin credit for the words below?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html

As a matter of fact, shouldn’t you give the Gilroy Dispatch credit for this one.

Dudes and Dudettes, are your "brains clogged with bong-resin"?

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/cont...iew.asp?c=37588

I realize sig lines aren't debatable. I'm not. Yours are fine, but shouldn't they be subject to proper citation of authorship?

BTW: I agree with Aquilla on this one. Dogs are for petting, shaking water all over us and trying to sit in our lap when they come in out of the rain, licking us in the face, smelling bad, fetching the paper, barking while we're trying to sleep and some types of police work, but not fighting.

When dogs are vicious - it seems to run in some breeds, but they could have been made mean by two legged animals - they become a potential threat to humans.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/1328...s&psp=video

I'll try to remember this next time you advocate for helmet laws, smoking restrictions, seat belt laws, food restrictions, or any of the myriad elements of the Nanny State.

uhhh, in case you haven't noticed, football is a very violent sport, where nobody has any weapons save those they were born with, and both death and crippling injury are real risks. Quarterbacks are especially vulnerable. oooh, Vick is quarterback...

Do you reserve your outrage just for dog fighting, or do you also direct it at dog racing, horse racing, hunting with dogs (for sport, not for food), cockfighting, falconry, dressage, and other sports where animals are being utilized for the entertainment of humans?

Sorry to pop your self-righteous bubble, but dog fighting is a sport, at least according to this definition:

Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Used by itself, sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing),

You should be aware that being a "sport" and being illegal are not mutually exclusive. As for advocating breaking this country's laws, sure, sign me up. I'll start with that excrement known as McCain-Feingold. However, not in this case. I've got no problem at all with the legal prohibition on dog fighting, nor on cock fighting, although it isn't, and shouldn't, be a Federal matter. I just do not consider dog fighting to be anywhere near as significant as crimes against people.

As for your stipulation that we should act against dog fighting because its a gateway activity to becoming a serial killer, yeah, sure, I'll remember this the next time you poo poo conservative attempts to utilize gateway rationale to limit some activity you consider to be worthy of protection.


Really? Funny, that's how I feel about infanticide and abortion, crimes against people.

Well, for the record, I don't indulge in it, and never would. I agree with you that it is vicious and cruel. I don't "condone" it, although from a multiculturalist perspective I can't see any grounds for not tolerating it. As for it being a "sport", well, too bad for you, but it is a sport. In that vein, I'll match your "barbaric cretin" with a charge that anybody who ignores the reality that dog fighting is a sport is an arrogant fool in need of both education and humility, with some therapy thrown in for good measure.

Dog Fighting - A Blood Sport found in many civilizations and cultures throughout history: In Japan,
Dog fighting evolved in Kochi to a form that is called Tōken (闘犬). Under modern rules, dogs fight in a fenced ring until one of the dogs barks, yelps, or loses the will to fight. Owners are allowed to throw in the towel, and matches are stopped if a doctor judges it is too dangerous. Draws usually occur when both dogs won't fight or both dogs fight until the time limit. There are various other rules, including one that specifies that a dog will lose if it attempts to copulate, which is called hentai. Champion dogs are called yokozuna, as in sumo. With generic animal protection laws in place, dog fighting is not specifically banned in Japan, except in Tokyo, and can be seen in Kochi. Currently, most fighting dogs in Japan are Tosa, which is a breed that was developed in Kochi [2]. Dog fighting does not have strong links to gambling in Japan.

I guess this means that all of Japan, save those activists working to eliminate dog fighting there, are in need of "a little self-examination, if not full-blown therapy."

Nighttimer and I are in agreement.

Does he deserve credit for it? Sure does. Will I give it to him? Nope. I want folks who read it, and more importantly, have so often been exposed to the bastardized version (i.e., "those who would give up Liberty, to purchase safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety") to wonder about the dissonance between the original I repeat, and the version they're familiar with. Hopefully, they will embark on discovering the provenance and thus edjumicate themselves. I'm even willing to rile up some folks who are offended by my "chutzpah" in "claiming" it as my own, as long as they venture forth to discover who did say it.

Why? First, the "dudes and dudettes" is my rif on the theme. Second,"as a matter of fact" bong resin cloggage predates the Gilroy Dispatch by some time, something you would know had you bothered to do some more research on the phrase. They don't deserve credit for it either. I, as far as I can tell, am the originator of the "dudes and dudettes" rif. If not, then its a case of parallel development, as I've never read it before. I don't know where the bong resin cloggage meme originated, nor do I recall exactly where I first encountered it. (although I may have made reference to it in a long past post...)

From this article........



Anyone who considers this a sport needs some serious help.

Good luck with that, because a) I’ve never “advocated” for helmet or seat belt laws (though I think they’re a good idea), I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about with “food restrictions”…maybe the contaminated crap coming out of China? Hm, guilty on that count., and c) I’ve never advocated for smoking restrictions (and never will).

First of all, football players are padded and protected in every way imaginable. Now, rugby, there's a sport where they have to be tough.

As for:
Dog racing – yes
Horse racing – on the fence…there are elements of horse racing I don’t like (like racing animals who are too young and undeveloped)
Hunting with dogs – I object to hunting, but not the dog’s role in it
Cockfighting – definitely yes
Falconry – wow, that’s esoteric, but I’d have to say no, even though I don’t believe a falcon should be held in captivity
Dressage – come again?? How is dressage harming the horse?

I'm sure the Romans thought watching gladiators butchering Christians was good sport, also. Blood sports do not deserve to be considered "sports". Barcelona has eliminated bullfighting as a “sport”. and there is widespread support in the EU to ban it from Spain entirely. Fox hunts in Great Britain no longer rip foxes limb from limb. These bloody practices have far more history and "cultural" attachment than a bunch of back country or inner city knuckleheads pitting their dogs against each other.

That’s inane - the equivalent of nyah nyah NYAH nyah nyah, and dismissed as such.

Oh, please, get off your self-righteous soapbox. Because PEOPLE commit crimes against people. Humans are the most barbaric animals on the planet. And the thing is, people have choices. Animals do not. As for how much people are worth, check out the guy in Texas studying to be a preacher who microwaved his baby, and the wife who still supports him because “he’s not a monster” - “Satan made him do it”.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” Mahatma Gandhi

Sigh... two definitions provided, both indicating that, from a structural and sociological standpoint, dog fighting is a sport, and yet you persist. Well, either you're an arrogant fool, or this is a case of personal taste. For instance, emotionally, I absolutely deny the clear assertion by millions of farmers, canners, and chef's that canned spinach is a food , but intellectually I will grudgingly acknowledge that, disgusting as it is, it does fit the objective definition of "food." Were I an arrogant fool (no snark from the peanut gallery now! ) about this matter, I would continue to insist that it isn't a food, based solely on my physical gag reflex. After all, if I can't stomach it, how can it possibly be food? A psychologist would likely label such insistence as narcissism in action.

The fact that you find it abhorrent (a perfectly understandable perspective that I agree with, btw) doesn't alter its basic nature, regardless of how loudly or passionately you insist otherwise.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

No. The laws and penalties we have are sufficient and the jails already are overcrowded.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?


I think it reasonable that any convicted felon be banned from playing pro sports, at least for a significant period of time (an entire season, or more). Felons are prohibited from pursuing many vocations. If you want to change the jock culture, this would do it.

Bikerdad, so far, you’ve called people who don’t agree with you "arrogant fools", "self-righteous", "foolish", "narcissistic" and used a myriad of snotty sarcasm and derision... and whaddya know, somehow you get away with it. Wish I could, cuz I’d have some colorful things to say.

Just because you feel more comfortable calling it a “sport” doesn’t make it OK, sport or not. Society evolves, and it is no longer considered OK to make a family outing out of a hanging or a drawing and quartering/disembowelment, just as I believe it is no longer OK for blood sports in our society…unless we start pitting the dogs against their handlers…I might go for that.

Anyone who can defend two animals being tossed into a ring to be mauled to death as entertainment or sport doesn't deserve to be called "human".

Just to be clear on this... what else must a bi-ped that has speech and opposable thumbs agree with you on be called human?

This reminds me of a story from sometime in the 90s. I used to do Stair Master on Saturday morning with a lovely young woman. One of the employees of the club where we worked out came by and told us a story. He had seen a kitten on the outside of a cage aggravating dog inside the cage. He dumped kitten over the fence and the dog mauled it. Ah, two animal victims. Except for the sadistic passions of the health club employee, this was not a good way to handle it. Why not just pick up the kitten and take it somewhere that it couldn't bother the dog? I avoided talking to this employee after that. He was fired, not for this, but because of "character flaws" a couple of months later. "Character flaw" is how the club's manager explained the termination.

My workout partner responded with one of the most gentle and beautiful rejoinder I have ever heard. “That wasn’t right. Animals are an integral part of creation.” I don't think she meant "creation" in a religious sense, but this should give the "Christian faction" on the board some pause.

While animals don’t reason like humans, there is some commonality. They feel pain, fear (I think love) and other emotions. When I’m upset, my cats get upset.

There is some evidence that animal torture and serial killers have a link, though I wouldn’t say all serial killers have tortured animals and I wouldn’t go so far as to assert that people who like dog fighting are necessarily potential serial killers. I know I’m measuring my words here, but that’s necessary sometimes.

http://thebosun.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/s...d-animal-abuse/

BoF, thank you for the link. I was especially touched by this quote from Dr. Schweitzer:

I thought this was an issue that wouldn't cause great controversy or flame wars, but, my, my, how wrong I was. And BaphometsAdvocate, being bipedal and cognitive makes you a member of homo sapiens; being human involves a bit more (after all, the root of the word is humane). To be fair, I guess it encompasses the bad traits as well as the good.

I thought I'd end with another Dr. Schweitzer quote.

1) Fines aren't a bad idea, but mandatory prison sentencing idea is absolutely ridiculous. Like several people have already stated, our prisons are overcrowded enough as it is. I just can't see good reason to exacerbate that problem with something like dogfighting.

Here's an idea, if animal abuse really is indicative of some underlying propensity toward antisocial/deviant/violent behavior like you think it is, then perhaps it should be decriminalized and treated at that earlier stage.

2) No. Taking away their livelihood for something like that is completely unfair. The law is supposed to be fair. I doubt anyone would be pressuring McDonalds to fire assistant crew chief Michael Vick. So why would they pressure the Falcons to fire quarterback Michael Vick. If he were a carpenter this wouldn't even be mentioned.



DaffyGrl ,
Animal abuse doesn't have much meaning when it's used as a blanket term like you've been using it. The possible links between "animal abuse" and deviant/violent/antisocial behavior lose relevancy in this discussion where we are talking about dog fighting specifically, which is shown not to bear the same links to future violent behavior as other forms of animal abuse (at least in the study that I read). There's a big difference between stomping a kitten to death and putting a dog in a dog fight. Even if "animal abuse" did have meaning like you used it, correlation does not prove causation and you need a little more than correlation to violent behavior to justify criminalizing "animal abuse".

I went and looked up one of these studies you speak of anyway. It's entitled "Childhood Cruelty to Animals and Subsequent Violence Against Humans".

The study compared 50 random nonviolent offenders to 50 random violent offenders to look for links between animal cruelty and violent criminal behavior. Overall, they found that past animal cruelty appeared to be more strongly related to future violent criminal behavior as opposed to nonviolent criminal behavior. However, they also went further and qualified "animal cruelty"- because it's such a broad term- into different types of abuse. They ended up finding dog fighting to be a "confounding variable" because it contradicted the apparent trend between general "animal cruelty" and violent criminal behavior. The nonviolent criminals actually did more dog-fighting than the violent criminals did.

Here are some quotes from the study:



These quotes from this study ad complexity to the simplistic view you painted for us of dog fighting as the barbaric blood sport of uncivilized people that hate dogs.




You consider dog fighting as taking advantage of a dog's nature to be loyal. I imagine that dogfighters look at it differently, as taking advantage of a dog's nature to fight. If you thought fighting was part of the dog's nature as they do, would you still consider it equally as cruel to put that dog in a dog fight?

Personally, I don't condone dog fighting. But I don't think we should be mandating that people go to prison for 3 years or taking away anyone's livelihood over it either.

I am absolutely appalled by this quote. Once again, the humanity of Black folks is compared and contrasted with the lives and rights of animals! Am I supposed to be moved to some feeling of empathy by this moronic quote from Dr. Schweitzer? It's a specious comparison, but it does prove that even very smart people can say very stupid things.

Dog-fighting is cruel. No doubt about it. But so are zoos. So are circuses. So is testing drugs and diseases and perfumes on animals. So are egg farms. So are slaughterhouses. So are "designer dogs" and many other forms of cross-breeding. But some mistreatment of animals are tolerated and rationalized because the majority opinion is animals take a back seat on the evolutionary chain to human beings. THEY serve to feed, clothe, and amuse US. Dog-fighting takes it too far, but the exploitation of dogs goes far beyond the working class "entertainment" of turning one pit bull loose against another.

I don't make any distinction between the homeboy who raises pit bulls to fight and die and the bubble-headed blondes like Paris Hilton and her ilk who carry their mutts around in a handbag like it's just another accessory.

You are right, Nighttimer. Sometimes smart people say really stupid things.

I ran across this article from National Geographic about people's pets being stolen for use as "bait" for dogs being raised to kill each other. From this article.....




Not to worry though, just a couple of brothers out having a good time and making a little cash on the side, right Nighttimer? I'm still looking, but I have yet to find any reference to Paris Hilton leaving a dog dead in the desert so she could find one that fit in her purse. I'm sure there's one out there though since it apparently is the same thing.

The above article I cited is absolutely true, and unfortunately goes much deeper. I have worked with animal rescue groups for over 30 years and one of the worst problems they face are people like Nighttimer's "homeboys" (his words) looking to adopt small dogs to use as "bait" for dogs that have been raised to kill other dogs. For that reason most pet rescue organizations require some sort of an adoption fee or donation to the organization before they will adopt out a dog. It's not to make money on the deal, trust me, they are not for profit enterprises, but it does give the dog a little bit of protection from the cretins that Nighttimer likens to Paris Hilton.

As far as Michael Vick is concerned, I'm willing to wait to see if any formal charges are brought against him for involvement in this whole thing. If not, fine, let him play and go after those who are involved. If so, give him his day in court against a "pit bull" prosecutor.


Aquilla

Felons are prohibited from pursuing vocations that somehow relate to their felony, or that in some fashion represent a public trust. Sorry, but aside from prohibiting an athlete convicted of point shaving or something else directly related to their sport, you can't make a case that such a legal prohiition would be just. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, employers have the right to hire and fire anybody they want, for any reason they want, and so could refuse to hire those who engage in dog fighting, or carry poodles in purses, or can't stomach canned spinach, or whatever.

Incidentally, why should "jock culture" be fixed? perhaps fodder for another thread...


It's my winsome smile.

Go for it, but before you do, perhaps you should direct some of your righteous outrage towards Aquilla, to whom I was responding. On second thought, since you don't seem to be offended by Aquilla's opening salvo, where he characterized those who don't agree with him as "barbaric cretins", in need of "full-blown therapy", etc, save the electrons. Perhaps you can use them where you haven't yet squandered your credibility regarding the matter of civilized debate.

I don't recall referring to it as "OK". How can a dedicated multiculturalist possibly object?

Well, there we have it folks. Dehumanization of one's opponents in its starkest form.

'nuff said.


edited to correct spelling

Only back a few days and already you're agreeing with me. That sabbatical did wonders for you.



You do know that I didn't mention one word about "a couple of brothers" or "homeboys," right Aquilla? What I did say was "I don't make any distinction between the homeboy who raises pit bulls to fight and die and the bubble-headed blondes like Paris Hilton and her ilk who carry their mutts around in a handbag like it's just another accessory.

How you spun that from the singular to the plural and interject race where it wasn't present is all on you Aquilla. At least that's a bit more in character.

For the record, I find trust fund babies who treat dogs like used Kleenex every bit as much a "cretin" as some dude boppin' down the block with a pit bull straining on a choke-chain.

Hotel heiress Paris Hilton has been severely criticized by many animal rights activists for having dumped her pampered dog Tinkerbell because she grew too big.

Apparently, Paris has left the dog in her mother’s care, as it has grown past its ideal weight of 3.5 pounds (1.6 kilograms), and now she’s pampering a smaller Chihuahua named Bambi.

“It’s a pity that Paris’ heart doesn’t match her pocketbook. Animals shouldn’t be disposed of like last season’s trendy handbag”, said a PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals) spokesman. link

The abuse of a spoiled rotten Chihuahua by a bottled blonde rich ditz is every bit as contemptable as when it's by some homey doing very bad things to a Rottweiler or pit bull and who has never worked a day in his life--either.

"Homeboys" isn't isolated to just Black males.

I agree about the homeboy comment... but the rest is interesting.

Frankly, how is leaving a dog w/ your mother abuse? I personally see it as something beyond comprehension, as our dogs are like family. However- it's not the same as leaving a pit in the back yard to rot in the summer sun. That's absurd!

How did Paris abuse the dog? Maybe I'll agree with the ditz statement... but I don't think she asked it to attack the next door neighbor's beagle in so that she could put $10 on it. It's just not the same...

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?

Celebrity should be no immunity against the penalty of law. Whether or not three year is sufficient ought to depend on the particulars of the individual cases brought before the court.


Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

I think it should depend on the character of the crime and the level of participation of the culprit. Personally, if I had authority over any one who was found to participate in such cruelty, I would fire them on the spot.


With regards to the keeping of pets, I do not see how Hiltonesque attitudes towards pets can be compared to dog fighting. Where as the callous use of a pet as a fashion accessory may be considered by some to be contemptable, providing the animal is not treated with cruelty, then I do not see how the character of a relationship between owner and pet is any one else's business. There is no monopoly of just thinking on how to regard a pet and what one person regards as a fashion accessory, another may see as a flighty personality seeking companionship. Providing the pet in question is not abandoned, put down or mistreated, then I do not see how any one can reasonably object or compare this relationship with the mistreatment of dogs that is dog fighting.

Again, the man who owns a pit bull terrier, or other intimidating dog, and parades this unfortunate animal about as a means of instilling fear, disguised as respect, in other people, is only reprehensible if the dog is actually being mistreated in some way. Simply owning a dog is not cruelty and I'd say that any one who voices an objection against these people on the basis of cruelty to animals is displaying a biased opinion.

Huh? And later.....



Nope, it's not and neither is the term "brothers". So tell me, Nighttimer, just where did I "interject race" into this discussion?

As you are well aware the singular is not racist and the plural always is - for example:

I have an apple. Not racist.

I have apples. Worse than the "N" word.

So when Nighttimer says:
He correctly avoids race with homeboy but is very very racist when he uses bubble-headed blondes. It was probably a typo.

I can't understand why no one gets this.... it's really quite simple.

What, exactly, would that difference be?

Nighttimer, I guess I didn’t take away the same meaning. In the times Schweitzer was referring to, some people really did regard blacks as nothing more than animals. What I got out of the quote was that all life is precious. I apologize if it offended. You know that was not my intent.

Again, I am amazed and appalled at the prevailing attitude here. And I can’t believe the racial animus that has cropped up. It was never my intent to make this a race debate; dog fighting crosses all ethnic lines. Am I emotional and passionate about the issue of animal abuse? Yes, because sometimes I feel my fellow human beings are more like animals than the animals.

Edited to add:

While I abhor poptarts' tendencies to tote around little dogs like fashion accessories, I don't think it rises to the same level as dog fighting. If she were cutting their throats and tossing them in the garbage, or giving them to a dogfighter to use as bait, maybe, but dumping it on mom to take care of is hardly the same.

One of you isn't good at playing dumb, and the other doesn't catch on. Since when did "[J]ust a couple of brothers out having a good time and making a little cash on the side, right Nighttimer?" connote white boys? Are deyz brothers cuz that's all you have in the NFL nowadays (hint, hint, black people)? Or am I missing something? Has someone posted an article about a dog-fighting brother team?


It's specious because Schweitzer is going for the heart instead of the head by using blacks as an emotional prop. That's what the Civil Rights struggle has been boiled down to, a punch line. People have drawn lines between animal welfare and respect for human life for a long time, however. Wrong or right, this tendency is color blind, and Schweitzer ignores this. Daffy's own link attests to that and you've been arguing the point.

Me? I can see the value in showing respect for animal life, especially since I think I might be charged with cruelty if someone harmed my cat. It's crazy to elevate animal welfare to human status, though, since I don't mind eating many animals and I'm not going vegan any time soon. At the same time, the fact that I want to eat animals also means I don't want them abused before the slaughter. Anyone who likes steak should be somewhat concerned about animal welfare for health reasons.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person's celebrity? Is 3 years enough?
Depends on whatever the common law requires. Frankly even though I think animals I eat should not suffer before dying, I think three years is not only enough. It's too much time. That's probably more than someone would serve for adult rape. I don't know what celebrity status has to do with it. Although, I don't have a problem with a humane society filing a civil suit against dog-fighting owners and/or establishments that host dog fighting.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?
That's up to their teams and the NFL.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person’s celebrity? Is 3 years enough?
I'm appalled by dogfighting, but not a big fan of 'mandatory' sentences. If we had good judges, we wouldn't need mandatory sentencing laws. I'm OK with this being a felony, given that violence against animals is clearly an indicator of violence against humans (see DaffyGrl's myriad of links).

That said, I find Schweitzer's quote appealing in an emotional sense, yet disturbing in another. The extreme wing of the animal rights movement is off the deep end (not saying anyone here is!) The more we hear the nonsense of a chimpanzee's "99.7% human DNA" the more we forget what makes human life precious and, yes, much more important than the lives of animals. Those seeking to depopulate the planet or declare chimps humans are just misguided. We need to teach our children to respect animal life, yet understand that animals aren't human.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?

When I heard this on the news, I knew the Rep would be Lantos or Waxman after only the first sentence. That Rep Lantos is a grandstanding opportunist helps one understand why he might threaten a sports league with action if it does ... what exactly?

Vick has been accused of something, not proven guilty of anything. He hasn't even been charged. The commish can and should do nothing until there is at least a disposition in the case.

I realize the question asks the hypothetical "if they are caught" and I support disclipline in that case, if not an outright ban. But Vick hasn't quite been 'caught' yet, even though I presume he's guilty. Lantos might find more fertile ground if he worked with the nation's mayors to establish a dogfighting task force, share best practices, etc. Unfortunately, he knows that he can share the spotlight with a high-profile NFL player at little or no risk to him.

Note to Lesly: White people have brothers too.......

This thread is about the abhorent practice (or as some would term it "sport") of dog fighting. Race has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. Had Jay Cutler, Brett Favre, John Lynch or any other white player in the NFL been involved in this, I would have reacted the same way. Now, if you or anyone else here wants to cut Michael Vick some slack over this because he's black, then just say so. I'll leave it to the others reading this thread to decide who's playing the race card.


Aquilla

Really? I wasn't aware of that, being Hispanic and all. Thanks for ejumakatin me.


Oh Lord. My answers to the debate questions and my opinion on animal cruelty have nothing to do with race. Your opinion may not have to do with race either, but I don't get the unnecessary brother reference. Show me where I said Vick should get off lightly cuz he's a "brother" in the NFL. No?

I know you and Daffy feel strongly about animal cruelty, and I sympathize having owned pets for almost all my life, but I feel more strongly about a punishment that fits the crime and offered an alternative for those who prefer more (civil suits). Don't be so distraught over the fact that we have a difference of opinion that you lose your cool and imply I'd have reacted differently had Vick been white.

How professional athletes get treated is going to vary.

I think dog fighting totally awful, but I have not prescribed penalties for participants in my posts on this thread. There's a larger isssue here. I hardly agree with the trend in this country to want to max out any and everybody and that would include Vick. He should be subject to whatever laws are in place on this subject, but not necessarily be in jail or be maxed out.

I don't think he should be kicked out of the NFL, unless, of course, he's in jail. If he goes to jail he should be allowed to resume his career once he's out.

There are, of course, times when the severity of the crime takes someone off the field permanently.

Ray Carruth will never play football again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Carruth

Mike Tyson was not the same fighter when he came out of prison he was before prison. He was reduced to an ear biter.

Pete Rose got thrown out of basebll over a gambling issue and later went to Federal prison over another issue. Despite getting more hits than anyone who ever played the game, he's still not in Cooperstown and still isn't allowed a managerial job in baseball.

I think we get into a huge mud puddle when we start making morals an issue in professional sports. Cetainly Ty Cobb was a much nastier character than Pete Rose, but that doesn't seem to matter to baseball - Cobb in; Rose out.

In my opinion Rose should be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame and possibly back into baseball.

Should the courts give mandatory prison sentences and/or fines in dogfighting cases, regardless of an indicted person's celebrity? Is 3 years enough?
Prison sentences? For trafficing, organizing, or simply participating in the bets? You need to clarify. 3 year sentence? No this would contribute to already overcrowded prisons. I don't consider this type of behaviour at the felony level and attempting to legislate a behaviour change will not prove effective. This market has had a couple hundred years to develop. The audience is there regardless of one's personal view. Do you really think this will dissuade people from watching? I don't. The idea you can legislate morality is precisely how the prisons became overcrowded in the first place.

Should professional sports figures be banned from their respective leagues if they are caught dogfighting?
I would say no. I've never agreed with this bastion of the community role we've thrust onto pro sports players and I think people should be afforded a level of privacy in to their lives. If you don't like it don't watch it.

OK first of all, myriad or not, there's not any scientific fact linking killing cats and killing humans. Some people who kill humans have killed cats. Blowing up frogs with an M80 isn't a "gateway killing" anymore than marijuana is a "gateway drug" to crack.

Second of all this isn't violence against animals. It's animal on animal violence. The "sport" (as idiotic as it is) isn't Human vs. Dog. The "sport" is Dog vs. Dog. So suggesting that dog fight attendees, wranglers, referees, and coaches are perpetrating violence against dogs is wrong. The violence is by the dogs. Set up by humans? Bet on by humans? I'm with you. However, the "people who abuse/kill animals are more dangerous" than people who don't so we should put them in jail longer argument is simply jumping through hoops to get to your end.

DG= as someone as intimately aquainted with seriel killers as myself- this kind of behavior is not the kind of animal cruelty they are talking about in thier links- it is usually in childhood, and involves outright torturing- not that dog fighting isn't bad- it just isn't the same as what you are talking about- just a point of order- NOT condoning dog fighting here, mmkay?

I guess, at some point, we could point to man's basic viciousness as a predator as to why we like "bloodsports" so much.

Viewers watch NASCAR- and want to see the crash really- if there were no possibility of a fantastic huge fireball crash- NASCAR wouldn't be so popular.

Football- classic gladiator sport- and we wonder why guys in this sport behave badly? Same with boxing ( I have done both BTW- was quite good at the "sweet science" even! )

UFC is becoming far more popular than Boxing- more blood!

Humans are violent creatures- no matter how we like to think otherwise- for every Einstien- there are thousands of Vicks-

Though I abhor the practise of Dog fighting DG- I have to say, there are far more important things to use our resources of crime and law enforcement on- those resources are finite, and we waste enough of them as it is.

I hunt, I eat animals, I wear thier skins to stay warm- but I take no joy in the kill, and get no thrill from it- though I know those that do, and try not to hang out with that type too much- I believe them to have serious character flaws. Hunting for killing's sake does not appeal to me. A good moose steak and some moose moccasins, do, however.

DG- you will not believe how cruel animals can be to each other, and how they like blood sports too

I have seen wolves take three days to dispatch a caribou, literally eating it alive, and playing with it

Bears do some pretty nasty things- and wolverines- OMG are those things some nasty animals!
Believe it or not- torture and blood sport are NOT just a human trait!

That being said- however- I am against mandatory jail terms- but kicking him out of the NFL permanently- I have no problem with at all.

I am for that for a variety of things- we need to put the hammer down on sports celebrities, CEOs and Politicians behaviors- big time.

Loss of livelihood should be the mandatory minimum in most of these cases.

BA- it is true that animal cruelty in childhood is possibly THE marker to some serious criminal behavior later.

That being sad- I have yet to do anything cruel as an adult- but I did take great joy at killing seagulls as a pre-teen and teenager- I got so stinkin' tired of them crapping on my boat- I kinda have the guilt of shooting them damn things every chance I got.

I still hate horses and seagulls, (horses made my life miserable until was 18,and could legally NOT own a horse)

but I don't kill them anymore. NEver killed a horse- or was even cruel-though I wanted to be a few times!

Violence against animals is absolutely, without doubt one of the childhood precursors to a diagnosis of psychopathy and other personality disorders. So yeah, it could in a pinch be considered a 'gateway killing' in that it's one of three known precursors to being a psychopath -- extended bedwetting, firestarting and animal cruelty. Not that every psychopath goes on to kill, of course, and there is some debate about how many serial killers show these behaviors. So no, it's not necessarily predictive, but it is an indicator.




The human who steals a backyard pet, to use him as a training tool for their pitbull, is committing violence on animals by proxy. Same for those who organize these fights. Same for those who have the decency to put the loser (or even winner) out of its misery.

I never said that we should put them in jail "longer" (longer than what?), so I don't understand the strawman that you are assaulting in your last sentence.

Some have suggested civil suits. Civil suits based on what? To bring a civil suit, one must have standing, one must have somehow been harmed. I can't see where, barring the criminal theft of an animal, the Humane Society or anybody else is harmed by dog fighting itself.
This is not to say that there are often activities attendant to dog fighting (i.e. theft of animals, illegal gambling, etc) that merit action.

At their core, the arguments against dog fighting in this thread, and the arguments regarding the punishments, are attempt to impose a certain morality upon others.

Lets establish a series of facts on the ground:

1) Dogs are not humans.

2) Dog fighting does not harm humans.

3) The potential for future harm to humans from dog fighting is nebulous.

4) Any consideration of dogs as other than property is a value judgement. Legislation based upon those values is an imposition of one's values upon another person by force.

Remember folks, when you advocate imposing your values upon others by force, you compromise your moral standing to decry the same when you disagree with the values in question.

How about for merely selling dog-fighting paraphernalia online:


No harm to humans done there, no harm to privately owned pets. It looks like the D.C. court is getting ready to go ahead with the discovery phase (pdf). The suit may still be thrown out, but I doubt it will be. Commercial speech is regulated speech, and advertising illegal activities (instead of pure speech) is illegal.

I figure if you can file a defamation lawsuit against a former employer who tells a prospective employer not to hire you and provides false information about your performance, why not a dog fighting civil suit dealing with other areas of existing law that don't punish offenders based on moral preferences? Civil suits may not be effective against small-time dog fighting owners, but it can apply economic pressure by going after deep pocket defendants involved in related illegal activities.

I don't know how dogs think, but I am certain cats don't think of themselves as property. In their eyes we may be their property, but...

The Biography Channel has a show called City Confidential. On a recent show the "crime" involved murder of a human, but part of the backdrop was "fox hunting" in rural Virginia. The description given was that the fox hounds literally tore the foxes apart. I don't like the idea of hunting in general, dog fighting, cockfighting or fox hunting as described on the Biography Channel.

The problem I have with animals as property is that they do feel pain and experience some emotions, fear, being rather primitive, among them. It might be my dog, my property, but that doesn't give me the right to kick it everytime I come home angry.

The problem of how to "punish" animal abusers is a separate question.

Yes there has been a link established to serial killers and things like arson and animal cruelty. BA, the profiles of Dahmer, etc. involved childhood, but how do we know dog fighters didn't pull legs off frogs as children. We don't. What the FBI has learned, however, is that no profile covers every serial killer who comes down the path. We can’t generalize about the tendency of serial killers abusing animals early in life, but we can’t totally dismiss it either. What we do know is that the core personality is developed very early in life. If cruelty is part of the core personality, how do we deal with it. That's a difficult question because similar core personalities do not necessarily manifest themselves in the same way.

I don't think we can punish "potential" serial killers, but If I had a child who, for example, pulled the legs off a frog, I would have a talk with the child. If the child continued, I would obtain some professional help for them.

Lesly,

Remember, the federal laws being violated are subject to the same analysis, and boil down to the same elements I've noted above.

As long as you're honest with imposing your morals on others even though there is no direct harm to people ...

This is a little vague. If I understand you correctly you're saying that by indirectly going after people who benefit from dog-fighting you're still imposing your morality?

If this is what you mean then yes, you're right. Suing Amazon.com and producers of this material is one way you (generic) can impose your morality on others. What I want to stress here is that you can "impose your morality" without having to grant human rights and recognition to animals. Besides, I thought you asked on what grounds could someone file a civil suit.

This is an aspect of our common law system. As it stands, outlawing certain activities (animal fighting) automatically triggers restrictions in other activities (commercial speech). I'd prefer it if pro-life activists did not push their morality on me through litigation, but I can't change the rules of the game or unglue overlapping areas of law. In the Humane Society's case, to escape litigation we would have to change First Amendment jurisprudence to allow commercial speech dealing with illegal activities in cases where humans aren't harmed. I don't know if state or federal courts would adopt this idea.

Edited to add: Hasn't the majority already imposed its morality on the minority since dog-fighting is illegal in every state? Since animals are actually harmed in this blood sport, the rights of the minority can't be violated because humans are not harmed. You could say people have a commercial right to exploit animals, but this is an economic argument, not a moral one.

The fact remains; dog fighting is now a federal crime, punishable by UP TO 3 years in prison. I didn’t make that decision, Prez Bush did. A lot of people here seem to think because Michael Vick is a celebrity, he shouldn’t be made to serve a sentence like that. UP TO 3 years in prison is what the law designates. It’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis what a particular offender should be sentenced to. I’d think all you law-and-order types would agree with that.

As for the vicious nature of wildlife, dogs are not wildlife. Sure, they are descendants of wolves, but they have been domesticated and bear little resemblance to their wild cousins. Of course, an alpha predator is vicious – it has to be. Domestic dogs do not and should not have to be. Unscrupulous people have taken a trait and exaggerated it by mistreating the animal to the point where all it wants to do is fight. Any pit bull aficionado will tell you they can be good-natured, gentle pets if they are raised right. Go here to see how dogfighters “make” a fighting dog (look under “the training”). Dogs are starved and mistreated in order to make them mean enough to fight. Dogs that don’t show “game” (i.e. are vicious enough to keep attacking are summarily killed). And take a look here at the res