Vick Given 23 Month Sentence (Breaking)

TV | 12/10/2007 | me

[SoldierDad]

I see you have posted the same blather to me that you attempted to use on someone else in an earlier post. If you cannot be intellectually honest, but instead resort to using an attack using a red herring, then why should I bother trying to have a debate on this topic with you. It’s not my responsibility to point out how illogical your argument is. It’s your responsibility to sustain a logical argument with respect to the actual topic of this thread, and not go off on some inconsequential tangent. If you want an answer, though, I'll give you one. Society decided that we would have differential value placed upon different animal species for specific reasons. If you don't like that fact, then move to a country where they do not place differential value and do whatever you want with whatever animal species that tickles your fancy. The law on this issue was, is, and remains clear, and Michael Vick was held accountable for his behavior. Period, end of story; end of discussion. Your dislike means nothing. Or, do you believe you have greater power than the judge which handed down this sentence? If so, then change the laws. Don't try and change the subject.

[SoldierDad]

You cannot of course, but that won’t prevent you from lobbing a few more insults at myself and the other advocates of “sane dog policy” in this thread.

And, what to you would be "sane dog policy"? The right of an individual to be abusive and cruel for sport/pleasure and profit to animals of any kind? How, in the world you live in, do you equate the treatment of domestic animals with treatment of animals used for a source of food? Or, would you prefer that dogs, cats, and other "pets" be equal with cows and chickens etc. and treated as a source of food(and apparently a source of sport, entertainment, and profit)? If this is your position, then state it and have done with it. These tangents are really getting tiresome. It is not just my belief that in this country society makes policy with regard to how certain animal species are treated differently than others. It's a matter of fact. So, where do we go from here? Do you wish that the laws against cruel and barbaric treatment of animals (which would include those animals used as food sources when a complaint has been sworn) be eliminated? If that's your position, then state it.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

FWIW, I tend to agree with you and MarkDel.

Our lab lived to be 15. We put him down 10 years ago and haven’t been able to bond with another one. We tried twice, but we missed Buck. We still do. Every now and again one of us will get that sad look, sigh and say “I miss Buck.”

That being said, he was a dog. He had to rights guaranteed to him in the Constitution. Of course just because an animal is someone’s property, it does not give anyone the right to mistreat it. There should be consequences.

This did not start off as a gambling investigation. The Humane Society has been after him for years. The local DA was dragging his heels. The Humane Society found someone sympathetic to their cause at the federal level who then figured out a way to nab the big fish.

It was all about getting Michael Vick (and I am no Vick fan and the Falcon are losing another coach)

[MarkDel]

It’s really funny that you needed to make a 2nd Post after your first empty one.

Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?

[SoldierDad]

Yup. No answers to the questions so just ignore my post and perhaps I’ll just go away. You have no answers (at least not that you’re willing to admit as it would reflect poorly on you), so you employ another red herring tactic by trying to turn it onto me. Just so I’m clear, you believe that either 1) all animals should be considered as nothing more than chattel to be used and abused at will, or 2) that we should stop using any animal for any purpose which results in their death? Which one is it? Obviously you do not agree with having differential views regarding different animal species and how we treat them.