There have been some celebrities defending the dog killings by Michael Vick. However, none of the defenses of Vick are as bizarre as those put forward by Lawrence O'Donnell in his Huffington Post blog, What's Wrong with Killing Dogs? Posted on 08/25/2007 4:31:39 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
There have been some celebrities defending the dog killings by Michael Vick. However, none of the defenses of Vick are as bizarre as those put forward by Lawrence O'Donnell in his Huffington Post blog, What's Wrong with Killing Dogs?
What's wrong with what Michael Vick did? I have no inclination to do what he did with dogs, but I have no comprehension of what all the fuss is about. Most people who are upset about killing dogs or letting them attack each other have at some point in their lives caught a fish, which is as extreme a form of murderous torture of an animal as I can imagine.
Huh? Didn't O'Donnell ever hear of catch and release? It is done all the time. A fisherman catches a fish and then releases it so it can be caught over and over again. No "murderous torture" of an animal here since the released fish go back to calmly swimming in their watery environs again. From "murderous torture" of fish, O'Donnell goes on to the absurd flesh eating argument in defense of Vick:
Not only have most of them caught a fish, they have actually eaten many more of them than they've caught. Which is weirder, killing an animal or eating its dead flesh? Most of us have never eaten dog meat, but in some countries it is a delicacy. Is there something evil going on in those countries? Are they violating the natural order of things? Should we invade them or get the UN to intervene? They are killing and eating dogs for god's sake!!!
Perhaps in the insular Hollywood vegan world eating meat is considered weird. It could also be a failed attempt by the former producer of The West Wing at humor. O'Donnell then invokes natural law:
What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws? And how does that same natural law allow for fish being clubbed to death on boat decks if they haven't died already from the hook-in-mouth trick we so enjoy pulling on them?
Lawrence, in the course of typing up this blog chronicling your absurdities, I noticed a couple of small insects crawling across my computer monitor. Without a moment of guilty conscience I picked up a paper towel and instantly deprived them of their mortality. This is not something I (or most people) could do to a dog. So, yeah, there is a difference depending on the animal. Keep that in mind the next time the bug exterminator pays a visit to your home.
Following these laughable assertions, O'Donnell then compares humane euthanasia of sick pets to electrocuting dogs:
Our reverence for dog life resembles our reverence for human life. Up to a point. It's okay to kill your dog if you think your dog is too sick to go on living much longer or if you just can't afford medical help for your dog. And, don't worry, no legal authority is ever going to ask you to prove that your dog was really sick enough to kill or even sick at all. If you don't have the stomach for killing your dog yourself, you contract with a dog killer -- otherwise known as a veterinarian -- to do the dirty work for you. No federal law against that yet. Our dog reverence is so shot full of loopholes that there is no describable moral order to it at all.
If you think O'Donnell couldn't get any more aburd in his defense of Vick, you would be wrong. He actually suggests that eating hamburgers is just as morally repulsive as torturing dogs to death:
Between bites at McDonald's today there will be a lot of outrage expressed about Michael Vick getting off easy. I won't understand a word of it.
Between bites of a Big Mac today, Lawrence, I will ponder if President Jed Bartlet ever electrocuted his pet dog in The West Wing.
“Lawrence O’Donnell Compares Killing Dogs With Catching Fish”
What a big city, liberal, know-nothing dumbsh*t.
Yes. Thank you.
Historically, he has sought out man, not vice versa. He lived on the outskirts of the villages, consuming the byproducts of man’s existence. In return, he warned them of intrusion and danger. Soon they began fighting alongside man, helping him hunt, protecting him in the wild, and in some cases looking over man’s infant offspring.
Interesting. I had assumed a much higher level of force involved. Thank you for that information.
He must be truly stupid to utter this absurdity in public.
What a PC idiot. You can eat fish and you can’t eat dogs except in Korea.
Pray for W and Our Troops
The only people I know personally who eat lamb chops are farmers and butchers from way back.
As for the others, I think you might be surprised at the vast numbers of people who don't think very deeply about anything at all. While there is plenty of denial going on, there is another group who are simply satisfied that food comes from supermarkets and it doesn't occur to them to wonder how that came to be.
“Interesting. I had assumed a much higher level of force involved. Thank you for that information.”
It’s my pleasure. As you could probably tell, I have no aversion to talking about dogs. :) Have a great weekend!
LOL! Perfect example of the cluelessness I mentioned in my post above.
Man is unique in that he is animal but not fully so. Some combination of intellect/soul combines to make us aware of our actions and the suffering of other animals.
Some people would like to deny that we are at the top of the food chain with as much natural right as a lion to kill and consume other animals.
That intellect/divine spark compells us to do so with as little suffering to others as manageable.
I can live with that.
So you’re of the belief that humans are animals? Who gave us the name of ‘humans’ or ‘animals’ but us? We have designated ourselves as ‘humans’, but you have designated us as ‘animals’. And I think you mean it literally. Why would you have us all be animals? Have you forgotten that we have our own designation: it’s called ‘human’. Do you not know the difference between humans and animals? That is why we have different names. A human is a human, and an animal is an animal. I don’t know how I could make it any more simple. And I don’t see how you could mix up the two. (Except in the case of... but we won’t go there.)
Fish Fighting will now be exposed from the under-belly of America. Thanks to the remarkable observations of Mr. O’Donnell
. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2. any such living thing other than a human being. 3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc. 4. the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5. an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal. 6. thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal? –adjective 7. of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats. 8. pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. But, he’s still a drunk.
= Send those pictures to O’Dumbell
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.