TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Vick to plead guilty.
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

I can't believe Vick stooped to something so stupid and low when he is so damn talented.

it's kind of sad.

I'm going to guess he will serve 6 months of Jail Time out of 1 year or more.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous yes. murder is a term reserved for humans only. There's no debate to be had there. The term was devised to describe the exact act vern already mentioned. does that mean that it's fine to go around hanging dogs? not by any stretch of the imagination. however, murder is worse than killing animals, regardless of how friendly or domesticated & loved the animals might be. I'd even put rape above killing animals on the morally reprehensible list.

You didn't even read the post he quoted, did you?



The value of a human life is definitely not fact.

Edit: Also, your etymology is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Murder" is in no way, shape, or form reserved for humans.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous yes. murder is a term reserved for humans only. There's no debate to be had there. The term was devised to describe the exact act vern already mentioned. does that mean that it's fine to go around hanging dogs? not by any stretch of the imagination. however, murder is worse than killing animals, regardless of how friendly or domesticated & loved the animals might be. I'd even put rape above killing animals on the morally reprehensible list.

How is it different? Humans are animals, too. What is so much more morally reprehensible about killing within your own species than outside of it?

You can make this a semantical argument if you like (which you apparently do?), you could even cite hundreds of cases which establish legal precedence. But morality and the law have very little to do with one another, no matter how often one takes the others' name in vain.

The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

Needless to say, I'm with Halcyon+On+On 100% on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT You didn't even read the post he quoted, did you? The value of a human life is definitely not fact.

I'm sure some people do think that other animals' lives are more valuable than those of humans, but that's nowhere near the norm and certainly not an opinion I share. So, I suppose you're right--it's not a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On How is it different? Humans are animals, too. What is so much more morally reprehensible about killing within your own species than outside of it? You can make this a semantical argument if you like (which you apparently do?), you could even cite hundreds of cases which establish legal precedence. But morality and the law have very little to do with one another, no matter how often one takes the others' name in vain. The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

I'm only making it an argument about semantics in so far as the term 'murder' is being applied to actions involving dogs. I never claimed that it is 'so much more morally reprehensible.' By the time you've reached the aforementioned acts, you're well beyond the boundaries of normal human behavior. If you do honestly feel that there is no difference between any act, regardless of the living species affected, then we're going nowhere anyway, because we disagree at a fundamental level.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous I'm sure some people do think that other animals' lives are more valuable than those of humans, but that's nowhere near the norm and certainly not an opinion I share. So, I suppose you're right--it's not a fact.

So how does that affect anything anyone has discussed in this thread?



I was under the impression we were discussing my views, not societies.

Further, the value of any life is without doubt subjective, so whether or not society as a whole would answer the question "Is human or animal life more valuable?" with a resounding "HUMAN!" has absolutely no bearing on the fact that if you asked an individual whether or not they'd rather see their rabbit Fluffkins die as opposed to a convicted rapist, they'd inevitably choose Fluffkins.

Societal "norms" in cases like these have little meaning to me. It's all subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

while there's very little difference with regard to the thought process behind such acts, the end result of one is a dead human, and the other, a dead animal. I can't even claim to be certain that one is the product of a more twisted mind, but in my opinion, the death of a dog or other animal is not as significant as that of a human. Clearly, you disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous If you do honestly feel that there is no difference between any act, regardless of the living species affected, then we're going nowhere anyway, because we disagree at a fundamental level.

I'm saddened that you think we have nothing to discuss.

Tell me - what is the morality of a knife?

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous while there's very little difference with regard to the thought process behind such acts, the end result of one is a dead human, and the other, a dead animal. I can't even claim to be certain that one is the product of a more twisted mind, but in my opinion, the death of a dog or other animal is not as significant as that of a human. Clearly, you disagree.

I couldn't possibly disagree more, especially when it comes to adult humans who continue to torture and maim animals - which is exactly why animal torture is one of the general precursors to psychopathy they look for in children.

Edit: And in my opinion, the significance isn't in the death, it's in the act.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'm saddened that you think we have nothing to discuss. Tell me - what is the morality of a knife?

We could discuss it, but we disagree at the most basic level for a discussion like this that the likelihood of any significant concession from either of us is nearly nonexistent. The only possible outcome is one in which the 'victor' is determined by debating ability & will.

Inanimate objects don't have morals.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Edit: And in my opinion, the significance isn't in the death, it's in the act.

In a perfect world, every act would result in punishment corresponding to the level of malice in the intent, but that's impossible to determine on a case-to-case basis, and it is entirely independent of the act, itself, meaning that it could or could not support your earlier statement that you feel that the killing of all animals is equatable to that of a human.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous In a perfect world, every act would result in punishment corresponding to the level of malice in the intent, but that's impossible to determine.

I'm hardly advocating that we determine punishment for all crimes based on malice and intent (which are impossible to prove 100% of the time), however the actions individuals like Vick are engaged in clearly indicate a serious level of social deviance and malice to which I believe the law is not only capable of, but is responsible for, punishing appropriately.

Unfortunately, he won't be.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I'm hardly advocating that we determine punishment for all crimes based on malice and intent (which are impossible to prove 100% of the time), however the actions individuals like Vick are engaged in clearly indicate a serious level of social deviance and malice to which I believe the law is not only capable of, but is responsible for, punishing appropriately. Unfortunately, he won't be.

I agree. I just feel that 'appropriately' would refer to a different level of punishment if he had hung & drowned 8 humans, instead.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous I agree. I just feel that 'appropriately' would refer to a different level of punishment if he had hung & drowned 8 humans, instead.

In general, I think most people (myself included) would agree, however there's no denying that too is subjective.

Just look at the disparity in sentencing for those who've committed murders.

I guess the only concrete thing I'd say on the matter is that sometimes killing animals is worse than humans, and sometimes it's not.

So can I file a lawsuit against the boxing federation?

Put him away for life.

question for all of you:

Do you think he deserves more or less time in jail than Rae Carruth?

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous question for all of you: Do you think he deserves more or less time in jail than Rae Carruth?

Third time today I've been asked that question, no lie.

Less, but probably significantly more time focusing on his mental health.

I think Ray Carruth was probably just a selfish asshole (bad enough in it's own right), I think Vick might legitimately be a socio- or psychopath.

But that's just me.

This bullshit happens all the time. The only reason we're hearing about it is because it's Vick (who isnt even that good of a football player to begin with).

Its lame, and Im sick of hearing about it. Its almost as bad as Paris.

as ang said, shit happens all the time. bullfighting happens in alot of countries legally. so does cock fighting. iv never heard about dog fighting legally but we all know it happens illegally. honestly i really dont care, obviously it is bad and cruel but there will always be people hurting animals no matter what.

i just hope vic gets fucked in the ass while in jail. i dont care if he spends a year or a month. just a nice ass rape would make me happy.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 a nice ass rape would make me happy.

Sig material, right there.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous question for all of you: Do you think he deserves more or less time in jail than Rae Carruth?

a lot less.

quote:

Originally posted by verndogs a lot less.

well, until someone claims otherwise, I guess I'll reserve some hope for this place.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie This bullshit happens all the time. The only reason we're hearing about it is because it's Vick (who isnt even that good of a football player to begin with). Its lame, and Im sick of hearing about it. Its almost as bad as Paris.

Are you kidding me? You have got to be off your rocker if you really think this situation can be compared to Paris Hilton's antics (and if you really do think there is an analogy to be made, I'd love to hear the details of it).

The bottom line is that regardless of whether or not this happens all the time, it shouldn't. I could give fuck all of it's Vick or some asshole down the street from me, but quite frankly, I think it's great that someone like Vick is going down hard for this, because if one person is appalled enough by the situation to do a bit more to stop it from happening again, something good came out of it.

Really though, I think it's great that so many of you are apathetic and indifferent with regard to torturing animals.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.