Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Are We STILL Debating About Michael Vick??

Lawrence O'Donnell is a very smart man. But he said something very stupid last week on NPR. And three times in this still-young week, I saw someone on TV say the same thing. It goes like this:

"Isn't it ridiculous to send a man to prison for killing dogs, when we as a society kill cows and pigs every day? What's the difference?"

Specious doesn't even begin to describe this argument. When someone says this to you, please repeat after me:

"The difference is we don't kill cows and pigs for fun."

It's not "entertainment" to watch cows and pigs die. It's not something we do while drinking beer with our friends. The people who actually kill the cows and pigs do it as a job, not a diversion. None of them would describe it as "invigorating" or "amusing." They wouldn't do it in their yards.

And hunting? I despise hunting. But at least hunters stress the importance of killing quickly, of lessening the suffering. Even the proudest, most ardent hunter wouldn't describe the death of the animal as "entertaining."
He wouldn't kill the animal an inch at a time while cheering.

Forcing dogs to fight is a bloodsport. Seriously. Bloodsport.

Thunderdome, Spartacus, Christians-and-lions kinda stuff. Who could defend it?

Michael Vick did not make a mistake. He sponsored and enjoyed a savage bloodsport for six years. Presumably enough time to realize it was wrong. Or at the very least, illegal.

Plus, and it bears repeating:

He killed dogs with his bare hands!

1 comment:

norm said...

I don't know....the only way into Valhalla is to die by combat, so I think dog fighting may be better that more "humane" means of ending a life.
Along these lines I think terminally ill people shouldn't be euthanised, but should fight to the death in cool "cage matches"
Horses with broken legs should be pumped up on PCP and made to bite each other to death.
All beef should come from mass public bullfights.