The demonizing of Michael Vick and dog fighting: hypocrisy at its finest

  • Thread starter Thread starter moe darklight
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the societal reactions to Michael Vick's involvement in dog fighting and the broader implications of animal treatment in the food industry. Participants explore themes of hypocrisy, moral irony, and the ethics of animal welfare, comparing the treatment of dogs to that of livestock. The conversation includes personal reflections on vegetarianism and the ethics of consuming meat, as well as critiques of societal judgment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that societal condemnation of Vick overlooks the hypocrisy of animal treatment in the food industry, suggesting that many people support practices that are equally or more cruel.
  • There is a call for introspection regarding how society judges individuals like Vick while ignoring the conditions under which livestock are raised.
  • One participant expresses frustration with the tendency to mobilize public outrage through negative emotions rather than constructive dialogue.
  • Another participant highlights perceived inconsistencies in the NFL's disciplinary actions, noting that other players have faced less severe consequences for more serious offenses.
  • Some participants express a belief that animals deserve respect and should not be treated merely as commodities, advocating for humane treatment and ethical consumption practices.
  • There is a mention of the irony in public outrage over individual animal cruelty cases while widespread animal suffering in agriculture is largely ignored.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the hypocrisy of societal judgments regarding animal treatment, while others maintain that Vick's actions are inexcusable regardless of broader issues. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the ethics of animal treatment and societal reactions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference graphic content related to animal treatment, which may influence their arguments. There are also unresolved questions about the effectiveness of emotional persuasion in societal change and the complexities of moral judgment in the context of animal rights.

  • #31
LightbulbSun said:
[...]

o boy...

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebFilms/Drama/WizardScarCrowClose.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
devil-fire and moe.

You continually say how things should be natural and happy.
Why is it that we have canines and incisors?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Mk said:
devil-fire and moe.

You continually say how things should be natural.
Why is it that we have canines and incisors?

I'm not a vegetarian. I never said natural (everything is natural). I'm talking about our responsibility to treat others with compassion and respect, and about our inability for introspection and susceptibility to irrationality.— and Lighbulbsun has generously offered himself as an example.
 
  • #34
moe darklight said:
o boy...

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebFilms/Drama/WizardScarCrowClose.jpg
[/URL]

This is a sign of a man who has nothing to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
moe darklight said:
I'm not a vegetarian. I never said natural (everything is natural). I'm talking about our responsibility to treat others with compassion and respect, and about our inability for introspection and susceptibility to irrationality.— and Lighbulbsun has generously offered himself as an example.

Right. Because if you wanted to make me an example you would at least reply to my last post. Oh wait, you didn't. So let me get this straight, you want us to accept Michael Vick and his petty dog fighting because we ourselves have people slaughter animals for us to eat?
 
  • #36
devil-fire said:
are you saying it is acceptable to torture animals because one way or another, we have to kill something to survive? and at the same time, objecting to dog fighting because it is unnecessary and ultimately inhumane? I'm trying to better understand your opinions on this

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

  • You cannot juxtapose a process we use to create food and someone's sadistic hobby
  • Vegetarians need to get off their imaginary moral cloud because they too must eat a living thing
  • Complex problems are complex. You can't just scream mantras that have a positive tone behind them and then say 'Look Here! See how simple that was?!'
 
  • #37
LightbulbSun said:
This is a sign of a man who has nothing to say.

actually it's a visual pun which could take two meanings— one being an attack on your argumentation skills, and the second a blatant ad-hominem attack on your person (since you already got the ball rolling on those)... I usually wouldn't've, but I'm in a bit of an impish mood lately and decided to go for it.

as for having anything to say. It's true: I had nothing more to say. I've already said enough and I couldn't possibly answer your previous posts without repeating myself... which would be pointless seeing as you obviously don't bother to read other people's posts anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
moe darklight said:
actually it's a visual pun which could take two meanings— one being an attack on your argumentation skills, and the second a blatant ad-hominem attack on your person (since you already got the ball rolling on those)... I usually wouldn't've, but I'm in a bit of an impish mood lately and decided to go for it.

I obviously knew what the picture meant. I was just saying that since that was all you posted that you had nothing to refute, and therefore nothing to add. Why is that?

as for having anything to say. It's true: I had nothing more to say. I've already said enough and I couldn't possibly answer your previous posts without repeating myself... which would be pointless seeing as you obviously don't bother to read other people's posts anyway.

This discussion is obviously pointless since you don't bother to accurately interpret my posts.
 
  • #39
LightbulbSun said:
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

  • You cannot juxtapose a process we use to create food and someone's sadistic hobby


  • i think that in several cases, the process used to create food is unnecessarily impartial in regards to the well being of the animal before it is slaughtered. i think that it is a cost saver to cut the tail off of a big and pull its teeth out well before it is about to be killed.

    i object stuff like this for the same reason i object to dog fighting, because i think it is unnecessarily and inhumane. I'm not saying it is unnecessary to eat meat, I'm just saying it is unnecessary to do things like pull an animal's teeth out and cut its tail off without anesthetic.
 

Similar threads

Why Does Viewing Animal Cruelty Invoke Deep Emotional Responses?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K