What's wrong with killing dogs? by Lawrence O'Donnell re: Vick

[Holly_Hobby]

(This piece shocked me then, and shocks me today)

So it's a federal crime to be mean to dogs? Who knew?

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. 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!!!

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?

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.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/whats-wrong-with-killing-_b_61766.html

[Teaser]

1. The fish nervous system is a pebble

compared to the avalanche that is the dog brain.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I guess we don't all feel as endeared to our canine friends as we might expect.

All of his points are valid, horses, cows, etc., meet very disturbing deaths.

Perhaps his editorial is asking purposefully rhetorical questions.

I don't know.

I like O'Donnell.

EDITED TO ADD: This article is from August 24, 2007.

Hmmmm. Why post it now?

:shrug:

[Holly_Hobby]

4. I felt it was relevant:

Vick is back in the news and so is O'Donnell.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Well, it's certainly a topic for discussion.

I don't hold it against O'Donnell for posting it.

It reads to me like a bit of sarcasm designed to make people question the abysmal treatment of other species, not to condone bad treatment of dogs.

Calling out hypocrisy, it seems.

:thumbsup:

[AndrewP]

3. I get what he's trying to say

It's about the hypocritical behavior of many.

They will be livid at Vick, but will not think twice about having their dog put to sleep because they can't afford to take her with them when they move.

That kind of thing.

It's a shocking way to put it though. But working at an animal shelter on the weekends, I can see exactly what his point is.

[Holly_Hobby]

5. It IS shocking, and you've understood completely n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

6. Whatever degree of validity is established in O'Donnell's piece...

...it doesn't let Vick off the hook for his actions.

Iraqi men, women and children are being fucking disemboweled every day, and the AVERAGE poster on DU is not taking DIRECT and CONSTANT action to stop it.

Does that make it OK?

Sometimes O'Donnell makes sense.

Other times I wipe my ass with Lawrence O'Donnell.

On the Vick piece, I'm gonna go with option TWO. Fuck you, Larry.

[Holly_Hobby]

8. You have valid points, too

Personally, I hope at some point, Vick suffers. I'm not proud of that, but I can't help what I feel.

[ConnorMarc]

10. Go Worship A Dog Then

Why don't you?

[Holly_Hobby]

13. I'd be more inclined to worship a dog vs. a football player n/t

[MisterP]

7. reminds me of when Sam Harris said that the only objection to torture could be an aesthetic one

because malum in se is too "absolutist" and thus ickily religious (just like the Big Bang! the VaticoAyatollahs have their claws on Caltech!)

[janx]

9. Have you ever read A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift?

If you have, you'll understand O'Donnell's satire.

[Holly_Hobby]

12. No, I haven't read it....

Am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Wouldn't be the first time...

[Berry Cool]

17. I like O'Donnell but I don't think this works too well as satire.

It sounds too straight. If he meant it as satire, he needed to make it more over the top.

As it was, first time I read it, I just thought he was nuts.

[xchrom]

14. shrug -- history out of context --

horses and dogs are concretely linked to organizations like the spca -- which where it can -- defends, chickens, pigs, pigeons, etc

dogs and horses are linked to working animals{the history behind laws created to make their lives in some small measure better} -- whose visibly miserable lives moved people to take compassionate measures.

but for some vegetarians on DU better no compassion than some -- or any.

or other DUERS who feel ALL compassion must solely be limited to humans.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Those dogs were tortured and killed for the sake of pleasure.

They were not shooting dogs and eating them.

The sole reason anyone even considers giving Vick slack for his crimes is the fact that he is an entertainer.

[snagglepuss]

16. Well said. nt