http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-re...,0,527704.story

Animal-rights activist meets with Michael Vick



Getting back into the NFL is more than enough incentive for him to "regret" (getting caught).

He has a pretty easy choice. Either be a "positive influence" and "learn from his experience" or stand in the unemployment line.

Actually, I would like to know if anyone of you think he can get back into the NFL. I believe he can and will - even though they said he would never play at that level again.

Thank the almighty.

I saw the title "Strange Bedfellows" and expected a barb boudoir photograph.

frankie, since you got all upset because I have more than one home and more than one ISP, I feel I should tell you we're leaving for a vacation this afternoon. Therefore, should I post again sometime in the next three months, it will be from at least one more ISP to add to your list.

xmag I don't mind you being snotty and babyish ... I love the bedroom of our house where we're going today. You can watch the eagles hunt over the lake, the moon rise and the rascally little raccoon who steals the hummingbird feeder.

Have a nice summer y'all.
==========================

Here's the answer to my question -

Its all about the money.

==========================

Falcons' owner: Vick has paid debt to society

52 minutes ago

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — The owner of the Atlanta Falcons says Michael Vick has paid his debt to society and merits a second chance.

Falcons owner Arthur Blank — who once gave Vick a $130 million contract — said Wednesday that the quarterback is taking positive steps by wanting to work with humane societies and making other changes in his life.

Vick left a federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan. Wednesday morning after serving most of a 23-month sentence for involvement in a dogfighting ring. Blank, whose team still owns the player's contractual rights, said he has been in written communication with Vick since the sentence began.

"There's no question Michael's paid his debt to society, obviously," Blank said during a break at the NFL owners' meetings in South Florida

Vick is making a big mistake in working with the animal rights industry, especially the Humane Society. Pacelle himself said he wanted Vick's dogs killed. The H$U$ wants to use him so they can rake in more $$$.

barb


So there's no windows in the rest of the sanitarium?

I thought she was describing pictures on her wall.

Barb squawks:

Will you be adding another name to yours?

Did I really say that? Good one if I must say so myself.

In a way. I had you say it in that particular episode.

So you can see that even way back then, I had some measure of respect for your practicality and perception. Though you used to irk me at times.

Even if his suspension were lifted no team would be willing to deal with the PR nightmare that would ensue if they were to sign him.

Besides... the guy ain't even that great a QB.

if you will , point me to where i got all upset about your ip numbers . any body ?????
i don't care from what nut house you post from .

you are the most untruthful person i have talked to barb .

I think it must be a matter of principle with her, because she will tell a lie when the truth would serve as well.

You irked me first.

You sure are deep, Frankie. The way you pegged her is so obvious. Any house she posts from becomes a nut house because of her presence . High five to Frankie.

Of course no one can point out where you talked about my ip. Don't you remember all the emails you have sent me? Here's a portion of one -

************************************************************

ethic disdiscussion
think what what you wish i really do not care . now ,,, i can change your pas...

Mar 11
ethic disdiscussionLoading...
Mar 11
ethic disdiscussion
to me

show details Mar 11


Reply

Follow up message

think what what you wish i really do not care .

now ,,, i can change your pasword and you can try that
you can remove all cookies from my board and try to sign in .
you could try to sign in from a different ISP ,, you have more than a few .

since i answer to no one , if i wanted to ban you you would be . i also do not play little games like changing paswords . you are not ban now or have you every been hendered in any way by me from posting on my board .




Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:01:08 -0600
*******************************************************************************

Do you remember PART of my reply?

********************************************************************************
*

To be fair, I suspect the problem is in the email address. I used a
very old address that I discontinued sometime ago. I had a similar
problem with a different board whom I trust completely and the admin
discovered that was the problem. Since I no longer use this email
address, I may discontinue it. Or maybe not. Doesn't really matter.

Yes, I use several ISPs. I have two homes, we travel a lot and often
carry a mini-laptop with us. Most hotels have wifi and I have posted
from those in the past and will again in the future. Trying to figure
that out and keep track and report back to the others - oh my my my -
It must drive you all crazy.

********************************************************************************
***

This post is from yet another very legitimate IP and no, you won't be able to trace me so don't bother trying.

********************************************************************************
******

Back to the topic -

What Dave said ... I'm not up on sports but what I read is that the biggest reason Vick was thrown out of the NFL is that he gambled - something the NFL clearly forbids in the contracts the players sign.

I also wonder about other factors. He's not a kid anymore and there's always new talent.

Whatever, I doubt he's remorseful for anything except getting caught. I can't imagine what he must feel about losing that much money and knowing that he has no way of ever getting back to such a highly paid position. He threw it all away.

Barb writes:

Are you nuts? (No need to answer.)

Far from appearing "all upset" about your penchant for posting from different ISPs, Frankie recommends that as an option to remedy the problems in posting that you were complaining of.

You look stupider and more dishonest everytime you post here. If you didn't exist, it damn sure would have been fun to invent you.

Sheesh.

They forbid gambling period....or gambling on the outcome of games?



So what you're saying is that dogfighting is pretty small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.

You and I happen to agree on that.

If someone wants to pit their dogs against other dogs, I say let 'em.

If someone wants to pit rats against captive predators, I say let them too.

That's called rationality and tolerance.

Two things that perhaps have no meaning for yourself.

barb ,,, thank you

Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer
by Todd Steinberg





I have been studying libertarian theory for the better part of two years now, and last year I read Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable with much alacrity. Afterwards, I wondered if there were any "lost chapters" that he could have written, especially now that over 30 years have passed since it was first published. Inspired by recent events, I have taken an opportunity to write about someone who clearly needs to be defended.

Two years ago, when professional football player Michael Vick was arrested for financing and organizing dog fights in his backyard, he didn't have a single friend. When a person leaves a dog in his car without rolling down the windows, we look upon the owner as an irresponsible felon, so you can imagine the outrage when people learned that Michael Vick had trained dogs and put them in harm's way for the sake of sport.

Now that Michael Vick is out of prison, perhaps we can have a conversation as to why he was arrested in the first place. I take the position that animals are private property and that as long as Michael Vick peaceably acquired the dogs, it's nobody's right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his possessions.



Though some may find dogfighting to be barbaric and uncivilized, that is no reason why the practice should be outlawed. Currently, there are thousands of businesses whose purpose is to raise animals, slaughter them, cut them into manageable pieces, package them, and ship them worldwide. There are advertising and marketing operations that aim to increase our consumption of animals. Television networks regularly feature people who demonstrate their ability to cook animals in novel ways so that we do not grow bored of their taste. These people learn their techniques from schools built for this purpose and some of the graduates write books about the art of cooking and eating of animals.

So if one believes that fighting animals is barbaric, then certainly eating them is just as barbaric if not worse. Some people believe it's inhumane to use animals for any purpose, whether it be for food, clothing, shelter, milking, sport, burden, service, companionship, exhibition, or experimentation. If we were to take the position that animals have equal rights, then no human has more rights than any other animal. We couldn't make any distinction between an elephant and a nematode for if we did, we'd quickly revert to a system where humans are more equal than cows, and cows are more equal than chickens. For a system of animal rights to work, humans could only do what they wanted to do so long as they weren't infringing on the rights on any other animal.

If an absolute system of animal rights were adopted, then we'd have no choice but for all of us to go vegan. However, even if we all unanimously decided to refrain from consuming meat and dairy, it wouldn't be enough to save us from having to violate the rights of animals on a regular basis. If we were to dig up a parcel of land to plant crops, we are disrupting the ecosystem of whatever animals reside there. Even if we were to forgo cultivation and revert to the gathering of nuts and berries, we are again encroaching on the private property of animals such as bears and squirrels who acquired homesteading rights to the nut trees and berry bushes long before humans arrived there.

Though we may personally feel it's immoral to eat animals or milk them, keep them as pets or beasts of burden, it's equally immoral to throw someone in a cage and take their property for not adequately following someone else's arbitrary rules on the proper treatment of animals. Declaring animals as private property is the only moral and consistent way to deal with the topic of animal cruelty. It is your right to do what you will with the animals you own just as it's your neighbor's right to tell you how much better your life would be if you'd minimize your animal consumption.

Greater than the cruelty of animals is the cruelty of hypocrisy. The day Michael Vick was charged with the crime of endangering animals, how many of the arresting FBI agents had bacon with their breakfast?

June 3, 2009

BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!

What a bunch of bullshit. I see how he conveniently avoided addressing Vick's method of disposal, which was more horrendous than his crime of fighting dogs. I believe if dogfighting was his only crime the public and media wouldn't have been as outraged, but hanging, drowning, slamming to the ground, electrocuting is fine? Oh right, so long as it's your fucking property it's no one's business. I'm grateful the majority of folks don't follow this perverted line of thinking.

There are awkward aspects to this, Grace.

Would the majority consider Mick's treatment of those dogs as undefendable? Probably.

Would the majority of people agree that one should have the right to do with their property as they wish?
I supect so.

Either it was Mick's property or..........it wasn't? If it was, he's got the right to do as he pleases, however stupid and moronic it is. If he isn't allowed to; then who really owns those dogs? Mick? The majority? No one?

It's the definition of 'property' and 'ownership' come up again.

Iowa

You contradicted yourself.

Iowa

Apparently he didn't have the right to do as he pleased. Dog fighting is againgst the law, as is animal cruelty. Not sure he got off on the later, but it certainly didn't help his defense. Just because you own a dog (property), doesn't give you the right to electrocute it. There are animal cruelty laws and I don't see what property vs. ownership have to do with shit.

That is a great article.

I don't see where iowa contradicted himself at all. He is correct, either vick owned the dogs or he didn't. If someone else dictates the use of your property is it really your property, or does it belong to the public.

Iowa


Had to read that again. Sorry Nic I didn't know what you were getting at. So to re-address this, I don't believe the majority of people would agree one should have the right to do with their "property" as they wish, because as it stands, regardless animals are legally defined as property, the majority of people do not believe animals should be mistreated, starved, abandoned, electrocuted, beaten, burnt, dragged, etc. by their owners or otherwise. People don't have the right to mistreat animals regardless they own them. Tethering laws would be another example of not doing anything you wish to your "property". Pffsst. I use that term so loosely. I don't consider my animals property. They're mine yes. But certainly not property. One day the laws will change to guardianship..

I'm curious to see if society will decay to that point. Its easy for the morally challenged groups in the animal rights industry to fleece money from a largely unsuspecting public under the false pretense of helping animals when times are relatively good. As they worsen groups like the HSUS have upped their thug tactics because if the cash doesn't keep flowing then they're out of business and they are a business.

That is the issue grace. If america was as it should be, then the opinion of the public would be irrelevant where private property is concerned.
Vicks dogs were his property. As disgusting as some see his actions, they had no effect on anyone else and society as a whole was not negatively affected by them. Therefore they should in no way be illegal. There are however too many folks who believe that everything concerns them.

Are you for those anti-pet laws as well? There is nothing wrong with tying out a dog if its done right. Here we have just another example of the animal rights industry wanting to make it harder for people to own dogs. They never do anything to make it more enjoyable or easier because thats not what they want.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with tethering a dog if it's done right, as does the law make exceptions as per below. Unfortunately there are idiots out there who ruined it for the good dog owners, thus the law. Tying a dog 24/7 in all weather, allowing the collar to become embedded in the neck, too short a chain, leaving the dog for long periods of time and come back to find the dog hung himself over a fence or something. The tethering law was mostly so dogs wouldn't live on chains their entire life. And I agree with that. Why have a dog living on a chain? And by the way, don't blame everything concerning animal welfare on AR. Unless there's no difference to you?


Mono County Animal Control would like to advise all dog owners and caretakers in the County that the State of California has enacted a law restricting the "tethering" of dogs. The new law, which takes effect January 1, 2007, makes it illegal for a person to "tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object."

The new law contains a number of exceptions to this general prohibition on tethering.

First, it does not prohibit a dog from being attached to a "running line, pulley, or trolley system," as long as the dog is not connected to the system by a choke or pinch collar.

Nor does the law prohibit the tethering of a dog in a campground or recreational area if required by the rules of the campground or recreational area.

Also, the law allows a person tot tether a dog for a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 3 hours in a 24-hour period, in order to complete a temporary task, and to tether a dog in connection with an activity conducted pursuant to a license issues by the State of California.

Finally, the law permits a person to tether a dog while engaged in an activity directly related to shepherding, herding livestock, or cultivating agricultural products.

A violation of this new anti-tethering law constitutes an infraction or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances. A person convicted on an infraction will have to pay a fin of up to $250 for each dog illegally tethered, while a person convicted of a misdemeanor will have to pay a fine of up to $1000 for each dog illegally tethered and, in addition, may be sentenced to up to six months in the county jail.

Mono County Animal Control is committed to the welfare of all pets and sincerely hopes that all dog owners and caretakers in Mono County will learn about and voluntarily comply with this new state law.

Source: Mono County Health and Human Services

Ironically, many communities still have public safety statutes requiring that dogs be kept fenced or tethered. Until under 20 years ago most humane societies promoted tethering as a second-best alternative to fencing, as part of their effort to discourage petkeepers from letting animals roam at large.

Unsterilized male dogs have been known to be more aggressive, and female dogs with litters have been known to be more reactive, since Biblical times. Licensing ordinances that set lower fees for sterilized dogs already exist in most of the U.S., and many jurisdictions have additional legislation to try to boost the sterilization rate. Children are the victims of about three out of four dog attacks. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention analysis holds that this is primarily because children spend the most time close to dogs, and are less experienced than most adults at knowing when a dog may bite. Many bite prevention programs already target children, but some of the common tips can be misleading with pit bulls, who have been bred in part to exhibit behavior that may deceive foes in a fight, and have often had their ears and tails cropped to further obscure their
body language.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reported in a 1991 study that tethered dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than dogs who roam free. Tethering tends to increase dogs' territoriality and likelihood of delivering a reactive bite, since a tied dog cannot run away from a perceived threat. Further, the tether often trips the attack victim, enabling the dog to maul a person who otherwise might escape unharmed.

Since January 1, 2005, the ANIMAL PEOPLE files indicate, tethering has been a factor in 55 of 174 life-threatening or fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada of which we have record (32%), but was involved in only four of 35 cases abroad (11%), where dogs are much less often tied.Tethering was also a factor in eight of 31 dog-shootings by U.S. police (26%).In some cases dogs usually kept tied attacked people and/or were shot after escaping. In others, the dogs attacked while tied.

Until 2005, the ANIMAL PEOPLE files on dog attacks were not logged in a way that left tethering history easily accessible, but the breed-specific log of life-threatening and fatal attacks goes back to September 1982. Through March 2006, 2,081 dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada qualified for listing: 1,027 by pit bull terriers (49%), 399 by Rottweilers (19%), 2% by pit/Rott mixes, and 323 by the seven next most often involved breeds combined: wolf hybrids, German shepherds and their close mixes, chows, Akitas, huskies, and boxers.

Just 10 breeds and their close mixes accounted for 86% of all life-threatening and fatal dog attacks. Among those breeds, only German shepherds and their mixes have consistently ranked among the 10 most popular. Pit bulls, now a "top 10 breed," for the first time ever, appear to have increased from less than 1% of the U.S. dog population for most of the 20th century to nearly 6% now.Accompanying the six-fold increase in the number of pit bulls has been an eight-fold increase in the number of human deaths and maimings by pit bulls.

Breed-specific legislation, long opposed by the American Kennel Club, the American SPCA, and the Humane Society of the U.S., is no longer actively opposed by HSUS, and has won support around the U.S. and Canada. According to the AKC, 37 jurisdictions in 17 states were considering breed-specific ordinances as of mid-March 2006.

The American Canine Foundation, which backed the Toledo lawsuit, in early March 2006 served notice of intent to sue seeking to overturn a breed-specific ordinance adopted on February 22, 2006 in Auburn, Washington. The Auburn ordinance lists 12 breeds in all: pit bulls, 10 closely related "fighting" breeds, and Akitas.

The most sweeping pit bull ban to date was enacted in 2005 in Ontario, Canada, covering the entire province, but "Toronto will not fully enforce the ban unless the prov-ince helps to pay the costs," Toronto Star reporter Paul Moloney disclosed on March 23. "The city budget committee did not support an animal services department request for funds to hire 10 more animal control officers," whom the city claimed would be needed."If the province wants a higher standard of enforcement, then we need money," said budget committee vice chair Joe Mihevic."It's our hope that costs will not increase significantly because we
expect citizens will comply with the law," returned Ontario Ministry of Justice spokesperson Brendan Crawley. "They will keep their pit bulls muzzled and leashed, they will get their pit bulls neutered, and therefore we don't anticipate costs will increase significantly."

Anti-tethering laws have contrastingly met little opposition since 2003, when Connecticut became the first state to enact an anti-tethering law. Most recently, the Fort Lauderdale city council voted unanimously on March 22, 2006 to follow Hollywood, Dania Beach, Pembroke Park, and Hallandale Beach in banning prolonged tethering, at request of the Broward County Humane Society and Mothers Against Dog Chaining. Bloomington, Indiana banned prolonged tethering in February 2006."There are currently at least 80 cities, counties, and states in the nation with laws banning or limiting chaining," according to Tammy Grimes, of Tipton, Pennsylvania, who founded the anti-tethering group Dogs Deserve Better in 2001.Mothers Against Dog Chaining, empowering mothers whose children have been hurt by tied dogs to testify against tethering, is a project of Dogs Deserve Better. Grimes, who is also associate web producer for ANIMAL PEOPLE, is now organizing an online support group for bereaved members.The most prominent Dogs Deserve Better activity since 2002 has been Have A Heart for Chained Dogs Week, in which anti-chaining activists raise public awareness by delivering Valentines, treat coupons, and brochures to chained or otherwise closely confined dogs. A record 5,277 Valentine packets were delivered in 2006, to dogs in 46 of the 50 states and many dogs in Canada.

A third approach to trying to reduce dog attacks is raising the penalties for keeping dangerous dogs. Recent pit bull attack fatalities helped higher penalties to clear the Oklahoma house on March 2, and the Virginia senate on March 8. However, stiffer penalties tend to discourage keepers from acknowledging dogs who attack. Further, penalties for keeping a dangerous dog usually apply only after someone is injured.


http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/breedbans.html

A complete crock of shit law. My dogs my decision. Dogs have been kept on chains successfully and safely and in good health for years and years.

Anti-tethering laws are pushed by the animal rights industry. The HSUS, PETA and other animal rights industry groups push them hard because they are anti-pet. These laws won't stop the idiots from abusing animals, they'll either keep doing the same thing or they'll do it in a different way. I would rather a dog not be tied out 24/7 but I also think its cruel for people to have fat dogs. It can be far more cruel in fact. Would I support a law so people would be charged if they had a fat dog? No.

How can the idiots be stopped and if we make more and more laws then where is that line drawn?



Sterilized dogs are also known to be more aggressive and dog people have known that for years. Now there are studies to support it. Bitches with litters are more reactive? Yes because they have something to protect. Thats a natural behavior.



The animal rights industry is misrepresenting that study. I know because I have a copy of it. According to the study you should also have no children in your house because children are more likely to get bit, no male dogs and no German Shepherds off the top of my head. All 3 instances had a higher percentage of bites than 2.8. The 'study' was also done on a relatively small sample from one pound. Thats how much that '2.8 times' statistic means.



A beautiful example of how ARs just toss out a bull$hit statement and expect no one to question it.



An animal rights industry group will never represent this accurately. Anyone whose taken a beginning statistics class can tell you how easy it is to lie with statistics.



Again questionable in part because so many people can't identify breeds correctly.



The HSUS has actively pushed FOR BSL for quite some time. They've never lifted a finger to stop it. Pit bulls are an easy target, the general public is fairly easily manipulated and it all fits into their anti-pet agenda. PETA just flat out says pit bulls should die off "for their own good".



That is due to a largely ignorant and easily manipulated public. What anti-pet groups like Dogs Deserve Better do is show pictures of the worst of the worst and pretend its the norm. If they were honest with people these laws would never be passed. Tammy Grimes in particular is a real POS. She used to encourage people to steal ANY tied out dog.

The animal rights industry also uses 'tethering' rather than tying out for emotional impact.



This is a classic animal rights industry tactic. Exaggerate a problem then claim to have a solution. The solution of course is 'for the animals good' but it isn't. I don't know if you've ever read any proposed dangerous dog legislation but its written so that someone could file a complaint if a dog barked at them. ARs have them written that way purposely.



The purpose of that anti-pet law is not animal welfare but to open the door a little wider for even more restrictions. California is very close to passing what people are calling the Pet Extermination Act (mandatory spay/neuter). Their anti tying out law makes no sense whatsoever. The people who wrote it want to make it increasingly more difficult for people to own animals. A lot of people tie out dogs in their backyard as an added security and safety for the dog. Some dogs do better tied out than in a kennel. Its up to the owner to make those decisions not anti-pet groups.

rpedog

So you're saying those mothers who's kids were killed or maimed by tethered dogs were ARA's? County Animal Controls and officials have a secret ARA agenda? The general public has nothing to do with these laws? They're a bunch of idiots too? You'll have to support that claim. Every time there's an animal protection or welfare law ARA is blamed. It's not always the case. I surmise it makes you feel more validated or comfortable to believe the ARA crazed zealots are responsible for all animal protection laws, versus normal everyday people, like yourself.

rpedog

I think laws are better than a free for all. At least when and if the idiots are caught, they're punished. Why do we have laws against murder if people will still commit murder? Should they get away with it if caught?


Unsterilized male dogs have been known to be more aggressive, and female dogs with litters have been known to be more reactive, since Biblical times.

rpedog

Do you have a link to that? I'm not familiar with it.


rpedog

That goes without being said. It's not like they're wondering WHY they are more reactive. It's not the point.
Irresponsible people who do not S/N (not those who make a living from breeding animals) is the point.


The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reported in a 1991 study that tethered dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than dogs who roam free. Tethering tends to increase dogs' territoriality and likelihood of delivering a reactive bite, since a tied dog cannot run away from a perceived threa


rpedog


Now the animal rights industry is the Center for Disease Control too? AR's got ahold of that study through an undercover agent working for the Center for Disease Control and secretly edited it to misrepresent it?


rpedog

Pray tell us more. Where's the link to the study or is there none? How did you come to have a copy of it?


Further, the tether often trips the attack victim, enabling the dog to maul a person who otherwise might escape unharmed.


rpedog

I'll admit it's a bit lame to mention it, altho no doubt has happened. It's not so far fetched. Still, I don't blame ARA's.

I'll come back later for the other half of your post.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. They are being used by the animal rights industry to whip up emotion to pass anti-pet laws.



Many people have no idea how much of a cancer ARs are in society. They are behind the vast majority of anti-pet laws and are constanly lobbying for more. The animal rights industry agenda isn't secret but the biggest groups like the HSUS do try and hide it. They do constantly push their agenda. The laws are NOT about animal welfare or protection. That one the big lies of animal rights. They are doing what they can to make it increasingly more onerous for even responsible people to have pets. Its called incrementalism.



You can't compare anti-pet laws to laws against murder. We are slowly losing our liberty because people want to control other people's lives. The majority of pets are in good homes.



There's a summary of adverse health affects of spay neuter here - http://saveourdogs.net/category/health/. It has links to a couple of full papers. There's a lot more out there now that supports those findings.



I said the animal rights industry misrepresented whats in the study.



I have a copy of the entire thing because I paid for it. Its not free. I also have copies of other studies being cited. Do you just blindly believe what you're told?

I do have a link to the abstract of the study.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...stract/93/6/913




You don't blame them for lying with impunity?

But all those same people think it's okay to treat their animals however they treat them, even if someone else happens to thinks it's mistreatment.

Do you have a specific example in mind, as I can't think of one myself.

I was very inclusive in that I said "all those same people", so you should be able to just take your pick.

I still don't know what you're saying. The majority of people ("all those same people" you referred to) do not believe animals should be starved, burned, thrown down a well etc., even if someone else thinks it's mistreatment?

I really don't know what to do other than repeat myself, Grace.

All those people think that it's okay to treat their animals however it is they treat them....regardless whether someone else thinks it's mistreatment.

Can you give an example where someone would think treating your animals humanely would be considered mistreatment [by someone]?

A cockfighter doesn't mistreat his fowl, yet other people think he does.

Someone who keeps cats as captive "pets" doesn't think she is mistreating her cats, yet other people think that is indeed mistreatment.

RF

That's a pretty broad statement. I'm certain there are cockfighters who mistreat their fowl. The losers come to mind. Amongst other examples.

RF

Cats are not wild animals. I could see your point with keeping a tiger captive, however.

You make my point for me again.

You used an example of keeping pet cats captive, which does not follow. I merely clarified it for you. I wasn't stating tigers were being mistreated per se, I stated cats are not being held captive. They're domestic pets. Tigers are not domestic. They're wild animals.

I think you're using those wild irrational leaps to just fuck with me.

Wanna discuss whether or not the fish in my aquarium are captive?

Sure. But we first must determine if they are wild vs. farm raised. Can you verify if they were netted by divers from the ocean and placed in your tank?

Grace: are you inferring RF got his fish from a ghuppy-mill?

You understand that the author's point wasn't whether Vick's actions were "horrendous" or not?

His argument is that nobody has the right to force their arbitrary will on other people. You disagree. Fine. You are correct when you say lots of people agree with you. That's a large...perhaps the difference between libertarians and other people.

Oh yes, libertarians will agree that people can force their arbitrary will on others. The fact they can is self-evident and part of libertarian evidence. But claiming it is a right just cheapens and diminishes the concept of rights and ultimately makes it meaningless. When people claim they have the right to force their will on others, they are in actuality claiming they have the power to do so. By that argument, a rapist has the right to toss a girl to the ground and have his way. And indeed, Vick had the right to do what he wanted with his dogs right up to the point someone else came along and claimed their own right to stop him.

Ah, but then you will rise up and invoke the idea of The Law as the legitimate Will of Others that may be forcibly imposed. Fine...then admit that Muslims have the right to stone a 14 yo girl to death for going out on a date. Admit that the Japanese rapists running amok in Nanking had every right to do so. Admit that when dogfighting was legal there was a right to fight dogs that was subsequently infringed in a way not provided for in the Constitution.

You'll still just be saying that a right to do something can be distinguished by whether someone can muster sufficient force to get away with doing something.

Nice concept of rights...I don't want any part of 'em.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You seriously propose that out of the eight or nine fish in my aquarium, some are possibly captives and some are not? And that their state of being captive or not...regardless they are all held in the same container under the exact same conditions....depends on something that transpired before they were placed in that container? ROFLMFAO!

That's a good one Grace.

That I figured you would try it is why I used the aquarium example.