Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What if Peyton manning faught dogs

snelld7
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:21:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Would Peyton have gon to jail because of dog fighting, or do you think he would have just been through counseling, house arrest/probation, and a fine.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? It goes around, DUH!!
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:57:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I live in the South East United States and law enforcement has been getting tough on dog and cock fighting in our area. Not only are the practices repulsive, but the other illegal activities that take place make them a danger. If Peyton was involved in such acts he would have been arrested and jailed. His status would not have helped him and may, just like Vick's, have hurt him. This was not a race issue.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 3:57:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They made an example out of Vick because he's a popular celebrity. I agree that they would have done the same thing to any other celebrity engaging in similar activities. The point isn't to punish the individual, but to make a statement about the seriousness of the crime. Plus, if you want to be technical, Vick's happening to be black is actually a good thing for this type of publicity; dog fights and the like are a common problem in low-income, ultra urban areas (a.k.a. The Ghetto) where more inhabitants happen to be black. Do the math. And don't even dream of playing the race card in a situation like this where that clearly isn't even a factor.
President of DDO
snelld7
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 10:12:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not a race card at all, nor am I saying fighting dogs is good (although I dont think he should go to jail for it), I'm simply saying do you think peyton would have. Nowhere did I say, "If he was white, would he have," What makes you jump to conclusions that, that's what I'm sayin anyways?
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? It goes around, DUH!!
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:25:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Michael Vick = Star Black NFL Quarterback
Peyton Manning = Star White NFL Quarterback

I don't see the racial issue either.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:51:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:25:44 AM, Nags wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Michael Vick = Star Black NFL Quarterback
Peyton Manning = Star White NFL Quarterback

And one of them has been imprisoned for dog fighting?

By the way when I say "dog fighting" or "fighting dogs" I mean of course making dogs fight each other, not a man fighting a dog in self defence. lol
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:12:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Why? Pets are property and I should be able to do what I want with my property.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:16:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
By the cognitive definition of the origin of rights, dogs have none.

Animals have rights because we give them rights, and that is how they're created under law. Our cognitive ability of rights allows us to extend that to those that don't have the ability to either enforce or recognize them - ie., poorer people, animals, children, etc.

This isn't my opinion, by the way. I'm just explaining why animals and such have "rights."
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:32:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:12:28 PM, s0m31john wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Why? Pets are property and I should be able to do what I want with my property.

wjelements wrote:
By the cognitive definition of the origin of rights, dogs have none.

@John:
Possesion of a living creature requires a certain level of responsibility that doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Mistreating or neglecting animals in your possesion is rightfully illegal.

Also some dogs can be extremely dangerous, especially if encouraged to fight. I believe there should be restrictions on canine ownership in the same way (if not to the same extent) as on gun ownership.

@wj:
By human values such as empathy, they do.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:02:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:32:38 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:12:28 PM, s0m31john wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Why? Pets are property and I should be able to do what I want with my property.

wjelements wrote:
By the cognitive definition of the origin of rights, dogs have none.

@John:
Possesion of a living creature requires a certain level of responsibility that doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Mistreating or neglecting animals in your possesion is rightfully illegal.

Does this apply to trees and flowers?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:03:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:21:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:16:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
By the cognitive definition of the origin of rights, dogs have none.

Animals have rights because we give them rights, and that is how they're created under law. Our cognitive ability of rights allows us to extend that to those that don't have the ability to either enforce or recognize them - ie., poorer people, animals, children, etc.

This isn't my opinion, by the way. I'm just explaining why animals and such have "rights."

So, these are artificial rights, not natural rights...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:11:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:03:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:21:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:16:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
By the cognitive definition of the origin of rights, dogs have none.

Animals have rights because we give them rights, and that is how they're created under law. Our cognitive ability of rights allows us to extend that to those that don't have the ability to either enforce or recognize them - ie., poorer people, animals, children, etc.

This isn't my opinion, by the way. I'm just explaining why animals and such have "rights."

So, these are artificial rights, not natural rights...

By nature, nothing has rights. Rights are a standard devised by humankind.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:15:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:11:46 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:03:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So, these are artificial rights, not natural rights...

That is basically true. They're artificial rights, but they still have bearing upon what humans actions regardless. Just because it isn't natural, doesn't mean it has no impact.

By nature, nothing has rights. Rights are a standard devised by humankind.

Sort of true. "Natural rights" are rights that people agree to abide by because they're vital to human existence; ie., the right not to be murdered. But, they're only recognized because humans have the ability to recognize it. Without such ability, they wouldn't really exist.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:25:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:02:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:32:38 PM, feverish wrote:

Possesion of a living creature requires a certain level of responsibility that doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Mistreating or neglecting animals in your possesion is rightfully illegal.

Does this apply to trees and flowers?

Not unless you regard them as creatures. I would consider a house plant an inanimate object although they do require maintenance but so does a car.

Trees deserve some respect but if you want to chop down a tree in your own garden then go ahead.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Social libertarianism (or whatever wjmelements's and s0me01k2j32's arguments are based on) seems to revolve around the use of semantics to justify a lack of morality.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:23:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 2:25:16 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:02:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:32:38 PM, feverish wrote:

Possesion of a living creature requires a certain level of responsibility that doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Mistreating or neglecting animals in your possesion is rightfully illegal.

Does this apply to trees and flowers?

Not unless you regard them as creatures. I would consider a house plant an inanimate object although they do require maintenance but so does a car.

Trees deserve some respect but if you want to chop down a tree in your own garden then go ahead.

So, by "creature", you mean something with a nervous system?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:24:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:20:53 PM, iamadragon wrote:
Social libertarianism (or whatever wjmelements's and s0me01k2j32's arguments are based on) seems to revolve around the use of semantics to justify a lack of morality.

Mine is based on the congition theory of the origin of rights, which is a valid argument.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 5:49:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:21:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:16:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
give them rights

Contradiction.

By human values such as empathy, they do.
I do not value empathy. Am I inhuman?

Ants, on the other hand, have a far higher degree of empathy than humans, even if it's all pointed in the direction of a queen :).

Social libertarianism (or whatever wjmelements's and s0me01k2j32's arguments are based on) seems to revolve around the use of semantics to justify a lack of morality.
No, a "lack" of morality would involve having no opinion about dogfighting. Libertarianism holds that someone fighting dogs is not a moral justification to attack them :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:23:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 5:49:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I do not value empathy. Am I inhuman?

If you feel empathy but do not value it you are not inhuman, merely willfully repressed.


Social libertarianism (or whatever wjmelements's and s0me01k2j32's arguments are based on) seems to revolve around the use of semantics to justify a lack of morality.

Debating R_R, I learned that morality can be defined in radically different ways than I had thought possible.
I think a lot of libertarians may have issues with authority too but don't we all?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:40:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:23:22 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 2:25:16 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:02:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:32:38 PM, feverish wrote:

Possesion of a living creature requires a certain level of responsibility that doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Mistreating or neglecting animals in your possesion is rightfully illegal.

Does this apply to trees and flowers?

Not unless you regard them as creatures. I would consider a house plant an inanimate object although they do require maintenance but so does a car.

Trees deserve some respect but if you want to chop down a tree in your own garden then go ahead.

So, by "creature", you mean something with a nervous system?

Sorry for double post.

I'm not trying to draw any specific boundary lines for anyone, merely stating my own opinions.
I don't believe animals have the same rights as humans, as for plants, that would be ridiculous.

I do think if you own an animal you have a responsibility to look after it properly but I distinguish between different animals in a number of ways.

For example I choose not to eat mammals but eat fish and chicken with no guilt.
I do not condemn any one who does eat other animals however as this would be hypocritical of me. I would of course condemn canibalism.

Similarly I will kill an insect that annoys me without remorse but I would not harm a mammal or human unless mine or my family's safety depended on it.

Theres a lot of nonsense talked about self-awareness and the unique value of humanity but if you believe in evolution that doesn't really wash.

All animals suffer and it's fair to assume that more intelligent animals suffer more.

Study a Chimp or even a cat. We're not that different.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:44:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So, what animals have rights? If there is no line for you, then do we have two lines? One for property and one for negative rights?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Theres a lot of nonsense talked about self-awareness and the unique value of humanity but if you believe in evolution that doesn't really wash.

Believing in evolution destroys the human brain all of a sudden?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
snelld7
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 10:07:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:25:44 AM, Nags wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:22:43 AM, feverish wrote:
No idea who Peyton Manning is or how this could be a racial issue but fighting dogs is effed up and I think anyone who does it should probably be locked up.

Michael Vick = Star Black NFL Quarterback
Peyton Manning = Star White NFL Quarterback

I don't see the racial issue either.

If you don't just bog it down to skin color, and look at other things such as:
-Personalities (Vick has been seen as a rebel and an outsider since he made it to the "league")

or

-Status (Peyton is seen as someone very moral and good.. so would he have escaped with this perception as his sheild.. or would he have had to pay for his actions)

Be more open minded. Everything brought up about a "black person" and a "white person" isn't a racism card being pulled. The fact that you look at this and only see "one is a black star and the other is white star, so if anyone is comparing the 2 it must be because of their race" is a problem with you, not me. So don't acuse me of anything.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? It goes around, DUH!!