Where's my grandfather when I need him? Oh yeah, he's dead. Well, if he were here, he'd be saying, "This is not a competition to see who's the worst." People have expressed some pretty simplistic notions of justice in this thread. Justice, whether cosmic or criminal, is a complex thing -- it's not like buying apples by the pound, you can't look at the next guy over and say, "Oh, he's getting twice as many apples as me, therefore I should only pay half as much." Comparisons to other crimes and who's supposedly walking around free (although no actual names have been named) are irrelevant, because we're not talking about pounds of apples. The goals of punishment in a criminal justice system are multiple and often rather complex. There's a deterrent function, to make a public example of what happens to people who commit a particular crime. There's the function of preventing the criminal from committing further crimes (which, arguably, our current criminal justice system in the US is failing at more than it succeeds). There's a victim restitution function. There's also a valid retributive function; much as we might like it to be otherwise, people want vengeance, and if the state does not carry it out, it's extremely hard to prevent vigilanteism. I think that you need to look at how the Vick sentence measures up against each of these before you can start to have a good sense of its appropriateness and effectiveness.
If Vick had channeled his interests into one of the 16 (!) greyhound racing tracks here in Florida, would he have been charged with any wrongdoing, no matter how cruel his practices might have been? Answer: Yes (If Congress, Roger Goodell, or some of the members here could prove that Pacman Jones,anyone wearing a gold chain, any NFL player with dreads or cornrolls, Allen Iverson, any group of non whites and or posse was not only present but betting on the races as well). Greyhound racing would be outlawed so fast, you could face 5-10 for riding on one of their buses. But as long as those 19,000 dogs you mentioned were killed by being forced into a sport that's not to popular in "da hood", then it's all good.
He was into dog fighting, that made him a danger to his family and friends? Enjoying watching dogs tear each other apart is not just being "into" some sport. In my opinion and that of several of my friends in the psychiatric community (including my wife who has nearly 30 years evaluating people to decide if they need to be involuntarily committed for evaluation), it is a sign of a sociopath tendency. It indicates a person who quite probably has a mental illness. He lacks any compassion or conscious and that makes him a potential danger to anyone around him.
Count me among those who discount the "environment" excuse. I was born and raised in the South (including several years in Hampton - Newport News - Norfolk), and, yeah, I've seen cockfights, and I knew at least one person who claimed (no proof, just claims) to be part of a dogfighting organization. Guess what? I didn't go on to a career in animal fighting afterwards. Like Mike Vick, I grew up poor. Not as rough a setting as the projects in Newport News, but we were damn sure poor. Still, I didn't turn to torturing animals to get my jollies, or to earn a little extra scratch on the side. Environment only goes so far. At some point, adult human beings have to make their own decisions. Mike Vick made his decisions, and now he'll have to live with the consequences. Personally, I think what he did was reprehensible, and I truly cannot imagine the kind of person who gets gratification from watching animals tear each other's throats out. Still, I hope Vick truly learns from this and comes back to society as a smarter, more compassionate person. Rot in hell? The guy's only 27 years old; he still has the potential to do good, even great things. Time will be his truest judge.
...but vick chose to do what he did. Probably the most logical statement in this thread, thank you, justgary. Now, Mr. Vick has the choice to benefit from his time in prison and come out a better man, or he can fall into the prison gang thing and make a bad situation worse. I am suprised he only got 23 months, in light of what the maximun sentence could have been. And I agree, let's wait til he serves his time to see if the NFL will let him back in the league. I would imagine how he conducts himself in the mean time might carry some weight in their decision. In closing, he has basically ruined his life/career, jail time is just the icing on the cake. I hope he chooses to learn from this and eventually becomes a productive member of society. And maybe he should move away from all those toxic people and start fresh.
Personally I think the sentence was fair and in line with the crime. I also believe that after Vick pays for what he did, he should have the opportunity to pick up the pieces of his life and move on. Do I think he will go on to be a law abiding upstanding citizen? NO , mainly because I believe Michael Vick is just stuck in stupid, as the marijuana positive test while on court monitored drug testing showed. Nonetheless, the nature of the crime I believe was an accurate reflection on the nature of the criminal. I think most poeple are not only outraged by the crime, but they are outraged by the circumstances. You see, for years us liberal minded types have been told that crime and violence in the underpriviledged areas was a direct result of poverty and lack of opportunity which forces young men to gravitate toward gangs, drugs and criminal behavior. This is why it is hard for us to comprehend that when you eliminate these factors, as in the case of world class weathly athletes, or music stars etc. the culture of crime, violence and ignorance still persists. Why is anybody shocked that even with all the success and worldly opportunities Elvis Presley still remained a country boy as evidenced by his taste with Graceland, and Michael Vick still remained basically a thug as evidenced by his friends, and criminal behavior.
or he can fall into the prison gang thing and make a bad situation worse. Is he going to Supermax or something? How do you know there are even gangs at the facility he's going to?
Why the hell is everyone yelling at everyone else here? Everyone's agreeing with each other here. He committed a crime. He got convicted. He was given a sentence commensurate with the crime, and he's serving it willingly. (That's exactly is how the justice system is supposed to work, right? Right?) So. If you think that Michael Vick should have had a harsher sentence, then the problem isn't with Vick, it's with the justice system. Call your local legislature (their numbers are listed and everything!) to have the sentences made harsher. (If you just hate Vick and want his ass kicked, well, he's out in 22 months. Go do it yourself, tough guy.) And if you think that animals don't get enough care in this world (or in "the South," whatever that means in this context), then go volunteer at the ASPCA. And if you're doing that already, then feel free to crow about your superiority, Gunga Din.
"Hell no, that's white people entertainment." And yet I have seen many black, Hispanic, and Asian people at dog tracks.
Yerfatma,I suppose that was a generalized statement on my part. No, I don't know if there are gangs where he is going to serve his sentence. I should have said the bad element that is found in prison, but that would have been redundant, wouldn't it? I would surmise in any prison/jail there is always some kind of pecking order, and to avoid trouble you would have to go along to get along. And I would guess the people at the top of the pecking order did not get there because they care about another's rehabilitaion. No, I have not served time (unless you want to count my 3 days for DUI back in 1978, and even then, in the county jail, in the women's part, there was a "pecking order". I was not jailed with just DUI offenders) but I have read much about the prison culture in this country (I am not talking fiction, ok?) and it is not pretty.
Prison isn't one big place, steelergirl. No two are completely alike. And Vick isn't going in for life. He's going to get out, and whether he goes back to the NFL or not, he clearly fully intends to rejoin (or, if you prefer, join) society again. He doesn't strike me as someone with a high chance of recidivism. I think of it this way: If Ray Lewis can stay out of prison after his past, then Michael Vick might be able to clean his act up too.
If Vick had channeled his interests into one of the 16 (!) greyhound racing tracks here in Florida, would he have been charged with any wrongdoing, no matter how cruel his practices might have been? Well, one is illegal and one isn't. That's a big difference. Secondly, to hold water to the vick situation, we need an athlete that invests in greyhound parks. Otherwise we're just playing 'what-if'. Some of my neighbors have rescued greyhounds. They're docile good-natured animals. We have the same in our neighborhood. They walk them all the time. Love 'em. But if one gets loose, forgetaboutit. Why the hell is everyone yelling at everyone else here? Everyone's agreeing with each other here. I agree with chicobangs. With the rare exception, most of the opinions here differ in only a matter of a few degrees.
Well, one is illegal and one isn't. That's a big difference. Why though? History is full of things that were once acceptable and legal and now are not.
*bangs SportsFilter's collective head on its own wall* Fuck it. I refuse to open this thread again.
Why though? History is full of things that were once acceptable and legal and now are not. Not making a judgment on what should be legal or illegal. But the reaction would be different because one is and one isn't.
Not making a judgment on what should be legal or illegal. But the reaction would be different because one is and one isn't. Do you really think that's the major reason why the reason is different?
Fuck it. I refuse to open this thread again. You'll be back....they always come back. Is he still being prosecuted under state charges in Virginia? Could this add more time to his sentence? More than likely, he will be. The only thing would be if the charges will be applied to run as concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment.
But the reaction would be different because one is and one isn't. Yeah, fair enough.
I think that the sentence is excessive given the lack of prior convictions, and for a crime that while is barbaric, involves only animals. And before the animal lovers go for my throat, I do love animals but as a human being I do prize human life above all else. To me, the tough man fighting is far more barbaric. And once Vick has served his time and paid his debt to society, then I think he like anyone else who has done their time, deserves a second chance. And that includes playing in the NFL. makes me wonder how people feel about, say, greyhound racing - ones who aren't good at racing are put to death I would also like to know where the outrage is over the mass killing of Greyhound buses!?!
Key difference between dog fighting and UFC: consent. Secondary but also important difference: rewards for the fighters.
Key difference between dog fighting and UFC: consent. The same could also be said for the volunteer cow that donated the steak I ate last night.
Petrino to give up dogs for Hogs.
The same could also be said for the volunteer cow that donated the steak I ate last night. posted by lil_brown_bat at 5:10 PM CST on December 11 God bless that cow. But I digress as I'm sure, due to it's history, hunting and killing a defenceless animal for sport is not frowned upon at all since not much of it goes on "in da hood". posted by FlyerFan at 3:38 AM CST on December 11 I don't kill for sport. If I don't eat it I don't kill it. My family harvested over 37 deer off of 1500 acres this year. After filling our freezers close to 1600 lbs of bambi burger was donated to food pantrys through the "Hunters for Hunger" program. Now personally if I wound a deer I will nurse it back to health so that I can kill it cleanly next time. MMmmmmm People Eating Tasty Animals. Vick is a moron who risked his life and career for a barbaric sport. He's scum but he's going to pay his debt to society and when he walks out of prison then he's got a clean slate in my book.
...but vick chose to do what he did. True, but you have failed to take into account peer pressure. In a sense, Vick is no different from the typical high-schooler who is pressured into doing drugs. He may be older, but his rise to fame undoubtedly slowed his maturity curve (see Spears, ect.). Not to say he shouldn' t be held responsible for his actions, but maybe he isn't the dispicable character everyone thinks he is.
Colt Brennan will look good in red and black. I hope Brennan is spared the Atlanta black hole and goes to a team that actually has a future. Brian Brohm, on the other hand...
True, but you have failed to take into account peer pressure. In a sense, Vick is no different from the typical high-schooler who is pressured into doing drugs. He may be older... Wasn't Vick the ringleader of all of this?
Wasn't Vick the ringleader of all of this? No, he was the banker (see SI)
Correct, l_b_b, and that is one of the reasons you wouldn't find a steak on my plate. (Just so you don't think I'm being a total hypocrite.)
Do you really think that's the major reason why the reason is different? posted by lil_brown_bat Nope. One of many. True, but you have failed to take into account peer pressure. I didn't fail to take it into account. I think crying peer pressure is laughable for a 27 year old man. No, he was the banker (see SI) You're disagreeing with the judge who thought vick was much more than the banker.
The same could also be said for the volunteer cow that donated the steak I ate last night. posted by lil_brown_bat at 5:10 PM CST on December 11 Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........cow....
.............
it seems irrational to me to be outraged about dog-fighting but not outraged about leash laws. undoubtably more dogs are run over by cars than killed by dog fighting each year. hence, if one really cared about dogs and wanted to save dogs you would spend 100% of your time writing and campaining for stronger leash laws until the number of dogs run over = the number of dogs killed by dogfighting (and please don't tell me its worse to be killed in a dog fight (a) the dog is dead either way and (b) i'm certain getting pancaked in the street is really painful). However, I doubt any of the aggrieved are campaigning for stronger leash laws so I have to assume another motive. The most likely motive that presents itself is that the aggrieved parties are self-righteous phonies and it makes them feel good to write about how superior they are to michael vick. I anticipate the first response will be: but intent! MV meant to kill those dogs and people who let their dogs out without a leash didn't. Of course the intent line of reasoning only proves my point. People who only care about the dogs are indifferent to how they are killed, they just want to save dogs from death. People who care about feeling superior to other people care a great deal about intent because that's why they feel superior. I anticipate that the subsequent line of reasoning will be "that's saying murder is the same as manslaughter". Of course I'm not saying that because the situations aren't analagous. It's obviously desirable to discourage people from impairing your life and property (e.g. murdering you), that's why we treat murder different from manslaughter. You can discourage murder, you can't discourage accidents. Its also why I believe we don't distinguish between intent when punishing murder. The evil man who lusts to kill people, spontaneously flips, and murders another human is treated more lightly than the hired killer who plans to kill someone (i.e. premeditated murder). Hence the MV situation isn't analogous to murder because he wasn't impairing anyone else's life or property. He was killing his own dogs.
I think crying peer pressure is laughable for a 27 year old man. I don't know that anyone is "crying" that, but are you trying to suggest something happens to social pressure when you age? What age does it happen at? My general observation is that people graduate high school, but they never leave it. If you think peer pressure stops at Grade 12, stop by a corporate Xmas party this holiday season.
Personally, I think what he did was reprehensible, and I truly cannot imagine the kind of person who gets gratification from watching animals tear each other's throats out. It's funny - but that kind of barbaric entertainment strikes me as being as human as it gets. We love this shit. One man's barbarism is another's Saturday night. Check out them internets recently? I think dogfighting is cruel and inhumane. But I also think that sport hunting, bullfighting and horse racing is barbaric. That's just relativism. Enjoying watching dogs tear each other apart is not just being "into" some sport. In my opinion and that of several of my friends in the psychiatric community (including my wife who has nearly 30 years evaluating people to decide if they need to be involuntarily committed for evaluation), it is a sign of a sociopath tendency. It indicates a person who quite probably has a mental illness. He lacks any compassion or conscious and that makes him a potential danger to anyone around him. Dude. I couldn't disagree more. Firstly because the assumption is that Vick foamed at the mouth at the thought of dogs dying is a leap. It sounds plausible except that within his circle it could just as easily viewed as a sport or a business. Pretty big leap of intent. I really don't think you can do that with 100% confidence in your rightness. Nope. Can't do it. I think Vick is pretty much an idiot - but I don't see him as a sociopath, a murderer or any more terrible than a ton of people who'll take the field. And I certainly can't think of "45" worst things than torturing an animal. But you likely consume animals, have killed them (from ants to fish) and caused direct harm to many. Because I'm pretty confident that we all have.
Key difference between dog fighting and UFC: consent. The same could also be said for the volunteer cow that donated the steak I ate last night. Correct, l_b_b, and that is one of the reasons you wouldn't find a steak on my plate. (Just so you don't think I'm being a total hypocrite.) You don't win friends with salad.
posting by MikeMcD @7:59 CST on December 11 Huh?
***it shows up on my computer but here it is again *** it seems irrational to me to be outraged about dog-fighting but not outraged about leash laws. undoubtedly more dogs are run over by cars than killed by dog fighting each year. hence, if one really cared about dogs and wanted to save dogs one would spend their time writing and campaigning for stronger leash laws until the number of dogs run over < the number of dogs killed by dogfighting (and please don't tell me its worse to be killed in a dog fight (a) the dog is dead either way and (b) i'm certain getting pancaked in the street is really painful). However, I doubt any of the aggrieved are campaigning for stronger leash laws so I have to assume another motive. The most likely motive that presents itself is that the aggrieved parties are self-righteous phonies and it makes them feel good to write about how superior they are to michael vick. I anticipate the first response will be: but intent! MV meant to kill those dogs and people who let their dogs out without a leash didn't. Of course the intent line of reasoning only proves my point. People who only care about the dogs are indifferent to how they are killed, they just want to save dogs from death. People who care about feeling superior to other people care a great deal about intent because that's why they feel superior. I anticipate that the subsequent line of reasoning will be "that's saying murder is the same as manslaughter". Of course I'm not saying that because the situations aren't analogous. It's obviously desirable to discourage people from impairing your life and property (e.g. murdering you), that's why we treat murder different from manslaughter. You can discourage murder, you can't discourage accidents. I believe we don't distinguish between intent when punishing murder. The evil man who lusts to kill people, spontaneously flips, and murders another human is treated more lightly than the hired killer who plans to kill someone (i.e. premeditated murder is punished more harshly). The MV situation isn't analogous to murder because he wasn't impairing anyone else's life or property. He was killing his own dogs.
posted by Mike McD at 9:17 PM CST on December11 Oh, now it's clear.
posted by Mike McD at 9:17 PM CST on December11 Oh, now it's clear. posted by Snakeman at 9:25 PM CST on December 11 Clear, but really really convoluted and twisted. Still the stretching of logic it takes to equate allegedly weak leash laws with the enjoyment of watching dogs tear each other to pieces in a ring is an amazing thing to see. Sort like Olympic logic twisting, with a full gainer to boot.
If you think peer pressure stops at Grade 12, stop by a corporate Xmas party this holiday season. I didn't say it didn't exist. or that it vanishes with age. But I find it silly to bring it up as a defense for 27 year old man.
I didn't say it didn't exist. or that it vanishes with age. But I find it silly to bring it up as a defense for 27 year old man. posted by justgary at 11:27 PM CST on December 11 Gotta agree with that. If you haven't found a way to be your own person and resist peer pressure by the time you're 27 you're never going to.
Yeah, what justgary and commander cody said!
equate allegedly weak leash laws with the enjoyment of watching dogs tear each other to pieces at what point did you lose the argument? At no point did I equate the two. What I said is that is one loves dogs I would expect one to find both equally outrageous (actually weak leash laws a little more outrageous because they end up killing more dogs)
Yeah, what justgary and commander cody said! /points from lunch table, snickers
chicobangs, I understand what you are saying. I guess I am trying to say prison is not a great experience. Yes, it does help some "see the light" and change their ways. I hope Michael Vick is one of these people. But it can also make someone who already has a kink in their character (and I would say running/financing a dog fighting ring is a character flaw) and bend them even more. No, he isn't going to be in for life but almost 2 yrs is a long time. And any prison/jail can/does influence a person (it doesn't have to be Supermax), how that person handles it is up to them. May he have the fortitude to resist the negative.
But you're still treating all prisons as the same experience. Certainly those white-collar federal pens where people play tennis for the government didn't turn anyone into a stone-cold killer. Has anything been said about where Vick's doing that time?
Do those places really exist, or is that just a myth? Besides, dogfighting isn't exactly white collar crime. I'd surmise it'll be more along the lines of Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison.
Do those places really exist, or is that just a myth? Not sure. Former Massachusetts State Senator Joseph Timilty got sent to a low-security federal prison for a white-collar crime, and wrote of the experience. I don't know if the institution he went to is one of these mythical prisons, or if there is some other category of institution above and beyond that, but it certainly did qualify as a "white-collar federal pen", and he wasn't playing any tennis. Here's another article about the "federal prison camp".
At no point did I equate the two. Your reasoning falls apart at the beginning where you say that people who love dogs should be as or more outraged by weak leash laws then by dogfighting because the dogs are still just as dead and getting hit by a car is just as painful. Then you dismiss why its not the same thing when you deny that intent really has as much to play in the reason why it is different. Dogfighting and leash laws are not analogous to each other. Look at it this way, if a man walks into an elementary school, starts shooting, kills 8 kids and wounds several more (the human equivalent of what Vick did to dogs) purely for the sport of it, he'd be a capital murderer and most likely get the death penalty to the righteous cheers of the crowd. However if a person is driving down a street completely legally and safely and a small child darts out from between two parked cars (the human equivalent of a dog escaping his masters control), gets run over and killed, the driver of the car is not charged with anything because they had no intent to to kill. It was an accident. Ah but what about the mother you say! Isn't the mother of that child guilty of negligence? Well it depends. In your scenario you have negligence as being the same level no matter what because the effect, the dog (child) is still dead, deid just as painfully and it could have been prevented by a leash. However the real world doesn't work like that. If, for instance, the child ran out into traffic because it's mother was drunk on the sofa or turning tricks in the bedroom when she should have been watching her kid, then yes the mother is guilty of negligence and most likely will see prison time for manslaughter. However, if the mother is walking down the street with her child in hand and he suddenly sees a puppy or toy in the street, breaks away before she can grab him harder, runs into the street and dies, well she is technically negligent, but she is not going to be charged with any crime and it will be seen for what it was, a tragic accident. On one hand you make the two out to be the same because the result is the same (dead dogs and all dog lovers should be angry no matter how the dogs died) and yet in your last paragraph you completely deny doing so by saying they are not the same. You're arguing both sides. You say that people have no right to be more outraged by what Vick unless they are equally outraged by weak leash laws so they must be thinking that they're superior to Vick. Yet your argument makes no sense because they so clearly ARE different and very different at that. Your analogy is false.
Oh and I actually am superior to Vick, because I don't enjoy dogs fighting until dead or nearly so. That fact alone makes me a better man and person then him.
Do those places really exist, or is that just a myth? Yes they do. Growing up in Florida, I lived about 15 miles from Eglin Federal Penitentiary. The term "Club Fed" was coined to describe this facility, which actually had rowboats on a small lake, in addition to softball fields, tennis courts, and other recreational activities. In fact, several of the teams in the Eglin AFB Softball League played their games at the prison fields, because they were so nice. That's where I got to meet Orlando Cepeda, who was doing time for his cocaine conviction, I believe back in '78 or '79.
I lived about 15 miles from Eglin Federal Penitentiary. Kurt Vonnegut used it as a setting in one of his books (can't think of which one off the top of my head? God Bless you Mr Rosewater maybe?) to describe the softest of the soft federal prisons. He says (and I don't doubt that it true) that they don't have any walls or fences, just lines painted on the sidewalks beyond which prisoners are not allowed.
I actually am superior to Vick, because I don't enjoy dogs fighting until dead or nearly so. That's sick. Bad enough to fight dogs, but to find exhausted, weakened dogs in need of help and make them fight . . . awful.
ROTFLMFAO!!!
He says (and I don't doubt that it true) that they don't have any walls or fences, just lines painted on the sidewalks beyond which prisoners are not allowed. That reminded me of Les Nessman's office on WKRP in Cincinnati.
Nice. Thought I was the only one who bothered acquaintances with that reference. Now if I could just find some yellow tape, we'd know which crap pop culture references belong to me and which to you.
I see ... you lost the argument at the first sentence. my conclusion is "those outraged by MV are outraged because they like feeling morally superior to MV; they are not outraged because dogs were killed" my evidence for that conclusion is that people aren't outraged by weak leash laws. If one cared about dogs one would be equally outraged by any dog being killed, dogfighting or car accident. Why is a preventable car accident more acceptable than dogfighting? from fido's perspective, you're indifferent to having your spine crushed by a car or having your throat ripped out in a dog fight. That distinction only matters to people making judgments of others. try and keep in mind my argument addressed people's motivation for criticizing MV. The rest was refuting the specious arguments that I knew would arise. Just as an aside, mv killing dogs is not the analog of a killer going into a school and killing random kids. The analog to your scenario would be going into a dog park and killing a bunch of other people's dogs. As I pointed out above mv didn't impair anyone else's life/property. I hesitate to even mention this because its irrelevant to my conclusion and is a distraction.
I have resisted this for as long as I can. I am in no way an advocate of animal euthanasia, but seriously, will a monkey cure cancer? Was Louis Pasteur a greyhound? Seriously, Vick got what he deserved. I'm all for that. But there is a reason he got 23 months as opposed to the capital sentence had it been a human. We have opposable thumbs, maybe?
I have resisted this for as long as I can. I am in no way an advocate of animal euthanasia, but seriously, will a monkey cure cancer? Was Louis Pasteur a greyhound? Seriously, Vick got what he deserved. I'm all for that. But there is a reason he got 23 months as opposed to the capital sentence had it been a human. We have opposable thumbs, maybe?
my conclusion is "those outraged by MV are outraged because they like feeling morally superior to MV; they are not outraged because dogs were killed" Well, your conclusion is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I don't feel morally superior to Vick. It's not something I think or care about. I simply like dogs and couldn't imagine hurting one. my evidence for that conclusion is that people aren't outraged by weak leash laws. If one cared about dogs one would be equally outraged by any dog being killed, dogfighting or car accident. Why is a preventable car accident more acceptable than dogfighting? A guy breaks into a house and murders the owner. He's caught and punished. People are happy. We could save many more lives by making cars that only go up to 55. It's doable, would save more lives, why not do it? from fido's perspective, you're indifferent to having your spine crushed by a car or having your throat ripped out in a dog fight. That distinction only matters to people making judgments of others. A dog fight isn't a humane way to kill an animal. An animal being hit by a car at 55 mph probably goes through less pain (of course, that would depend on many factors). Your whole spiel is that the only reason people care is because it allows them to feel superior to others. That's a gross generalization and backed up by nothing, as far as I can see, on your part.
my conclusion is "those outraged by MV are outraged because they like feeling morally superior to MV; they are not outraged because dogs were killed" No, they are not outraged because they feel morally superior to MV (though I still think anyone who hates dogfighting IS morally superior) they are outraged because of how the animals died. There is a huge difference morally between a dog that dies for some (alleged) humans amusement and one that dies due to accidentally being hit by a car. The idea that people who hate MV for dogfighting must also feel the same outrage for weak leash laws is a false analogy. It's not just comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples and trees or rocks. There is no viable relationship between them. It's more like saying that if you hate MV for dog fighting then you must also be a vegetarian. To two simply are not connected except by the greatest of leaps of logic.
A guy breaks into a house and murders the owner. He's caught and punished. People are happy. jeebus! your reading comprehension is abysmal. Maybe the 3rd time you'll understand (or you can just read the initial post where I anticipated this exact response). We punish people for murder as a deterrent. We want to discourage people from committing murder. MV didn't hurt anyone else. Just his own property. We could save many more lives by making cars that only go up to 55. It's doable, would save more lives, why not do it? I agree. I think its irrational that people think 1,000 people dying each year in Iraq is a tragedy buy 55,000 people dying each year in cars is a statistic. And I think its rational to fear cars more than guns or terrorists. Cars are more likely to kill you (or your children)
