***edit: I have watched the segment. I don't think Whoopie was actually defending him as much as trying to shift the focus from an individual to the culture that produces the individual. ***

Open Letter to Nathan Tyree:

While dogfighting may be reprehensible, it is not comprable to atrocities commited against people. To equate a dog's life with that of a human's is erroneous.

I feel like we may have had this discussion before, but it's worth pointing out that the higher regard held for dogs is, for the most part, a western thing. I'm sure Hindus aren't all that excited with our treatment of cows. Am I as guilty of cruelty as those that practice "clitorectomies" when I eat a steak?

Semi-Open letter to David:

Dogfighting is illegal in the US. Killing cows in India is not. Dogfights are a cruel practice in which animals are purposely killed or maimed slowly. Slaughterhouses try to kill animals as quickly as possible(Adrenaline spoils the meat. "Excited bunnies taste sour he tell me").

Nathan comparing dogfighting with clitorectomies is an exaggeration.
You comparing dogfighting with the slaughtering of cows is also an exaggeration.

Vick is from the US. He broke laws. His activities are also seen as culturally unnaceptable by the majority of US citizens. Whoopie's comments are being seen as defending Vick because a minority of citizens engage in the same practice. Nathan's comparison to hanging is acceptable because he is comparing criminal activities engaged in by a small portion of the populace. His comparison to clitorectomies is also acceptable because he is transplanting the idea into Whoopie's perspective.

Archi,

Nathan's comparison was not based on law, but on what is "acceptable".

I didn't compare dogfighting to the slaughtering of cows. I asked if the guilt level was equable between benefitting from the cruelty to cattle and performing or being socially accepting of clitorectomies.

"I feel like we may have had this discussion before, but it's worth pointing out that the higher regard held for dogs is, for the most part, a western thing. I'm sure Hindus aren't all that excited with our treatment of cows"

You follow up with a statement about eating steak, so I assume you are talking about the slaughtering and consumption of cows. Sounds like a comparison to me.

There are almost too many points to address here. Let me take them in no particular order.

First, let’s be clear that in using lynching, female circumsion etc I am not assigning them a moral value equal to torturing dogs (which is what this is about but more on that later). Rather, I was using a well known method of argumentation in which one reveals the absurdities of another’s reasoning by crafting an absurd argument in the same form. We could get deeply into the methodologies at work here, but frankly it would get boring. Instead let me just say that no, I do not think that killing a dog is a reprehensible as killing a human.

Whoopie was arguing that since torturing dogs what a part of Vick’s culture that we could not (or should not) judge it. That it absurd. It is facetious in the extreme. It barely even counts as an argument. Obviously I can judge things that are ‘part of another culture’ and obviously I should. When something is ‘wrong’ it is wrong. I’m sure that, were she to think about it, Ms Goldberg would find that she disapproves of many things that are engrained in certain other cultures.


But, on to “dog fighting”.

I consider what Michael Vick did to be approximately as reprehensible as killing a single human. This will cause a knee jerk reaction, I am sure, but near with me. Before I get into the measures of morality at work here let me explain what “dog fighting” is and what Vick did. Dog Fighting is a process in which dogs are systematically abused (often for years) to the point of torture in order to make them vicious. Most of the dogs do not survive their training. Those that do are set upon each other in battles to the death for the entertainment (and monetary gain) of people. Losing dogs that manage to survive the battle are normally killed. That is “dog fighting”.

Vick actually added another wrinkle in that instead of merely shooting surviving dogs he and his friends would slowly kill them with protracted and cruel methods. I presume that they took pleasure in this.

That is what we are discussing. We are not speaking here of someone who kicked a dog, or abandoned a cat. This is a much darker pathology altogether.

Now, why would I, a reasonable person, find this behavior so terrible? Because it is. And my feelings about it are not me assigning equal value to dogs and men. It isn’t about ‘value’. It is about the ability to feel empathy for another living thing.

As I explained long ago here, ethically speaking, I am (mostly) a Utilitarian. I’m too tired now to explain what that means, but it is the reason that I think that Vicks vicious, hateful torture and killing of uncounted dogs is about as bad as killing one man.

You can figure that out for yourself.

oops, forgot to say something about this:

"I'm sure Hindus aren't all that excited with our treatment of cows"

Not dogs. Animals. We are not talking about killing an animal, but about torturing it. Doing that to any animal (wildebeast, chicken, rabbit, rat, dog, Julie Andrews) is unacceptable.

While I am on this: more on cows. Mostly (mostly) cows are not tortured in our society. They are raised as livestock, given humane treatment, then killed as humanely as is feasible (there are exceptions, yes, but they are to be abhorred). If cows were beaten, starved, fed gun powder and ground glass, electrocuted, stabbed, hanged almost to asphyxiation then revived, beaten more, forced to fight, then, if they survived it, slowly tortured to death then yes you would be guilty of an atrocity each time you ate steak.

Chickens, by the way, are tortured. That is why one should refuse to purchase chicken unless it is either raised on a local family farm where conditions are humane or certified cage free and grain fed.

This is strange. I not only agree with Nathan, but I was pulled into arguing his side. I will bow out of this conversation now. I know how it goes.

Argument
Nit-pick of minutiae found in argument
defense of argument on larger scale
arguing what was really said or meant.
an ever tightening knot of struggle
both sides give up with nothing resolved

"both sides give up with nothing resolved "

There is nothing to resolve. Cruelty is bad. Saying that being cruel is a part of your culture is not a reasonable defense. That is all.

You call it arguing, I call it a sharing of opinion.

I do find the treatment of most livestock cruel, but I also believe it to be necessary as the end result is sustenance.

The reason I didn't implicitly make a comparison between dogfighting and the raising of livestock is that the only end result of dogfighting is entertainment. The reason I suggested the comparison is to point out what I believe to be an erronous and unfair comparison in Nate's open letter.

As a side note, Nate and I enjoy what you refer to as "nit-picking" (which is really quite accurate) at each other. Well, at least I do. It's fun sport, and a hold over from the days when we had nitrusoxyde to banter with.

"As a side note, Nate and I enjoy what you refer to as "nit-picking" (which is really quite accurate) at each other."

yeah, it's just a great way to have fun. and, sometimes you can really learn something about your own argument.

I don't mind arguing ideas. Once things devolve into semantics, I lose interest, but I can try.
I never said arguing, I used argument as a noun(as in a logical argument). That would be another way of saying "sharing of opinion". Nathan just used it the same way. Notice that I did call it a conversation as well.

I also never said anything was wrong with how the conversations go, just that I knew where it was going. It has gone there.

If there is a difference in opinion then there is something to resolve. Else there is no difference of opinion. Note: I didn't say it needed to be resolved, just that it wouldn't.

"I suggested the comparison is to point out what I believe to be an erronous and unfair comparison in Nate's open letter. "

I don't think so, though. I wasn't really 'comparing' them, just pointing out the obvious fact that Saying that being cruel is a part of your culture is not a reasonable defense.

Quote Archimago

I thought you had bowed out of this conversation.

I have bowed out of that conversation(the one about dogs). I can still post other comments though.

"***edit: I have watched the segment. I don't think Whoopie was actually defending him as much as trying to shift the focus from an individual to the culture that produces the individual. ***"

True. And now she has appologized