Quote:
|
Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?
|
A load of hooey.
Vick and his partners did not SHOOT at least 8 dogs...instead they hung them, or drowned them or electrocuted them. In other words...a slow tortuous death.
Dieing is dieing...I agree, but the way in which they died is very much a part of this whole thing.
And to compare someone who is eating a hamburger to what Vick was doing is as repulsive as it gets. As the author points out, animals eat animals all the time as a food supply as a part of nature. Humans are animals too and eat other animals as a food supply. Yet he concludes what humans do for food is somehow equitable to what Vick and his gang of thugs did for fun??
Laughable.