In Defense of Michael Vick, Part 2 by Illana Mercer

I already know what this article is attempting to do. Divert & compare with other atrocious crimes as if it lessens Vick's barbaric 7 year illegal cruelty inflicted on voiceless victims, his animals. Divert & compare whine about the unfairness of punishments received, divert & compare some more. Cry like little whiny babies, divert & compare!

I was curious to see what she had written and after two or three lines, I knew it would upset me to continue reading her garbage. As you said, she is trying to divert everyone's attention by bringing other causes into this which have absolutely nothing to do with the brutal acts which MV inflicted on poor helpless animals. I hope she gets nowheres in her venture as she thinks she is another Einstein but actually, another troubled woman who has personal unsolved problems of her own. I doubt that anyone will buy what she is selling which is a lot of crap and garbage.

Gretchen23 wrote:

I already know what this article is attempting to do. Divert & compare with other atrocious crimes as if it lessens Vick's barbaric 7 year illegal cruelty inflicted on voiceless victims, his animals. Divert & compare whine about the unfairness of punishments received, divert & compare some more. Cry like little whiny babies, divert & compare!

Gretchen23 wrote:

I already know what this article is attempting to do. Divert & compare with other atrocious crimes as if it lessens Vick's barbaric 7 year illegal cruelty inflicted on voiceless victims, his animals. Divert & compare whine about the unfairness of punishments received, divert & compare some more. Cry like little whiny babies, divert & compare!

This writer is a libertarian, she was writing strictly from a political point of view as far as how libertarians interpret the constitution and how that interpretation puts them against the notion of "animal rights".

A few things the author overlooked: Vick didn't "put them down" he tortured the animals to death, when he had the means and knowledge to put them down HUMANELY. That is illegal in all 50 states, and was a deliberate choice Vick made. Pleasure in animal torture is a clinical indication of an Axis II psychopathology. In other words-- animal torturers are twisted.

The owner also forgot that inhumane slaughterhouses are now being prosecuted for animal cruelty, as some folks in Chino are finding out.

Animal's do not have human rights. They DO have legal protections for when humans behave like sub-humans, as is the case here.

Also, animal rights do not eclipse human rights, nor is there any indication that they will. Torture an animal to death, and you get 5-10 years. Make that a human, and it's 25-life or even death. Let's discuss it if anyone gets 25 to life for killling a dog. I'll join you on the picket line.

In summary, it looks like the writer was trying to imply that Vick has a right to indulge his perversion. He hasn't. He knew that, when he refused to give it up.

Anthropomorphism has nothing to do with the issue. Though in citing same the author is overlooking about 30 years of research, starting wih the Alex studies in Arizona, on to dolphin and "signing ape" studies, and unto to the intelligence of the "bomb-sniffing rats." Oh! And some HIGHLY interesting research in canine intelligence, done by Canadian law enforcement.

Thanks for another specious article, sweetie! This is kinda fun!

Anbreen wrote:

A few things the author overlooked: Vick didn't "put them down" he tortured the animals to death, when he had the means and knowledge to put them down HUMANELY. That is illegal in all 50 states, and was a deliberate choice Vick made. Pleasure in animal torture is a clinical indication of an Axis II psychopathology. In other words-- animal torturers are twisted.
The owner also forgot that inhumane slaughterhouses are now being prosecuted for animal cruelty, as some folks in Chino are finding out.
Animal's do not have human rights. They DO have legal protections for when humans behave like sub-humans, as is the case here.
Also, animal rights do not eclipse human rights, nor is there any indication that they will. Torture an animal to death, and you get 5-10 years. Make that a human, and it's 25-life or even death. Let's discuss it if anyone gets 25 to life for killling a dog. I'll join you on the picket line.
In summary, it looks like the writer was trying to imply that Vick has a right to indulge his perversion. He hasn't. He knew that, when he refused to give it up.
Anthropomorphism has nothing to do with the issue. Though in citing same the author is overlooking about 30 years of research, starting wih the Alex studies in Arizona, on to dolphin and "signing ape" studies, and unto to the intelligence of the "bomb-sniffing rats." Oh! And some HIGHLY interesting research in canine intelligence, done by Canadian law enforcement.
Thanks for another specious article, sweetie! This is kinda fun!

Actually that's exactly what the author meant - she really DOES think it was putting the dogs down. That's the thing with libertarians, she only sees these dogs as property that Vick could basically do with, as any farmer would with his pig (her example). In the first line, she even goes so far as to say "albeit inhumanely" when describing that she believes he was putting the dogs down.

I'm kinda surprised that animal rights activist haven't questioned Ron Paul more - but I guess right now its pretty clear his campaign is over.

Famuan wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually that's exactly what the author meant - she really DOES think it was putting the dogs down. That's the thing with libertarians, she only sees these dogs as property that Vick could basically do with, as any farmer would with his pig (her example). In the first line, she even goes so far as to say "albeit inhumanely" when describing that she believes he was putting the dogs down.
I'm kinda surprised that animal rights activist haven't questioned Ron Paul more - but I guess right now its pretty clear his campaign is over.

Well, you and I agree on something! So am I. Paul is the only REAL conservative in the race. Meaning he's a states rights man.

But, then, he's not part of the "Old Boys Club" that is CFR, and the other fat-a$$ed rich industrialists kingmaker orgs.

I have a few thoughts about this:

First, who cares what this crackpot thinks. She might be provocative enough to get something published in the OC Register and WorldNetdaily, whatever that is. But I don't think she's going to persuade anyone except the most feeble-minded. If dogfighting does ever get legalized in the US, it won't be because of Ilana Mercer's writings.

Second, it looks to me like Mercer is trying to use a hackneyed PR trope akin to the "triangulation" strategy that Bill Clinton used so effectively. Specifically, she's trying to make the prohibition against dog-fighting seem rooted in some marginal, fringe idea. Just because the prevailing attitude in the US happens to coincide with PETA's abhorrance of dogfighting doesn't make the prohibition some fringe idea grounded in some extremist philosophy espoused only by PETA.

Finally, it's frankly silly that Mercer can't see the difference between running a pig farm and a dog fighting operation. Sure, her point is consisten, but as Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

I don't think there's any reason to get upset by this ding-dong.