"They let a white lady shoot a Moose, but when a black guy kills a dog, it's a crime".

[trumad]

Chris Rock on Sarah Palin and Michael Vick.

[jakem]

1. maybe if he was in a helicopter?

you know.. to make it sporting...

[LynneSin]

2. sorry not buying that one

First, I oppose both of those things.

But Vicks was using those dogs for dog-fighting, which is a far different cry that regular hunting.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I don't support either one myself- how about this analogy-

Can you imagine people thinking Obama hunting moose would be seen as a 'plus' or something to be admired the way it is with Palin?


I can't- not for a moment. I said that to a friend the other day, and we both agreed that he'd be tarred and feathered for doing that- A Black man hunting? yet it's ok for a white woman- more than ok, it's ....'admirable' (in some peoples minds).

strange world, this-

[wvbygod]

14. No difference between palin or Obama hunting Moose

Only that there are more anti-hunting Dems than repubs. Nothing at all to do with race.

[LynneSin]

26. That's a great analogy

Hell if Joe Biden was hunting animals by helicopter he'd be considered 'elitist'

I truly believe there is something there but you can't compare the 2. Hunting a move target is difficult enough as it is to add in the concept that you're also in a moving target (the helicopter).

There was no challenge for what Michael Vick did - these dogs were in cages, even I could have hit the target easily.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Flying about in a heliocopter

blasting away at wildlife below is also a far cry from regular hunting. A far freaking cry.

[LynneSin]

27. You're in a moving vehicle aiming at another moving target

and the target has the ability to run and hide.

These were caged animals who spent years being abused with dog fighting only to be shot point-blank when not performing up to par.

I'm not trying to say using a helicopter the way people should hunt nor am I trying to convince you that hunting is not cruelty free.

But if you can't see the difference between the two then that saddens me. Saddens me because it's stuff like that this that helps alienate blocks of voters because suprisingly enough not everyone who hunts is a card-carrying Bush supporter even if they do belong to the NRA.

[dgibby]

102. Not entirely true

The aerial SLAUGHTER takes place in the snow. The planes, choppers are used to run the wolves to the point of exhaustion, which can take hours. They have no where to hide, as they are out in the open. This occurs when they leave their dens to hunt for food. When the wolves can no longer run, they are shot, but usually not killed cleanly so they suffer needlessly. They are not hunted for either meat or pelts, but simply because they interfere with the Moose hunting tourist trade. Not only are the adult wolves slaughtered, but their pups are killed in their dens. I personally abhor both dog fighting and the wolf slaughter, but none of these animals has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving either of these barbaric practices. If you haven't seen how aerial slaughter works, check out Defenders of Wildlife. They have a graphic video which they are running on tv in key states. They're having a lot of success with this ad, and it is helping Obama. If you can, please donate to them. They're a great organization and are doing everything they can to stop this.
:cry: :grr:

[Midlodemocrat]

41. I agree. Both things are disgusting, but Jesus, don't defend Michael Vick

simply because he's black. What he did to those animals was deplorable. I hope he rots in prison.

[avaistheone1]

121. You are correct.

There is such a thing as moose hunting and even that is regulated in most states than have moose populations. I don't thing hunting and killing dogs is legal any where in the U.S.

[jpertello]

3. Exactly!

Chris Rock is right!

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Hunting is legal, dog fighting is not.

[Iris]

31. and dogs have been domesticated to be loyal and trusting of their owners; moose have not.

While I think the aero-hunting thing is disgusting, betraying the trust of a dog is something different altogether.

[vaberella]

46. Dude...moose don't attack. They run. Wolves may, may attack and only in packs. n/t

[bunnies]

5. Apples and oranges. Nice try though. nt

[atreides1]

6. This Is Total BS

Vick mistreated animals for his own personal gain, Palin probably shot the Moose on the ground, unless you know someone has evidence to the contrary.

If Chris Rock can't see the difference then he's just as much of an idiot as Vick was and Palin is!!

As for myself I think they should have given Vick a choice, time in prison or 20 minutes in a pit with 10 of the dogs he owned, after they hadn't been fed for 3 days.

That would have been justice!!!!!!

[goldcanyonaz]

8. 20 minutes in the pit would be awesome for Vicks, he is a disgusting fuck.

[calico1]

7. I'm sorry but I have absolutely no

sympathy for Michael Vick. He is a scumbag.

What he did to those dogs is wrong. Doesn't mean I think Sara the moose, wolf and whatever else killer is any better. She's not.

But this is just a terrible comparison.

I am an animal lover and they are both lowly scumbags in my book.

Sara Palin's disregard and lack of compassion for animals doesn't make Vick's lack of those same qualities any better.

[Hutzpa]

32. The question here is

should they have got the same punishment for the crime they committed?????

[calico1]

40. If it were up to me, yes but I know I am

outnumbered. Animals, whether dogs, pigs, cows, wolves or whatever they are all have feelings. They have family units, they feel pain. We classify some animals as food so therefore it's okay to slaughter them. Whereas some people will be horrified at dog abuse they will shrug their shoulders at moose slaughter (or any other animal).

I don't expect anyone to jump and agree with me.

[Hutzpa]

47. What would the Chinese say

they eat dogs, should that be considered cruelty as well???

[calico1]

51. I stated my opinion and like I said I don't expect

much agreement.

I am not going to get in an argument about China or other countries.

[Hutzpa]

60. What a shame

thought you might have picked up the double standard, thats my
point in all of this and I sure do hope you see it too.

That'll be all....

[calico1]

63. I am against killing all animals, ok?

And I don't eat them.

People are horrified at dog fighting and killing and will express this horror as they eat their bacon sandwiches.

I hope this is what you were getting at.

In any event, no matter how much of a slime Palin is, it does not excuse Vick nor make what he did any less bad in my book.

[Hutzpa]

74. So should Palin

she shoots wolf cubs and pays for the legs, shouldn't that be considered
atrocious as Vick, not excusing Vick, shouldn't Palin be punished for
her actions??

[calico1]

79. She should be as far as I'm concerned but

she won't be. A lot of people (including people who post here) do not consider all animals to be deserving of the same rights or compassion.

Yes, her actions are just as atrocious as far as I'm concerned.

[Hutzpa]

82. Thats what my argument is based on

the fact still remains that she won't be punished, but yet all
things being equal, she should have been put in jail just as
Vick.

[dgibby]

108. In order to punish them equally,

it will first be necessary to close the loophole in the federal law which prohibits aerial hunting. The problem is that Vick broke the law, Palin didn't. Both are morally guilty, but only one of them is legally guilty, darn the bad luck.

[dgibby]

106. I agree

For instance, elephants recognize each other after years apart. They also mourn their dead. In the wild, they will travel long distances back to elephant "burial grounds" when they caress the bones with their trunks and actually make moaning sounds. You might be interested in the web site Trunk Lines (google them). It's an elephant sanctuary in Tenn. They have cameras all over the place and you can see the elephants roaming freely. They rescue female elephants from circuses, zoos. and provide them with as natural a habit as possible.

[TexasObserver]

10. Yes, it's true. They like to pretend that "hunting" is different.

Actually, it is often more cruel. Shot animals often do not die easily or quickly. They have to be tracked and then put down. Besides, modern hunting is a joke. Someone gets a hunting lease where Bambi is fed corn for months, then shot on the first day of hunting season. Shot from a blind, while the shooter wears camo and uses a powerful rifle and scope. It's not hunting. It's executing animals.

And in Alaska, where they do it for MONEY and Thrills, it's even worse. Killing from a helicopter? That's really hunting.

[wvbygod]

12. You really don't see the difference?

Not to defend palin for Moose hunting (it's legal), but what exactly is the confusion here?

[ShortnFiery]

13. Chris Rock would have been spot-on if he tied it to Palin's promotion of Aerial hunting of Wolves.

That is just SLAUGHTER. :(

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greguganus]

21. Um...you may get a knock on your door. Please edit. n/t

[vaberella]

48. Agreed. I heard the SS come by to people's houses. n/t

[NoPasaran]

16. The Moose was going to spill the beans about 9/11 and MIHOP

Palin had no choice but to shoot it.

[rucky]

17. There's a pitbull joke in there somewhere.

[Demi_Babe]

18. Chris Rock is wrong...nothing wrong with hunting for food...dog fighting is sick

[JTFrog]

19. Shooting wolves from a helicopter is a far cry from hunting for food....

He just used the wrong analogy in his joke. It would have worked better with aerial hunting, but I think he got his point across.

AND she PAID people to bring her their paws.

[Egnever]

52. well had he said what you propose he might have had a point

but he didn't and because he didn't his statement comes off as foolish instead.

[Hutzpa]

34. Where did you people come from ????? n/t

[vaberella]

50. She doesn't hunt for food, although she eats moose burgers.

She hunts for pleasure. Can you see Palin skinning the animal? Actually don't answer that. But she kills them and mounts their heads on walls while she goes to sleep in their fur. She's not Ted Nugget and I don't think Ted would agree with what she does nor the wolf aerial hunting.

[dmallind]

20. Some other more germane distinctions

1) legality
2) Were the dogs killed for food? Moose is very popular up in Alaska. Not sure Atlanta has too many pit bull burger joints.
3) Were the moose killed for the purposes of gambling for gain?
4) Quick choice - if you have to die do you want it to be be high-powered rifle bullet or being torn to bits by dogs and then electrocuted?

[southpaw]

22. No... this doesn't scan

But I get that this is Chris Rock trying to be funny... more of that HILARIOUS racial division humour Rock has been getting rich off of for years.

I don't hunt, and something about it makes me uncomfortable. It's just not my thing. But it is legal.

Dog fighting is depraved and sad.


Todd Palin looks like a man who would enjoy a good dog fight!

[greguganus]

23. Chris Rock bombed on this one.

Comparing death by a bullet and death by being ripped apart and then electrocuted. No comparison.

[Sebastian Doyle]

104. It's OK though, because the bullet cost $5000

Chris Rock fans (and Michael Moore fans) will get that one. :rofl:

[greguganus]

110. His $5000 bullet joke was funny! n/t

[mtnsnake]

24. I love Chris Rock the comedian but anyone who marginalizes what Vick did is plain wrong

Michael Vick is one of the cruelest, most disgusting humans on the planet, as is anyone who gets enjoyment or profit from watching vicious dogs tear each other to shreds until one of them dies from loss of blood.

Sarah Palin is a fucking asshole, too, for flaunting how she kills moose with a rifle and a high powered scope. Moose are sitting ducks. There is no sport to killing one. If you find one, it's not going to escape your gun. Neither Vick or Palin have a heart, but Vick is a monster.

[Barack_America]

25. It's a crime for white people to kill dogs too.

And if a black guy wants to hunt moose, he's free to do so (with a permit, of course).

Lousy joke.

[Egnever]

56. well said

[Balderdash]

28. Apples and oranges and blatant

racism. What Michael Vick did is a heinous crime and what Palin did re: the moose is not a crime. Comparing the two things is disingenuous at best. I used to think Chris Rock was funny but he pulls the racism card way too much until it hasn't any meaning except to be divisive.

[BlooInBloo]

29. It's funny because white folks treat it like he's serious, just so that they have a strawman....

to point at and say "look how unreasonable and oversensitive those negroes are, Jack! I told you so!"

It really was the joke that keeps on giving.

:rofl:

[Balderdash]

33. Ah, I see, white people just don't get it...

More fucking racism! And I'm going to use the usual "reverse racism" crap because it's true racism. As a white person I'm getting tired of being the butt of black jokes, or being told that I just don't get it. I do get it and I don't like it.

[BlooInBloo]

36. BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

That needs to be sent to Chris Rock. I'm sure he could make an entire segment out of that one.

:rofl:

[Balderdash]

43. That's the way to do it

keep pissing people off. Make sure that there is no way to come together. I don't know that I want to be part of a Party that would have you as a member, I bet I'm not alone. But keep working hard for Obama.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Oh I'm *certain* you're not alone.

[Quantess]

115. Translated: better watch out or I'll vote McCain just to spite you.

We can't stop you from voting for McCain, if that's what you feel you must do, spoiled child. Who knows, maybe you were going to vote McCain anyway.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

45. You'll have to ignore BlooInBloo, everything bad is always about "white folk" to him/her

Surely you've noticed before?

[Egnever]

55. I hadnt noticed that before

and i have read a lot of his/her posts.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

118. Keep reading! Maybe you just didn't want to notice it.

[Balderdash]

73. I hadn't noticed it until recently.

I'm starting to think that Mr. Bloo isn't that interested in the nominee getting elected. He/she seems a lot more interested in dividing us up into our different categories and then attacking the label. Weird for someone who claims to be a Democcrat.

[Egnever]

54. WTF?

its a stupid statement. Why is it being repeated?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

119. I take it you aren't a member of the ASPCA?

:rofl:

[Butch350]

30. Killing a dog is illegal...killing a moose is not!

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Here come the dog fetishists...RUN TRUMAD!!!!

:rofl:

[trumad]

38. snarf

The knuckleheads up above just don't see the irony.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. My colleague is from Brazil and tells me that dog fighting is very popular in Latin America

He could not understand why Vick was jailed. They train dogs to fight and be aggressive. It's a very popular "sport."

Palin kills wolves, defenseless polar bears, moose and other animals and yet she's considered "All American." The black guy trains dogs to fight and is sometimes brutal, even kills the weaker dogs and he should be put away in jail for life. :shrug:

[justiceischeap]

39. Thank Dog we're not in Latin America. Dog Fighting is not sport

Just like hunting wolves or any other animal from a plane is sport.

Learn about the Vick case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-W1pUaNKR4

Learn about Dog fighting
http://tinyurl.com/457chs

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. I put "sport" in quotes because that is how they described it.

This is very interesting. Thanks for the links...

[vaberella]

53. I saw it in a Mexican film. Cockfighting is the sport du jour from my country of origin.

But then they eat it when it dies a lot of the time.

[IndianaJones]

42. thats America. nt.

[Egnever]

49. Big difference between a moose and a dog.

one is mans best friend the other is a tasty meal.

[IndianaJones]

57. in America maybe. nt.

[Egnever]

59. we voting for president of vietnam?

am I in the wrong presidential forum?

[IndianaJones]

64. is Mike Vick running for President? nt.

[Egnever]

66. do you just throw wierd shit out there

with no point on purpose, or are you going somewhere with this?

[WinkyDink]

126. Is Palin?

[slackmaster]

61. In what culture do people keep mooses as pets?

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

71. That would depend on where you are and your worldview would it not?

There are places where the dog would be the tasty meal.

Regards

[Egnever]

80. we talking bout VP of america or somewhere else?

cause if we are talking about America then your post has no point in it.

[Raineyb]

86. Only if you assume that the American worldview is the only one that matters

I would make no such assumption. And I'm sure there are people in this country who would consider the dog a snack as well.

Regards

[Chloroplast]

58. Not buying it.

Last time I checked, moose hunting under certain parameters is legal; dog fighting isn't legal in the state he lives in. Tough beans and bad luck but they aren't comparable. If Rock compared Palin's father sharing in illegally attained moose meat, then maybe but dog fighting has so many cruel aspects.

[SteelPenguin]

62. There is no difference between the two

Any difference seen between the two is culturally derived, and while valid as a personal position, is not something that should be forced onto others, any more than religion or eating habits.

Whether you believe all cruelty to animals is wrong be it hunting or dogfight, or whether you have no problem with hunting or using animals for sport, or whether you think hunting is fine in certain circumstances and using animals for sport is wrong....It's a culturally derived moral stance that isn't universal.

Some people hunt, some people like animal sports (dog fighting, dog racing, horse racing, bull fighting, rodeo), some people hate one or the other to different degrees. Chris Rock is simply pointing out that a activity (hunting moose) generally performed by white people is seen as different from a different activity in the same genre (dog fighting) generally performed in this country by minorities (though it used to be a very culturally acceptable activity 100 years ago particularly by police and firemen).

It's people pushing their mores onto others, and in this case as is so often the case, the white mores are fine and dandy, but the black ones are crimes.

This is one of those areas though were people's ethnocentrism blinds them to the fact that just because THEY see something as wrong, doesn't mean it IS wrong, and that THEIR viewpoint is not superior to another persons.

[dmallind]

67. Of course there is and it's not relative

It's very simple. Moose in this case are used for food, and the intent is a quick kill. Dogs are used for vicious spectacle and the intent is gore and suffering.

There is utility in killing a moose - sustenance for humans which like other predators are higher on the food chain than moose. It is the natural order of things. The difference from prehistoric times when moral relativism would have just been incomprehensible syllables is only that the tools used are more effective and the moose killed more quickly than with spears or arrows. Dogs however rarely if ever fight to the death in nature, and certainly never get electrocuted when they lose, and the utility is limited to sick enjoyment.

I'm not a hunter either, but I can tell the difference between teh two.

[SteelPenguin]

77. It is relative

YOU see it as wrong. Other cultures don't. Just because in your view it's bad, doesn't make it bad. Just because you think something is right doesn't make it right.

Each society imposes laws about what they feel is right or wrong based on their culture. Our laws are predominantly written from the perspective of white people. While the predominant white culture in this country currently views dog fighting and blood sport as wrong (though this is a very recent change) it isn't universal to all cultures within this country. The point is that our laws are based on white cultural viewpoints, and those viewpoints aren't necessarily shared by others in this country, and frequently we make illegal things that other cultures have no problem with or actively enjoy.

I'm not espousing dogfighting, nor am I saying we should make everything legal. I'm simply stating that WHETHER hunting or dogfighting is morally right is a cultural issue, and the white culture in this country has created laws around their cultural point of view, that aren't necessarily shared by all other subcultures.

In some cultures it's wrong to eat cows and beef. In others you can't even use bugspray. It's all relative.

[dmallind]

90. But utility is NOT relative

What was done to the pit bulls is worse than what is done to the moose. Again - which one would you choose?


Which would ANY sane person choose? Increased pain over longer periods is always worse, not just in my view I hope. To argue that you'd have to posit a completely masochistic and suicidal pit bull going way beyond S&M fetishists. Sure convince me of that and we're OK.

Not only that but the alternative life for the dog is likely better than the alternative life for the moose, as dogs in this country are mostly domesticated. Moose are not.

[SteelPenguin]

95. From your viewpoint

...and mine coincidentally.

Though there are many that disagree with you vehemently. There are cultures that deride any abuse or use of animals. Even hunting, or any kind of killing is wrong. Eating any animal is wrong. Eating any byproduct of an animal that you have kept in 'slavery' is wrong. Using their skins for leather, or bones for tools or even jewelry is wrong. There are other cultures that put no value in what an animal wants or feels or needs. They are property to be kept, sold, used, in any way or fashion that they decide. They hold no more position in the persons heart than a brick of their house, or a wheel on their wagon.

A question posed to them like this whether they'd prefer to be hunted as a moose, or fight as a pitbull you might be suprised at the answers you get. Some might say they'd prefer to be hunted because then they're free and could escape and live free. Others would choose a pitbull because they could fight and be strong and win their lives. Others would stare blankly at you and comment to their neighbors about the strange westerner and their odd questions.

My point is that the position has absolutely nothing to do with 'Animal Rights', and more with cultural beliefs and taboos. Our culture says hunting moose is ok, and fighting dogs is wrong or taboo. Others say both are wrong, others say both are right. If you were raised in one of these other cultures you'd believe, most likely, whatever it is your culture believed.

The point, applied to the inital subject, is that our overall culture says that hunting is fine, and dogfighting is bad, but other cultures don't. Sarah Palin's culture writes the taboos into law, and Michael Vick's culture (granted a subset of southern American black society, and not the overall african american culture as a whole) doesn't. Hence what Chris Rock said does have some merit. We live in a society where white protestants have put their taboos into law from homosexuality (there are still sodomy laws on the books) to drug use, and many other prohibitions. Meanwhile other subcultures that don't fit the mold of this primary culture must live on the outskirts of, or outright break, the law.

Whether you or I see the actual act as cruel is moot.

[dmallind]

101. Some things can be measured.

You are insisting on cultural relativism but by that standard anything can be OK and anything not OK. As such it's a worthless standard for utility.

But pain can be measured, and I can't imagine a comparison between a) running as long as you can and then being shot and b) fighting repeatedly to the death until you are too injured to fight then being drenched and electrocuted - oh and being trained for those fights by means of brutal beatings and semi-starvation too - would likely favor choosing a) as the worst that could happen.

We also have to look at opportunity cost. Since you're on DU I can assume you agree that taking $20K in federal taxes from my comfortable income is less harmful than taking $20K in federal taxes from someone who only makes $25K. The same standard applies to means of death. I am far from suicidal, but if I end up tomorrow with a disease that will inevitably lead me to be in agony and with limited faculties for many years before I die, I might reach for a shotgun more readily than I would if I expected a sudden heart attack after many more years of useful and enjoyable living. It is again inarguable that given no moose hunting and no dog fighting at all by divine fiat, the moose would on the aggregate suffer worse deaths and worse lives than the dogs.

Now of course you could say utility is something that some moral agents do not value and you'd be right, but it is only by ignoring the increased harm to the dog compared to the moose completely that we can make these actions comparable and dismiss them as cultural relativism. You are a moral agent just like I am, so you can choose this path if you like, but I'm a utilitarian, and to me increased harm is always a worse moral choice, even if the other choice is still harm, only lesser harm. I might - dunno enough to know - be able to be persuaded that moose hunting is a net harm when universalized - but I can't imagine being persuaded that it's more harm than dog fighting as known to Vick et al.

EDIT - more typos than usual

[SteelPenguin]

114. I am absolutely not insisting on cultural relativism

I mention cultural relativism in a post below. It's often mentioned and misunderstood. Simply understanding that other cultures is different and see things differently is not to say we should therefore allow all these activities in all cultures. Rules should be enforced in a society and they have no other real way to be derived than from cultural values. However at the same time we must understand that other people don't necessarily see everything the same way we do, and must be cognizant of that, particularly as progressives, or we risk oppressing actual human rights.

As far as the animal rights issue, it's not really what I'm talking about per se. The fact is that you and, for instance, Michael Vick see this issue differently. We all belong to the same overarching culture in this country with many many subsets, and your voice, or my voice, shouldn't be given more weight than anyone elses in determining what we feel is culturally right or wrong for us. Sarah Palin sees hunting moose as culturaly acceptable, and I'm guessing that dog fighting is unacceptable (though it wouldn't shock me if it was otherwise in secret). Others see hunting as fine, and dog fighting as fine, others see both as wrong.

[dmallind]

125. But again that ignores the objectivity that IS possible

Michael Vick disagrees on dogfighting with me sure, but why does that mean the opinion is equally valid? Presumably Jeffrey Dahmer disagreed with me on mudrer and cannibalism but is his opinion equally valid? Again we can assign harm and benefit values to many (if we try hard enough most) moral decisions, and if one choice causes more harm than another is it an equal morally valid opinion? If so, that's a stance that could easily imply outright anarchy and unrestrained hedonism. I suggest a universalized teleological moral framework is more valid than an opinion based on how much you care about dogs, or moose. If you consider these choices to be equally valid, on what then SHOULD (not DO) we base our laws?

[Withywindle]

105. Yes, every country does this.

And it's necessary to do so.



Every society decides which cultural values it's going to put into law and which ones it won't. It's a process of trial and error and it is not static. Once upon a time, "white" culture (which is not monolithic, by the way) thought it was OK to keep kidnapped Africans as slaves, and that was legal. Our understanding has evolved and changed. We now believe this is wrong, and it's illegal. There are places on Earth where slavery is still accepted as a cultural value. That won't fly if they try it over here, though. There are cultures where the mutilation of young girls' genitals is considered right and good and necessary. It's illegal here. That won't change (I hope).

For a less inflammatory example, drinking alcohol has been pretty central to "white" culture for millennia, but for a time in this country, enough people perceived that to be wrong that it was outlawed for a while. We saw it didn't work, and changed the law to allow it. However, people who wish to abstain from drinking alcohol, whether for religious, cultural, or health reasons, are perfectly free to do so.

In the sense that human values can be said to evolve or improve over time, it's generally moved in the direction of alleviating unnecessary suffering as much as possible. This is what Dr. King meant by the arc of history bending toward justice. It used to be OK, in terms of both the law and our public, cultural attitudes, to make children work in factories. It used to be OK to deny women the right to vote or own property. It used to be OK to force ethnic minorities to live apart in inferior conditions. While abuses still go on and attitudes linger, the law at least has changed and will continue to do so, and culture with it. If you doubt that even the root of the culture's attitudes are constantly changing, look at the controversy in Britain over banning foxhunting. That would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

No culture's attitudes are unchangeable. I'm in favor of bending the arc whenever possible.

[SteelPenguin]

116. Absolutely. It's incredibly fluid.

Not even 100 years ago, police in this country were enforcing prohibition and cracking down on people drinking alcohol, and then going back to the police station to watch a good dogfight. Things change, though the judgement on whether a change is good or bad, is one for each person to make.

I guess the question really is at what point does a majority cultural belief within a nation deserve to be made into law. How much a majority? If 80% of Americans thought being gay was wrong, reprehensible and should be made illegal, should it? If 75% of Americans thought that Fishing was cruel and should be made illegal, would that be right? I don't know the answers to these questions. My gut says that as long as one person isn't hurting another person then we should let them be. i think most people on this board probably feel that way.

Animal rights though is a really weird area of this whole thing though because it's inserting more than just people into the mix. it's basically saying that animals have some sort of right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like the rest of us humans. Others vehemently disagree. The whole area is confused with many hypocritical positions, in my opinion, and something that we as a culture will probably need many more decades if not centuries to really come to grips with what we believe.

[Withywindle]

123. I think, as a culture, our revulsion against cruelty is a factor that has varying levels of

emphasis over the decades. I think it is a visceral reaction and I think we are growing more sensitive to it.

Why are gruesome images from Iraq so heavily censored? Because there WOULD be a public outcry, if more people could see it.

An emotional reaction is unpredictable, though, and not universal. There are those who are pro-life because they sincerely believe abortion is gratuitous killing of a sentient being. I don't feel that; my identification is more strongly aligned with the woman and I'm more repulsed by the idea of being forced to bear a child against my will.

There are practices that cause harm to animals that have a justification that can be argued for--feeding people, or advancing medical research, or controlling populations, for example. There's nothing to justify dogfighting except someone saying, "I enjoy it." There's no compelling need at all to cause that kind of pain to another creature.

[NashVegas]

70. You and Chris Rock Walk Into Family Homes and Tell Them It's Okay to Treat Dogs Like Vick Did

And if African-American families don't tell you that's fucked up just as much as Caucasian, I'll vote for McCain.

Yeah, it's a "cultural" difference, all right, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with skin color.

[SteelPenguin]

78. It does and it doesn't

Plenty of white people in this country like animal blood sports.

The point is that our laws originate from the majority cultural belief, which in this case as in most stems from white protestants. If it's culturally acceptable for a white protestant to do it's probably legal in this country. This is the basis of most of our laws. However just because that's the majority culture in this country doesn't mean that what that culture perceives as good/bad/acceptable/wrong is universal. We're a melting pot of many cultures and races, with different viewpoints.

Some see eating any meat as horrendous. Others have no problem with hunting and dog fighting. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', only laws prescribed by the majority, and in this case an activity in this country widely relegated to a subculture or two is seen as Wrong, simply because it's different from the majority.

I'm not saying that I like dogfighting, nor am I saying that a majority culture doesn't have a right to legislate their own beliefs. All i'm saying is that it's important to recognize this isn't a universal issue, and it's one of many where the white protestant culture in this country is telling others what is right or wrong.

[NashVegas]

84. That's a Cop Out, IMO

Don't want to call it right or wrong?

Hey, fine.

There's scum. And there's not scum. And there are plenty of African American families out there who have - oh gosh, what's the word? assimilated? with them candy-ass white folks - enough to have an understanding that people who train animals to do what Michael Vick and other people - regardless of skin color - involved in dog fighting do are scum.

[SteelPenguin]

92. You're missing the central point

By passing judgement on the activity you're missing the central point, which is that your belief in what is right and wrong here, or who is scum and who isn't scum, is culturally based. What you're experiencing is called Ethnocentrism, which is that you have a hard time seeing that other people and cultures see the world differently than you.

it's not just the subset of the american culture, both black, white, and other races, which has no problem with various animal sports, but entire other countries and cultures. There are other cultures that see you as scum for something you do, or believe. Approaching the discussion from the standpoint of 'what i believe, and what i think, and what is appropriate in my culture is THE correct way to be/see/think/feel/do' is one which belies reason for gut truthiness.

What we're talking about are cultural taboo's turned into law, and putting the preference on certain cultural taboo's over another. Not recognizing that your cultural taboo's are no different or better than another cultures though is ethnocentrism, and indicative of a closed mind. Some cultures have taboos' on things that are relatively common here in our country, Other taboos we have in this country are openly flaunted by other members of our society. Homosexuality is a taboo in some cultures, in others it's accepted in one form or another. In some society's any drug use is taboo, in others it's encouraged. Clothing taboos are also widely divergent. In extreme islamic cultures a woman must be completely covered. In other cultures she is considered clothed with a simple string around her waist, even if all her genitals are exposed. There is one culture in south america where the man has a loop around his waist and actually tucks his uncircumsized penis up into the loop to be considered 'not nude'. If he doesn't have that string and his penis tucked in, he suffers ridicule and embarrasement. They look at the amount of clothes you and I wear with amusement.

If you wish to believe that your cultural base and your beliefs are better, and more important than anyone elses, that is your perogative, but it's highly dismissive of the millions of people who don't agree with you, and if we're to have a better world with better understanding an important first step is to at least understand that other people don't necessarily see the world in the exact same way we do.

[Raineyb]

72. I fear that your well made point will end up over the heads of most

You are quite right of course, I've been to places where dogs and cats may be kept as pets but would never be treated the way some people in this country pamper their pets. It is a matter of culture but so many people are unwilling to even consider the cultural difference and will merely condemn because the topic doesn't comport with their culturally induced perceptions.

Regards

[SteelPenguin]

81. Many people have a problem understand Ethnocentrism

Many can't even get past the very concept that what they think and believe is not universal, nor is it better or more correct than anyone who thinks differently. They apply moral judgements of right or wrong to an activity and are frequently unable to transcend that to understand that other people think differently.

It's one of the first things anyone studying humans and social science must do, is to transcend their own personal cultural ethnocentrism or they'll never truly be able to understand another's culture. In this case of animal rights, people simply need to understand that the very concept of animals having rights is a cultural belief, not shared by many other cultures. Animals to many are simply things to own, control, use, eat, hunt, etc. The concept of animal rights in our country is laughed at in other countries as naive and based in our being spoiled in luxury.

Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No. We just see the world differently.

[my2sense]

89. Excellent points

Thanks for articulating this point. Many people in this country treat animals better than they do other humans....it's fascinating.

[goodgd_yall]

98. I understand my view is a cultural belief

But it is my cultural belief. Just because I know it isn't shared by everyone in the world, doesn't diminish it. I think you may be shortchanging the intelligence of the people on this board.

[SteelPenguin]

99. Absolutely it shouldn't be diminished

Nor should Michael Vick's, or Chris Rock's or Sarah Palin's even....well....maybe hers.... ;)

Everyone's view is valid from a cultural perspective. My point is that our laws are in place from a majority white cultural viewpoint, and judge harshing other activites, not just dog fighting, that are not part of the white cultural perspective at present.

As far as shortchanging the intelligence of the people on this board....There are numerous intelligent rational individuals here who can take part in some really excellent discussions, and through which i've learned many things, and driven myself to read up on and learn many others. There's always a level of static that they need to shout over though, and often times that rational position of which we as progressive should be proud can be drowed out in that static.

[goodgd_yall]

100. Actually

on second thought, I don't think you are shortchanging the intelligence of the people on this board, and, I'll admit, your argument probably does meet quite a bit of resistance. I forget how ethnocentrism is actually a pretty dominant characteristic. I understand and sympathize with what you're saying. As a person that has been interested in studying different cultures since I was young, I was made aware of the relativity of mores. At the same time, I don't think it's wrong to enforce a society's cultural point of view about things like dogfights.

[SteelPenguin]

109. Yes, we should enforce our cultural views

Otherwise we'd have practically no laws. We have to have some sort of legal system of what WE consider right and wrong, or more aptly legal and non-legal in our society. A truly liberal society though must also be able to recognize that just because our cultural beliefs doesn't mesh with another's doesn't mean they're actually 'wrong', and that we need to be flexible in our acceptance of other views.

there are people in this country, for instance, that would make Christianity a state religion, and would make homosexuality illegal purely on a cultural basis (derived mostly from religion of course). They see gay people as scum and as wrong, but as liberals and progressives we should be strong in recognizing that just because one person sees something as 'wrong' doesn't mean we should legislate it, particularly when it doesn't affect another citizen directly.

Animal rights enters a grey area where there are people who feel that animals deserve rights, while others think even the discussion of animal rights is absurd as they are chattel. Hence people reacting a bit more strongly against it. It remains ethnocentrism though, and is something that we should be careful of, while still scribing rational laws to protect each other from truly dangerous activities.

[moxie_1]

103. Cultural/ moral relativism zzzzzzz

For all the mental masturbation so commonly involved in discussions that "go there", it doesn't take a wise philosopher to grasp, or extensive rhetoric to teach, the point of cultural relativism. And it's too often misused as an argument to excuse bad behavior.

Observe that in the culture of kindergarten, eating glue and boogers off filthy little fingers is perfectly acceptable. ;) But that fact is a poor argument against those who tell them to stop.

[SteelPenguin]

113. A common misunderstanding of cultural relativism

A common misunderstanding of cultural relativism is that it weakens morality. If a kindergartener can eat glue and pick boogers, why can't I?. That is not what cultural relativity means. It doesn't mean that if one culture does something in a certain way (pick boogers, practice ritual homosexuality, walk around with no clothes on, raise fighting dogs) it provides justification for that same behavior in all cultures.

Cultural relativity means that we need to evaluate the appropriateness of an activity in the context of that culture. Behavior in one group makes no sense in another. Three piece wool suits make lots of sense to be the standard cultural dress in northern europe, but make life hard in Miami for instance. The fact that a businessman in Miami wears a Don Johnson white linen suit, doesn't mean wearing it should also be automatically acceptable in London, and forcing people into wearing heavy multi-layer suits in a hot humid environment is just brutal.

As applied to this situation we must simply observe that blood sport is perfectly acceptable in many cultures. This doesn't mean we should legalize it in ours, but simply that there are plenty of people in the world, and in our own country, that have no problem with it. The point made as hyperbole by Chris Rock is that "White people and white culture decides the rules, not Black people or black culture." Granted that dog fighting is not a major standard element of black culture in our country, nor is it restricted to black culture, but there is certainly a subculture in this country, with a heavy black population particularly in the south which accepts and embraces dog fighting.

it's simply recognizing the fact that we have a wide and disparate viewpoint on animal issues in this country, and that many people simply see no difference between the two activites (hunting, blood sports) other than one is done mostly by white people, and the other is done by mostly non-white people. How accurate that is, I can't attest to, but it's a perception.

[moxie_1]

127. Yes, all of which is intuitive and none of which should take more than a short paragraph to say.

You keep pounding on it as if we don't already know or grasp the significance of the fact that in some cultures dog-fighting is considered OK.

Attempting to focus on the point to such an extent is unnecessary at best, because a) we don't dispute it, and b) even if it isn't meant to excuse the behavior, it misses the point that we are giving reasons why we think that cultural view is wrong, i.e., reasons why that activity should not be considered by any culture equivalent to another, such as moose hunting, eating a lollipop.

(I had the same dispute with those who focused on the fact that "in some cultures it's ok to have sex with pubescent girls.")

[goodgd_yall]

96. dupe.

\

[goodgd_yall]

97. Being culturally derived is exactly why the joke doesn't work.

Generally, in our culture we prize dogs for being animal companions. Though dog-fighting might be acceptable to some groups (a minority of whites find it acceptable as well), there's always a norm based on the majority cultural ethos that laws are based on. Many of us don't like to hunt, think hunting is wrong, or hunt ourselves. But our society hasn't come to a consensus about hunting. Treating a dog cruelly affects most people in this country in visceral way because of our special relationship with dogs.

[ContinentalOp]

128. Excellent post. You summed it up perfectly.

I don't understand why people here are being so dense. Rock wasn't minimizing what Vick did. He was pointing out that the Republican Vice Presidential nominee is cruel to animals.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. However, they let black guys shoot moose, and don't let white ladies dog-fight.

Trying to tie the difference between shooting and dog-fighting to race is just stupid.

[dmallind]

68. Somehow that doesn't matter to some

Sure only an idiot would say there is no racial disparity in how justice is applied, but this isn't an example of that. One act is legal the other is not. Trust me I'd love to find out that Palin was involved in dog fighting and have her treated exactly the same, or rather more harshly since I think his was too lenient, but I would have loved even more, politics be damned, that Vick's only vice were moose hunting and those dogs had been allowed to live normal lives.

[NashVegas]

69. No. Most Of Us Think Shooting a Moose Is Bullshit, Too

[Lilith Velkor]

88. Not if you eat it.

Ain't nothing wrong with killing something you are gonna eat - or is gonna eat you.

[NashVegas]

112. Fair Enough

But it doesn't mean I'm going to call my local town council and tell them we need to make sure it's legal to eat monkey brains, to satisfy our Chinese population.

[RamboLiberal]

75. I'm sorry but that is a stupid analogy by Rock

And sure doesn't help us with the rural hunting vote!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. That's not funny.

White people have determined that moose hunting is OK.

This is totally inappropriate.

How uppity of this guy.

[kid a]

85. That was a funny joke

[Shakespeare]

87. Are y'all really that dumb? Comedians make use of HYPERBOLE to make a point.

JFC. And I compare all these responses with that "my IQ is eleventy-billion" thread" contemporaneously posted.

Ya really think Rock thinks what Vick did is okay? Seriously?

Whatever you do, don't read any Swift. You faint hearts won't survive it.

[goodgd_yall]

93. It's not that I think Rock thinks what Vick did was OK

But my immediate reaction is, the comparison doesn't work. I like hyperbole in humor, but this one was just too off the mark. You have an animal that is wild vs. an animal which in our society people have a strong feelings toward as animal companions.

[goodgd_yall]

91. That's a stretch

To be funny you have to make a more legitimate comparison.

[baldguy]

94. Chris Rock is a National Treasure.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

107. Apples and oranges

Comparing a legal activity with an illegal one, then insinuating that the lawbreaker was punished because of race is just bs ... and not ironic or funny at all IMO besides perpetuating racial division.

You can make the argument that hunting SHOULD be illegal, you can make the argument that the aerial slaughter of wolves is not so different an activity as dog fighting, but you cannot legally punish someone if they haven't broken an existing law.

Personally, I can understand someone hunting for food ... I couldn't DO it, but I can understand it. Killing, however, for the sheer pleasure of watching something suffer and die is just wrong, legal or not and I don't think "culture" has a damn thing to do with it.

[meow2u3]

111. Chris Rock was half right

He just got his animals wrong.

STP to CR: A while woman can torture and kill a wolf from a low-flying plane and she runs for Vice-President; but it's a crime when a black man shoots and kills a dog.

(edited for spelling and revised content)

[dgibby]

117. I saw Rock last night-

and he was rotflmao funny. I understand that the underlying point he was making had to do with justice as it is meted out to people of color vs white people as it concerns length of sentencing. This is especially true regarding drug sentencing.

Having said that, let me add a fact that some of you may not know. One of the reasons they were able to tie Vick into the dog fighting ring was because they traced phone calls he had made to a convicted infamous white SC dog fighter (internationally known) who is presently serving a 40+ year prison sentence, so this is one time, at least, the justice system got it right.

I find dog fighting and aerial slaughter reprehensible, but that's just me. I also find injustice reprehensible, no matter the ethnicity of the person on the receiving end.

[pecwae]

120. Unfunny.

[TNMOM]

122. Here's the point: BOTH atrocities should be ILLEGAL.

From a moral standpoint, Palin's moose hunting from helicopter is as appalling/offensive to me as dogfighting.

She is a shit. Damn her.

[freestyle]

124. If he said wolf rather than moose, he would be on to something.

As someone who eats meat, I can't get mad at people who hunt animals that are consumed. I can get very mad at people who promote the killing of wolves from airplanes and helicopters and demand severed limbs before the killers can get their bounty. I'm sure the wolf slaughter is what moved the Humane Society to endorse Obama.