DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

If someone was raising dogs to eat them in the way most people raise cows and chickens I doubt very much they would profit by cruelly mistreating a dog. There are indeed cruelties in the food production industry owing to its systemic treatment of animals. But even these are somewhat distinct from deliberately and personally shocking, beating an animal under one's care in order that it becomes a vicious animal to be used for sport. Much less killing it when it fails to develop into one of any particular note.

I don't know anybody in the NFL who has DELIBERATELY killed a person and then lied about it to investigators and team officials. So these are not two equal positions. Humane treatment of animals is a legal right extended to animals, particularly animals under our personal care. And I think that extends to helping to prevent malicious injury both to the animals and the caregivers. You don't have to see animals as human beings to recognize that human beings should not be monstrous toward animals. Eating them, even raising them to eat them is not a cruel behavior. Beating and torturing them is.

Well, linebacker Ray Lewis was tried for murder and had testimonies against him, but I guess money solved that one out. Donte Stallworth is the most recent one, being tried for DUI, but if you get behind the wheel of the car with alcohol in your system, I don't care who you are or what happened, you're a murderer for even thinking about driving.

There are millions of DUI incidents per year that go undetected and do not cause accidents, just as there are thousands of major traffic accidents caused in large part by alcohol impairment. The legal system in most jurisdictions doesn't agree with your opinion that it is a murder when a DUI contributes to a death. Usually it's defined as involuntary manslaughter. Murder is a very specific crime defined as using force or violence to purposefully kill someone. Not doing something risky and stupid which causes an accidental death by circumstance. We can certainly still punish that as well (and I'd gladly cede the point that Stallworth's penalty was low, but this is true across the board with DUI penalties). But murder it ain't.

The comparison with Vick, who deliberately had dogs killed and then attempted to conceal the criminal enterprise and his involvement in it, seems overdrawn in an attempt to make Vick's crimes seem diminished. He participated in something horrible. That needs to be accepted in his case, not contrasted with other things that must be judged by our legal system and society at large in their own scope.

The fact of the matter is that Stallworth's punishment was barely nothing because the NFL has the power to overturn the law and he had enough money to hand to the family. If we don't classify driving with any amount of alcohol in our system as murder, then it's still going to be around. If you look at other countries who classify this as murder and results in the death penalty, there are no cases, because everyone is scared of hte punishment. If the government tomorrow said to the public, driving with any amount of alcohol in your system will automatically result in murder, all the deaths will drop, and more innocent lives would be saved.

Driving with any alcohol in your system is like carrying around a loaded gun.

Carrying around a loaded gun does not mean anybody dies either, certainly not on purpose.

That logic is flawed. First we must suppose that the death penalty itself is a deterrent for crime. It isn't and there isn't any evidence that it is. Second, we must suppose that a drunk driver is in a frame of mind to be concerned for their life at the time of their actions. They're obviously not since DUIs are just as likely to put their own life at risk.

Countries that have the death penalty for DUI also have tend to have strong socially enforced customs that oppose drinking to begin with and thus are more responsible for reduced DUI rates. America doesn't have such an opposition, ergo, there won't be a drop in DUI rates of incidence. The utility of executing DUI offenders would resolve the problem of repeat offenses, since they account for a large proportion of the offenses, but we could simply restrict their ability to purchase and drive cars and penalize enablers who allow them to drive their vehicles instead of executing such people and actually enforce such policies far more easily. Japan has much lower rates as well and no death penalty. People lose their jobs, friends who enable drunk driving are fined or can lose their driving privileges, etc. I suspect that's a far more effective system than relying on individual decision making that's already impaired in order to execute people for of an involuntary circumstance that occurred because they were stupid. It's a social and property crime by and large and it should thus be treated as a social crime.

You really don't need to have a scholarly study to realize that the death penalty is a deterrent. You see that in every day life when you are talking to people. Everyone thinks on the same level at some point.

However, the odds of dieing increases by having it around you.

Depends where you are. And in any case not every time a firearm goes off is a death intended either.

Certainly the odds of an accident of some kind go up when you get behind the wheel of a car drunk. However there's evidence that texting on a cell phone causes the same effect. While we do have some state laws going up against it, I don't hear anybody using the language of "death penalty" for that either. The reason is that it is an involuntary act that results in death. We don't put criminals to death for involuntary behavior. It be the same as executing the corporate executive for selling the car to someone who later drove drunk. Accidents of fate are not a good case for lethal response by society.

I don't kill people because I recognize that there's an implicit safety for me and an implicit freedom of action in complying with the rules not to. I don't sit around in a brooding rage and wonder what the state will do to me if I actually carried out my most violent thoughts. Murder rates go down because of a variety of factors. But the fact that people can be executed for it is not one of them. There are lots of studies to that effect. Catching and successfully prosecuting murderers works quite well on its own without having to kill them.

Jared: You need to get off the idea that all dog and animal lovers sit down to eat a steak. You don't know what you're talking about. Ever heard of the vegetarian concept? It exists and most dog and animal lovers do NOT eat meat. And even on behalf of those that do, they are completely involved in the advocacy for humane treatment for livestock.

Sweeping generalizations like yours do not make for good debate material.

Well I know many dog and cat-lovers who eat steak all the time and seem to have the time to argue about Mike Vick.

"……on behalf of those that do, they are completely involved in the advocacy for humane treatment for livestock. " — Perhaps you can point out why this statement was blatantly ignored then. You can eat animals, or even raise them for the purposes of eating them and still be against cruel and malicious treatment of them. This is not logically inconsistent.

Steak is a lot different.

Not exceptionally so. People raise dogs and cats for the purpose of (occasionally) eating them in other societies. Commonly eating dog meat isn't that far off in Western societies from a historical standpoint (if you've ever read anything on Lewis and Clark you'll know what I mean).

The point is more about whether it is acceptable to be cruel or inhumane toward an animal more so than the end purpose for which we are treating an animal with human qualities which is being claimed to invalidate this better treatment. Once it's dead I'm not sure the animal cares and it becomes an issue of satisfying nutrition and consumer tastes. With humans the issue is a bit more muddy, but we still have some exceptions on cannibalism in the manner of a "break open glass" case. If we can eat humans out of necessity but still treat them fairly and decently in life, I don't see why the same could not apply to animals that we consume more freely.

i eat steak…i dont abuse animals

I agree that we do treat cats and dogs like people in America and yes it is crazy becasue we would rather feed our dog fefe than a starvimg child in Africa. However, People are carnivors and we cannot forget that. You can be against Abuse towards animals and kill a chicken to eat. Imagine in a tiger never caught its pray how could they survive? It is true we could live on vegitables but are immune system would be very weak. Us as human beings need meat becasue it fortifies us. Abuse for our selfishness is wrong but if we kill for becasue we have to then so be it.