Re: Vick and his dogs
One thing on which I'm sure we agree here - the dogs themselves are innocent. It is the humans who raised 'em who should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, as a society, we don't have any reasonable way to take care of these dogs (whose treatment to date qualifies as abuse), so they get euthanized in order to protect humans from potential harm. Utterly unfair, and we don't seem to have a flawless alternative. The human breeders pay a penalty - and the dogs die as a consequence.
Maybe the human penalty needs to be harsher? But then, Tim's folow-up question comes into play, regarding protection of cultural activities. Can we easily draw a line and say activities on one side are protected, ones on the other are prohibited? How easily can the line be adjusted? And doesn't said line then create the black-or-white distinction that I railed against earlier?
Tim calls that "cognitive dissonance," which I believe he defines as holding conflicting thoughts, opinions or philosophies simultaneously (though, technically, "c.d." is the discomfort or tension brought about by holding such conflicting thoughts, not the ability to have the thoughts themselves; most humans have that ability, liberal or not.) I believe he is mistaking it for contradictory or oxymoronic behavior. You know - like being a "compassionate conservative." (That's a joke, people.)
One thing on which I'm sure we agree here - the dogs themselves are innocent. It is the humans who raised 'em who should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, as a society, we don't have any reasonable way to take care of these dogs (whose treatment to date qualifies as abuse), so they get euthanized in order to protect humans from potential harm. Utterly unfair, and we don't seem to have a flawless alternative. The human breeders pay a penalty - and the dogs die as a consequence.
Maybe the human penalty needs to be harsher? But then, Tim's folow-up question comes into play, regarding protection of cultural activities. Can we easily draw a line and say activities on one side are protected, ones on the other are prohibited? How easily can the line be adjusted? And doesn't said line then create the black-or-white distinction that I railed against earlier?
Tim calls that "cognitive dissonance," which I believe he defines as holding conflicting thoughts, opinions or philosophies simultaneously (though, technically, "c.d." is the discomfort or tension brought about by holding such conflicting thoughts, not the ability to have the thoughts themselves; most humans have that ability, liberal or not.) I believe he is mistaking it for contradictory or oxymoronic behavior. You know - like being a "compassionate conservative." (That's a joke, people.)
Comment