Misplaced Priorities
By Erick Posted in Life Issues — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
James Dobson has a new piece that will begin airing on ABC Radio today. I think he speaks for a lot of us. Not to diminish Michael Vick's actions, but some of us think the world would be a better place if we could get as outraged over the killing of innocent human lives as we have for man's best friend.
You can hear the whole piece here.
or listen here:
« First Principles — Comments (34) | Today's must-read — Comments (17) »
Misplaced Priorities 52 Comments (0 topical, 52 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
and recognized as such in law. That does not detract from it's repellent nature. The idea of torturing or killing an animal nauseates for different reasons; however less in nature or capabilities the animal is by that very fact also thought innocent, incapable of conceptualizing the potentially brutal side of humans, unaware in it's shock and pain of reasons or understanding, made incapable of any form or act of self defense.
It is the purely gratuitous essence of the act, the willful torture of dumb innocence, the vicious taking of advantage over a creature lower than yourself, the cruel bullying, that calls for retribution against man degraded in his sadism.
The sadist has become an animal in himself and brings down on himself the disgust and contempt he has earned.
On a personal note, if one of my pets was abused, and if I knew who the abuser was, I doubt he would be fit to serve an eleven year sentence.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
partial birth abortion, which is, of course, Dobson's point:
...that very fact also thought innocent, incapable of conceptualizing the potentially brutal side of humans, unaware in it's shock and pain of reasons or understanding, made incapable of any form or act of self defense.
It is the purely gratuitous essence of the act, the willful torture of dumb innocence, the vicious taking of advantage over a creature lower than yourself, the cruel bullying, that calls for retribution against man degraded in his sadism.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
No 'crime' against an animal should exist unless the owner of the animal sees it as damage against his property.
That is, people should ALWAYS come before animals.
The one committing the crime against the animal is not behaving like a human... Then they should be treated in like manner...
Got to act like a human to be treated like one. If you act as an animal, you deserve to be treated like one. There is NO excuse for inhumane treatment/abuse of animals or humans....
I can't say that I am much of an animal lover. I have little use for dogs and cats. They are too needy. I do love to watch wildlife.
But I am absolutely disgusted when I read about people neglecting or abusing animals.
If a person allows their horse to starve to death then I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of punishing them in a like manner. People who raise dogs to be ripped apart in the fighting arena should probably have a similar experience with a plastic shredder.
If people behave inhumanely then I am not willing to recognize them as human.
Sure, I think we can act on such things, but given that we have finite resources, I'd rather put the money on putting extra detectives and prosecutors to find murderers and child rapists, than to put cops and prosecutors on animal abuse cases.
It's a tradeoff of law enforcement money that I'd rather not make.
is that most of these people wind up being rapists and murderers. Animal abuse is psychopathic behavior and it is a very small step from animal abuse to the crimes that you talk about.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
We're told that hate speech leads to hate crimes, after all...
I'm great on harsh punishments of real crimes, but I don't see throwing resources into animal crimes when we already have enough real crimes to worry about, sorry.
analogy. Jeffrey Dahmer was big into animal torture when he was young and grew up to be a murderer. The same type of behavior: sadistic, psychopathic, involved in animal torture is involved in other much more serious crimes. This was a criminal enterprise. It involved the transport of animals for illegal torture across state lines, and then there was illegal gambling at these venues where these animals were tortured. Now, you are saying that people involved in organizing this sort of criminal enterprise aren't necessarily anymore predisposed to committing other crimes than the average person on the street.
"The nine most dangerous words in the english language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I don't care what they're predisposed to. I'm not interested in throwing people in jail for showing a predisposition to hurt people.
in jail because they are predisposed to violence. You are throwing them in jail for running a cross state criminal enterprise. The reason this criminal enterprise should have resources in our police departments is because 1)it is cruel and psychopathic behavior, and 2) because it is the sort of behavior that leads to other much more serious behavior. You are basically saying that we as a society should look the other way and do nothing when there is extreme animal torture, even though it is not only cruel and psychopathic, but more importantly the sort of behavior that leads to much worse behavior.
Had Dahmer been caught, incarcerated, and treated for his animal torture, it is possible that many people would still be alive.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Yeah I'm saying we should look the other way when it comes to hurting animals. I really don't care that much, and it disgusts me to think about how worked up people get about it, versus the people who are victim of crimes every day.
That things done to animals could get headlines... could get notoriety... it offends my sense of humanity.
It's just so trivial.
you are looking the other way on thousands of future rapists, thieves and murderers. Criminals that could be caught, apprehended and jailed long before they commit significantly more serious crimes. Do you actually think that Vick, who organized a criminal enterprise to cross state lines to torture animals and bet on it, is not significantly more likely to commit other crimes than the average person on the street?
Are you really willing to look the other way while people organize to commit the systematic abuse and torture of animals, including having them fight to the death and then killing those they felt weren't good enough? Are you really saying that we shouldn't commit resources to stopping such a criminal enterprise? Are you saying that the average person that is involved in such an enterprise is no more likely to commit other crimes than anyone else? Are you really saying that?
Why is it an either or? Why can we only get angry about either animal abuse or peopel abuse? Why can't we get angry about both?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Do you actually think that Vick, who organized a criminal enterprise to cross state lines to torture animals and bet on it, is not significantly more likely to commit other crimes than the average person on the street?
Maybe we put everybody in a database and devise queries that tell us which are the most likely to commit crimes. Criminal history in their family, socioeconomic status, where they grew up... we got plenty of data we could make that determination on. Then we could just round them up and throw them in prison for life before they have a chance to victimize some people.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
complete distortion of what I said, and you know it.
I said that animal torture, already a crime, has been proven to lead to other more serious crimes. Thus, we should dedicate resources to it not only because it is already a crime, but is the sort of crime that leads to other even bigger crimes. We don't need a database and that wasn't what I was proposing. What I was proposing was dedicating resources to stopping this crime just like all other crimes that police investigate. Neil seems to think that animal torture isn't worthy of police resources because it is animals not humans that are being tortured. Well, I disagree...
three reasons
1)it is cruel,
2)it is sadistic
3)it is psychopathic
and those three characteristics are characteristics of criminals that commit all crimes.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I said that animal torture, already a crime, has been proven to lead to other more serious crimes.
But that doesn't mean it is so. Like I said... there may be some correlation, but that isn't causation. And there's far from 100% correlation.
This whole bit reminds me of the gateway drug stuff they used to try to scare kids off of Marijuana. Like trying Marijuana invariably leads to dropping acid, snorting lines of coke, shooting up with smack, and finally an overdose in a rundown motel.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
like I said, Jeffrey Dahmer is the most obvious case of an animal torturer that lead to other more significant crimes.
If you actually believe that sadistic, psychopathic behavior doesn't lead to more serious crimes I can't help you. If you get your jollies from watching animals try and kill each other, then you not only have a high threshold for watching other's pain, but you also don't really care about anyone but yourself. Both of those traits are traits of criminals.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=13718&pst=791413&archival=...
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_...
here is an important passage..
Stephen Kellert and Allen Felthouse, who interviewed 152 criminals in 1985, found that aggressive criminals were more likely to have been cruel to animals in childhood compared to non-aggressive criminals and non-criminals ("Childhood Cruelty Towards Animals among Criminals and Non-criminals", Human Relations, Vol 38, No 2, 1985). Those interviewed reported 373 cases of violence against animals. Twenty-five per cent of the aggressive criminals reported at least five instances when they had been cruel to animals in childhood. Less than six per cent of the rest of the participants did so.
thus, it is not just logic that says that someone cruel to animals is a lot more likely to be cruel to humans but actual scientific studies as well.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
You cite a columnist who in turn refers to a single study with 152 selected data points, with no objective verification of the claims, nor any control at all, and call that proof?
I feel like I just walked into a Global Warming debate.
do you need? Are you really having a hard time believing that an individual that gets their jollies from watching animals kill each other is not more likely to be a criminal? Are you really having trouble believing that? Is that really such an outrageous statement to make?
Yeah, I am sure that people that like to watch dogs maul and kill each other and then, themselves, kill all the dogs they find to be not fit, are just pleasant and good people in every other facet of their life.
If you don't want to believe the study, why don't you just believe logic. Those individuals that are not only sadistic but also psychopathic, are those individuals that commit more crimes than other individuals.
If you actually believe that sadistic, psychopathic behavior doesn't lead to more serious crimes I can't help you.
The obvious thing to ask is how many people do you think Vic has killed? Where are the bodies hidden? Maybe you should phone this into the FBI. I mean, it's obvious. He was involved in dog fighting and that leads to crimes like rape and murder, so there must be bodies. Or did he just not get around to it yet? I guess he'll have plenty of time to start his career as a serial killer after he gets out of prison.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I didn't say that Vick was a serial killer, but I do believe that he either has or will commit many more serious crimes than the ones he is charged with.
You have the ultimate straw man arguement. Since I say that animal torture leads to more serious crimes like mass murder then that must mean that I think that Vick will be a mass murderer. I didn't say that. He has a much higher likelihood to commit much bigger crime. What, do you think that since he is really fast and athletic that he can't be a serious criminal. I think he can and he probably already is. First of all, none of us know what Vick has or hasn't done. He grew up in an extremely rough neighborhood. I don't know what sorts of things he has done. There are all sorts of rumors about him and women, those may or may not be true. I do know that he is extremely sadistic and extremely psychopathic and both of those are combinations for most criminals.
Question: Are matadors more likely to be involved in “serious crimes” than non-matadors?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
You're relying on the existance of animal cruelty as a crime, and then using that crime to bootstrap the existance of an interstate criminal enterprise as a reason to use that term "criminal enterprise" as a club to make your point.
I know of many enterprises in this country that are dedicated to doing things to animals that we'd never allow done to people, because we as a society generally tend to keep our heads and keep animals below people. We don't jail the board of McDonald's or the butchers at the slaughterhouse, though. Because the harsh treatment and finally killing animals for pleasure isn't a crime most of the time.
We as a society choose to accept the rounding up and mass killing of animals for the pure pleasure of people to eat their flesh, regardless of age. We take their eggs, we take their milk, we breed them and hook them up to machines. We keep them in cages and herd them into tight quarters to line up and die. We shave them, we shear them, we use their skins to make our furniture soft and pleasant.
We treat animals as property and resources most of the time without batting an eye. So yeah, when suddenly some PETA-driven uproar comes up, I'm disgusted by it, and I'm saying that the uproar is exactly as Erick says in the title of his post: a case of inappropriate priorities.
I don't think there are any founding fathers rolling over in their graves worried that we are trampling on property rights by making animal torture illegal. You can say that animals are property and you get to do to your property what you want, and you can call me inconsistent on property rights because I believe that animal torture should be illegal. I frankly could care less. I don't really care how consistent my stance is on animal torture as it relates to property rights. Animal torture isn't legal, it shouldn't be legal, and I will oppose it for all time.
I think that animal torture is good line to draw as far as property rights is concerned. If you want to take on a libertarian attitude you can, but that is because you are not one of the dogs being tortured. Like I said, apart from already being a crime and a crime at which there is also illegal betting going on, it is also a proven fact that animal torture leads to other much more serious crimes.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I think that animal torture is good line to draw as far as property rights is concerned.
Animal torture by PETA's definition? Animal rights types consider normal farming and slaughter practices to be torture. Some even consider pet ownership to be the equivalent to torture, with the pets better off dead and packed into trash bags than in some loving person's home.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
training your animal to kill another animal in a fight to death. How about if we just draw the line there?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
We should lock up whoever made that big cat pounce on that poor animal I saw on televisoin the other day. I mean, it just went and mauled the poor thing, out of the blue!
So your principle here, where you draw the line in defining abuse, is at whatever you personally feel is objectionable. We could just make it the law of the land that people need to check with Mike in advance and see if their actions might offend Mike's sensibilities. I guess it is safe to ignore the animal rights crowd's feelings on the matter because they never get their way on anything, right? After all, they have to realize that it's only where Mike would draw the line that counts, not where they would.
It's a good thing too, because if the animal rights guys had their way on this issue, nobody would be able to own a pet, take their kids to a zoo, or eat a hot dog ever again. After all, we all know guys who work at the slaughter house or raise chickens are much more likely to become serial killers.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
being fecitious, however I do know that training dogs to kill each other and then yourself killing those that aren't worthy is abuse. I can leave it up to the politicians to make the definition. I don't want this to become some issue where PETA makes looking at the dog funny abuse, however I do know that animal torture is not something that we should take lightly, and training dogs to kill each other is animal torture.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I don't think there are any founding fathers rolling over in their graves worried that we are trampling on property rights by making animal torture illegal. You can say that animals are property and you get to do to your property what you want, and you can call me inconsistent on property rights because I believe that animal torture should be illegal. I frankly could care less. I don't really care how consistent my stance is on animal torture as it relates to property rights. Animal torture isn't legal, it shouldn't be legal, and I will oppose it for all time.
The founding fathers I never invoked, and have nothing at all to do with what I said.
Nor does the current state of the law matter, either.
I'm claiming it's a wrongful establishment of priorities, which was the original point of the article Erick has posted.
You tried to argue in favor of it by saying we can use these laws as a way of catching the real criminals before they strike, but I don't buy it.
And now you're saying it's a proven fact that doing things to animals leads to doing things to people. Can you back up this claim?
Thanks,
I don't think that anyone's priorities are misplaced. Just because people are shocked and disturbed by dog fighting doesn't mean we don't care about the sanctity of human life.
I think the original arguement is a non sequitor. How exactly is an incident of animal torture supposed to naturally lead to a debate about the morality of abortion. Clearly, those trying to say that we care too much about animal abuse and not enough about the sanctity of life have an agenda. They are the ones looking to inject abortion into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.
You, on the other hand, excuse animal torture because you think of animals as property and feel the owner can do what they want and the police shouldn't really worry about it. That is where the property rights issue comes in.
I disagree and have stated why.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
by both you and zuiko on this...
Great point particularly on the apparent difference between people's revulsion to animal treatment that takes place in the production of food.
On the particular crime of Vick's, the question might be as to whether he and his associates had devised careful mechanisms to ensure the safety of the animals (like shoulder pads and helmets) and if people might therefore have been less revulsed at the prospect of pitting "dumb animals" against one another in a match of physical combat?
To a lesser degree there's an angle of unwarranted regulation aside from the animal aspect here. I understand that it is a crime in most states to simply attend a dog fight. One of the charges levied against Vick and his associates is conducting the enterprise across state lines - hardly relevant to animal cruelty as opposed to the government bureaucrat's overwhelming desire to control commerce and restrict ordinairy citizens (but not the government itself) from organizing gaming and gambling events.
I don't have any issue with people who think what Vick was up to is cruel and offensive, but the arguments for finding a genuine affront to justice in this case have not been very convincing.
The emotional disturbed children that I work with have been know to be "cruel" towards animals. Their cruelty to animals is an effect of their disturbance. It is not a cause of their disturbance. Are you suggesting that Jeffrey Dahmer disturbance was caused by his cruelty to animals?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
what you don't get is that most of these people wind up being rapists and murderers. Animal abuse is psychopathic behavior and it is a very small step from animal abuse to the crimes that you talk about.
Correlation is not causation. A better explanation is that people who like to rape and murder humans also often like to abuse animals in their downtime. I seriously doubt this Vic guy (and the many others just like him) are ever going to turn into serial killers.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am not a psychologist so I don't know the specifics of it, however I do know that it is a small step from animal torture to other crimes. How it all fits in as for as pathology is for criminal profilers and such.
My point is that animal torture goes hand in hand with other crimes and that is just one reason to try and investigate and punish all forms of it, which was my original point.
In the Vick case, what really disturbs me is that psychopathology is combined with extreme sadism which is further combined with unlimited weath and an inflated sense of entitlement. That, to me, is a very dangerous combination and I firmly believe that he needs serious psychological evaluation before he ever plays football again.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
or amplification I take it that the owner, viewing a living animal only as property, could be complicit in torture or abuse of animals, or rather an actor in such abuse. Is this correct?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
It's a tradeoff. My heart bleeds for puppies who get kicked, but my heart bleeds more for children who suffer. Imagine if all the police working on dog fighting cases instead worked on kidnapping cases? Couldn't we have a good chance of saving more kids from harm?
But before I respond let me point out that I already asserted that abuse of animals is a lesser crime, 1st post.
I'm not sure what you mean by "all the police". It's not as if they're scouring the streets looking for abused cats or rooster fights. Serious crimes always take precedence in the allocation of manpower, a decision process inherent in police administration. The law enforcement process distributes forces where the perceived need is greatest and in the normal course of their business I doubt very much if patrol manpower is decimated or even briefly reduced for animal abuse cases. If it is so on some minor basis you can bet that in emergency, crisis, or high profile situations, the cats and roosters have to wait.
In any case there are quasi-enforcement agencies,e.g. the ASPCA, that handle and/or assist in this area.
Your original post I thought left the door ajar to a possible callousness. I'll assume that is past and over.
But the question, the existence of bestiality in humans to God's lesser creatures is not to be minimized or forgotten, or the savagery to go unpunished.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I address the notion that the abuse of animals is somehow minor, perhaps indirectly brought up by Erick's post. I do not attribute this to Erick but it is a rather prevalent attitude.
Pending some expansion Of Neil Stevens's comments I daresay the attitude has surfaced here. At no point or time would I place the lives of humans below or behind that of animals although I might make an exception for the abuser of one of mine.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
animal abuse is that they like babies are innocent and cannot comprehend the pain and fear that they have. I have always said that anyone who would hurt an animal or a child could hurt anyone. The point is proven by Hamas television, they of course are terrorizing cats in front of kids because if those kids cannot feel compassion for an animal they will have none for a human being there by creating the perfect monster.
I have heard this arguement before that we, as a society, are outraged in a misplaced way over animal torture. I think that J.C. Watts recently wrote something like this.
I think this is pure nonsense. The Vick saga disturbs most people's sensibilities for many, many reasons, and I don't think that animal torture should somehow lead naturally to a debate over the sanctity of human life.
This incident bothers and disturbs me for several reasons. He is as you say a bully, and bullies are really among the worst sorts of creatures there are. There is really nothing lower than someone that exploits and takes advantage of those that are weaker than them, and that is what Vick did. I have no doubt that he has probably been a bully his entire life all through school and beyond.
Second, this is sadism that is frankly just off the charts. It is disturbing and dangerous.
Third, we combine this with his enormous wealth and clear sense of entitlement, and what you have is a dangerous individual. Ask any criminal psychologist and they will tell you that it is a very short step between animal torture and other much more significant crimes. I don't know what else he has done, but I strongly believe that before any sort of reinstatement occurs to the NFL, he needs serious psychological help.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Dobson: With all the outrage about animal abuse, you would think and hope more of us would be infinitely more outraged about the disregard for human life in its most helpless form.
Mike, John, et al: Animal abuse? Did someone say animal abuse? Who said it! I will find them! Nothing chaps my hide like animal abuse!
-------------------------------------------------------
"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
I admit I am not a big Dobson fan but he might not want to talk about animal abuse since many articles were written about this passage in one of his books;
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
The man is a control freak and does not speak for me.
Shouldn't the treatment of animals be addressed at the state level? Is this really the proper role of federal government?
From what I have read and heard, Vick and his cohorts tortured the dogs as well using them for dog fighting.
I have also read that dog fighting is widespread in the US, especially in the inner city. I would suggest that there is no massive outlay of police resources taken away from normal policing because we never hear about dog fighting in the cities.
The local prosecutor was taking his own sweet time with his investigation. I doubt if he would have moved to indict.
If Dobson's remark's were related to abortion then I agree with him. But abortion is still a separate issue.
and I'd love to hear the same point made by the Republican presidential candidates...publicly.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."