uscitizen
Villified User
Over 13,000 drunk driving deaths too.
Aint it Great That We Have the Government Protecting Dogs From Cruelty
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Over 13,000 drunk driving deaths too.
I am saying that before they gained rights they were property. You have a short memory if you don't remember that before we were around there was this thing called slavery practiced here. There were these laws that termed them property, they had laws against their inhumane treatment in some areas, but were they rights?So you are saying that African Americans are property ?
I can't believe that you cannot remember some of that history, therefore I believe you are being deliberately obtuse as to my meaning.
uscitizen
Villified User
Explain why. Tell me how your property, your pet, has 'rights' instead of just saying. "No." Give me your insight not your inane "nope".
Which was my point. Before they gained rights they were property. There was even laws against their inhumane treatment, rarely did they work to protect them though.
True. It is a philosophical discussion, it is however one of the very reasons for the board. To discuss such issues.
As I said, there are laws against their inhumane treatment, but that does not afford them rights.
No, but you clearly are. Did the African-Amercians have rights before they were no longer termed property? Ask an African-American whether they think that laws against the inhumane treatment of property are the same as rights. If they were there was no reason for them to fight so hard for rights.
Dogs are still property, they do not have rights just as the African-American slave did not have rights. When was the great Emancipation Proclamation for Dogs? Which Amendment to the Constitution gave them such an Emancipation and why haven't I been approached for owning some?So were dogs , they now have rights. Thanks for backing me up Damo
Your avatar is very fitting for your actions in this thread.
They can't, they are prosecuted for specific laws that specify what actions you can take with your property, or another's. If they had Rights, it would be a civil rights violation.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
And in what way does this pertain to animal rights, are you saying that blacks are no better than dogs? It appears that this is what you are implying.
uscitizen
Villified User
You are just nit picking.
Rights are not an all or nothing thing.
We hoomans seem to have as many "rights" as we can afford....
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
Look Jackass, did I say No, or nope? of course not. You apparently are confusing Constitutional rights, with simple rights, in this case right to proper treatment.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
Your point is a humdred years late. they are not dogs.
uscitizen
Villified User
Falcons want $22 million back from Vick
QB must stay on team's roster until issue settled
By STEVE WYCHE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/26/07
The Falcons will try to recoup $22 million already paid to suspended quarterback Michael Vick, a person with knowledge of the team's plans told the Journal-Constitution on Saturday.
Vick was suspended indefinitely by the NFL on Friday after he pleaded guilty to federal dogfighting charges in Virginia. That cleared the way for the Falcons to pursue money paid to Vick in signing bonus money.
RELATED STORIES
* Falcons' Horn glad Vick did 'what he had to do'
* Nike terminates contract with Vick
* NFL's letter to Vick
* Disagreement over whether to condemn Vick's dogs
Complete Vick coverage
Vick has received roughly $40 million in guaranteed bonuses — and even more in base salary — but teams are only allowed to try to recoup money paid in signing bonuses, per the collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.
To collect the money, Vick must remain on the Falcons' roster. Therefore the team will not release Vick until the matter is resolved, the person familiar with the situation said.
The Falcons are expected to cut ties with Vick, once their most popular player, once the signing bonus matter is finalized.
If Atlanta receives payment from Vick, the money would be applied to the salary cap of the upcoming season. For example, should Atlanta receive all of the $22 million it seeks before the 2008 NFL calendar year, it would be credited toward the 2008 salary cap.
That would provide a huge windfall of cap space for the Falcons to use in pursuing free agent players.
As for this season, the Falcons will not have to pay Vick his $6 million base salary. However, he will count roughly $8.5 million against their salary cap. Though Vick will remain on the roster, he will be placed on a suspended list, which will allow the Falcons to add a player in Vick's place.
This could be the latest financial hit for Vick. On Friday, Nike official severed its ties with the quarterback, saying in a statement, "We consider any cruelty to animals inhumane, abhorrent and unacceptable."
The shoe giant earlier had suspended Vick's endorsement contract.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/08/25/vickbonus_0826.html
QB must stay on team's roster until issue settled
By STEVE WYCHE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/26/07
The Falcons will try to recoup $22 million already paid to suspended quarterback Michael Vick, a person with knowledge of the team's plans told the Journal-Constitution on Saturday.
Vick was suspended indefinitely by the NFL on Friday after he pleaded guilty to federal dogfighting charges in Virginia. That cleared the way for the Falcons to pursue money paid to Vick in signing bonus money.
RELATED STORIES
* Falcons' Horn glad Vick did 'what he had to do'
* Nike terminates contract with Vick
* NFL's letter to Vick
* Disagreement over whether to condemn Vick's dogs
Complete Vick coverage
Vick has received roughly $40 million in guaranteed bonuses — and even more in base salary — but teams are only allowed to try to recoup money paid in signing bonuses, per the collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.
To collect the money, Vick must remain on the Falcons' roster. Therefore the team will not release Vick until the matter is resolved, the person familiar with the situation said.
The Falcons are expected to cut ties with Vick, once their most popular player, once the signing bonus matter is finalized.
If Atlanta receives payment from Vick, the money would be applied to the salary cap of the upcoming season. For example, should Atlanta receive all of the $22 million it seeks before the 2008 NFL calendar year, it would be credited toward the 2008 salary cap.
That would provide a huge windfall of cap space for the Falcons to use in pursuing free agent players.
As for this season, the Falcons will not have to pay Vick his $6 million base salary. However, he will count roughly $8.5 million against their salary cap. Though Vick will remain on the roster, he will be placed on a suspended list, which will allow the Falcons to add a player in Vick's place.
This could be the latest financial hit for Vick. On Friday, Nike official severed its ties with the quarterback, saying in a statement, "We consider any cruelty to animals inhumane, abhorrent and unacceptable."
The shoe giant earlier had suspended Vick's endorsement contract.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/08/25/vickbonus_0826.html
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
There is no other way to put this, but that is a load of crap. those are "RIGHTS"
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
Another of your snide remarks? NAH, you NEVER insult.
No, I am saying that before they were granted rights they were often treated the same, and in many cases worse than they were. Therefore I would again suggest you ask if laws against inhumane treatment are the same things as rights of a minority who had to actually suffer that indignity before their rights were recognized at all. Before this nation recognized the humanity of that minority, there were laws regulating humane treatment of your slaves, did this grant them rights or were they still property?
It is painfully obvious that you all are tap-dancing around the question because it makes it uncomfortable for your argument. The fact is, humans have rights, dogs are property. We have laws against inhumane treatment but they are not the same things as rights. It is foolish to attempt to compare the two.
You may argue that animals should have rights, as PETA does, and that we should not be allowed to own them at all. But arguing that cruelty laws are the same as rights is simply emoting all over the idea and lowering rights to any law whatsoever that may be passed.
They are not. When was the last time a lawsuit was filed in a civil court because the rights of the animal were violated. You can sue another because they harmed your animal, your property, just as you can with a car. That does not give the 'car' rights.
There are all sorts of laws about how you can use your property, in this case how you are allowed to damage it. Those are not 'rights' any more than laws against speeding. They simply regulate your use of your property.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
Only if they were Human, and covered by the constitution. Rights, ---Constitutional Rights, ---- Civil rights.---natural rights -----they are all rights, but are all differenet.