Eddie is safe now, 'dawg.

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Because you know if they make it illegal nobody does it anymore!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335390,00.html

Wyoming Becomes 50th State to Criminalize Dogfighting

WASHINGTON — With enactment of Wyoming's new law making dog-fighting a felony, all 50 states now have criminalized the bloodsport, a move that the Humane Society of the United States ushers in as a new era for man's best friend.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed the legislation Tuesday to up the penalty for participating in dog fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony. Wyoming followed Idaho, whose governor signed similar legislation last week.

With the case of jailed former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick shedding light on the practice, Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle is calling it a new era for dogs and a moment for Americans to savor.

"This is a real reason to celebrate — a landmark moment in the struggle to rid our nation of this hideously cruel activity that destroys so many innocent animals and is so corrosive to the ideals of a decent and civil society," Pacelle said.

More at link...
 
Watermark said:
Because making something illegal can never completely stop the action, we should legalize murder and rape.
Click to expand...
Or reversely, since it is such a good measure of what society "thinks" regardless of its effectiveness we should make anything at all "undesirable" illegal.
 
Damocles said:
Or reversely, since it is such a good measure of what society "thinks" regardless of its effectiveness we should make anything at all "undesirable" illegal.
Click to expand...

Of course, because illegalizing something doesn't reduce the amount it's done at all. If rape were legal, we'd still have the exact same number of rapes. Same thing with dogfighting, right?
 
Watermark said:
Of course, because illegalizing something doesn't reduce the amount it's done at all. If rape were legal, we'd still have the exact same number of rapes. Same thing with dogfighting, right?
Click to expand...
Again, it doesn't matter if it lowers the incidence, since we use it as a measure of what is "undesirable". We should make drinking illegal, even drugs because of it. Such an argument for laws is most definitely and demonstrably a slippery slope.
 
Damocles said:
Again, it doesn't matter if it lowers the incidence, since we use it as a measure of what is "undesirable". We should make drinking illegal, even drugs because of it. Such an argument for laws is most definitely and demonstrably a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Enforcing drug laws to an effective degree would require us to shovel the constitution, because it's an individual action. Then comes the moral question; why should we put someone in prison for doing something which can't hurt anyone else?

Laws against dogfighting and rape are much more enforcable, and, in any case, perpetrators are doing something wrong to an indivudal, someone other than themselves, and there's no question that the persons involved should be punished in any rational society.
 
Watermark said:
Enforcing drug laws to an effective degree would require us to shovel the constitution, because it's an individual action. Then comes the moral question; why should we put someone in prison for doing something which can't hurt anyone else?
Click to expand...

And your conclusion?

Laws against dogfighting and rape are much more enforcable, and, in any case, perpetrators are doing something wrong to an indivudal, someone other than themselves, and there's no question that the persons involved should be punished in any rational society.
Click to expand...

So enforceability is the measure of what should or should not be laws? Again, a demonstrable and easily illustrated slippery slope.
 
Damocles said:
And your conclusion?
Click to expand...

That personal things like you mentioned aren't enforcable and shouldn't be enforced.


Damocles said:
So enforceability is the measure of what should or should not be laws?
Click to expand...

Enforcability is a measure of how easy it is to enforce a law. Rape is clear. If you find people in a dogfighting ring, it's clear.

You're never going to get caught doing drugs though. It's ridiculously easy to hide and no level of modern enforcement would do the job properly.

And as said above dogfighting is wrong because is has victims, and it's disgusting that you support people who victimize individuals like that.

Damocles said:
Again, a demonstrable and easily illustrated slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope is a dumbass libertarian fallacy, which has absolutely no bearing on what we're discussing unless you do a Damo and deliberately ignore everything the other guy is saying.
 
Watermark said:
That personal things like you mentioned aren't enforcable and shouldn't be enforced.




Enforcability is a measure of how easy it is to enforce a law. Rape is clear. If you find people in a dogfighting ring, it's clear.

You're never going to get caught doing drugs though. It's ridiculously easy to hide and no level of modern enforcement would do the job properly. And as said above, these rape/dogfighting are wrong because they aren't victimless.



Slippery slope is a dumbass libertarian fallacy.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, in this case it is easily and demonstrably a slippery slope. In each case laws created for either reason could easily go too far.

While I don't think it is too far to go to protect animals from such actions, making it law because it is enforceable is a terrible precedent.

As for the "personal things" I mentioned, they were mentioned towards a point, you almost came to a conclusion that didn't include me or an assumption of opinion that is markedly incorrect. Let's see if you can take that last step!
 
Damocles said:
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, in this case it is easily and demonstrably a slippery slope. In each case laws created for either reason could easily go too far.

While I don't think it is too far to go to protect animals from such actions, making it law because it is enforceable is a terrible precedent.
Click to expand...

You were making the argument that it shouldn't be a law because it wouldn't stop it; you were saying it's unenforcable.
 
Watermark said:
You were making the argument that it shouldn't be a law because it wouldn't stop it; you were saying it's unenforcable.
Click to expand...
I was making no such assertion. Read again and see where it leads you. Check your conclusion to the direct question and see what you come up with when personalities are removed.
 
I'll repeat this one part of the post because it is likely you didn't read it.

As for the "personal things" I mentioned, they were mentioned towards a point, you almost came to a conclusion that didn't include me or an assumption of opinion that is markedly incorrect. Let's see if you can take that last step!
Click to expand...
 
Watermark said:
That by saying it wouldn't stop it you didn't mean that you thought it should be legal?
Click to expand...
Not quite.

The reason behind laws are as important as the laws themselves, it is what we work towards. So far you were working towards a conclusion you could be proud of. When seeking that philosophy behind the laws, the very reason they are made, it is best to not include "Damocles" because he isn't quite that important.
 
Damocles said:
Or reversely, since it is such a good measure of what society "thinks" regardless of its effectiveness we should make anything at all "undesirable" illegal.
Click to expand...

that unfortunately coupled with selective enforcement seems to be the way we are going. It sucks too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top