I don't support cruelty to animals, be it for food consumption or sport. I suggest that you read Steven's post above yours, for it might help differentiate between consuming other flesh as a means of survival and the intentional cruelty inflicted upon another being for the sole purpose of pleasure.
If you eat anything that was once alive, you are supporting the death of other beings. If you wash your hands with antibacterial soap, you are killing many other life forms. Perhaps you'd like to relate washing ones hands to dog fighting.
On the flip side, perhaps you've found a new defense tactic for serial rapists. "Hey, who here hasn't eaten a burger? Don't you judge me."
The bit about survival I don't buy at all. Plenty of people have lived without consuming meat. Let's admit it to ourselves, we do it because we like it, not because we have to. It's not survival, it's comfort. None of us are out in the wilderness hunting to sustain our lives. We're on the internet, and the last time I checked the wilderness doesn't have Wifi access.
I would relate them and I do. But I have the same answer that I do about the Michael Vick thing. We're doing it, even if it's not intentional. The law defines his punishment as served. If we want to live in a land of laws, then he served his time and he should continue to live his life.
When a large corporation dumps toxic materials into a water source and kills tons of eco-life, they're fined, sued, driven out of business. Occassionally someone is jailed, but more often than not it's a monetary penalty. The value of life to the law, when it's not a warm cuddly body they lay with and play with, has a pricetag apparently.
Good one about the rapist.
I see your point, but it would have been more directly correlated had you said his defense would be "Hey, haven't you ever screwed someone that didn't want it?"
Me personally, I think the punishment wasn't NEARLY severe enough, BUT I also believe the punishments for many crimes aren't severe enough. The law unfortunately says you served your time, so who am I to confine you to a prison in your own life after serving your time.
I agree with most of you about the crime, but the choice of whether or not he should be allowed back , in my humble opinion, really boils down to his ability to perform his job. Obviously I wouldn't hire a convicted pedophile to work at Chuck E Cheese. I definitely wouldn't hire a convicted robbery perp to work at a bank. I'd send every murderer on death row overseas with a rifle and some bullets to do what they do best, but I wouldn't let them back on our streets.
Now if he were a truly good person, he'd become a champion for animal rights and a very public face against organized animal fighting circles. That'd show that not only did he learn the error of his ways, he feels it's important to show everyone else the wrongness of it. I'm not saying he will, but wouldn't it be great if he does?
