Reply #54: No. I can comprehend just fine.

[obxhead]

The problem is you have a justification for one purpose, but not the other.

Vick's dogs were serving a purpose, entertainment. Was it right? No. Was it justified? No. Is Vick a bad man for doing it? Yes.

What you are saying is torture of animals is just fine, top of the world wonderful because we EAT them. Stop and think about what you are saying for goodness sake. If we ATE people would that make GITMO ok? Would it make Abu Ghraib? That's EXACTLY what you are saying.

There is little difference other than one act is justified by you, the other is abhorred you. The FACT is both groups of animals are tortured daily. The fact that McDonalds can take those tortured chickens and make a dollar sandwich from them is hardly a reason to allow a corporation to torture an animal. It seems you are perfectly fine with that though.

Edit to add:

What you're really saying is that the end result of the Vick torture was the real problem. If he had processed the dogs after their torture and shipped them off to a country that eats dogs to be consumed his torture would be just as justified as any mass production food processor that uses tortured stock.