You are repeating yourself. What is your point?
No, the meat industry's method of killing animals does not mirror the media description of the way Michael Vick did it. The meat industry general uses electrorbs or stun guns to knock the animal out to render it unconscious. At this point they are still alive. The application of an elctrorb is not death by electrocution, but a sharp quick shock to the nervous system to render the animal unconcious. Nearly all the animals die by exsanguination - not by any of the method you mentioned. Furthermore, the meat industry does not practice torture. Either you're engaging in hyperbole which undermines your point or you don't know what torture is.
It should be noted that we distinguish similar behavior all the time based on the circurmstances or motives surrounding the behavior. Murder is wrong, but just war might be ok. Murder is wrong, but self defense is ok. Murder is wrong, but 1st degree is worst than second degree. Killing deer is wrong, but might be ok if their overpopulation threatens an ecosystem. Your analysis seems a bit simplistic particularly when you say things like:QuoteAnd no, this situation is not different, all animal abuse is wrong. The feds choose to crack down on the Fido and Fefe abusers only because they are not a part of our diet, among other reasons.
The situation is obviously different and even if we agreed that animal "abuse" is wrong, we would recognize some situations, whether for necessity or practicality, where an exception would be justified, correct? Finally, how do you know the FEDS chose to crack down on the dog abusers "ONLY because they are not part of our diet." Oh wait..."among other reasons?" I don't understand your point. If there are other reasons, then maybe the decision to crack down has nothing to do with diet at all, but with how we treat domesticated animals that are often considered important members of families. Or perhaps it has something to do with deterring a horrible practice that is not only sickening, but dangerous to the health and welfare of people in urban communities and residential neighborhoods. Or perhaps it has something to do with the amount of money Vick and his party was making as a result of their illegal activities and "animal cruelty" was a distant secondary consideration? If you admit there are other reasons why the FEDS might crack down, then how does your point withstand scrutiny?
This is not to say your entire position is without merit. I admire your beliefs and your willingness to call out the USDA and their practices of slaughtering animals. I think you highlight a number of important issues including the possibility of there being a more humane way to slaughter and process slaughterhouse animals. I'm just not sure how compelling the USDA connection is to the Michael Vick case.
lol... this thread was so long ago... i'm amazed it is still around!! Reading it almost brings tears to my eyes. I'm happy that my story has been so inspirational to them.... I wish all of you luck in your up in comming cycle and hope that you all have the success that I'v had.
Low LSAT means nothing.!! my LSGPA is now a 3.2! top 1/3 of the class!! Beat kids who got over a 160 on the LSAT.. So again! the LSAT MEANS NOTHING!! IT IS JUST A STUPID WAY FOR SCHOOLS TO SEPARATE STUDENTS!! gOOD LUCK TO ALL!!
Finally, yes, the meat industry feeds many people, but that is no excuse for the horrific manner in which they choose to go about it. There is a humane way to raise these animals and prepare them for slaughter, it's in the Bible. The meat industry also tortures animals, but because they do it for production purposes, that makes it ok? WTF ever.
Bolded #1; I agree, but this thread is about Vick not the food production, and using the argument that "other people do worse things" as defense is dumb.Bolded #2; Who gives a sh*t if it's in the bible...
Bolded #3; No it doesn't make it ok, but it is more acceptable when it is part of something that serves a purpose, not just mindless entertainment for idiots with too much money and time.
Right. You're fighting on two fronts here.
First you have to get past a school's standards to get into the school. Then the state's C and F to sit for the bar.
I'm guessing that it will be easier to find a law school to accept you, especially if you have good numbers. Although you will have to write a great explanation and you may have to be willing to lower your standards as to what type of school if schools don't like your criminal past.
I know in my state one can apply to C and F during first year of law school. So you don't necessarily have to wait until you graduate to find out about this. So if you go to law school, apply as soon as you can for C and F of the state you choose because they are going to scrutinize you hard.
But, from my Professional Responsibilities class professor, I know some state's C and F committees are more forgiving than others for past criminal acts. So you might have to be willing to move out of state and/or apply to multiple state's C and F if you want to be a lawyer. But I really don't know.
Perhaps you should find an expert in this field, maybe a local law school's Professional Responsibilities professors would be willing to point you in the right direction?