The murder or torture of an innocent child OR dog is abhorrent. If you wish to argue that killing a dog in this manner is somehow more acceptable than killing a child, then please logically justify your position. Simply arguing that being a member of the human species merits one a higher value doesn't wash (especially since none of us can take credit for having been born as a human rather than a non-human).

Us humans have always used the tired, old argument that we as a species are greater than any other because of our intelligence, our emotional complexity, and our supposed sense of morality (although if you look around you, this could easily be disputed).

But since that antiquated view was first formally conceived thousands of years ago, some of the more intelligent humans on the planet have made incredible discoveries. Shocking but true; it has now virtually been proven that many animal species' level of intelligence is on par with or even exceeds that of many humans, namely; infants, young children, and intellectually handicapped individuals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that many animals lead rich emotional lives. And as for moral superiority, that too is highly debatable. Many, many species of animals demonstrate moral awareness and behaviour - even more so than humans in some areas. We conveniently ignore the fact that the human sense of morality is thrown out the window when it comes to other species. If there is no direct benefit to us as a species or even as an individual the rules suddenly change. What kind of a moral code is that? If you want to compare a dog's sense of morality with that of a human being, I would say the dog wins that one hands down.

So given all of the above, how can one argue that the way Michael Vick tortured and killed those innocent dogs is more acceptable simply because they were dogs and not humans? We all love our children and inherently possess a profound instinct to protect them. But let's not let our (understandably) biased feelings towards them cloud this issue. Pain is pain, suffering is suffering, and death is death, no matter what species you are. I can assure you that the dogs that Michael Vick heartlessly tortured and killed suffered no less physically or mentally than any small human child would have. This kind of intense pain and cessation of life is the great equalizer amongst all species. Therefore, the punishment should reflect the cruelty of the act itself, and not be any less than if it had been committed against a child.

There was a dark time in our recent history when horrific crimes went unpunished or the perpetrators only received a slap on the wrist. The justification? Despite the evidence to the contrary, some human races were almost considered non-human, not equal to certain other races; almost considered to be other "species" if you will. It was thought by many that these individuals were less intelligent and that their emotions were inconsequential. Therefore, inflicting pain, suffering, and death upon them was acceptable, for they were viewed as less valuable. Nowadays this notion is absurd, and it is hard to understand how some people could ever have had those beliefs. Eventually society evolved and racism is now considered unacceptable by the majority. However, the same story continues to play itself out in the present. The only difference is we can replace the word "racism" with "specieism." Eventually, in the future, society's views towards non-human animals will evolve as well. And Michael Vick's punishment is an excellent place to start.

The link to vegetarianism is sound. No doubt about it. Reasoning and logic have lead to that conclusion.
It's not the reasoning that doesn't make sense it's the fact that this end result, what our morals demand of us is so drastically different than what we're used to, than what we expect.
For years we have been accustomed to treating animals as less than humans. This makes sense since animals are not humans, but why make such a harsh comparison? Why judge every pebble against mount everest? This doesn't make sense to me. Why not judge a pig against others pigs, or a chimp against other chimps? A scale that seems reasonable.
What doesn't make sense? That we should all be vegetarian? I suggest you look into vegetarianism, or veganism. These lifestyles enjoy many many positive attributes, from living a longer healthier lifestyle to fighting greenhouse gas emissions--climate change.
The reasoning is there. It's logical. The demands may be nonsensical because our brains cannot comprehend equality i mean how long has slavery been around? Or simply because we do not want to change our lifestyles, we do not want to do what our morals indicate so we dismiss the notion all together. But I assure you, philosophically speaking, the logic and reasoning has been right for centuries. Our lifestyles however have not caught up.

I think it's time we rethink our relationship with animals. I think it's time we really question the habits and prejudices we've picked up through history the ones we never gave another thought about.

I think that people and animals share a lot in common. I mean sure there are many differences as well, but what this blog is about is something we've all known for years. Animals have feelings too. If we put them out in the cold they shiver, if we don't give them water they get thirsty, if we shoot them they cower in pain.
I think we should give their interests equal consideration when making choices about them.
Anything less would be speciesim, the animal equivalent of racism--prejudices solely based on membership to a particular species. A very arbitrary distinction.
I hope I don't have to talk about why racism is wrong.
A good first step would be to stop any unnecessary pain or cruelty involving animals.

By the way I would argue a cow, dog, pig almost any mammal is more advanced both and intelligently emotionally than a newborn.