i thought he did a fine job of explaining the concept to me, so i let him do it here as well. just being intellectually honest.

if you look at the bit of text i'm responding to, you'll see that i'm not making an argument about the particular michael vick case, just point out that ms. keys is engaging in the use of the "false universal" with her assertion that "anyone with a heart would find this cruel." it simply is not true. see mr. yo's post about people he knows who are otherwise "good people" but who nevertheless find nothing wrong with having two birds battle to the death for their personal fun and profit. it is very possible that michael vick grew up in a culture that did not put the same value on the lives of these dogs that you, i, or mr. yo would. it would not make him heartless or mentally deficient. it is what it is. this is our particular culture, and not a "natural" state of humanity, as she is insisting, any more than making dogs fight each other is. telling you that your set of values is influenced by cultural, historical and even ideological perspectives is supposed to illustrate that very point, that they are not "natural," they have been shaped and informed by our history and the culture we live in. but if you want to argue that we should pursue imposing these "natural" values on the entire world regardless of any of these concerns, then i guess you don't really care about such malarkey.

of course, none of this is to say that michael vick should not be punished. the law, as well, is what it is.