RFFL Chump Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Tough decision Big Score, but right on target IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffian Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 And if it were a 3rd string guy, he would be cut by now. Amen. Preach on, brother. Vick is getting more attention, yes...but he'll have the best lawyers dogfighting money can buy. He's already enjoying his status--the average person busted for a crime that requires the Feds do dig up your yard is handed a box for his personals and escorted to the exit of the builing THAT DAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Vick is getting more attention, yes...but he'll have the best lawyers dogfighting money can buy. He's already enjoying his status--the average person busted for a crime that requires the Feds do dig up your yard is handed a box for his personals and escorted to the exit of the builing THAT DAY. Yeah, how did the high priced legal teams work out for Skilling, Nacchio, & Martha Stewart? Although I hope his lawyers bleed him for every freakin' cent they can before he commences with the ass-pounding that he so richly deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Comon ursa. He could've paid Bush to get them sent to Iraq, but instead said let's burry them in the backyard. I don't know it's hard to say that someone that is making more than a lot of people make in their lives in one year that he lacks common sense to that extreme. I guess you've never heard Vick give an interview or speak publicly. The man is definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, if he wanted to fight a war of wits with anyone he'd be in a battle without any ammo. Would he be stupid enough to do something like this and not consider the consequences? OOOHHHHHHHHHHH yeah he would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 When someone reaches to make a direct comparison between dog fighting and hunting, they encourage belittlement and I'm more than happy to accomodate them. Extrapolate that. Figures you couldn't find a coherent argument with two hands and a flashlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Figures you couldn't find a coherent argument with two hands and a flashlight. Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I'm also more than aware that sometimes dogs are put down for failing to perform. When I was first out of school, I traveled a lot & during my travels I happened to work a on a sheep farm & then a cattle station (in Australia). On both farms there were of course working dogs, pets somewhat, but first & foremost, they were working dogs. I did see where some dogs from a litter were given a couple of years to show if they had the talent / instinct / smarts to pick up the skills needed to be working dogs. If they didn't show the aptitude, one day I'd see them head off for a ride they never came back from. Quickly & humanely put down with a 22. Every man, woman, child & dog has to pull their weight on a working farm. No free rides there. well, i think your decision with regards to season tix is a courageous one, and i agree with most of your post. but i'm not sure i see the enormous difference between putting a herding dog down that won't herd, and putting a fighting dog down that won't fight. or a racing dog that won't run, for that matter. i mean, the children who don't pull their weight on the farm don't get a .22 to the head, do they? also, i don't know what makes you think vick & co. took pleasure in killing the injured and/or poor-performing dogs. seems to me like it was just part of the business, same as at the farm, same as at the greyhound track. their problem is that this particular business is a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 also, i don't know what makes you think vick & co. took pleasure in killing the injured and/or poor-performing dogs. seems to me like it was just part of the business, same as at the farm, same as at the greyhound track. C'mon. You've got to be fishing because I KNOW that you're smarter than that. If you want to put down an animal humanely, you give it a lethal injection or at very worst put a bullet in its brain. These guys electrocuted, hung, and bounced dogs off the floor until they were dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 ok BB, if a bullet in the brain is so much more humane than electrocution, that must explain why the government, bound by the constitutional sanction against cruel and unusual punishment, uses firing squads all the time but outlawed the electric chair. oh wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) ok BB, if a bullet in the brain is so much more humane than electrocution, that must explain why the government, bound by the constitutional sanction against cruel and unusual punishment, uses firing squads all the time but outlawed the electric chair. oh wait.... I knew that was coming. If our society has gotten to the point where it feels that the only possible way to get justice is to take a person's life, then personally I could care less whether they were hung, electrocuted, thrown off a cliff, keel hauled, or blown away with a .44 to the head. However, because of the politically correct amongst us, it has been determined that the older ways of taking a life like hanging or electrocution (which included a touch of vengenance, I'll willingly admit) is preferable to a bullet in the brain. Since I don't make those decisions, and never have been involved in making those decisions, I have no intention of trying to get into the heads of people who think it is more human to execute a human by what I would consider less humane methods like the noose or Ol' Sparky. BTW - you missed lethal injection as a method of injection, as well as the gas chamber. They still do that, don't they? Edited July 20, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 However, because of the politically correct amongst us, it has been determined that the older ways of taking a life like hanging or electrocution (which included a touch of vengenance, I'll willingly admit) is preferable to a bullet in the brain. what?? this makes no sense. the electric chair is older than a bullet in the brain? the politically correct among us determined we should go with the old, vengeful ways of putting a convict to death? you're arguing yourself in circles. my point was...electrocution passes the constitutional test against cruel and unusual punishment, firing squad doesn't. simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 what?? this makes no sense. the electric chair is older than a bullet in the brain? the politically correct among us determined we should go with the old, vengeful ways of putting a convict to death? you're arguing yourself in circles. my point was...electrocution passes the constitutional test against cruel and unusual punishment, firing squad doesn't. simple. No, I did not state that the electric chair is older than shooting someone. As far as I know, no one has been shot in the head as a method of state execution in a long, long time, if ever. The firing squad's aiming point was the heart. As far as calling the electric chair or the noose "older methods", that was in comparison with gas and/or injection. My apologies if I did not make that clear. What would be your speculation that a shot to the head is not used to execute someone? Too messy? Requires too intimate of contact between executioner & condemned to ensure proper placement of the bullet? As far as passing constitutionality regarding the electric chair & not the firing squad or a bullet in the head, I stated from the beginning that I wasn't capable of speculating on why that is - it makes no sense to me to make that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 it makes no sense to me to make that distinction. but you're happy to make the exact same distinction in reverse if it allows you to wallow around in your righteous disgust for michael vick? i just think it's dumb to assume that when vick & co. put one of their dogs down, they took some sadistic pleasure in it. more likely, it was just business. however, i think you can safely assume they took sadistic pleasure in watching one of their own dogs kill or maim another dog in the ring. there's plenty here to get all indignant about without needing to make silly assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I knew someone would go in this direction, and am quite frankly shocked that it has taken this long. You know what else we should do, dm? We shoulds arrest all boxing fans & boxing promoters, too, since humans are also animals, boxing pits them against each other violently, and people enjoy watching boxing, as well as gambling on it. In fact, that same argument works for football, too, doesn't it. Okay, everyone. March right down to your local law enforcement office & turn yourselves in. Take your wife & kids with you if they use animal products in any way, shape, or form or eat meat also. You are all under arrest. your point is taken ,but it is just a little off target since we humans make a personal choice to box , we are not forced to box to survive ....that would be more inkind to gladiator days .... the only point i was making is that its just very hypocritical for politicians and the kind to stand up on their soap boxes and act like this is just barbaric and cruel when they themselves have no problem picking up a gun and hunting down an animal just for the sport of it , or fishing for shark and marlin just for the sport of it . it is exactly the same thing but since most sport hunting is done by rich white guys nobody gives a Sega! and lord forbid a politician that would get on his soap box and possibly upset a campaign donor . but since dog figting seems to be more in the black community they feel obligated to get up and preach their bullSega! . like i said earlier I AM AGAINST SPORT HUNTING AND FISHING AND DOG FIGHTING, bull fighting ,cock fighting, etc etc... i think it is cruel and inhumane , but im not ready to put a guy in prison for 6 years for it when its perfectly legal and acceptable to hunt other animals just for the sport of it ......now if you are hunting to feed yourself and your family or to help control the population of certain animals (such as deer )then i look at it a bit differently and i can see where it could be justified... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 When hunting, my kids are taught to respect the outdoors and wildlife. There's nothing respectful about forcing dogs to fight to the death. Your post is absurd. how is executing an animal just for the sport of it being respectful , oh wait your shot it in the head so it died quickly right and if you happened to miss that heart shot you tracked it down and put a bullit in his head , thats being humane and respectful? please explain yourself otherwise your comment is absurd ! now i have no problem with hunting for food or to help control the population of deer etc but people that hunt strictly for the sport of it for that trophy they can mount on their wall is no different then fighting dogs .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 For starters, marlin and sharks are usually eaten after they're killed. And like salmon, cows, and chickens, they don't have the same level of intellectual development as, say, dolphins or sea lions.Domesticated dogs and cats are highly-intelligent (one of my cats learned how to open doors) and form strong bonds with their owners. Bears and sharks typically don't wag their tails in excitement and plop down at the foot of their owners when they come home from work. I don't know if it's MORE relevant, but it certainly is a major part of their case. ive seen bears and big cats and elephants etc ..in the circus and in movies and they all learn to jump through hoops etc ..so making the claim that domesticated dogs and cats are any more intelligent then a bear or big cat and therefore its okay to execute them for the purpose of putting a trophy on your wall or a rug on your floor is a little absurd .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 now i have no problem with hunting for food or to help control the population of deer etc but people that hunt strictly for the sport of it for that trophy they can mount on their wall is no different then fighting dogs .... eh, i'm not sure whether i agree with you or not. but you know what i think is clearly WORSE than dog fighting is bull "fighting". and heck, our moral betters in france (if you ask them) still allow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) So, you're saying hunting and fishing are the same as dog fighting and can't discern the differences. I believe you need to educate yourself before posting such an ignorant statement. no i said hunting for SPORT is exactly the same thing .....if you are hunting for the purpose of food or to help control the population of certain specie like deer for example then i CAN see where it could be justified .......but if you are hunting animal just to put his head on your wall then yes it is EXACTLY the same thing ....an innocent animal is being killed just for the amusement of man ...... so please educate me how that statement could possibly be wrong ......before you accuse me of being ignorant ....please discern the difference ... Edited July 20, 2007 by darinmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 DM, it is your opinion and you're entitled to it...but you CANNOT believe that dog fighting is the same as hunting or fishing. When the dog fight is over, are Vick and his thugs cooking and earing the meat? Do you need to take safety courses for dog fighting? Do you need to obtain a license for dog fighting? No, No and NO. They're not the same game, not in the same stadium, not even the same sport my friend. NO comparison, whatsoever. so if they ate the dogs it would be okay ?...the fact that you need a saftey course to hunt is for the safety of other hunters not the animal you are stalking...and killing just so you can put his head on a plaque and brag to your buddies and i have no problem with hunting if its main purpose is for food or to help control the population of certain animals .......its the guys that hunt just for the trophy kill that i am saying is the EXACT same thing as dog fighting in one incidence you have two guys fighting their dogs to the death for nothing more then bragging rights and a few bucks , and on the other hand you have a guy hunting a big cat for instance just for bragging rights about how great a hunter he is , the fact that the cat will be eaten is of no importance in this arguement..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) but you're happy to make the exact same distinction in reverse if it allows you to wallow around in your righteous disgust for michael vick? I want to be very sure that I am not misunderstanding you. You are comparing the act of consciously & wantonly inflicting great pain upon an animal to the point that it ends the animal's life when there is clearly a more humane method to accomplish the same goal, when the person performing the act first obtained the animal for the express purpose of placing it in a ring with the fervant hopes that it would tear another dog in the ring limb from limb; with the act of a person committing a murder or murders of another human(s) so heinous that the only appropriate application of justice is that the state end the murderer's life? If that is your basis of assumption, then yes, I have no problem whatsoever making that distinction in reverse. If so, I think you've got your value system completely & most probably irrepairably skewed, but I'll play along then. i just think it's dumb to assume that when vick & co. put one of their dogs down, they took some sadistic pleasure in it. more likely, it was just business. however, i think you can safely assume they took sadistic pleasure in watching one of their own dogs kill or maim another dog in the ring. there's plenty here to get all indignant about without needing to make silly assumptions. While I may not agree with you regarding the pleasure Vick took out of slamming an animal to the ground to cause enough trauma that the animal died as being dumb to think he derived pleasure in the action, I can live with your position here. Edited July 20, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The difference is fairly clear to me. Killing a deer and eating the meat or catching a fish and throwing it back is not a whole lot like throwing two dogs that have been conditioned to fight into a pit and then betting on a winner (survivor) and executing the loser. I fish regurlarly--if the fish is a keeper, I may clean the fish and eat it. I don't throw it into a pond with pirhanas, throw a $50 down on my brook trout to take one of them out and then retrieve my loser brook trout from said pond and beat him off of a rock because he didn't win. i have no problem with what you do .......im talking about SPORT HUNTING AND FISHING ......trophy hunting and fishing is no more humane then dog fighting except maybe if you are a good enough shot the animal dies a little quicker and suffers just a bit less but in the end he still dies ..... even the best hunters occassionaly miss the kill shot and have to track the animal down to FINALLY kill it ....WHICH COULD TAKE HOURS ....the whole time that animal is suffering ....am i wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darinmac Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Besides the intelligence factor, deer and wild game are killed with one or two gunshot wounds to the head...that is far different than what these dogs had to go through. quit it .....you are assuming that hunters never miss ......i have many friends that hunt deer and i hear every year how they shot one and tracked it for hours and never found it .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I want to be very sure that I am not misunderstanding you. You are comparing the act of consciously & wantonly inflicting great pain upon an animal to the point that it ends the animal's life when there is clearly a more humane method to accomplish the same goal, when the person performing the act first obtained the animal for the express prupose of placing it in a ring with the fervant hopes that it would tear another dog in the ring limb from limb; with the act of a person committing a murder or murders of another human(s) so heinous that the only appropriate application of justice is that the state end the murderer's life? no, dillweed, i'm talking about the distinction between shooting and shocking. when it comes to vick, you distinguish, saying shooting is so much more humane, in order to wring your hands over what a scumbag vick is. then when it comes to executing humans, you say you can't see any sense in distinguishing between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) no, dillweed, i'm talking about the distinction between shooting and shocking. when it comes to vick, you distinguish, saying shooting is so much more humane, in order to wring your hands over what a scumbag vick is. then when it comes to executing humans, you say you can't see any sense in distinguishing between them. Oohhhh - dillweed. I see that you're again reaching for your most compelling arguments. So in comparing the two acts - killing the dogs and executing a murderer, you're saying that you're not making the comparison of the two? To be clear and to make sure you plainly understand what I said previously, since comprehension of others who have opposing positions to that of yours is not your strong suit, I stated that executing a criminal, just like killing an animal, with a shot to the head is more humane than the eletrocution or hanging, but that the state will not allow it for execution of humans (and I fail to see the rationality behind it). I also stated that if a human commits an act so vile that the only justice is that they be executed, that I really didn't care by what method they died (within reason, of course, but which I feel the need to add because of your aforementioned failure in comprehension), whereas my position wiith the dog is that it should always be put down as humanely as practical and possible. Edited July 20, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I'm pretty sure I would rather be shot in the head, rather than tortured all my life and then flung against the concrete. I'm just funny that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts