Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 nice punt Okay, I'll answer your question. Yes, there is a correlation between what our society considers to be morally reprehensible and many of the laws in this country. Now try answering my very simple question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) Don't take it upon yourself to assume anything about me. You don't know me well enough. Well, it would certainly be consistent with your argument. If what is morally reprehensible is illegal, then there's no moral or ethical implication to abortion right? Because, after all, abortion is legal in this country. Edited August 22, 2007 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Don't take it upon yourself to assume anything about me. You don't know me well enough. Well, if he did know you well, then he probably wouldn't have to assume anything about you...he'd just "know," right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dogs Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 But I am a bit of a moral relativist and different people find different things morally or ethically reprehensible. Just because hunting is less barbaric than dogfighting, doesn't exactly make it "stand up" behavior in my book. So, two comments about this, and several have touched on this before. First, people hunt deer for other reasons besides sport. Unless your a vegaterian, most people who hunt deer use the deer for food. Other meat you buy in the grocery store comes from animals who were killed in far more barbaric methods to provide food for the masses. I contend that shooting a deer is much less barbaric than how cattle or chickens are killed to put food in the meat cases at your local grocery store. All those animals are wild and not "domesticated". The only "dog" in the wild are wolf's, and even wolf's are not hunted for food. Second, like others have said, dogs in general as a animal class are typically domesticated. Granted Pit Bulls can be vicious, but so can Rotweillers (sp?) and Dobermin Pinchers. Pit Bulls are typically used in dog fighting because they can lock their jaws down on another animal. And unless you are in China, dogs are not used for food in the US. Even in china, the dogs that are used for food are a specific breed/type, and they are housed and fed like cattle. While this is reprehensible to us in the US, that does exist in China. However, because dogs are typically domesticated animals in most homes, the fact that they are being used as a sport to kill each other is discusting IMO. Third, after Marburry's comments, I lump him in with my opinion of Vick as a person. They are both dumb a$$es. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Well, it would certainly be consistent with your argument. If what is morally reprehensible is illegal, then there's no moral or ethical implication to abortion right? Because, after all, abortion is legal in this country. Why are you evading the issue and changing the subject? Is there a reason you feel the need to take your non-comparison of deer hunting and dog fighting into a venue of including abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 That's nice. But of course, we're talking about what is morally reprehensible to our society as whole here - you know, those pesky little things called laws. Yes, there is a correlation between what our society considers to be morally reprehensible and many of the laws in this country. Your first quote was pretty cut and dried BB. Now we're onto "a correlation" between the two and "many" but not "all" of our laws. Seems as though there a little bit of gray creaping in there. You're retreating from your argument BB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 First, people hunt deer for other reasons besides sport. Unless your a vegaterian, most people who hunt deer use the deer for food. Other meat you buy in the grocery store comes from animals who were killed in far more barbaric methods to provide food for the masses. I contend that shooting a deer is much less barbaric than how cattle or chickens are killed to put food in the meat cases at your local grocery store. All those animals are wild and not "domesticated". The only "dog" in the wild are wolf's, and even wolf's are not hunted for food. The whole reason he's capable of making any moral distinction at all is because human ancestors tens of thousands of years ago made meat a significant portion of their diet. Ironic, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Just in case you were on the fence about Marbury being a total moran: new he was from day one..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Let's play a game. What do Clinton Portis & Stephen Marbury have in common with Michael Vick.... It's just this simple folks- Brothers backing Brothers. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) Your first quote was pretty cut and dried BB. Now we're onto "a correlation" between the two and "many" but not "all" of our laws. Seems as though there a little bit of gray creaping in there. You're retreating from your argument BB. So, do you think the law for running a red light came from its moral implications to society and what society considers morally reprehensible, or is it simply a safety issue? Why do you continue to widen the scope of some very simple and basic questions regarding statements you have made already & how they pertain to Vick & the dog fighting charges? Edited August 22, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 So, two comments about this, and several have touched on this before. First, people hunt deer for other reasons besides sport. Unless your a vegaterian, most people who hunt deer use the deer for food. Other meat you buy in the grocery store comes from animals who were killed in far more barbaric methods to provide food for the masses. I contend that shooting a deer is much less barbaric than how cattle or chickens are killed to put food in the meat cases at your local grocery store. All those animals are wild and not "domesticated". The only "dog" in the wild are wolf's, and even wolf's are not hunted for food. Second, like others have said, dogs in general as a animal class are typically domesticated. Granted Pit Bulls can be vicious, but so can Rotweillers (sp?) and Dobermin Pinchers. Pit Bulls are typically used in dog fighting because they can lock their jaws down on another animal. And unless you are in China, dogs are not used for food in the US. Even in china, the dogs that are used for food are a specific breed/type, and they are housed and fed like cattle. While this is reprehensible to us in the US, that does exist in China. However, because dogs are typically domesticated animals in most homes, the fact that they are being used as a sport to kill each other is discusting IMO. Third, after Marburry's comments, I lump him in with my opinion of Vick as a person. They are both dumb a$$es. i don't condemn all hunters, Big Dogs, as I know that it's a complicated issue with many subtleties. I'm not a member of PETA, I don't protest. I do, however, ascribte to certain tenets of eastern thought that pertain to the willful killing of animals. I realize that this is not a mainstream belief. I do not expect other to see things the way I do. For the most part, the only opposition to it I espouse to hunting is here on these boards. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate in an attempt to blurr the apparent clear demarcation between one kind of killing and another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dogs Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 i don't condemn all hunters, Big Dogs, as I know that it's a complicated issue with many subtleties. I'm not a member of PETA, I don't protest. I do, however, ascribte to certain tenets of eastern thought that pertain to the willful killing of animals. I realize that this is not a mainstream belief. I do not expect other to see things the way I do. For the most part, the only opposition to it I espouse to hunting is here on these boards. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate in an attempt to blurr the apparent clear demarcation between one kind of killing and another. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) So, do you think the law for running a red light came from its moral implications to society and what society considers morally reprehensible, or is it simply a safety issue? Why do you continue to widen the scope of some very simple and basic questions regarding statements you have made already & how they pertain to Vick & the dog fighting charges? As far as I can tell, I began posting in this tread under the guise of a wide scope. It was you who narrowed it with talk of societal norms and laws. I disagreed with your sentiment. There are certainly cases where what is considered morally questionable and what is legal / illegal do not correlate. This was IMO, the poorly delivered (and apparently received) point Marbury was attempting to make. Even if I am wrong about that, it's certainly the more interesting debate. Edited August 22, 2007 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 and as a harvestor of animals i can agree with billay, as an owner dogs i see inhumane treatment of dogs quite often at dog trials etc.... while i think that dog fighting is terrible i also think locking a dog in a kennel all day or smoking buy them is terrible... i dont see a problem with hunting for food, but i do see a problem with hunting for sport.... there is a difference... i see were billey is going .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate in an attempt to blurr the apparent clear demarcation between one kind of killing and another. Pretty piss poor attempt, despite being cloaked in all sorts of flowery verbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 and as a harvestor of animals i can agree with billay, as an owner dogs i see inhumane treatment of dogs quite often at dog trials etc.... while i think that dog fighting is terrible i also think locking a dog in a kennel all day or smoking buy them is terrible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 i don't condemn all hunters, Big Dogs, as I know that it's a complicated issue with many subtleties. I'm not a member of PETA, I don't protest. I do, however, ascribte to certain tenets of eastern thought that pertain to the willful killing of animals. I realize that this is not a mainstream belief. I do not expect other to see things the way I do. For the most part, the only opposition to it I espouse to hunting is here on these boards. As I said, I was just playing devil's advocate in an attempt to blurr the apparent clear demarcation between one kind of killing and another. I don't fish anymore and have no interest in hunting. That said, I'll gladly eat a 12 oz. steak for dinner, so I guess that makes me somewhat of a hypocrite. If it's controlled and people eat what they kill, I have no problem with hunting. But killing a WILD animal as quickly and as painlessly as possible for food is miles away from making DOMESTICATED dogs live under inhumane conditions, allowing them to slowly maul each other to death (or near death), and electrocuting/drowning those that don't perform up to snuff. JMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Pretty piss poor attempt, despite being cloaked in all sorts of flowery verbage. Stick to Football BB. What the prognosis for Mike Bell this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 i dont see a problem with hunting for food, but i do see a problem with hunting for sport.... there is a difference... +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) Stick to Football BB. What the prognosis for Mike Bell this year? Still avoiding answering the questions, I see, despite your pronounced & prolonged attempt to take the debate into all sorts of barely relevant areans. How progressive of you... Edited August 22, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 A pit bull is not exactly what i'd consider to be domesticated, but that's my opinon. They kill and mame more people then any other type of dog, and all the deer in the world combined. A pit bull is every bit as domesticated as any other dog. It is how they are RAISED, and nothing more. I wish there were a better way to prove it, but I know that is just a fact. The problem with Pits is that you have these people that think Pits look cool because they are very muscular, and they like to have a mean dog, or a dog that supposedly will protect them. They make sure they are more aggressive while raising them, and in turn they end up making a bad name for themselves because of their owner. I know more than 5 people that own Pits, and every single one of them I would leave alone with a 3 year old child. Why? Because they are very docile dogs that were raised properly with no intention of acting as a tough dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Still avoiding answering the questions, I see, despite your pronounced & prolonged attempt to take the debate into all sorts of barely relevant areans. How progressive of you... what exactly are u debating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Still avoiding answering the questions, I see, despite your pronounced & prolonged attempt to take the debate into all sorts of barely relevant areans. How progressive of you... What questions? about why we have stoplights? Who's going irrelevant now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 smoking buy them is terrible... What if it's pot smoke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 What if it's pot smoke? thats ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.