TO sees no difference between dog fighting and hunting deer

[DKF]

And just because someone else does it does not make it acceptable. It is only a matter of time before bullfighting is eliminated. That said, at least the bull has a chance of killing it's tormentor, which it quite often does. This is not true of dog fighting.

All I am saying is that it is not our place to judge the Spainish on this. Nor should we go to war over it as some of the people on the board seem to feel we should.

[tonorator]

And just because someone else does it does not make it acceptable. It is only a matter of time before bullfighting is eliminated. That said, at least the bull has a chance of killing it's tormentor, which it quite often does. This is not true of dog fighting.

 

i'm posting again, but not to DKF ...

 

the bullfight i went to did not give the bull any chance at all. they had the thing so bloodied and confused via an elaborate scheme involving several humans that by the time the big, tough bull fighting dude entered, the bull was nearly out of it. he then dances around it for a bit and finally puts the beast out of its misery.

 

i found the whole thing disgusting and sick, and i walked out. i agree that this should be eliminated. i would, however, put this as part of the culture because it is an accepted activity, fully out in the open and celebrated (vs. dogfighting). I also believe that the animals, once they are killed, are eaten and celebrated. this helps a bit, but the practice is still sick and is still torture. should be banned.

[DKF]

i'm posting again, but not to DKF ...

 

the bullfight i went to did not give the bull any chance at all. they had the thing so bloodied and confused via an elaborate scheme involving several humans that by the time the big, tough bull fighting dude entered, the bull was nearly out of it. he then dances around it for a bit and finally puts the beast out of its misery.

 

i found the whole thing disgusting and sick, and i walked out. i agree that this should be eliminated. i would, however, put this as part of the culture because it is an accepted activity, fully out in the open and celebrated (vs. dogfighting). I also believe that the animals, once they are killed, are eaten and celebrated. this helps a bit, but the practice is still sick and is still torture. should be banned.

But are all the watchers heinous monsters? or is the fact that it is a mainstream culture and not just a sub-culture the only difference?

[Brewer]

This is to long to read. I need to go to a Ducks Unlimited dinner in a few minutes. I'm going to practice shooting my bow in the morning. Archery season opens in a few weeks. My kids love them some venison.

[tonorator]

But are all the watchers heinous monsters? or is the fact that it is a mainstream culture and not just a sub-culture the only difference?

 

<pacino> they keep pulling me back in! <pacino>

 

there are many differences with bull fighting which do not, i believe, put the participants and audience on par with the dogfighting crowd. anyone who frequents bull fights, however, definitely as a screw loose and if they are deriving pleasure and excitement from the torturing of the bull, then yes, i would say they are a heinous monster. most of the people in attendance when i was there all seemed to be sick and somewhat shocked. everyone i talked to was not ever going to attend another one. hopefully sane minds will prevail and outlaw this.

 

and no, this is not worth rolling in the tanks.

[STL Fan]

I've seen a lot of bad comparisons being made to dog fighting... the one that I've seen that actually makes sense to me is Bull Fighting.

 

Bull Fighting is indeed culturally accepted (at least in Spain). It is considered a sport (over there). It is extremely bloody, brutal, violent, etc.. And regardless of the outcome, the bull is put down at the end of the fight.

 

And bullfighting is on its way out. The legislature has already started the process and the people of Spain largely support the measure.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

This is to long to read. I need to go to a Ducks Unlimited dinner in a few minutes. I'm going to practice shooting my bow in the morning. Archery season opens in a few weeks. My kids love them some venison.

September 29th baby!

[Ursa Majoris]

i'm posting again, but not to DKF ...

 

the bullfight i went to did not give the bull any chance at all. they had the thing so bloodied and confused via an elaborate scheme involving several humans that by the time the big, tough bull fighting dude entered, the bull was nearly out of it. he then dances around it for a bit and finally puts the beast out of its misery.

 

i found the whole thing disgusting and sick, and i walked out. i agree that this should be eliminated. i would, however, put this as part of the culture because it is an accepted activity, fully out in the open and celebrated (vs. dogfighting). I also believe that the animals, once they are killed, are eaten and celebrated. this helps a bit, but the practice is still sick and is still torture. should be banned.

As long as people go to these things, never mind whether they're shocked and sickened, etc, bullfighting is supported. As soon as you handed over your pesetas / pesos, they were happy. I have had the opportunity to go while in Mexico but turned it down, reasoning that whatever entrance fee I paid would effectively be supporting this monstrosity. If enough people vote with their wallets, sickness like this will die off. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[tonorator]

As long as people go to these things, never mind whether they're shocked and sickened, etc, bullfighting is supported. As soon as you handed over your pesetas / pesos, they were happy. I have had the opportunity to go while in Mexico but turned it down, reasoning that whatever entrance fee I paid would effectively be supporting this monstrosity. If enough people vote with their wallets, sickness like this will die off. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

i was pretty naive. i actually thought it was just all for funsies.

[TheShiznit]

Oh you are so funny. So saying that 51% of the population having the right to tell the other 49% how to live is not right now constitutes anarchy. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

 

Extrapolating that to rapist, child molesters, and other criminals is so Willie Horton of you. It really shows how closed-minded you are. And can clearly cannot think of anything other than in terms black or white. It is really quite sad.

 

Actually, I was with you until you started propaganding moral relativism. You claim there is not right or wrong....that there is not truth....is that what you are saying?

[DKF]

A year or two or three ago, there were a couple of kids in a small city about an hour or so north of me. There was this video, I don't clearly recall if it was one of the kids filiming or a security camera, but it really doesn't matter. These kids were walking along with a pit bull on the lease, and then for fun they turned it on some dog in someone's yard.

 

Of course when the authorities got ahold of the video, they hunted these kids down and prosecuted them. Rightfully so.

 

These were kids, teens, old enough to know better, but still kids. The bottom line is that they grew up in a sub-culture where this was an acceptable (albiet illegal) behavior to them. It was wrong, cruel, and everything else bad that you could say. Yet obviously with more than one person present, the cultural norm for them was that this was a 'normal' thing for them to do.

 

Michael Vick really isn't that different than these kids. That doesn't mean that what they did was not abhorant to most of us. It means that to them, it was illegal but normal activity to that sub-culture.

 

Those of us that can understand that, and say that Vick is not a heinous monster, are not defending him, nor his behavior. We are saying that we understand that everyone does not have the same values as us. Saying that these are poor misguided kids, does not condone their behavior, or exempt them from the consequences of their behavior. It says that I understand that there values are not the same as ours, and what can we do to help that sub-culture emerge from that negative pattern of behavior and join the rest of us in upholding the mainstream value system.

 

The law is the law and those that break it will be crushed by the state. People holding different values from us are not necessarily evil, even if that behavior is repugnant to us and illegal. Only by understanding that their values are different, can we engage them to accept our values and change that entire culture.

 

peace out.

[tonorator]

It was wrong, cruel, and everything else bad that you could say. Yet obviously with more than one person present, the cultural norm for them was that this was a 'normal' thing for them to do.

 

this just absolutely makes no sense.

 

they didn't do it because it was the 'normal' thing to do. the 'normal' thing to do was not wrong, cruel, and everything else bad. they are bad kids doing bad things and they need to be brought to justice and dealt with, without any sympathetic understanding about their plight. there are many kids in that same neighborhood not torturing, not doing cruel things, but just trying to make a decent life for themselves. thugs are the exception, not the rule, unless you live in your world.

[Ursa Majoris]

this just absolutely makes no sense.

 

they didn't do it because it was the 'normal' thing to do. the 'normal' thing to do was not wrong, cruel, and everything else bad. they are bad kids doing bad things and they need to be brought to justice and dealt with, without any sympathetic understanding about their plight. there are many kids in that same neighborhood not torturing, not doing cruel things, but just trying to make a decent life for themselves. thugs are the exception, not the rule, unless you live in your world.

Absolutely 100% correct.

[frenzal rhomb]

ask yourself this, would you rather die walking down the street and an unexpected bullet takes you quickly and cleanly or would you rather face off against a rabid pitbull in a multi minute death struggle?

 

I take option A

[evil_gop_liars]

ask yourself this, would you rather die walking down the street and an unexpected bullet takes you quickly and cleanly or would you rather face off against a rabid pitbull in a multi minute death struggle?

 

I take option A

 

Or live a day in DKF's goofball world.......option A or B both sound better.

[billay]

ask yourself this, would you rather die walking down the street and an unexpected bullet takes you quickly and cleanly or would you rather face off against a rabid pitbull in a multi minute death struggle?

 

I take option A

I love how every hunter out there is a superior marksman.

 

In regards to bullfighting, if Vick had eaten the dogs after they were killed, would it have been better?

 

I don;t think anyone is arguing that Vick shouldn't be charged with a crime. What seems to be under debate is his character. Can we infer from these acts that Mike Vick is a terrible human being, incapable of remorse and not worthy of any opportunity to redeem himself in the public's eyes. Many of you seem to want to simply put him in a neat little box labled "worthless human being", put him on a shelf and forget about it. The argument being made by Stephon Marbury, Whoopi Goldberg, TO and others, to me, seems to be addressed to this concern. Does this situation call for total condemnation? Are there any extenuating circumstances that might offer a glimmer of hope for his character. For whatever reason, as a society, we love to tear people down. Everything is about extremes. Saints or sinners. If everything is so cut and dried that we can be so certain of our moral superiority over Michael vick then we're painting with a very broad brush. A brush so broad that Michael Vick is beyond redemption reaches out to touch other types of behavior. If he is not deserving of an opportunity at redemption then it seems right that other types of killing must also fall under scrutiny.

[Ursa Majoris]

I love how every hunter out there is a superior marksman.

 

In regards to bullfighting, if Vick had eaten the dogs after they were killed, would it have been better?

 

I don;t think anyone is arguing that Vick shouldn't be charged with a crime. What seems to be under debate is his character. Can we infer from these acts that Mike Vick is a terrible human being, incapable of remorse and not worthy of any opportunity to redeem himself in the public's eyes. Many of you seem to want to simply put him in a neat little box labled "worthless human being", put him on a shelf and forget about it. The argument being made by Stephon Marbury, Whoopi Goldberg, TO and others, to me, seems to be addressed to this concern. Does this situation call for total condemnation? Are there any extenuating circumstances that might offer a glimmer of hope for his character. For whatever reason, as a society, we love to tear people down. Everything is about extremes. Saints or sinners. If everything is so cut and dried that we can be so certain of our moral superiority over Michael vick then we're painting with a very broad brush. A brush so broad that Michael Vick is beyond redemption reaches out to touch other types of behavior. If he is not deserving of an opportunity at redemption then it seems right that other types of killing must also fall under scrutiny.

I see your point but there are levels of heinousness. For years, Vick has consciously bankrolled an organization dedicated to the torture of animals for fun. This is not hunting, this is not a bar fight, this is subhuman conduct stretching over a very long time. The variety of ways of disposing of dogs who didn't come up to whatever warped standard these pieces of filth wanted speaks to enjoyment of the act of disposal, not efficiency. It indicates to me that they got amusement from this too, not just the fighting. These are subhumans whichever way you slice or dice it and as such I would be more than happy to pour gasoline on any or all of them and light a match.

 

As for those lining up to speak for him, their agenda is pretty obvious. He's black and they feel the need to jump to his defense for that reason. Or maybe they're just subhumans too.

 

The sole reason Vick appears contrite now is that he has been caught. Period.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Ursa Majoris

[tonorator]

A brush so broad that Michael Vick is beyond redemption reaches out to touch other types of behavior. If he is not deserving of an opportunity at redemption then it seems right that other types of killing must also fall under scrutiny.

 

everyone can have forgiveness, redemption and grace bestowed upon them. all they have to do is ask.

 

[billay]

I see your point but there are levels of heinousness. For years, Vick has consciously bankrolled an organization dedicated to the torture of animals for fun. This is not hunting, this is not a bar fight, this is subhuman conduct stretching over a very long time. The variety of ways of disposing of dogs who didn't come up to whatever warped standard these pieces of filth wanted speaks to enjoyment of the act of disposal, not efficiency. It indicates to me that they got amusement from this too, not just the fighting. These are subhumans whichever way you slice or dice it and as such I would be more than happy to pour gasoline on any or all of them and light a match.

 

As for those lining up to speak for him, their agenda is pretty obvious. He's black and they feel the need to jump to his defense for that reason. Or maybe they're just subhumans too.

 

The sole reason Vick appears contrite now is that he has been caught. Period.

Well of course there are. And of course, there is an agenda for those speaking out on his behalf, but just because someone has an agenda doesn't mean that their message is devoid of any substantial content. I'm very wary of a term like "sub-human" I think if all of your acts, your families acts, friends, coworkers were disclosed fully, there would be people that you know and like that you would be forced to condemn as "subhuman"

[billay]

everyone can have forgiveness, redemption and grace bestowed upon them. all they have to do is ask.

 

Just not by the American public.

[TheShiznit]

I see your point but there are levels of heinousness. For years, Vick has consciously bankrolled an organization dedicated to the torture of animals for fun. This is not hunting, this is not a bar fight, this is subhuman conduct stretching over a very long time. The variety of ways of disposing of dogs who didn't come up to whatever warped standard these pieces of filth wanted speaks to enjoyment of the act of disposal, not efficiency. It indicates to me that they got amusement from this too, not just the fighting. These are subhumans whichever way you slice or dice it and as such I would be more than happy to pour gasoline on any or all of them and light a match.

 

As for those lining up to speak for him, their agenda is pretty obvious. He's black and they feel the need to jump to his defense for that reason. Or maybe they're just subhumans too.

 

The sole reason Vick appears contrite now is that he has been caught. Period.

 

Or maybe...and I am just throwing this out there....they can speak from a position from which you cannot. Maybe all of them had been exposed to dogfighting in their youth...and while it certainly didn't stay with them...lets hope...it was done. Again, culture is a weird thing. It doesn't mean someone should be completely exonerated. Again, Vick deserves any and all punishment coming his way...but lets not forget....this is getting more play than those school kids gunned down in New Jersey by illegal immigrants....which is more important to society to be concerned with...Perspective is a wonderful thing.

[Ursa Majoris]

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mohandas Gandhi

 

I'm gonna go with Gandhi over Stephon Marbury, Whoopi FatTart and Terrell Headcase.

[TheShiznit]

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mohandas Gandhi

 

I'm gonna go with Gandhi over Stephon Marbury, Whoopi FatTart and Terrell Headcase.

 

LOL...and I wouldn't disagree with you...BTW, if you are going with Gandhi...stop eating meat now...or you will not be going with Gandhi...you will just be picking and choosing where this quote is convenient for you.

[Clubfoothead]

If you use deer corn and salt licks I don't much care for your hunting tactics.

 

I'm not opposed to hunting. I'd consider myself a conservationist not an environmentalist and most all of my friends and family hunt. Not a big venison fan, except for the jerky.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Clubfoothead

[Ursa Majoris]

LOL...and I wouldn't disagree with you...BTW, if you are going with Gandhi...stop eating meat now...or you will not be going with Gandhi...you will just be picking and choosing where this quote is convenient for you.

The quote is valid whether or not one is vegetarian, which Gandhi indeed was. The point is the humane treatment of animals. The quote mentions nations but by extension it also clearly applies to individuals.