isleseeya Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 "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. and as a Knicks Fan i would prefer Gandhi running the offense over Marbury as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) "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. Um, so how is that not a condemnation of hunting and a validation of what TO is saying? You think Ghandi would split hairs between one kind of killing and another? Edited September 8, 2007 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 I think the only differences between hunting and dog fighting is. Hunters use tree stands and dog fighters use rape stands.....other than that it's apples to apples... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 All my friends who are hunters , eat the meat from the deer they kill ...big difference from dog fighting In addition after watching specials on tv about dog fighting its a lot worse than I ever imagined and consists of worse actions including stealing dogs ( pets ) from peoples yards and taping their mouths shut. Then throwing the animal into the pit so the fighting dog can get practice killing Their is very little comparison imho between dog fighting and hunting other than both involve animals ..that's my apples to apples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 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. Animal farms are humane? Obviously that is a different thread....but I think you can get the gist of my point. And I get yours...I guess we are only squabbling over matters of degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Um, so how is that not a condemnation of hunting and a validation of what TO is saying? You think Ghandi would split hairs between one kind of killing and another? It is not a condemnation, more an observation. For damn sure a line can be drawn between people hunting animals they subsequently eat and dispatching them as fast as possible versus a bunch of drooling cretins standing around a pit in which two dogs are fighting to the death for their pleasure. Animal farms are humane? Obviously that is a different thread....but I think you can get the gist of my point. And I get yours...I guess we are only squabbling over matters of degree. The quote says that "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Note the use of the word progress. Progress is being made in all these areas, slowly but surely and it will continue to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 It is not a condemnation, more an observation. For damn sure a line can be drawn between people hunting animals they subsequently eat and dispatching them as fast as possible versus a bunch of drooling cretins standing around a pit in which two dogs are fighting to the death for their pleasure. Somehow, I think Mr. Ghandi's line would find both on the same side... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Another poor misunderstood soul That's ok DKF understands your pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Killing beautiful harmless deer for sport Killing savage man eating pit bull for sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Now that I've had time to mull this over, it comes down to, other than being illegal, there is nothing wrong with dog fighting or Vick's treatment of his animals. The bottom line is that dogs and pets are property. And unless an animal is a treat to the public health, then it should be the perogative of the owner how he treats that animal. Its none of the governments business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Another poor misunderstood soul That's ok DKF understands your pain. Not really sure I understand your point gop. Are you trying to hold up another individual whom you see as unworty of redemption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I'll go to a dog fight with TO if he'll go deer hunting with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Now that I've had time to mull this over, it comes down to, other than being illegal, there is nothing wrong with dog fighting or Vick's treatment of his animals. The bottom line is that dogs and pets are property. And unless an animal is a treat to the public health, then it should be the perogative of the owner how he treats that animal. Its none of the governments business. This is utter drivel and can only be a expedition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 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. Hmm, with all your plight I might just have to send you some this fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 This is utter drivel and can only be a expedition. It might not be the most moral thing...but animals are property....private even. I don't see how his argument can be tainted through a true constitutional argument. This is exactly the reason why we have seperation of church and state. Now if someone else hurts my animal, they violate my property and are generally charged with a misdemeanor. While I find this argument morally flawed...from a purely constitutional standpoint it appears solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I love how every hunter out there is a superior marksman. i hope u are a vegetarian?? more deer are killed buy cars than bow and muzzleloader hunters every year ... and of coarse there are slob hunters... just like there are slob lawyers, cops, politicians, teachers, IT guys, mc d's burger flippers etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 It might not be the most moral thing...but animals are property....private even. I don't see how his argument can be tainted through a true constitutional argument. This is exactly the reason why we have seperation of church and state. Now if someone else hurts my animal, they violate my property and are generally charged with a misdemeanor. While I find this argument morally flawed...from a purely constitutional standpoint it appears solid. Exactly. What Vick did is morally bankrupt (in most people's eye), but IMHO, the protection of private propoerty trumps morals, and the state should (but will never) respect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Exactly. What Vick did is morally bankrupt (in most people's eye), but IMHO, the protection of private propoerty trumps morals, and the state should (but will never) respect that. So let me get this straight. You are saying that animals = property, ergo there must never be any protection in place for them because it's unconstitutional? So I should be able to go up the Animal Refuge Center, buy 50 dogs, cats, etc and spend a happy afternoon stringing them up, torturing and burning them all in my back yard without any fear or consequence, is that it? Are you f'n insane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Are you f'n insane? What's insane is ya'll are still arguing with that knucklehead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Won't really too long ago that Vick would've been though of as property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 All my friends who are hunters , eat the meat from the deer they kill ...big difference from dog fighting So Vick merely needed to eat his dogs after killing them in order to make you ok with all of his actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 and of coarse there are slob hunters... Funny we haven't heard any of those stories here. 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.