NAACP: Vick Should Return to NFL

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 11:27 am

Boooooooo Sueven. You deleted your post.

Attacking the air? you mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 24, 2007, 11:32 am

Yeah, I did. I misread Xyun's tone and was a lot more of a dick than I would have been had I read it correctly.

I like your videos though. And I'll come back and re-post something more sensible at some point.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2007, 12:55 pm

Great quotes from Vich's dad:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nf ... 4vick.html

Michael Vick's father said he pushed his son to quit dogfighting years ago or, at least, put property used for the fights in the name of friends to avoid being implicated some day.

Michael Boddie, in two sometimes tearful interviews with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week, said some time around 2001 his son staged dogfights in the garage of the family's home in Newport News, Va. Boddie also said Vick kept fighting dogs in the family's back yard, including injured ones – “bit up, chewed up, exhausted” – that the father nursed back to health.

Boddie, who is estranged from his son, dismissed the idea that Vick's longtime friends were the main instigators of the dogfighting operation.

“I wish people would stop sugarcoating it,” Boddie said. “This is Mike's thing. And he knows it.”

He “likes it, and he has the capital to have a set-up like that.”

An attorney for Vick did not return requests for comment. Neither did Vick's mother, Brenda Vick Boddie, who hasn't lived with her husband for the past five years.

Boddie said he and the Atlanta Falcons quarterback have had a volatile relationship for years and that his son has refused to speak with him directly for the past two and a half months. Boddie said he is speaking out because he's been hurt by his son and wife's failure over the years to correct what he considers inaccurate media reports that Vick grew up without his father present.

“I've been drug through the mud,” Boddie said.

He said he intends to write a damaging book about more of what he knows.

Boddie, 45, lives in a Duluth, Ga., apartment that his son has paid the rent on for the past three years. Vick, who has a $130 million contract with the Falcons, also gives him a few hundred dollars every week or two, the father said.

Boddie wanted more. Two years ago, he said, he asked Vick for $1 million, spread out over 12 years, enough to keep him comfortable for the rest of his life. Vick declined, the father said. In recent weeks, Boddie asked Vick, through an assistant, for $700,000 to live on.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:02 pm

True or not, the fact that he asked his son for money and was denied will be spun to mean that he's an angry old man looking for any way to get back at his son for not stepping up with some $$$.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2007, 1:19 pm

Somali wrote:True or not, the fact that he asked his son for money and was denied will be spun to mean that he's an angry old man looking for any way to get back at his son for not stepping up with some $$$.

In this case, I would tend to believe that if he got paid he would cover for Vick, but it doesn't sound like he's being a sensationalist with this accounting of the dog fighting. The lying would be if he got paid, not if he didn't. It's not respectable, but would you throw out the credibility of a street whore and say she's lying automatically if they said their father molested them as a kid just because she's a street whore now?

Isn't possible that the street whore had a bad childhood? Is it possible that Vick's dad witnessed Vick fighting dogs in his backyard before he decided to ask Vick for money?

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:33 pm

I didn't say that I threw out his credibility. I said it would get spun that way. We live in the day and age where parents sue their hollywood kids, and Hollywood kids sue their parental managers. Its not a far step for someone to think that Vick's dad was being vindictive. They'll probably say something like, "Vick threatened to cut off his dad if he didn't stop badgering him for money. This is the man's vicious act to get back at his son. Even though Vick never had a real relationship with his father, he attempted to provide for him monetarily. When his father became greedy and asked for more money, Vick turned him down. The accusations put forth by his father are that of a disenfranchised and bitter old man. Vick doesn't understand how his father could say something like that, but he understands his father has had a hard life. He hopes they can reconcile the issue on friendly terms and is willing to forgive the accusative remarks by his father."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2007, 1:38 pm

Somali wrote:I didn't say that I threw out his credibility. I said it would get spun that way. We live in the day and age where parents sue their hollywood kids, and Hollywood kids sue their parental managers. Its not a far step for someone to think that Vick's dad was being vindictive. They'll probably say something like, "Vick threatened to cut off his dad if he didn't stop badgering him for money. This is the man's vicious act to get back at his son. Even though Vick never had a real relationship with his father, he attempted to provide for him monetarily. When his father became greedy and asked for more money, Vick turned him down. The accusations put forth by his father are that of a disenfranchised and bitter old man. Vick doesn't understand how his father could say something like that, but he understands his father has had a hard life. He hopes they can reconcile the issue on friendly terms and is willing to forgive the accusative remarks by his father."

Huh? So you're saying his father is lying? I'm saying his father is not lying but would have if Vick paid him.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:45 pm

Nope. I think his father is likely telling the truth. What I am saying is that Vick's PR team will likely spin the comments his Dad made to make it appear that his dad was lying. They could do so in a way that is convenient to believe for those that think Vick is being persecuted or innocent.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 24, 2007, 2:44 pm

I know the conversation has moved on, but my earlier comments about golden retrievers were based on a story I read that said retrievers were used because of their innate good natured-ness. This provided the 'trainers' with the challenge to break them and turn them into vicious attack dogs.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 24, 2007, 3:03 pm

Golden's can be pleasant dogs, but they're also stubborn bastards. A well trained Golden is a great dog, but many Golden's are not well trained. I think people see them all happy and tail-wagging and assume they're just easy, good natured dogs like Labradors. They're not. If you pamper them, they turn into real assholes.

That's not important here, though. They would be tough to turn into a fighting dog. But they also just wouldn't be very good fighting dogs-- bull terriers, Canarios, Dogos, etc, are built for strength and power. Even if you successfuly manage to get a Golden to turn vicious, it wouldn't have the strength of any of those dogs.

Xyun:

1. The "black folks just need to take some personal responsibility!" argument is second-grade bullshit. Yes, there are steps toward assuming responsibility that black people (as a community) could take which would improve their situation (as a community). And I applaud people like Bill Cosby for pointing this out, because it is something concrete that black people can do to better their lot, as opposed to something that they can wait for non-black people to do. But the fact that black people could do something to help their situation does NOT mean that the black community's failure to assume responsibility for itself is the primary reason (or even a remotely significant reason) why the community is so poorly situated right now. Further, no matter how much it might want to, the black community could not simply transform itself into a mirror of general society by an act of will. Small improvements can be made, but you can't just will something into being. I don't want to talk about this any more because it's an exceptionally broad argument, and, honestly, I think that anyone who really thinks about it with even a slightly open mind will not come to the conclusion that "they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!" There are plenty of books about this sort of stuff, as I'm sure you're aware.

2. As far as all your bashing of Mike Vick-- go back and reread my previous posts. I think you're attacking a straw man here. I didn't say anything that you're attacking.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 4:22 pm

Meh. If you'd kept the air comment, my youTube video at the top would make more sense.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 25, 2007, 4:19 am

Sueven wrote:Golden's can be pleasant dogs, but they're also stubborn bastards. A well trained Golden is a great dog, but many Golden's are not well trained. I think people see them all happy and tail-wagging and assume they're just easy, good natured dogs like Labradors. They're not. If you pamper them, they turn into real assholes.

That's not important here, though. They would be tough to turn into a fighting dog. But they also just wouldn't be very good fighting dogs-- bull terriers, Canarios, Dogos, etc, are built for strength and power. Even if you successfuly manage to get a Golden to turn vicious, it wouldn't have the strength of any of those dogs.

Xyun:

1. The "black folks just need to take some personal responsibility!" argument is second-grade bullshit. Yes, there are steps toward assuming responsibility that black people (as a community) could take which would improve their situation (as a community). And I applaud people like Bill Cosby for pointing this out, because it is something concrete that black people can do to better their lot, as opposed to something that they can wait for non-black people to do. But the fact that black people could do something to help their situation does NOT mean that the black community's failure to assume responsibility for itself is the primary reason (or even a remotely significant reason) why the community is so poorly situated right now. Further, no matter how much it might want to, the black community could not simply transform itself into a mirror of general society by an act of will. Small improvements can be made, but you can't just will something into being. I don't want to talk about this any more because it's an exceptionally broad argument, and, honestly, I think that anyone who really thinks about it with even a slightly open mind will not come to the conclusion that "they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!" There are plenty of books about this sort of stuff, as I'm sure you're aware.

2. As far as all your bashing of Mike Vick-- go back and reread my previous posts. I think you're attacking a straw man here. I didn't say anything that you're attacking.

I'm not talking about black society at large and the influences of their socio-economic classes in their lives. I'm talking about "thug culture", which is the most visibly flaunted aspect of black America today. Neither civil oppression nor poverty justify inhumanity no matter how you try to spin the fault away from the perpetrators.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 27, 2007, 1:33 pm

This story is so ridiculous. This guy is a total fucking Grade A idiot who's thrown away a glamourous life for Dogfighting, that is moronically stupid on a level I can't even comprehend. Silly bastard.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 3:22 am

I haven't read any of this thread except the first post.

Dog fighting is bad, but nobody will miss the dogs. Murdering a human is worse (obviously), but there wouldn't be as much of a press explosion if he had done so.

Why?

Because noboby really knows how to react. Who cares if a few dogs nobody ever knew died? People kill deer all the time. Animals. I swerve out of my way to kill a raccoon if I see it in the road. We are not on this earth to share. We are the alpha species and GWB makes sure we know it when he levels forests in favor of his will. Vick has some dogs do what they do and his life, as he knew it, is over. The president kills a few species and we* thirst for more.

Perspective could do the prison scene a lot of good. I would be surprised to hear if more people cried for the dogs than for Vick. What's that thing that Atlas Shrugged references? A swirling machine of infinite destruction with nobody in control? This reminds me of that. I don't give half a loaf that those dogs are dead. Whatever. I would have loved to live in Roman times and watched Gladiators kill the fuck out of Lions and other great animals, just to see the spectacle and enjoy it with everyone else.

I'm all for pandering humankind, but when it comes down to actual unbridled nature, the rest of the animals on this earth are our competition. Though it isn't much of a fight, we shouldn't let our relatively recent times of peace towards dogs (but not ALL animals, funnily enough) take away from us the mindset that a pack of hungry dogs would eat us alive. And to think that the Vice President of the USA hunts for animals. Kills them on purpose. Ahhhhhhhh.

It's like we make these treaties with ourselves between humans and certain animals. Like saying, "I'm going to remove you from your natural state of being and give you a bowl of food once a day and a bowl of water three times a day and a little fucking hut outside where you can shit all you want and this is me doing a service for you. Also, despite the fact that I am taking my part against mother nature's will by keeping more dogs alive for longer periods of time by feeding and taking care of you, I will be morally UPSET!!!!! if I hear of someone killing your brothers. And by the way you have no say in the matter, a leash to wear at all times, and nothing to fuck for your entire life. Oh, and I'm going to chop your testicles off. Enjoy my house and welcome to my life!!!!!!! Your existence is to be my tertiary enjoyment thing."

I say Vick has some PR speeches and gets suspended for a few games without pay. Prison is ridiculous, absurd, maniacal, politically safe batshit.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 3:52 am

Xyun wrote:Imagine if you actually lived in this shithole city and run into people or overhear people justifying Vick or dogfighting and shit. It sickens me the way people can be so fucking ignorant as to put fucking athletic ability above integrity, honor, and humanity.

Lol. Like no animals have been harmed in the making of your everyday life. Ignorant jackass. Honorless hypocrite. Jesus, it's amazing the double standards and contradictions that WE ALL are a part of that nobody accepts. Until you personally do something about your lifestyle that allows animals to be treated no differently than they'd've treated themselves in their niche, then you are -barely- better than Vick.

The machines that harvest -vegan- crops kill rabbits mid-meal. More than one, too.

Where in the Humanity / Ingegrity / Honor Book is the section on not brutally killing only a certain sect of animals?

Somali wrote:If Vick were in there fighting the Pitt Bulls with a knife rather than forcing to Pitt Bulls to fight for his entertainment. I'd say. Whoa. He's got some serious cajones. Pretty fucked up that he's killing the dogs, but feck me, the boy must be tough.
If he ate the dog after fighting it, my regard for what he did would be lessened further.

So it's bad because it's entertaining? Is hunting deer dull?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 28, 2007, 5:43 am

wow. I haven't read such neanderthalian absurdities since the days of Fallanthas, and you sir put that man to shame. We are in competition with dogs? rofl. Humans dominate the planet and the millennium I live in. Sure we have species that threaten us but they are few and far between and usually dispatched with ease or otherwise become nothing more than long term pests.

In 7th grade biology class the rest of us learned about symbiotic relationships between species. Looks like you missed that week of school to pour salt on snails and punt frogs you barbaric gimp.

Our relationships with different species have evolved differently. Your lack of understanding of this concept and your belief that dogs "compete" (lmfao) with us exemplifies such astronomical naïvety and absence of evolution that you alone bring all of Darwinism into question.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 28, 2007, 9:14 am

Wow, Leonaerd turned this thread to shit fast

Demags · Post by **Demags** » August 28, 2007, 10:18 am

I swerve out of my way to kill a raccoon if I see it in the road.

I hope next time you do this you lose it, roll, and burn you sick piece of shit.

Unless you are going back, picking up the corpse, and having it for dinner. In that case your just a psycho piece of shit.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 10:56 am

Demags wrote:
I swerve out of my way to kill a raccoon if I see it in the road.
I hope next time you do this you lose it, roll, and burn you sick piece of shit.

Unless you are going back, picking up the corpse, and having it for dinner. In that case your just a psycho piece of shit.

K I'll buy a gun and kill some deer and eat them instead. All better? Asshole.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 11:04 am

Our relationships with different species have evolved differently.

Exactly. So some species are worthy of slaughter while others cause Vick to rot. How different is it when the animals are dying anyway?

Your lack of understanding of this concept and your belief that dogs "compete" (lmfao) with us exemplifies such astronomical naïvety and absence of evolution that you alone bring all of Darwinism into question.

Tell me exactly where the anthropomorphic line is drawn and when the dog became fractionally human enough that it's a crime to treat them like we can legally treat other animals.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 28, 2007, 11:25 am

Leonaerd wrote:
Our relationships with different species have evolved differently.
Exactly. So some species are worthy of slaughter while others cause Vick to rot. How different is it when the animals are dying anyway?

Your lack of understanding of this concept and your belief that dogs "compete" (lmfao) with us exemplifies such astronomical naïvety and absence of evolution that you alone bring all of Darwinism into question.
Tell me exactly where the anthropomorphic line is drawn and when the dog became fractionally human enough that it's a crime to treat them like we can legally treat other animals.

Is there like some place down the street from you where you can slaughter, drown, or hang animals for fun?

There is no animal you can treat like that legally without being subject to some sort of animal cruelty charge. Hunting is a marginally acceptable means of population control since it is no longer a staple in the american diet. If you're going to eat it, I don't have a problem with it...

You should not want to inflict harm unto any creature which has not harmed you.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 12:38 pm

I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 28, 2007, 12:43 pm

I think it's more an issue that he was essentially torturing animals rather than just killing them. That's why people have such a problem with it.

Pit Bulls (and other types of dogs) get put down all the time, be it for medical reasons, or for attacking people, or whatever. People don't think the people that kill those dogs should go to prison. He was making them fight, torturing them to death, keeping them in not the most ideal conditions and housing many injured dogs... that's why people are more upset about this than if he were simply killing deer.

That said, I have heard that prosecutors will recommend 12-18 months in prison, and the judge could go up to 5 (or was it 6?) years. While I find what he did deplorable, part of me thinks that 5 years in federal prison for it is a bit much.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 28, 2007, 12:51 pm

Leonaerd wrote:I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.

Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states and a felony offense in most.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 28, 2007, 12:52 pm

I'd like to see him get more than the minimum. Maybe 24 months to demonstrate that you can't just buy your way out of anything more than the minimum. He did more than the minimum crime in this case. The minimum, IMO, would be if he was guilty of dog fighting alone but he also tortured the dogs which in my mind calls for much more punishment...really closer to the max but the way our system works, 2 years would make be feel good about it.

Answer me this. Who gets the max sentence in this case if not Vick? Someone that was also eating parts of the dogs while they were still alive? (I know becoming an informant helps reduce the sentence)

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 28, 2007, 12:54 pm

Leonaerd wrote:I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.

Gratz on being the only person throughout this entire ordeal that I've ever heard stick up for Vick. You are most definately in the minority in your opinion. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, if you actually believe all the things you're saying, then break it down to basics if it will help you swallow the pill better.

Vick broke the law. Vick broke his contract with the NFL. All the animal cruelty and gambling aside, he deserves everything he's got coming to him. I imagine that will be at least a year in prison. His NFL career is already over.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 28, 2007, 12:56 pm

Winnow wrote:I'd like to see him get more than the minimum. Maybe 24 months to demonstrate that you can't just buy your way out of anything more than the minimum. He did more than the minimum crime in this case. The minimum, IMO, would be if he was guilty of dog fighting alone but he also tortured the dogs which in my mind calls for much more punishment...really closer to the max but the way our system works, 2 years would make be feel good about it.

Answer me this. Who gets the max sentence in this case if not Vick? Someone that was also eating parts of the dogs while they were still alive? (I know becoming an informant helps reduce the sentence)

It's uncommon that anyone gets the maximum sentence for anything nowadays, but when the judge determines the period someone will be sentenced for they take things like remorse, repeat offender, etc into consideration too. He can do his time, I really don't care how much - but I think it would be ridiculous to give him the maximum sentence.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:11 pm

Spang wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.
Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states and a felony offense in most.

Right. I don't think it should be.

Sylvus wrote:I think it's more an issue that he was essentially torturing animals rather than just killing them. That's why people have such a problem with it.

The animal is dying whether or not it is tortured. Meanwhile nobody gives a shit about Darfur (random genocide reference to offer perspective), and certainly nobody cares about how the animals we eat are treated. Anybody ever seen a pig die and then eat it? So fucking ignorant is the mob when it comes to animals.

I would be happy if there was a totally concrete set of laws that never overlap and always make sense when it comes to taking care of and killing animals. As it is, Vick's life is ruined and a few fucking dogs are dead. I say fucking dogs to mean that they are low, very unimportant pieces of life that shouldn't warrant 1-5 years in prison unless they were used to break an important law.

It all revolves around anthropomorphism. When is it a bad (animal) and no longer a good (human)? I've taken a couple classes illustrating this catastrophe that nobody knows about and this Vick case is spot on the contradiction line. What if Vick ate the dogs? Would it be bad anymore? It's just food then. No longer a human dog, just an animal dog. Heck, the police cruisers nearby would probably smell the food and ask for a bite. "Meat" is tasty. Mmm. Animal. As soon as somebody spotlights the contradictions rife throughout the animal / human world then I won't make this as huge an issue as I wish everybody else would.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:20 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.
Gratz on being the only person throughout this entire ordeal that I've ever heard stick up for Vick. You are most definately in the minority in your opinion. I wonder why that is?

I wonder why it is that you eat cow, pig and chicken on a daily basis and feel fine, despite the fact that they're all harmless animals. I wonder why it is that you are so unaffected by your appetite yet you are happy when someone goes to prison for an outdated, contradictory and very controversial law. The issue that should be spotlighted here is that of animal treatment on a far more comprehensive and broad scale. A few dogs. Geez. McDonalds would be in prison for eternity if animal laws made sense.

Anyway, if you actually believe all the things you're saying, then break it down to basics if it will help you swallow the pill better.

Vick broke the law. Vick broke his contract with the NFL. All the animal cruelty and gambling aside, he deserves everything he's got coming to him. I imagine that will be at least a year in prison. His NFL career is already over.

There's that animal "cruelty" thing again. When is it an animal? When is it food? When is it a human? When is it cruel? When is it sport? Get off your high horse and realize that there is more to this scenario than cruelty and a couple of dogs. It's a perfectly played contradictory situation that has one unfortunate human going to prison.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 28, 2007, 1:23 pm

Where is the controversy in the law? In your head?

Also, I have watched cattle in a slaughterhouse. It is fast, for the most part, and not a long drawn out process like strangulation or electrocution.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 28, 2007, 1:25 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
Spang wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I totally agree. I simply don't think Vick deserves prison when killing animals is clearly a wordly thing to do and has been for as long as animals and humans have existed.
Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states and a felony offense in most.
Right. I don't think it should be.

Sylvus wrote:I think it's more an issue that he was essentially torturing animals rather than just killing them. That's why people have such a problem with it.
The animal is dying whether or not it is tortured. Meanwhile nobody gives a shit about Darfur (random genocide reference to offer perspective), and certainly nobody cares about how the animals we eat are treated. Anybody ever seen a pig die and then eat it? So fucking ignorant is the mob when it comes to animals.

I would be happy if there was a totally concrete set of laws that never overlap and always make sense when it comes to taking care of and killing animals. As it is, Vick's life is ruined and a few fucking dogs are dead. I say fucking dogs to mean that they are low, very unimportant pieces of life that shouldn't warrant 1-5 years in prison unless they were used to break an important law.

It all revolves around anthropomorphism. When is it a bad (animal) and no longer a good (human)? I've taken a couple classes illustrating this catastrophe that nobody knows about and this Vick case is spot on the contradiction line. What if Vick ate the dogs? Would it be bad anymore? It's just food then. No longer a human dog, just an animal dog. Heck, the police cruisers nearby would probably smell the food and ask for a bite. "Meat" is tasty. Mmm. Animal. As soon as somebody spotlights the contradictions rife throughout the animal / human world then I won't make this as huge an issue as I wish everybody else would.

I can't believe you go to collage. Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth. Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board. Maybe with some face to face discussions amoungst your peers you might realize how out of whack your moral compass is.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:26 pm

The controversy is what should be there. It should be controversial to imagine one animal getting preferential treatment over another, with there being no definitive reason why. Anthropomorphism. It's not fair to the animals, right? Why isn't it unfair to the cows, too?

Who the fuck cares if it's strangulation or electrocution or if they wait for the cow to die naturally? It's death. It's food. Clearly not human. Why are the dogs human?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:28 pm

I can't believe you go to collage. Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth. Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board. Maybe with some face to face discussions amoungst your peers you might realize how out of whack your moral compass is.

Lol now the meateater is questioning my morals. Go eat pig. And maybe try answering this: why are you unwilling to analyze the difference between the way dogs and chickens are treated?

Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth.

Yeah, well, people used to get murdered for thinking the world is flat.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 28, 2007, 1:29 pm

Leonaerd wrote:There's that animal "cruelty" thing again. When is it an animal? When is it food? When is it a human? When is it cruel? When is it sport? Get off your high horse and realize that there is more to this scenario than cruelty and a couple of dogs. It's a perfectly played contradictory situation that has one unfortunate human going to prison.

I think you need to realize there is nothing more to this that cruelty and a couple of dogs.

Your philosophy-fu needs some serious work. You're trying too hard to justify the torture and killing of dogs for sport.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 28, 2007, 1:30 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
I can't believe you go to collage. Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth. Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board. Maybe with some face to face discussions amoungst your peers you might realize how out of whack your moral compass is.
Lol now the meateater is questioning my morals. Go eat pig. And maybe try answering this: why are you unwilling to analyze the difference between the way dogs and chickens are treated?

Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth.
Yeah, well, people used to get murdered for thinking the world is flat.

Did you just call me a meateater?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:32 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:There's that animal "cruelty" thing again. When is it an animal? When is it food? When is it a human? When is it cruel? When is it sport? Get off your high horse and realize that there is more to this scenario than cruelty and a couple of dogs. It's a perfectly played contradictory situation that has one unfortunate human going to prison.
I think you need to realize there is nothing more to this that cruelty and a couple of dogs.

Your philosophy-fu needs some serious work. You're trying too hard to justify the torture and killing of dogs for sport.

First of all, what is cruel? Personally, I think taking an animal out of its niche and keeping is as a play thing is cruel. I'd rather die than be someone's testicle-less bitch my whole life. Are you going to say that dogs don't know any better? Then why is Vick in prison if they're brainless maggots? Secondly, why the FUCK aren't dogs on the same plane as cows?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:33 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:
I can't believe you go to collage. Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth. Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board. Maybe with some face to face discussions amoungst your peers you might realize how out of whack your moral compass is.
Lol now the meateater is questioning my morals. Go eat pig. And maybe try answering this: why are you unwilling to analyze the difference between the way dogs and chickens are treated?

Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth.
Yeah, well, people used to get murdered for thinking the world is flat.
Did you just call me a meateater?

Did you just ignore everything I said because you don't know how to debate?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 28, 2007, 1:37 pm

Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board.

Guess what, fuckass. I already did. One of my discussion groups on campus has been talking about this since the issue began and I'm not even the loudest one on the issue.

Hur hur, a weed reference. It hurts. I guess having a 4.0 and being an active member of my campus community would negate that sharply. I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 28, 2007, 1:43 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:
I can't believe you go to collage. Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth. Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board. Maybe with some face to face discussions amoungst your peers you might realize how out of whack your moral compass is.
Lol now the meateater is questioning my morals. Go eat pig. And maybe try answering this: why are you unwilling to analyze the difference between the way dogs and chickens are treated?

Your view on this is beyond anything I've heard come out of someone's mouth.
Yeah, well, people used to get murdered for thinking the world is flat.
Did you just call me a meateater?

Yes, he did. And you told him you can't believe he goes to collage. It made me laugh.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 28, 2007, 1:45 pm

I thought a collage was something you made in art class... in college.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 28, 2007, 1:52 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
Put the bowl down for a minute, then go on campus and share your opinion with others. See what their reaction is when you repeat what you just said on this message board.
Guess what, fuckass. I already did. One of my discussion groups on campus has been talking about this since the issue began and I'm not even the loudest one on the issue.

Hur hur, a weed reference. It hurts. I guess having a 4.0 and being an active member of my campus community would negate that sharply. I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.

Hey, you're the dumbass with a Best Bud avatar.

Are you vegan? I am still trying to figure out where you see the controversy. There was no "controversy" until your rather odd opinion was brought into the discussion.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 28, 2007, 1:53 pm

You consistently seem to feel that we are equating dogs to humans. I believe this to be the basis of your argument and I believe it to be misguided.

You ask why we give special privilege to dogs above cows. I do not believe this is the case either. If someone wants to slaughter a dog to eat it, they could. If someone raised, tortured them to create feral beasts and forced them to fight (not sure how, perhaps some sort of spiked armor?), I assume there would be a similar outcry.

Your logic is flawed Leonard.

Perhaps a better question would be for you to ask who here approves of bull fighting. This is clearly a vicious sport (traditional fighting with spears and swords) and could illustrate a closer parallel to the point you are making. If someone approves of bull fighting, but not of dog fighting, you have some potential to argue your case. Even with bull fighting there is at least some difference. The matador has the potential to be skewered, whereas here the people conducted the fight have little to no personal risk in the matter.

As an additional note, I believe you a stretching the limits of Anthropomorphism by stating that is what is happening here. Sure Anthropomorphism refers to giving humanesque qualities to animals, but are you really going to argue that fear, and pain are qualities that animals do not innately share with humans? These aren't unique to just you and I you know....

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 28, 2007, 1:54 pm

Leonaerd wrote:I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.

Are you serious? Surely you made that up. What field does he teach?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 28, 2007, 2:00 pm

I'd be OK with all of this if professional athletes were tortured and killed when they lost. (well, they are in the Middle East but I mean other places!)

Murdering people is also OK as long as you eat them afterwards.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 28, 2007, 2:01 pm

Leonaerd wrote:Hur hur, a weed reference. It hurts. I guess having a 4.0 and being an active member of my campus community would negate that sharply. I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.

It doesn't stop you from being an idiot, as you've magnificently demonstrated in this thread.

"openmindedness achieved from smoking pot" Hehe, good one

Try to grasp this, you have two animals you've raised to eat. Which treatment should be illegal:

1. Hang the animal up by it's feet and beat it\administer electric shocks until it dies a few days later

2. Hit the animal in the forehead with a mallet, killing it instantly

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 28, 2007, 2:03 pm

Somali wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.
Are you serious? Surely you made that up. What field does he teach?

LMAO

Potheads are awesome.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 28, 2007, 2:08 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:Hur hur, a weed reference. It hurts. I guess having a 4.0 and being an active member of my campus community would negate that sharply. I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.
It doesn't stop you from being an idiot, as you've magnificently demonstrated in this thread.

"openmindedness achieved from smoking pot" Hehe, good one

Try to grasp this, you have two animals you've raised to eat. Which treatment should be illegal:

1. Hang the animal up by it's feet and beat it\administer electric shocks until it dies a few days later

2. Hit the animal in the forehead with a mallet, killing it instantly

OOh! OOh! I know. I know. Pick me!. Pick me !

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 28, 2007, 2:09 pm

Winnow wrote:I'd be OK with all of this if professional athletes were tortured and killed when they lost. (well, they are in the Middle East but I mean other places!)

Murdering people is also OK as long as you eat them afterwards.

I lol'd. Thanks Winnow. Cannibalism ftw.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 28, 2007, 2:12 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Somali wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.
Are you serious? Surely you made that up. What field does he teach?

LMAO

Potheads are awesome.

You can't apply Leonard's logic to all potheads Mid. I've known lots of people that smoked and none of them have said anything quite like this. He's "special." Wait. Sorry. He's "open-minded."

Edit: What is curious about this is that I tend to think of being open minded as a benefit to people. Its the first time I think I've ever had to use it as a derogatory term.
Its good to be able to understand both sides of the argument and to question our thought process, but this really does seem remedial. Sueven's posts were well articulated and meant to enlighten people about the other side of the argument. Leonard's post was much more "unique."

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 28, 2007, 2:15 pm

Somali wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Somali wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:I talked to one of my professors about pot yesterday and he said the openmindedness achieved from smoking pot is one of the qualities he dearly wishes all of his students had.
Are you serious? Surely you made that up. What field does he teach?

LMAO

Potheads are awesome.
You can't apply Leonard's logic to all potheads Mid. I've known lots of people that smoked and none of them have said anything quite like this. He's "special." Wait. Sorry. He's "open-minded."

Mental Midget seems to come to mind...