just mentioned on www.waok.com

shelley wynter is discussing now


Michael Vick Indicted On Two Criminal Counts

POSTED: 5:05 pm EDT July 17, 2007
UPDATED: 5:17 pm EDT July 17, 2007

ATLANTA -- Falcons Quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on two felony criminal counts related to dogfighting at his Virginia home.

Vick has denied any involvement in dogfighting. He has said relatives who once lived at his Virginia property may be responsible.

According to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern district of Virginia, Vick has been indicted on two criminal counts -- they are both felonies.

The first count is for sponsoring a dog in an animal fighting venture and the other is conspiracy as part of another felony.

Vick's Surry County, Virginia home was raided April 26.

Please refresh this developing story and stay tuned to Channel 2 Action News at 6.

Copyright 2007 by WSBTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

wondering what the science is on the charges vs. the potential charges.

also, how is boddie not indicted and he lived there?

that's weird. they saying that the cousin who lived there didn't know enough about the situation to be indicted, but vick did? that's... interesting, to say the least.

i didn't think he was gonna be indicted, so this is interesting. there goes the season, i 'spose. he better get the ghost of johnny cochran.

the evidence should prolly still be tossed out since it was gotten after a questionable search. also, these are felonies? didn't the felony dogfighting law just get passed this year (after all this shit broke)?

can they make a law up today, and charge you for some shit you did last year?


peace & blessings,

x.

sigless for the summer, y'all.

>can they make a law up today, and charge you for some shit you
>did last year?

Let's say Vick is convicted, and suspended for 8 games or 2 seasons or banned for life or whatever.

Is Premier Goodell also going to institute similar bans when Michael Pittman or Dominic Rhodes gets convicted of spousal abuse (for the 132nd time)?

PLEASE tell me Goodell isn't going to take a hard line against crimes with no controversy (ie in theory most sane people abhor dogfighting), but with wishy-washy crimes he'll be less strict? (ie spousal abuse is less cut and dry)

Goodell is going to fuck this new policy up. Being excessively strict is one thing, failing to implement a complete and well-defined behavior policy is a disaster waiting to happen.

but you see my point. I sincerely hope Goodell takes as hard a line against all other infractions as he does with something as simple and abhorrent as dogfighting.

It reminds me of politicians who are all gung-ho about issues where there's no real opposition, but when it comes to issues that are more complex, that's when they start with the diplomatic doublespeak.

bruises or witnesses).

any man who hits a woman is a low life bastard, don't get me wrong. but there have also been some crazy bidges out there who have falsified reports and whatnot. that makes things tricky in some cases (duke skrippajawn was a student at nc central -- what if she was boo'd up w/ flip murray and lied on him).


peace & blessings,

x.

sigless for the summer, y'all.

..and there's a huge difference between misdemeanors & felonies

a crime is still a crime, tho

in this case, vick's largest concern would be the conspiracy charge, 'cause that would be the equivalent of a criminal enterprise, and automatically cost him his career (not to mention, his freedom)

is this cases bein' sensationalized?

yep

anyone with an ounce of intelligence can recognize that makin' an example of people who try to live above/beyond the reach of the law is a vital part of the job of a successful d.a.

the fact of the matter is vick owned the property, and that property was damn-near tailor-made for such a criminal enterprise.

is this a case of criminal negligence?

possibly, but like i said, its early...


-----------------------------------------
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
-----------------------------------------

clap, mufukahs!.. (c) p.s.
-----------------------------------------

..and miles to go before i sleep... (c) frost

???eV???•..

Also, I'm really surprised they didnt indict his cousin as well. Aside from the alleged misconduct, something smells EXTREMELY "funny" about this case.

but the Feds did.

That REEKS of politicized bullshit.

I'm not convinced they can him get on anything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

they just wanna make sure they can drag his name thru as much dirt as possible

wont surprise me if they subpoena'd the lady that claim mike gave her herpes as a witness for the prosecution

???eV???•..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

and do you know how much a pitbull costs.....66 pitbuls no less....and taking care of it...and the whole "badnews" kennel shit...its like where is all this money comiming from?....im pretty sure Vick funded cousion Jimmy's operation...and he is part of it....that's what i think...but if Vick is Guilty he really deserves it....like them dogs suffured...that's dirty....only a person with herpes would do such a thing...



www.myspace.com/cosign

(just add me if your an okayplayer)

you can't bust every dog fighting ring, but you can pick a famous target to maximize publicity to scare the shit out of any other breeders.

be with a contract worth as much as vick's be involved in a such a crime ring....so what that the feds want publicity....who doesnt?....Vick basically set himself up....(though he is yet to be proven guilty)...he is in deep shit....



www.myspace.com/cosign

(just add me if your an okayplayer)

I mean, extra tough. They have a very high percentage of conviction, and usually have their ducks in a row.
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2007/07/michael-vick-indicted-who-let-dogs-out.html

I pray that's not your girl in your avatar because I didn't want you to shoot @ me when you saw me heading to her spot.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

"...One point of caution: an indictment by a federal grand jury is far from a conviction. I distinctly remember my criminal investigations professor, Charles Whitebread, making this point over and over . . . and over again. Grand jury hearings are typically secret and one-sided in favor of the government. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call and which witnesses receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor, and the defendant doesn't even have a right to have his or her attorney present. Even worse for the defendant, an indictment only requires "probable cause," meaning more likely than not--a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction. There has been much criticism of grand juries as unfair devices for the prosecution, and that they have been misused as tools to shame defendants, especially in high-profile cases."


peace & blessings,

x.

sigless for the summer, y'all.

"Well if he killed a man on his property, that man shouldn't have been on his propety."

nm

>

I was already prepared mentally for this...

the funny thing about this whole thing is that you guys dont realize how good at whethering the storm you have to be to be a falcons fan...

i'm immune to it by now...

nm

nm

Didn't they, according to their "sources," say Vick wouldn't be indicted? Did they assume that not hastening judgement meant no accusation? The feds were probably just being meticulous and thorough with their investigation. We're not talking about the local Atlanta DA here.

Notwithstanding that, Vick will probably be offered a deal, he'll plea down to a lesser charge, pay the fat fine and move on...and go back to being an average QB.

>Notwithstanding that, Vick will probably be offered a deal,
>he'll plea down to a lesser charge, pay the fat fine and move
>on...and go back to being an average QB.

And if he snitches, he'll have bigger problems.
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

said otherwise.

effort to rally behind him. This dude is sitting on a damn near 150 mil contract, hasn't bust a grape in the league(yeah yeah he can run fast and racked up run yardage), and if I was Blanks, I woulda sold my soul for an indictment to rid myself of him. I know the Vick riders are praying for an aquittal, but he's gonna need a team of Velociraptors to beat this--> you talking federal, animal rights, and I hear Virginia PD ain't too nice, so u know they trying to bring pure heat in the investigation. Bottom line, Vick KNEW this shit was going on, and if they can prove that, he's toast... and rightfully should be. I mean really, is he THIS dumb?

the "conduct code" is for REPEAT offenders but this is vick's 1st offense. my issue is that yt and a few mush mouth negroes will be calling for his head trying to pressure a suspension on some "there's a double standard for stars" shit.

the feds told the league and the falcons a vick indictment was unlikely but 3 others would face charges. they threw mike in there because you can easily indict someone. they know if they indict him he'll take a plea deal which will tarnish his name and possibly get him suspended. this is bullshit.

But then again, didn't what's his name from the Ravens do jail time and came back to play? I'm certain it wasn't fed time though.

>But then again, didn't what's his name from the Ravens do
>jail time and came back to play? I'm certain it wasn't fed
>time though.

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

an ivestigation and an indictment does NOT equal guilt.

that's bullshit. you don't know shit so how can you say he's guilty? every idiot i the stands will hold this over his head even if the indictment doesn't stick and that's wrong.

>
>that's bullshit. you don't know shit so how can you say he's
>guilty?

you dont know shit so how can you say he's innocent?

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

the burden is not on the accused faggot.

did you forget that or does that principle only get extended to "certain" individuals?

>INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
>
>the burden is not on the accused faggot.
>
>did you forget that or does that principle only get extended
>to "certain" individuals?

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

yup,
and I was right

you mad


Now, get back to the GD Vick thread and try and top yourself for most retarded statement of the day cause you're in the lead over there
which is really sayin somethin

I mean this right here:

"Nope, the Humane Society kills thousands of dogs every day.....I don't see PETA marching over there and trying to give all those dogs a happy home......."

Is grounds for a downs syndrome test

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

"Nope, the Humane Society kills thousands of dogs every day.....I don't see PETA marching over there and trying to give all those dogs a happy home......."

and with pretty much every other laughable thing you have ever managed to type

>I mean this right here:
>
>"Nope, the Humane Society kills thousands of dogs every
>day.....I don't see PETA marching over there and trying to
>give all those dogs a happy home......."
>
>Is grounds for a downs syndrome test
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

that statement was in response to someone asking if anyone really cared about the dogs. I'm not a dog lover, I don't really even like dogs. I could care less if they were fighting dogs or not. It just seems hypocritical to me that PETA goes after folks for killing dogs when the Humane Society does it every day......



I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

>that statement was in response to someone asking if anyone
>really cared about the dogs. I'm not a dog lover, I don't
>really even like dogs. I could care less if they were
>fighting dogs or not. It just seems hypocritical to me that
>PETA goes after folks for killing dogs when the Humane Society
>does it every day......
>
>
>
>I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl -
>Add me, I need some friends.....

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

>yup,
>and I was right
>
>you mad

but with african-americans it's the other way around?

Whether what he did is viewed as a felony in the eyes of the law, or whether Goodell suspends him are really neither here nor there as far as that goes.

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

legal guilt vs. factual guilt... the first thing taught in Criminal Justice 101.

mike may have known something was going on but i don't think he electricuted or hanged dogs. i don't believe he's a dog fighter.

the feds indicted him knowing he'll take a plea deal which means he's forced to drop a dime and help their case. the same thing happened to ray lewis.

I honestly don't know or care. I think it makes you a lowlife, and "ruining his name" is what you were talking about.

Now let's see if the truth comes out.
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

.

this shit is crazy
i never seen so much effort involved in a fucking dogfighting case!
dude didn't live there, they have no physical evidence, only some weak ass hearsay from "unnamed sources"
fuck outta HERE
most likely vick will easily beat this case, but he might be cut/traded now, his rep is ruined for good (like it wasn't bad enough) and we gotta listen to the white media shit on ANOTHER black nigga for the next few months
shit i guess TO been too quiet this offseason, white media done had to create some new shit

pacman and tank are nobodies. they got an indicment on one of the highest profile black athletes out.

espn will cover this all day.

that's how they get to where they are. it's fucked up but it's true.

not that it isn't racist, but it doesn't look like this investigation is all that uncommon.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2905920

In Dayton, Ohio, for example, the USDA and other federal and state agencies investigated a dogfighting operation for 14 months, seized 64 dogs, and indicted nine people. Last week, state authorities in Ohio charged another 38 who were involved in the same scheme. All 38 are charged with state felonies. Although that investigation began with a dogfighting conspiracy, it quickly led to drug, gun and gambling charges as well. The charges even include bartered purchases of food stamp machines. The payments for the food stamp machines, which produce valuable food stamps for use as cash in retail stores, included a stolen Corvette and wholesale quantities of cocaine.

Not as big as factory farming, but big nevertheless.

n/h
----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

did you read the tom lantos haterade memo?

nm

>fuck outta HERE
>most likely vick will easily beat this case, but he might be
>cut/traded now, his rep is ruined for good (like it wasn't bad
>enough) and we gotta listen to the white media shit on ANOTHER
>black nigga for the next few months
>shit i guess TO been too quiet this offseason, white media
>done had to create some new shit

The Vick Shift is forever stuck in one direction after this...

I think Vick is honestly gone after this boils all over. Folk wanted him gone, now they can have their dream..he may get off but after getting your name in all this? Ehhh..

Now to see who'll pick him up..what teams right now need a QB.

.

i mean jamal lewis was convicted of a federal offense, did his 6 mos bid (or how ever long it was) and went back to baltimore. he's somewhere else now, but still.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

again the conduct code is intended for REPEAT offenders (pacman, tank, henry).

this is gonna set a dangerous precedence if vick gets hit.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

let alone proven guilty.

That's charging him.
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

.

you think he wouldn't wanna use Mike as an example? I won't put it past him. I'm hoping somehow mike can beat the case and concentrate on football but with this 'embarassment' I dunno man..

>again the conduct code is intended for REPEAT offenders
>(pacman, tank, henry).
>
>this is gonna set a dangerous precedence if vick gets hit.

gooddell will be opening pandora's box if he suspends vick. he'd be going against his own "repeat offender" idea.

oh, and fuck your avi.

*finds humor in who is telling me not to be dumb*

>you dont know shit so how can you say he's innocent?

YOU said that dumb shit.

FOH

if you dont see the basic flaw in you saying someone doesnt know shit so cant say hes guilty and then turn around and say someone is innocent when you in fact dont know shit either than I feel for you

mike is innocent until PROVEN otherwise.

you are a us citizen right?

technically, everyone is innocent until the prosecution has a chance to prove their case
even the guilty folks are technically innocent in the eyes of the law for a period of time
doesnt mean they didnt do it though

is that a little too tough for you to wrap your brain around?

>technically, everyone is innocent until the prosecution has a
>chance to prove their case

word? "technically?"

>even the guilty folks are technically innocent in the eyes of
>the law for a period of time

haha...you're using the word "technically" like you're breaking some deep legal concept down. well TECHNICALLY, you are the master of redundancy and the obvious. read your first sentence then read the second one. lol

did you think that saying the same shit twice w/different words would make you sound smart?

>doesnt mean they didnt do it though
>

lol

this is too easy. you're killing yourself.

>is that a little too tough for you to wrap your brain around?

your reply is so deep i'll have to marinate on it. FOH

you haven't said shit. you say he's guilty? prove it.

I'm just not foolish enough to say he's innocent while bashing people for saying hes guilty
when at the end of the day
neither side knows shit about it

but you missed that whole part while you got your panties in a bunch

and as usual, the usual asses are being.....asses.

this post is about to hit 3x plat and too large for me to re-enter.

KC said it best: "...until proven guilty"

these people have their minds made up, Vick is guilty, kick him out the league and throw him in jail forever. Where were these same folks when Leonard Little killed a woman while driving drunk?



I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

>these people have their minds made up, Vick is guilty, kick
>him out the league and throw him in jail forever. Where were
>these same folks when Leonard Little killed a woman while
>driving drunk?

They weren't here, because the site wasnt even up, or had just started

And I do believe Leonard Little does not belong in the league, as I have said many times.

I agree. no conviction, no suspension.

But until he's convicted or there's something substantial against him, no, I don't think he should be suspended.

Y'all seem to forget it's felony because dogs are involved... and because he's black.

Vick is going to spend some substantial time in jail

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick1.html
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

Im just sayin. I got a team to look after.

If Goodhell is going to suspend Vick it needs to happen THIS WEEK. Reports all summer is this is Vicks best camp EVER. If we're moving forward, we need to get someone into place ASAP.


This started with Vick cousin getting cought with weed at Walmart, doing more dumb shit to get his house searched and the po-po finding dog shit in the back yard. But he's not named. WTF?!?!?!?!?!

>If Goodhell is going to suspend Vick it needs to happen THIS
>WEEK. Reports all summer is this is Vicks best camp EVER. If
>we're moving forward, we need to get someone into place ASAP.
>
>

Gooddell will cause major problems w/a suspension. the players and the union will not be pleased as vick is not a repeat offender not to mention the racial aspect.

if he is suspend it can't be for more than a game or 2.

don't get another qb. they need to support vick. if they sign daunte and vick beats his case they might as well release vick. all the money and excitement he's brought blanc, they gotta support him or he'll tell atl to fuck off.

>This started with Vick cousin getting cought with weed at
>Walmart, doing more dumb shit to get his house searched and
>the po-po finding dog shit in the back yard. But he's not
>named. WTF?!?!?!?!?!

cosign. how is he not a conspirator when he lived there?

doesn't that seem pretty obvious?

not UNTIL found guilty under the leagues 1st offense rule. (again, this is what was said on the RADIO)

they just said on Fox Atlanta that the comissioner doesn't have to wait for a verdict.

after hearing the way they killed those dogs, if he is guilty then i got no sympathy for dude.

The rule he signed says he can't. Not until he pleas or is found guilty. It's been stated on ESPN a few times now.

We suck at life.



----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We suck at life.

i feel bad for the dogs too.

black men aren't the only things in the world with rights.

.

if i wanted to call black men things, i would have called them "black man things." what was i supposed to say, "other people besides black men have rights?"

>>>black men aren't the only things in the world with rights<<<

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YOU

and u somehow also implied the rights of blacks are upheld on a regular basis

>and u somehow also implied the rights of blacks are upheld on
>a regular basis

'cism...clear as the day, muhfucka

if anyone's legitimately offended, as opposed to trying to distract from the issue at hand, i'm sorry the phrasing offended you.

i'm happy to consider alternate phrasings. perhaps i should have said "black men aren't the only animals that have rights," since people are animals and not things. i think that one might have gone over like a lead ballon, though. i guess i could have said that "animals have rights too," but then i wouldn't have been able to make my point that this is part of jux and your reactionary defending of any black man, regardless of how heinous an act he may have committed.

so i'll stick with my wording and say, just because you heard it one way doesn't mean it even approaches cism.

point remains. people (if the lack of adjective make you feel better) aren't the only things that have rights.

created by morgan freeman in his own image, bitch.

but, i don't look shit like morgan freeman.

>black men aren't the only things in the world with rights.

like a lot of dumb athletes, dude had the dream life and tossed it away on some stupid bullshit

In or about April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick17.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick12.html

that's a really detailed document.

and i really hope they lock his ass up for a long time for that shit.

i mean, its bad enough to fight dogs and put down the weak ones..... but if he must do that, at the very least put em down easy. torturing them to a painful death? thats repulsive.

This isnt ray lewis killing a blackman( which they dont care about). This is a man that probably killed 100's of dogs, and white people ARE IN LOVE WITH DOGS MORE THAN THEY ARE REGULAR PEOPLE, especially BLACK PEOPLE.

No way he gets out of this, and a lot cats are going to be tricking on him left and right to gain immunity.


Funny , we were saying, about some years back, that marucs was the fuck up and clearly a dumb ass, but now, vick is the bread winner with that.


Electrocuting dogs???...hanging?????...drowning????


Fam, this dude is going to do some serious time.

>This isnt ray lewis killing a blackman( which they dont care
>about). This is a man that probably killed 100's of dogs, and
>white people ARE IN LOVE WITH DOGS MORE THAN THEY ARE REGULAR
>PEOPLE, especially BLACK PEOPLE.
>
>No way he gets out of this, and a lot cats are going to be
>tricking on him left and right to gain immunity.
>
>
>Funny , we were saying, about some years back, that marucs was
>the fuck up and clearly a dumb ass, but now, vick is the bread
>winner with that.
>
>
>Electrocuting dogs???...hanging?????...drowning????
>
>
>Fam, this dude is going to do some serious time.
>
>
>


Fam, I'm BLACK and I like dogs waaaayyyy more than regular people..

I'm just saying, dogs have not caused a FRACTION of the negativity humans have.

Not that there isn't racism going on with this issue, but liking animals more than humans isn't just a white people thing.

If this is true....have mercy.

I don't get some of y'all who think he should be indicted for this.

im not shocked though

and to kill an animal mercilessly for no reason at all is just down right insane. It is not right to torture an animal

When man kills for food, he has to do it in a certain way, even the bible tells you that.


Vick is about to be the new poster child( in a negative way) for animal rights. They are going to use him as an example, and he will pay for this.

He did not have to use medieval tactics to lay those dogs to rest. Hell, he didnt have to lay those dogs to rest ...It was a meaninless act of murder, plus, it was premeditated.

...why are people not this upset about treatment of livestock?? ..i dont like dog fighting, but Vick is gettin fucked here

exactly.

Doesn't matter what the law should be.

Vick knows what the law actually IS.

Whether we think the law is stupid is beside the point.

Dogfighting is dumb because it's against the law, regardless of how I feel about animals.

...but your point is taken ..ur right ..he should know better

>RE: EXACTLY!!! a dog specificly BRED for fighting!!!

1) Breeding a dog for fighting is wrong to begin with.


2) Aside from that, are you seriously going to argue that the reason for breeding something actually has an effect on that creature's rights once it's born?

That's pretty fucking stupid.

So, even dogs bred to fight (see #1) have the same rights as all other dogs.

Including, but not limited to, the right not to be tortured for someone's pleasure or amusement.



>...why are people not this upset about treatment of
>livestock?? ..i dont like dog fighting, but Vick is gettin
>fucked here

3) Regarding livestock and hunting:

- You can't make keeping livestock for food and/or hunting illegal unless you force the entire population to become vegetarian.

- You can't make it legal to hunt if you eat the meat, but illegal if you don't eat the meat. That's basically creating a law telling people what to eat. That's fucking dumb.

That said, most people DO eat some of the meat they kill. Most people don't hunt and just throw the meat away.

...the govt dont like this because it revolves around GAMBLING ..its far less to do about doggies ...in fact if there was no gambling involved there wouldn't be too many dog fights, dont you think?

>RE: lets be honest this isnt about DOGS.. its about GAMBLING...
>...the govt dont like this because it revolves around
>GAMBLING ..its far less to do about doggies ...in fact if
>there was no gambling involved there wouldn't be too many dog
>fights, dont you think?

Yes, of course the fact that gambling was involved has an effect on how the govt. handles the situation.

But I'm not addressing the specifics of Vick's case - I was addressing your callous disregard for dogs, and also the errors in your logic.


And yes, I do think there would still be a case against Vick if there was no gambling but there was still torture, killing, hanging, electrocution... all that foul shit.

It's still animal abuse, it's still illegal, and those are the things that most of the (sane) posters in this thread are opposed to.

In this case, I don't give a shit about gambling if no animals are being abused.

The gambling aspect is a big issue with regard to the govt. Without that, it probably wouldn't be a federal case (I don't know, I haven't been that into the details). But he'd still be in some serious trouble.


And you're right, without gambling, there wouldn't be (as) many dog fights. But there would still be people out there abusing animals and dogs, and it would still be a crime (and rightly so).

>>RE: lets be honest this isnt about DOGS.. its about
>GAMBLING...
>>...the govt dont like this because it revolves around
>>GAMBLING ..its far less to do about doggies ...in fact
>if
>>there was no gambling involved there wouldn't be too many
>dog
>>fights, dont you think?
>
>Yes, of course the fact that gambling was involved has an
>effect on how the govt. handles the situation.
>
>But I'm not addressing the specifics of Vick's case - I was
>addressing your callous disregard for dogs, and also the
>errors in your logic.
>
>
>And yes, I do think there would still be a case against Vick
>if there was no gambling but there was still torture, killing,
>hanging, electrocution... all that foul shit.
>
>It's still animal abuse, it's still illegal, and those are the
>things that most of the (sane) posters in this thread are
>opposed to.
>
>In this case, I don't give a shit about gambling if no animals
>are being abused.
>
>The gambling aspect is a big issue with regard to the govt.
>Without that, it probably wouldn't be a federal case (I don't
>know, I haven't been that into the details). But he'd still be
>in some serious trouble.
>
>
>And you're right, without gambling, there wouldn't be (as)
>many dog fights. But there would still be people out there
>abusing animals and dogs, and it would still be a crime (and
>rightly so).


dude.. gambling and with BIG $$.. brings in money laundering.. drugs.. and all sorts of illegal activity.. its all connected when you have an operation THIS big.. the feds (and shortly the state) aint doin this for the puppies man..

and i have no disregard for dogs.. not when they are bred for this purpose.. the bloodline in these dogs is to be killers.. its a fact they can and will turn on you even after years of loyalty.. its a fucked up situation..

maybe they should outlaw pits from now on.. most people who buy one aint gettin it because its cute... they want a tuff dog with that rep.. its fucked up i know a little girl who lost an eye to a pit.. it attacked her for no reason..

>In or about April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed
>approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing"
>sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods including
>hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the
>ground.
>
>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick17.html

But hey, that's no different than the Humane Society putting unwanted dogs to sleep humanely.....right? I mean, slamming dogs into walls, electrocuting them, hanging them...it's all good, right? They're just animals, let's have some fun before we kill em and toss em in the garbage.

dogfighting?

" a "rape stand", a device in which a female dog who is too agressive to submit to males for breeding is strapped down with her head in place by a restraint"

Either way sounds bad to me.

I ain't seen or heard any of the evidence. I'm just going to follow innocent until proven guilty here.

It wasnt a CIA secret that he was hosting dog fights and training dogs at the house that he bought in VA.

Somethings are just obvious and wide open to the eye, and vick's situation is one of them.

However, I hope the killings of the dogs, and how he killed them, are not true. ...I find it hard to believe that vick would hang and electrocute dogs. It just seems unreal and made up, but at that same time , who would make-up those type of acts?

You know what the crazy thing is about this situation?

This is unchartered territory in the NFL. No player has ever been disciplined for animal cruelty. I'm pretty sure there will be new laws implemented from the NFL and from the US legal system based off of Vick's case.

case closed

that whole situation should have at least taught us to chill and save the sensational reactaionary bulls**t until after the trial starts (preferably after the verdict).

don't go the the falcons message board
or ajc.com blogs
or listen to sports talk radio outside of the 2 live stews.

This shit bout to be a fuckin circus

and listening to talk radio here.

He'd be going to jail for years.

after the kathryn johnston shooting where the police tried to make a drug dealing informant lie or go to jail i question all of this shit - 3X



INFORMANTS LINK VICK TO DOG FIGHTS
By HANK KURZ Jr., AP
MICHAEL VICK

...In a letter, an inmate in a South Carolina prison claimed that he attended dog fights, where Vick also was in attendance and saw Vick bet large amounts of money. Another informant provided street names of dog fighters from elsewhere in Virginia.

A deputy sheriff in the county, W.R. Brinkman, is on the road investigating the claims, Poindexter said, noting that the investigation is the job of the sheriff.

Poindexter said a search warrant issued May 23 for the home Vick owns in the county still has not been executed because he wants to make certain that any search does not jeopardize the investigation. Several years ago, another dog fighting case in the county was thrown out of court because of an illegal search, he said.

The search warrant was issued after an informant told Brinkman there were as many as 30 dogs carcasses buried on the property, and Poindexter said he is confident that evidence already seized from the home would be enough to hand down indictments.

He said any attempt to remove the carcasses would also be incriminating.

When charges will be sought and who will face them remains to be seen, he said, noting that unless a special grand jury is called, the county grand jury is scheduled to meet next on July 24. The county has never had a special grand jury called.

The case began April 25 when police conducting a drug investigation raided the house Vick owns and found 66 dogs, 55 of them pit bulls. They also found items associated with dog fighting, including a "pry bar" used to pry apart a dog's jaws.

Dog fighting is a felony in Virginia.

Vick, a registered dog breeder, has blamed relatives for taking advantage of his generosity and insisted he's rarely at the house. He has since put the home on the market and sold it in a day, although the sale has not yet been completed.

These allegations have hurt Vick, who showed up for offseason workouts yesterday with a new short haircut, on the endorsement front. AirTran Airways has ended its relationship with Vick, who has been a pitchman for the airline since 2004, but whose image has been tarnished in several off-field incidents.


Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

and one of them is an undercover investigator?

He might beat this, because they dont have any pictures or physical evidence. Plus, the crediblity of the informants and witnesses is janky.


This case is going to be very interesting...All vick has to say is No, no, no ..

he's a registered breeder which gives him a modicum of plausible deniability.

But this indictment sounds real bad. And it's got his name all over various acts and incidents.

They got him going to fights, handing over purse money, etc. and actually killing dogs.

And if they can make that conspiracy charge stick, it doesn't matter if he was there or not. When you get into conspiracy land it's Pinkerton liability: "What one did, we ALL did."

This sucks, but Mike Vick is going to jail.

>They got him going to fights, handing over purse money, etc.
>and actually killing dogs.
>

they had kobe in the hotel room, oj had a mountain of evidence, ray lewis at the scene of a murder...

that info is from informants who are felons. they will be picked apart on the stand. it's very possible that doubt can be raised.

>This sucks, but Mike Vick is going to jail.

people kill me saying shit like this. you're jumping to conclusions. he hasn't even faced a judge and you got him locked up. you haven't even heard his legal teams defense yet. everyone looks screwed based on an indictment.

if the feds case is indeed that strong they will plea deal. mike can easily drop dimes on someone if necessary. they won't let it get to a jury.

NONE.

No deniability that he was funding the "kennel".

NONE.

If they don't get him on conspiracy (which they will), they'll get him on accomplice liability.

Mike Vick is done, man. I'm sorry.

This is not like OJ and Kobe. And I don't even count Kobe, cause he paid his way out.

This is not, "were you there the night of?"

This is "you didn't know anything about what was going on for 5+ years?"

And if you didn't know, SHOULD you have known?

He's done.

>NONE.
>
>No deniability that he was funding the "kennel".
>
>NONE.
>

those do not PROVE he killed dogs or "trafficed" them so what are you saying? he's not on trial for owning the house/kennel.

>If they don't get him on conspiracy (which they will), they'll
>get him on accomplice liability.
>
>Mike Vick is done, man. I'm sorry.

i hope you never serve on a jury or become a judge.

why even have a trial? just send him to the bing now right.

>
>This is not like OJ and Kobe. And I don't even count Kobe,
>cause he paid his way out.
>
>This is not, "were you there the night of?"
>
>This is "you didn't know anything about what was going on for
>5+ years?"

WRONG. the events in the indictment STILL have to place vick at the scene at specific times. the informants have to take the stand and their testimony has to be specific.

owning the premises, funding the operation, is not Shaq slam dunk but it is VERY LIKELY to be enough.

Anything that got built on that premises was built by Vick. He's the money man. This is strong circumstantial evidence.

They will try to pick apart the witnesses, true. But they don't need those witnesses to show Vick's financing.

But it's not about the felons, it's really about the co-defendants.

What are THEY gonna say that Vick did/didn't do?

Because clearly he's already thrown THEM under the bus with his "my family has taken advantage of me" comments.

nor owning the kennel. neither is illegal.

they have to prove that:
a. he ordered dogs to be killed
b. he trafficed/bred dogs to fight

>Because clearly he's already thrown THEM under the bus with
>his "my family has taken advantage of me" comments.
>

he didn't throw them under the bus because he didn't testify or put them in any trouble.

the feds are forcing their hand against vick.

>nor owning the kennel. neither is illegal.
>
>they have to prove that:
>a. he ordered dogs to be killed
>b. he trafficed/bred dogs to fight

He can be prosecuted under State or Federal Law.


In the state of Virginia all they have to show is that he knew about it. Not that he made the order or that he personally trafficked. So you're wrong.


The Federal law just got signed by Bush in May and upped the penalties, and made it a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

Under federal law what you need to know is that it will be very hard for Vick to show that he knew nothing about how animals that HE OWNED for 6 YEARS were treated and eventually killed.

This was his business. He owned the animals. That much doesn't have to be proven. What he will have to show is that he knew NOTHING about what happened with them.

Not that he didn't hang animals himself. Not that he didn't electrocute them. But that he didn't KNOW about it.

Here is the brand new federal law:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions
against animal fighting, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS.

(a) In General- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 49. Animal fighting prohibition

`(a) Sponsoring or Exhibiting an Animal in an Animal Fighting Venture-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.

`(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN STATES- With respect to fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.

`(b) Buying, Selling, Delivering, or Transporting Animals for Participation in Animal Fighting Venture- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture.

`(c) Use of Postal Service or Other Interstate Instrumentality for Promoting Animal Fighting Venture- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.

`(d) Violation of State Law- Notwithstanding subsection (c), the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.

`(e) Sharp Instruments- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.

`(f) Penalties- Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), (c), or (e) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, for each such violation.

`(g) Definitions- For purposes of this section--

`(1) the term `animal fighting venture' means any event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment except that the term `animal fighting venture' shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting;

`(2) the term `instrumentality of interstate commerce' means any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce;

`(3) the term `State' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; and

`(4) the term `animal' means any live bird, or any live dog or other mammal, except man.

`(h) Conflict With State Law- The provisions of this section do not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents for chapter 3 of title 18, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 48 the following:

`49. Animal fighting prohibition.'.

(c) Repeal of Criminal Penalty in the Animal Welfare Act- Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended by striking subsection (e).

_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

gives goodell the ability to suspend Vick for a first offense if he chooses (it says "generally does not"...that's a huge out), does not require criminal conviction, and mentions specifically that "bodily harm" is extra bad. I wonder if that includes animal bodies (honest question).

here it is:
http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

vick is f*cked. welcome to the harrington era, falcons.
–––––––––––––
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

"I really don't get it, I mean, since when is torturing and killing animals a bad thing?"

Remind me never to meet some of you in person. I'd come over to the house and there would be cats stapled to the wall and shit.

but we have to examine some of our neanderthal ways if we are drawing such as hard line on dogfighting

n/h
----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

stop being so reactionary and let the case unfold.

at worst,w/vick's, money a plea deal can be worked out. i doubt it gets to a jury.

n/m

Especially when it's dead

look it up.

unless federal dog fighting charges bar plea bargains or have mandatory sentencing, it will be possible to plea as long as the court agrees to the terms. there may be less leeway in fed cases.

I just saw "Kobe". My fault.

That being said, this ain't Kobe.

But I'ma look up the law and see what's possible.

But it seems like Vick done pissed off the wrong person.

Who is he gonna give up? He owned everything. If anything, the plea deals will be against Vick. He can talk, but he's only gonna be giving up his co-defendants/his boys. Unless he wants to give them some other criminal activity which he might be privy to.

And you're assuming that his other 3 co-defendants aren't thinking the same thing. Why wouldn't they give Vick up? It's clear that's who the feds want. Remember they wanted him on some drug stuff and that's what led to the raid that started all this.


They want Vick.

They will make the co-defendants comfortable in order to get Vick.

Even if Vick cops a plea, he's not going to be rewarded with ZERO jail time.

He's going to jail.

But we'll see.

it's a lot of vagueness w/federal pleas.

i'll tell you that.

n/m

because actual lawyers are not saying what you're saying.

and the federal prosecutors are saying exactly what I'm saying.

They might win they might lose, but don't act like we're just pulling this stuff out our ass.

They have a VERY strong case against Mike Vick.

One that I don't think he will beat.

But we'll see.

you got links or quotes otherwise?

Here's what my DC lawyer friend said:

>he's probably facing interstate conspiracy charges, which are the
>sort of laws used to take down drug cartels and the mafia
>
>general rule, when the feds are involved, they swing for the fences

The only way Vick is getting out of jail time is if he turns witness, and even then it's not guaranteed they'll let him off w/o doing time.

first thing Vick DID was throw them under.

someone's going to turn witness first and get some kind of plea.

who's it gonna be? and will it involve jail time?

>someone's going to turn witness first and get some kind of
>plea.
>
>who's it gonna be? and will it involve jail time?
>

he's the man w/the money/lawyers that will move to get that done. i'd imagine that he has someone looking into that already. if the feds bargain w/vick it's gotta be to keep him outta jail. i can't see his representation allowing him to lose his career.

he'll need to get that conspiracy charge changed to avoid the bing. i think conspiracy charges are fucked up and unfair.

And clearly the Feds are after publicity here. They could easily offer better deals to the other dudes so that it's Vick who goes down. It's hard to say what's going to happen.

>he's the man w/the money/lawyers that will move to get that
>done. i'd imagine that he has someone looking into that
>already. if the feds bargain w/vick it's gotta be to keep him
>outta jail. i can't see his representation allowing him to
>lose his career.

that's wishful thinking. based on what my friends are saying, conspiracy charges are very serious and the feds like to "swing for the fences". for all we know it could be entirely out of the question that the Feds let anyone plea w/o jail time. we really just don't know.

>
>he'll need to get that conspiracy charge changed to avoid the
>bing. i think conspiracy charges are fucked up and unfair.

Personally I don't know enough about law to debate the validity of conspiracy charges.

>And clearly the Feds are after publicity here. They could
>easily offer better deals to the other dudes so that it's Vick
>who goes down. It's hard to say what's going to happen.
>

no doubt but the co-defendents NEED vick. they can take the rap or snitch on another dog fighting operation but if they let vic go down they're screwed. without vick they are broke nobodies. don't bite the hand that feeds you. now if these guys aren't goons they'll probably want no parts of jail.

>that's wishful thinking. based on what my friends are saying,
>conspiracy charges are very serious and the feds like to
>"swing for the fences". for all we know it could be entirely
>out of the question that the Feds let anyone plea w/o jail
>time. we really just don't know.
>

conspiracy charges are ridiculously unfair. i'm amazed that they hit him w/that like he's some mob boss. i'd be shocked if this isn't a ploy to get vick to snitch on the major players. if he really knows the game he could take down a lot of people. that may put a target on his back.

i hope he can have that charge reduced/changed.

>Personally I don't know enough about law to debate the
>validity of conspiracy charges.
>

from what i know they're very controversial. if you are aware of or participate in an illegal plot (even if the crime is not executed) they can charge you w/conspiracy. as you can see it's a murky charge.

absolutely fucking retarded.

this falls under the category of "if you're a liberal, how come you drive a car?" or, more appropriately, "if you're a vegetarian, how come you wear leather shoes?"

just because there are fucked up things that go on in the world, it doesn't mean that society should abandon trying to do the right thing, and it certainly doesn't mean someone is innocent when society has actually done the right thing and made a barbaric, horrible act illegal. say whatever bad things you'd like about, say, thoroughbred racing and i'm with you (especially post Barbaro, bless his heart). if you want to make it illegal, i'm interested in that debate. but just because thoroughbred racing and other things are illegal does not make dog fighting any less awful, and it is very, very good we have a law against it.

otherwise, you might as well give up trying to do the right thing whatsoever and be kenneth lay.

but the man have not been convicted yet...that's all Im gonna say

i just see a lot of bad arguments being made in this post.

the ONLY defense for vick is that he didn't do it. the dog fighting bad stuff is clearly bs and needs to be called out.

they should take the 250,000 bucks but jail time...no...

heinous acts happen to animals all the time...

especially in the country

you have to take that into account...

I dont think mike vick should be the example for animal cruelty in this country...because seriously..its everywhere

but the man have not been convicted yet...that's all Im gonna say

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

We're about to put a MAN in prison for how he treats his own ANIMAL. It's the epitomy of retardedness.

>the epitomy of retardedness.

I actually don't think people should own fighting dogs as pets, cuz they are designed, through eugenics, to kill. Them shits is Frankensteins. I suspect a good chunk of the kennels that sell them dogs are selling them to people who'll prolly fight them, cuz that's what they were made for.

HOWEVER...

its folx out here str8 STRUGGLING. BAD. I mean, eating trash-type struggle.

It's a fuckin whole in the sky that's gonna fuck up a huge segment of the planet.

Black folk stay gettin shitted on, legally, economically, and everyotherway-ically.

I ain't sayin dogfightin ain't fucked up (cuz that shit is foul), but for folk to act like this shit is the worst thing they ever heard, is a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit. I can COMPLETELY understand why some folk would be like "man, it's a fuckin dog, I don't give a shit", and I'm somebody who GIVES a shit.

Too many folk actin new in this piece

Barbarro got more love than them damn boys who were falsely accused in the central park jogger case, and he was a fuckin horse.

Rich people can shol' make broke mufuckas care about their multimillion dollar investments

your just still hurting. it's okay.

wisdom a lot of you chose to reject.

i once had someone tell me that i shouldnt watch NBA games on ESPN classic because there are 24 hour news channel. mind you he spent his days smoking pot and playing video games for ten hours.

i'm sure if i'd asked the makers of this argument what they thought of dog fighting before a famous black quarterback got charged with it, they would have defended it with the same fervor we're seeing now.

*makes a dubious face*

nm

>i'm sure if i'd asked the makers of this argument what they
>thought of dog fighting before a famous black quarterback got
>charged with it, they would have defended it with the same
>fervor we're seeing now.
>
>*makes a dubious face*

It's just as stupid now as it was a year ago. I don't see any feds coming to my house for the spider I stepped on last week.

This is just soooo fucking retarded I can't stand it.

> I don't see
>any feds coming to my house for the spider I stepped on last
>week.

a lot of white people seem to be more humane towards dogs than negroes. and a lot of these crackers are prolly the ones that scream pits sould be outlawed, foh.

It's YOU!

and Barbaro is just kind of watching over them in graceful dignity. I bet they are all so happy together. Unless of course it turns out that Barbaro likes dogfights too...

so that he could be used as a stud. when a horse suffers an injury like barbaro did, they're usually put down to keep them from suffering. why was it okay to put that horse through that?

in his wisdom, he knew that we were not ready for his loss. Plus, in his last few days he got to take mad painkillers and be a stud- woo hoo!!!

If he had to be electrocuted like those poor dogs though, for the betterment of humanity, I'm sure Barbaro would have done that for us. If Barbaro were still here today, he probably would have even warned Mike Vick that the feds were coming

*sniffle*
*tears up*

>and Barbaro is just kind of watching over them in graceful
>dignity. I bet they are all so happy together. Unless of
>course it turns out that Barbaro likes dogfights too...

than people right???

lol

_______________________________________________________________________________

You can't sleep on us forever: http://www.myspace.com/regeneratedheadpiece

_______________________________________________________________________________

You can't sleep on us forever: http://www.myspace.com/regeneratedheadpiece

even if harrington plays the entire year and is awful, the picks are worth a whole lot more than an unproven backup qb.

that would have been fucking DUMB to keep schaub, even if vick was up on murder 1 charges.

the schaub trade allowed the falcons to get 3 starters in the first two rounds, plus an extra second next year, AND cleared cap space (that would have been eaten if they were paying two starting qb salaries).

schaub was an invention of wishful thinking.

even if vick is suspended for an entire year, the falcons are better off sucking, and getting a high draft pick next year to take the qb they want.


peace & blessings,

x.

sigless for the summer, y'all.

are going to be running this into the ground.

the bottom line is that he was not a bigger asset to the franchise than vick was and we filled some wholes on the team by trading him.

I LOL'ed when I heard they pulled the trigger on that

but he wll be good

gosh...i really hate this is happening. i sincerely hope he (or anyone) didn't kill those dogs the way the feds claim. that's some sick sh*t.

i can't do anything but *smh* at all this. parts of this makes me want to think some of it is trumped up, but i dunno. like...why would the local DA put his rep on the line and come out and say he thinks this whole thing is a conspiracy? i can't see him being willing to sacrifice his job just to falsely protect a person on the basis of them being black. that doesn't make any sense to me...at all.

damn i hope vick's attorneys are great legal minds.

one thing that really is striking to me is that anytime some white males discusses anything about vick they always mention his $120 million dollar contract. i wouldn't be surprised that stuff could be trumped up just to make him suffer and loose out on lucrative endorsements, etc.

this whole thing sucks...tremendously.

IT'S INNOCENT UNITL PROVEN GUILTY FOLKS!

have these four guys that just got indicted, and host a small four-man "fight to the death" tourney on PPV, where people could bet on it and everything, and the winner gets off scott-free, no jail-time or anything. well maybe a little jail time, so we can get these men at their toughest and most desperate so they are really ready to go at it.

but that's only "if" he is guilty. please, I find that more and more laughable each time I hear someone say or write it. face it, he's guilty. do you think they completely made up every detail that's been leaked out so far? maybe it's made up by the same person who came up with that while "chris benoit double-murder suicide thing? come on, I understand some people may think he is a fun football player to watch, but the guy's a piece of shit, plain and simple, no matter how you try to spin it.

even if they can't convict him for being an active participant at the fights (which they seem to have enough witnesses to do so), it looks pretty easy for them to charge him as a conspirator, seeing as though he's owned that property for years now and much of the dog-fighting related evidence there is registered in his name.

oh, but getting back to my initial point, I think that would be some good old-fashioned fun for everyone, and it's perfect for the age-old, eye-for-an-eye form of justice which I obviously have no problem with. I mean, it was a joke, but there is more than a little logic to it.

>have these four guys that just got indicted, and host a small
>four-man "fight to the death" tourney on PPV, where people
>could bet on it and everything, and the winner gets off
>scott-free, no jail-time or anything. well maybe a little
>jail time, so we can get these men at their toughest and most
>desperate so they are really ready to go at it.

And those not "fit to fight", we could hang em, or maybe throw em into a brick wall until their brains came out of their skull.

Good times.

>>And those not "fit to fight", we could hang em, or maybe throw em into a brick wall until their brains came out of their skull.

I can't desensitize myself to this sentence no matter how many times I read it. That's impressive and sick all at the same time. Good addition to the competition though.

95%

Ya'll know what that represents?

The federales conviction rate.

I'm just sayin.........

no different (as in anybody who participates might as well be doing child porn?)

the media is gonna take it all the way on vick, yo. good luck nigga.

As much as I hate dogs, they don't deserve to be electrocuted or any of that shit...that's fucked up
BUT

There's no way on earth it comes close to kiddie porn. That's fucking insane

He now up there w/ Dahmer, Bundy and the Son of Sam

this bitch said dog fighting and serial killing go hand and hand. She wouldn't put it pass Vick to go there.

Like I said before, this is exactly what I was afraid of...these ridiculous comparisons

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

because whether you like to watch little innocent trusting children be molested and raped or whether you like to watch blindly trusting dogs be put through extreme levels of torture/fear/pain/anguish/gruesome-deaths at the hands of their cheering masters

either way, regardless of what's worse than what...the fact that someone can take pleasure in any form of that off-the-charts level of disgusting cruelty to innocence makes them fucked in the head and hand-in-hand with serial killers. obviously killing 30 people should get a worse sentence than killing dogs...BUT if you take pleasure in watching cruel shit happening to the innocent (or anyone for that matter), that's the kind of abnormal trait that goes hand in hand with being a serial killer.

i'm not saying Vick is a serial killer. i'm saying if he's guilty of this stuff, its not unreasonable to say he has traits that go hand-in-hand with that shit

if Vick is guilty, you think he's on the same level as a Ted Bundy or a John Wayne Gacy?



I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

>if Vick is guilty, you think he's on the same level as a Ted
>Bundy or a John Wayne Gacy?
:
damn, why can't people recognize things like parallels and common disturbing traits without assuming a same-scale argument?

i can't stand that shit.

for a situation that might not resonate w/ people the same way child molestation would. That's the purpose.

It's not like child molestation. It's like dog fighting. Notice, they didn't say it was like sport hunting which is a far closer parallel.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

Gut bugs bunny

Harpoon catfish

Mass murder cows for food

But dogfighting is illegal?

Killing weak dogs is immoral now?

When they 'put down' race horses with a broken legs.

I admit the torture is disturbing...but who's to say Vick is actually behind the torture.

SIX TIMES PLAT AND COUNTING, BIYOTCH.

its not killing, its torture. that's the difference. if dogs were just hunted and killed *bam! done* (assumed its not someone else's pet you're killing)...i'd still feel uneasy about it (as i do with hunting, fishing, slaughterhouses -- even though i know its necessary to a point, i can't be there)...BUT i wouldn't be outraged.

I still dont think mike vick is going to jail

are very high.

they do the time, he sets them up when they get out. unless they're really scared of jail he should be the one to turn.

fuck a dog???

I mean I hate cats and shit. But someone electrocuting a cat at the very least would make me cringe a little bit. damn. Some of ya'll are mad e-gully up in year.

Like em or not, they're being tortured for no reason. Shit's disgusting.

what's it like?


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

and you may be the worst poster here.

Here, or otherwise? I mean, we joke about bad posters around here, but you really, REALLY suck at life. If it's a net schtick, it's awful, if it's how you are in reality, "i feel sorry for your mother". If you're merely a 15 year old tryin to get a rise, I wouldnt be surprised. You say nothing, offer nothing, arent funny, arent insightful, and yet you continue to come here day after day, on the same bullshit. What's the angle here?

<<<WHYTE
<<<CRACKA
<<<KKK

Don't bother.

Coming from the person who, a few posts above this one, agreed with another poster who was using the basic premise that humans should be treated the same as dogs. Here, study this for a month:

human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fucking dog

Who are you?

How did you get here?

Amscray.

then you obviously missed the point. Did I say humans should be treated the same as dogs? No. I said these pieces of shit involved in THIS situation should be treated the same way they treated their animals. I don't see how you could argue that point. Normal human being who treat other people/things with respect, deserve respect. These people deserve the same treatment and respect they gave to their dogs. It's as simple as that.

Now people saying this is the same as kiddie porn or whatever? That is over the line, and I didn't see anyone here agreeing with that (although they both take advantage of and abuse an innocent and helpless person/thing) so I would assume your comment was directed towards my post about the four-man death match tournament, which the more I think about it, the better it sounds. It actually is an absolute fantastic idea. At first, it came to me as a joke, now I am behind it full-force. And the fact that you are siding with a ridiculous racist makes me feel even more confident that I am making some excellent points here.

What's the angle?

Wow.

That's gangsta.

oh, i guess you think all black people want to be, as u put it, "ganagsta".

that "liking" dogs is an issue.

im not a dog person. this is dispicable.


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

nm

there would be some sensible people posting in here. Good news for me I guess.

That way, you truly can recognize the kind of trash that exists on this board and who they are.
_________________________
Politics and Sports are found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

nm

Perhaps the media and people in general will rethink this banal concept of professional athletes being role models. Money and success cannot make a person the intelligent, ethical, caring, and humane being that society clamors for out of celebrities. What Vick personally did and facilitated with his money is unforgivable. His behavior as well as the scum that participated in this disgusting practice are nothing less than sociopaths. Destroying a defenseless animal for perverse kicks and profit makes one devoid of human qualities. Slaughtering animals for food and pelts is nowhere close to taking a dog, abusing it to make it mean and then pitting it against another dog until one of them dies and you c#m in your sick little pants. Sick the dogs on Bad #### Mike Vick and his gutless crew and see how they like it. It is a shame that one of the dogs didn't gnaw three fingers off of his passing hand...wait, that might help with his accuracy problem. Stop equating busting sh#tbags like Vick with his race. The guy has had a hand in all of this and will get what he deserves. VA Tech must be soooooo proud of the Vick brothers now.

the murder rate of black men in cities around america, the # of black men in jail, senator david vittor's spending tax dollars on hoes, etc.. it's also quite funny how he calls doggfighting disgusting, yet says vick and his "crew" should be attacked by dogs.

or if he recycles

or if he's seen transformers yet, and what he thought of it

during the Civil Rights movement.

Some breeds of dogs were literally developed for use in warfare,
like Bulldogs, for example.

So, I can't read some sh*t like THIS and take it lightly. Not to mention
that Vick hasn't been convicted of anything.

>Sick the dogs on Bad #### Mike Vick and his
>gutless crew and see how they like it.

That would provide context, and moral grandstanding don't go well with context.

Sure is funny tho how quick mufuckas is QUICK to go to battle royale scenarios when it comes to black men accused of dogfighting, but wouldn't dare verbalize any shit like that with something irrelevant, like, y'know, an invasion of a country or some shit.

Don't take much, do it?

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!
(dog children...'puppies' to the lay person)

n/m

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

In fact, I dont know why ESPN doesnt air dog torturing Monday-Friday.

...Bush is still in office, gas is 3 dollars, who gives a fuck about some dogs?

Except maybe...

PETA - 1.6 million members and supporters in the US
ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) - Founded in 1866
Humane Society - yeah

But other than that, no one cares about this shit right?

After all, there is "worse" going on.

Until we leave Iraq and gas prices go down, nothing else fucking matters at all.

Just because there is other shit going on in the world, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to a heinous crime. In fact, I'm going to let a lot of people in on a little secret...

Giving an example of a worse crime, doesn't make the initial crime any less relevant or despicable and certainly doesn't prove your point.

for real.

it is disgusting.


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

wow...

also, i think people are also
blown that they are indicting
VICK, who almost certainly
DIDN'T have any direct involvement
with this (and may not have even
known about the most sensational
claims.)

i mean, if this were not a high
profile cat like vick, they'd just
prosecute -

wait.

actually, they woudlnt' bother with
this at all. (kinda like the local
yokels didn't.)

look, what are the odds of a cat that's making bout 10-12 mil annually playing football in a racist ass town as a QB bustin a dogs head up against a wall?

Or hangin a dog? ELECTROCUTING a dog? That SOUNDS like bullshit, and I tend to think that it is. A mufucka that do that kinda shit would BEEN got caught up with some other kindsa shit long time ago.

But, we'll see...

When the falcons drafted vick, i thought this cat is gonna be a lightening rod for his entire career in this city no matter WHAT he does.

Thank goodness for Joe McRapebabiesalot! The most immoral guy in the world, and therefore, the only immoral guy in the world!

i care about animals and won't lessen the issue at hand just because it's dealing with dogs. what took place is in deed horrible because of the rationale behind the killings.

but the truth is that if michael vick's name was not placed with this crime it wouldn't be headlines in the news and it wouldn't be discussed on okayplayer...at all. and if it was, it'd only be a swipe someone placed up. that's just keeping it real. if dogs were not kept as pets in this country, would this really be news? seriously? i doubt it.

like i said earlier...i think the crime is dispicable because of the rationale and methods behind killings. i don't have an opinion one way or another when it comes to dog fighting. i'm sorry...i just can't be a hypocrit about this. if i'm going to be up in arms over this then i have to be up in arms about killing any animal...regardless. and the truth is that i'm not. is one type of animal's life more important or relevant than another's?

should definitely be as concerned with human rights correct? I can expect all of your signatures on a reparations proposal?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

You people are insane. I support the rights of all living things.


Caring for an animal's rights does not mean you disregard a human's!!!!!

We have some serious dummies in here.


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

I'm just surprised at the "sudden" zealous animal rights attitude people are displaying esp when people hunt game w/ crossbows & assault rifles for sports since the prey isn't always consumed.

And let's be honest, most people who are zealous about this animal right issue WOULDN'T support reparations which is asinine to me.

I'm not saying killing dogs is good. However, the passion for this issue is a bit puzzling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

you dont know who people are.
just because i dont yell about it in every post like basaglia doesnt mean i dont care about it.


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

I'm a vegetarian as well but that's beside the point. The issue is cruelty to animals happens all the time in various forms. I think it's asinine that dog fighting is a felony but you can take a bow or gun & shoot they living shyt out of a bear, moose, deer, etc just to put a mount on a wall or for a trophy.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

don't you?
I mean, it wouldnt surprise me if you didnt, given your posting history
But what exactly do you think people do with the flesh of the animals they hunt and stuff?
throw it in the trash?

>I'm a vegetarian as well but that's beside the point. The
>issue is cruelty to animals happens all the time in various
>forms. I think it's asinine that dog fighting is a felony but
>you can take a bow or gun & shoot they living shyt out of a
>bear, moose, deer, etc just to put a mount on a wall or for a
>trophy.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
>What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. ©
>Canibus

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

on the boards when I see it

I dont hunt
I dont fish
I dont kill insects

But i'm also not so foolish as to think that people I know that do hunt and fish simply gut and throw away what they kill

they eat it
it feeds their family
and its a lot less cruel than the way the meat from the supermarket is slaughtered and delivered

so miss me with that

You also know that some game hunters even kill prey that they don't eat.

*cmon*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

FOH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

thats ok
I'm sure once you turn 16 and can drive the world will open up to you

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

Dog fighting is fucked up but illegal.
Sports hunting is fucked up but legal.

Deal with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>I'm a vegetarian as well but that's beside the point. The
>issue is cruelty to animals happens all the time in various
>forms. I think it's asinine that dog fighting is a felony but
>you can take a bow or gun & shoot they living shyt out of a
>bear, moose, deer, etc just to put a mount on a wall or for a
>trophy.

I'll even paste it for you.

- You can't make keeping livestock for food and/or hunting illegal unless you force the entire population to become vegetarian.

- You can't make it legal to hunt if you eat the meat, but illegal if you don't eat the meat. That's basically creating a law telling people what to eat. That's fucking dumb.

That said, most people DO eat some of the meat they kill. Most people don't hunt and just throw the meat away. At the very least, they sell the meat and someone else eats it.

>I'm just surprised at the "sudden" zealous animal rights
>attitude people are displaying

It's "sudden" because this is a high profile case, where we have a lot of details, and it was posted in OKSports (b/c of Vick tie-ins). I don't think a lot of sports regulars get a chance to voice their opinion on animal rights very often in here.

>esp when people hunt game w/
>crossbows & assault rifles for sports since the prey isn't
>always consumed.

Actually, most 'activists' have a strong opinion against that as well.

>And let's be honest, most people who are zealous about this
>animal right issue WOULDN'T support reparations which is
>asinine to me.

I'm not even going to bother with this - reparations are a FAR more complex issue.

i hardly ride for animal rights. i eat hella meat, and i know how those animals are treated. i have nothing against animal testing if it's gonna help get cures to save human lives. i wear leather and don't have a problem with it. someone from peta would probably think i deserve to go to hell.

but how can anyone defend torturing animals for pure sport? smashing dogs to the ground? hanging them? how can you brush that stuff off?

people that torture animals for sport usually also have a low regard for human life.

>people that torture animals for sport usually also have a low
>regard for human life.

Or become Jeffrey Dahmer.

:)

but aren't bets usually placed on dogs? If so, isn't that now for profit instead of for sport? That's not too much different than the food industry that produced your hamburger or leather industry that produced your coat.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

that's a separate argument. (i still feel it's wrong as hell.)

i'm talking about hanging the dogs, smashing their heads, and electrocuting them. they were doing that ish for kicks at that point.

I think people acknowledge that but the meat industry, clothing industry, entertainment(circus) industry, etc all have some fucked up practices when it comes to animal treatment.

Also, if the argument that it's ok to this for profit, then betting on dogs is a business just like anything else.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>I think people acknowledge that but the meat industry,
>clothing industry, entertainment(circus) industry, etc all
>have some fucked up practices when it comes to animal
>treatment.

People eat meat. That's a valid purpose for the meat industry to exist, although their methods might not always be ideal. That shit is regulated though - I'd be all for more regulation if it made things more humane.

Personally, I don't believe in fur coats, because there's plenty of ways to clothe people without killing animals.

As for leather, I assume it comes from the same cows that are used for meat. Why kill a cow for its skin and throw away the meat? If I'm wrong about this, I'd definitely consider never buying leather again.

Circuses? I don't know much about them, but if they're torturing, abusing and killing animals then that shit is wrong.


>Also, if the argument that it's ok to this for profit, then
>betting on dogs is a business just like anything else.

As I've said, it's not about profit.

Is your argument that anything done for profit is okay? No one else has used that argument.

soulfunk made the point that he didn't ride for animals, that he ate meat, wore leather, etc. I'm saying that most of the people up @ arms about the dog fighting NEVER say shyt about the practices of the meat, clothing, entertainment industries regarding animal cruelty.

My "assumption" is that maybe it's because "it's a business" so we don't say shyt. And people clearly bet on dogs all the time.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>soulfunk made the point that he didn't ride for animals, that
>he ate meat, wore leather, etc. I'm saying that most of the
>people up @ arms about the dog fighting NEVER say shyt about
>the practices of the meat, clothing, entertainment industries
>regarding animal cruelty.

EDIT - I forgot I already addressed most of this stuff last night.

Basically, I think most people who are against dogfighting are against all animal abuse.

They might eat meat and wear leather (and some wear fur, though I don't see how that can be justified), but they hope and assume no animal is tortured and abused for that product to be made.

As for the entertainment industry, I don't know much about it, but I wouldn't think it would be in their best interest to abuse their animals.


>My "assumption" is that maybe it's because "it's a business"
>so we don't say shyt. And people clearly bet on dogs all the
>time.

I don't think anyone uses that justification. If they do, they're pretty stupid.

>should definitely be as concerned with human rights correct?
>I can expect all of your signatures on a reparations
>proposal?
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
>What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. ©
>Canibus

Hence, this case, these alleged crimes, are being discussed on a "sports board".

Crazy, I know.

white woman & kisses his dog on the mouth.




www.myspace.com/sankofamusic

Get 25% off www.karmaloop.com w/ rep code JR9103 at checkout

how can anyone brush off hanging, electrocuting, and smashing dogs with the rationale that "they're just dogs" or "there's worse things in the world"???

this has absolutely nothing to do with animal rights or activism or peta or any of that ish. i don't even like dogs. but if the logic used by some people in this post was applied other things in our society, it would be a wrap for the human race.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

But I have to come back to see what stupid shit is said next.

'Like dogs never fight in the wild...'

'Oh, you care about dogs now? What about the starving kids in Africa?'

'I mean everything dies right? If they didn't do it for them, the dogs woulda just stumbled into electrocution or a hanging eventually'

'Unless you guys are vegetarians, you're so hypocritical!'

'The WAR on terror is still going on! Fuck a dog! (it was probably a terrorist)'

i could see if it was one or two guys posting stuff like that, but it's like HALF of the posts in here! wtf???

especially when the grass is high enough where you don't quite see it before *splat*...doo doo brown

because it really seems to get folks focused on human rights

cats spend countless hours on okp talking about iphones, kobe, interracial relationships, dilla or whatever... but say it might be a little fucked up to electrocute a puppy, and suddenly we need to be focused on iraq, sudan, the prison system, etc...

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

like that Vick's alleged moniker in dog-fighting circles is 'Ookie'.....or why his aptly named 'Bad Newz Kennels' spells the end of news with a 'z' but misses the opportunity to spell the end of kennels with one.

Wow. I'm glad this isn't the quarterback of my football team.....because no matter how you wanna look at it this is a terrible look for the face of a frachise and he's at least guilty of putting himself in harm's way regardless of his direct involvement in this shit.

However, people might question whether a felony is the appropriate response & if so why in other instances isn't "cruelty to animals" as severely punished. ( ie sport hunting )

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/new_sport_hunting_programs_on.html
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/news/comment/hunting_humane.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

that's why.

where would the nra be if there were laws against hunting for sport. who truly makes up the nra?

and i can't even bring myself to do THAT (hunt)...but i can still differentiate between killing something spot-on with a bullet and forcing 2 deer to try to rip each other's throats out, then wet the shivering-with-pain wimpering confused agonizing losers down, electrocute them until they finally die...OR...just pick up the torn-to-pieces deer and slam its head into a rock like a cantelope

please

killing is killing...regardless. you can use as many empathetic words to describe the situation as you want, but the end result of both instances is a dead animal.

yes...if true, the way those dogs died was senseless and cruel. but you and others have and will continue to fall into the sensationalized story trap.

wrongful killing and cruel killing

nazis did both to the jews. i'd prefer to die by the former than latter.

tha f*ck? nah seriously i see where you trying to go...quick death vs slow death. both are cruel mind you.

the point though is that no one in this post that believes hunting is humane can say that when animals are hunted they die immediately and without suffering. i find it extremely hard to believe.

bear in a bear trap for $200 alex.

both are wrong (when wrong), one is extremely cruel, while the other is relatively painless and quick.

aren't grieving over the fact that their loved one died a quick death vs a torturous one. i'm sure it'd be disturbing to them, but in the end their loved one was killed and that'd be the bigger picture for them.

for the record, i think torturing those animals was wrong and sick...just so you or anyone else reading this don't get it twisted.

People always ask, "Did he suffer?" Whether it's murder, an illness, whatever - anytime someone dies, their loved ones always hope that they died quickly and without pain.

It's pretty obvious that you don't want your loved ones to suffer.

Finding out that someone you loved was tortured to death for someone's entertainment would certainly be a hell of a lot harder to take and accept than finding out your loved one died painlessly in their sleep (even if it was murder from poison, for example).

people don't normally ask that after someone was murdered, that's usually after someone died from an illness.

you can talk to so many people and find out the most terrifying thing for people about finding out their loved one was murdered is usually the worry that they were put through great distress and anguish at the hands of someone else for no good reason

finding out it was a flash unexpected bullet to the head doesn't stop the grief, but its FAR WORSE to find out they were cheered at while sitting on a spike and then had their head sawed off.

when someone is killed (murder or accident) people ALWAYS ask "did they suffer" -- because, your love for them is majorly concerned about their anguish. and most people DO take comfort in knowing/thinking/believing their loved one died quickly without too much fear.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

but felony status and turning a blind eye to hunting and other forms of animal cruelty isnt right either...if you're gonna take this hard a stance on dogfighting

I'm not defending him...but I can go on record as saying he should be heavily fined but I dont think mike vick should go to jail for this...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

bottom line.

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

>However, people might question whether a felony is the
>appropriate response & if so why in other instances isn't
>"cruelty to animals" as severely punished. ( ie sport hunting
>)
>
>http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/new_sport_hunting_programs_on.html
>http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/news/comment/hunting_humane.html
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
>What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. ©
>Canibus

hunting doesn't even compare. not a little.

SPORT hunting that is since no one is being dragged into court over it. Besides, you're a racist that calls black men things.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

and my uncle used to routinely that me out in the back and we shot birds in the tall trees...is that animal cruelty...yes....should me and my uncle get lock up for six years...hell no...

you defending hunting is really really suspect if you're gonna take this hard a stance onm fighting pits...

and I'm not even defending it...I just dont think its the most despicable thing in the world...

if we have the death penalty in this country, we should just be allowed to kill those people in ANY way imaginable since shooting a bird dead is just as cruel as forcing a dog to have its throat ripped out, wet down, and electrocuted or smashed into the ground until it dies

what the fuck is happening to the minds of human beings?

it wouldn't surprise me if the family wanted him to suffer.

And electrocution is exactly what vick and co. are accused of...and WE, HUMANS ELECTROCUTE EACH OTHER...death penalty dude.

You act like torture was created on Vick's property.

No, it's not right but who's putting the people who electrocute criminals in jail?

Right.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

i don't have the energy to the debate again. i can try to summarize my position:

people on this board talk about sport hunting like it produces nothing else but the death of the animal, when in fact sport hunting produces meat. I know more hunters than you know falcons fans. Without exception, every one of them eats their kill, and part of the reason they hunt is to get food. Not only does this make most sport hunting a lot better than dog fighting, it makes it a lot better way to consume meat than buying it from the local Harris Teeter. Without question the meat hunters kill in the wild leads a better life and suffers less than the animals raised in the mass food industry.

again, i know a lot of hunters, and this is the only kind of hunting they do. no one shoots shit just to shoot shit.

but what about you and your family? it's obviously a tougher case. personally, i wouldn't let my kids do such a thing, because i do think it's immoral. no disrespect intended, but that's just how i feel. the main reason i don't want to throw you in jail is because of the suffering of the animal. if you hit a bird, that bird dies immediately. not great, but it lived a full life outside in its natural environment and had to have died quickly, because it's so small. not so the case with these dogs, who are raised to be angry and mean and could die in a four hour bout.

nm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

nm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

I feel for you, if this was Bad News' other most famous son, I'd be pretty jammed up about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

anyone, at least in terms of the national media, based on the Falcons' subpar performance the past two years and some of the other smaller distractions surrounding him.

But now, fuck. A road game is gonna be like being fed to the wolves and he'll probably even be getting at best a mixed reaction at home......and that's provided he performs well.

Not to mention, the percentages in beating a federal rap isn't generally good at all, plus with a fed case you actually have to serve the full-time you're sentenced to.

We'll have to see how it plays out. Vick might be "Kobeesque" dealing with this shyt.

One thing is for sure. Nothing gets the place buzzing like foozball. OKSports is back yatchez!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

and yes
this is an AWFUL look for a franchise face

>like that Vick's alleged moniker in dog-fighting circles is
>'Ookie'.....

It's at least 4 other news sources that says Ookie was his child hood nick name. Ass-clowns will report it as a dog fighting moniker. Ass clowns who get there news from those sources makes ass-clown post. But that's not you, right? His cousin calls him Ookie, his child hood friends call him Ookie. But you right, his his dog fighting alias.

or why his aptly named 'Bad Newz Kennels' spells
>the end of news with a 'z' but misses the opportunity to spell
>the end of kennels with one.


sir, where is he from? what's the nick name of the area he's from? By chance it wouldnt be Bad Newz?

>Wow.

This entire post is sad.

i mean they kill bulls in bullfighting and the fucking vice president shoots helpless pheasants for sport
fuck it
long as the shit is organized i personally don't care
i mean theres a raccoon wit no head up the road from my crib
animals die horrible deaths every fucking day
imo a dog getting killed by another dog is no worse then a mouse getting his neck snapped by a mouse trap
yall niggas acting all outraged and shit...i hope u never accidentally turn it to the discovery channel ,lol

having said all that IF vick did all that extra shit like bodyslamming the dogs and shit, then yea he was wilding for that. they need to fine him or something for animal cruelty
btw on the local news they said a philadelphia man was convicted of running a dog fighting operation a few months ago and got 60 months probation...i'm guessing they are trying give vick something more then that
which leads me to believe its just another witch hunt

you can't separate dogfighting from its methods. it's not like people just take captain pickles out of his doghouse on the weekends to go fight. you don't just breed fighters, you raise them, and you do that by putting them through hell.

practice dogs meaning a weak dog that u spar wit a strong dog to make the strong dog better
btw sparring doesn't lead to death
but yea i never heard of dog fighting dudes body slamming they dogs man, thats extra to me

i'm sure they're all very fastidious about keeping a constant supply of pentobarbital around.

>i mean they kill bulls in bullfighting and the fucking vice
>president shoots helpless pheasants for sport
>fuck it
>long as the shit is organized i personally don't care
>i mean theres a raccoon wit no head up the road from my crib
>animals die horrible deaths every fucking day
>imo a dog getting killed by another dog is no worse then a
>mouse getting his neck snapped by a mouse trap
>yall niggas acting all outraged and shit...i hope u never
>accidentally turn it to the discovery channel ,lol
>
>having said all that IF vick did all that extra shit like
>bodyslamming the dogs and shit, then yea he was wilding for
>that. they need to fine him or something for animal cruelty
>btw on the local news they said a philadelphia man was
>convicted of running a dog fighting operation a few months ago
>and got 60 months probation...i'm guessing they are trying
>give vick something more then that
>which leads me to believe its just another witch hunt

word. these same people cryin' over some dogs and eat meat on the regular need to stfu. I'm not saying shit is fucked up, but don't be acting all outraged there's worse shit that people contribute to on a daily basis to be all up in arms all of a sudden over some dogs.

i always rooted for both dogs to die. i really hate dogs.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

>
>----------
>The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red
>Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

>i mean they kill bulls in bullfighting

Which is illegal here and should be illegal everywhere. What's your point?


>and the fucking vice
>president shoots helpless pheasants for sport

He's your moral compass?
And no one eats the meat?


>i mean theres a raccoon wit no head up the road from my crib
>animals die horrible deaths every fucking day

So do people. But to do it to them for pleasure is fucked.


>imo a dog getting killed by another dog is no worse then a
>mouse getting his neck snapped by a mouse trap

Dogfighting is for (sick, twisted) pleasure. A mouse trap kills a vermin/pest that spreads diseases. People don't put mouse traps out in a forest so they can enjoy watching the mouse die.


>yall niggas acting all outraged and shit...i hope u never
>accidentally turn it to the discovery channel ,lol

Because animals killing each other for survival is the same as humans killing them for pleasure?

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

He's right about sports hunting & the body slamming dogs comment, while cruel if true, was funny as hell.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>He's right about sports hunting & the body slamming dogs
>comment, while cruel if true, was funny as hell.

but it read funny.

SPM actually raises a semidecent argument comparing the actual practice of dogfighting to other "sport" killing. the counter would be that most of the other "sports" kill the animals alot quicker while these dogs fight to the death for hours with fucked injuries. I'm not down with the hunting and shit either.

and their "ideas can hang out and do what whatever"...as dave cross would say.

>i mean they kill bulls in bullfighting and the fucking vice
>president shoots helpless pheasants for sport
>fuck it

I would have thought X would have weighed in on this issue by now. One Love Boomer!!!!

...with Dogfighting.


Cmon.

Shit is getting ridiculous in here.

different cultures view shit different
deal wit it
blacks (and southern whites) fight dogs
mexicans fight cocks (no homo)
and whites take their 8 yr old sons on week long hunts to kill bambi
only reason this shit is looked upon so *bad* is because dogfighting is something popular among minorities and it's still kinda underground
add on the fact that most of middle class white america LOVES them some pets
funny thing is these dogs are not ideal pets , they are bred to fight and train their entire lives to fight
the fight dogs i've seen actually WANT to fight
it's all they know
they are programmed to hate other dogs
in a sick kinda way they actually get pressure from killing other dogs
if u ever see a dog fight u'll see that after a dog kills another dog his tail starts waggin and shit cause he's happy
it is what it is
dogs aren't human and can't reason for themselves so if they only know death and killing in the name of sport
then let them live out that purpose
same way cows and pigs live out the purpose of being our food
they're pretty much born for the sole purpose of fighting to the death

Fuck outta here with "different cultures view shit different" bullshit.

It's not a racial issue.

Torturing an animal is wrong, simply fucking wrong. I don't care what culture you're in or from, or what race the person doing it is.


And you're an even bigger idiot than I thought (which is nearly impossible) if you think that the only reason people are against dogfighting is because "dogfighting is something popular among minorities and it's still kinda underground".


As for it being okay because the dogs have been trained that way and love to fight - well that's some dumb ass logic. Training them to fight, and training them to hate other dogs is wrong in the first place.

Dogs are NOT born to kill each other - they get trained that way. Admittedly, some dogs are naturally aggressive and probably aren't well-suited to be pets, but dogs are pack animals and don't kill each other for fun. So if they seem to "enjoy" it, it's because they've been trained wrong.


As for cows and pigs living out the "purpose of being our food" - that's completely unrelated, because food is necessary.

Torturing and killing animals has no purpose, it's just sick.

i'm just talking in general terms
GENERALLY blacks don't give a fuck about dawgs
and whites do
simple as that
and terriers as a rule are more violent
that goes from jack russells on up to pit bulls
they were originally breed by WHITE europeans to kill
whether they were killing rats to killing bulls and bears
it's in their dna to do what they do
and they enjoy doing it

>and terriers as a rule are more violent
>that goes from jack russells on up to pit bulls
>they were originally breed by WHITE europeans to kill
>whether they were killing rats to killing bulls and bears
>it's in their dna to do what they do
>and they enjoy doing it

I've got a 4 year old English Staff Bull Terrier. She's 45 pounds of solid muscle, been in two fights in her life, both lasted about 3 seconds and both were instigated by other dogs. I've seen little 3 year old kids come up to her and grab her head. You know what she does? She licks their faces.

DNA doesn't matter shit. All that matters is how you raise the dog.

>funny thing is these dogs are not ideal pets , they are bred
>to fight and train their entire lives to fight
>the fight dogs i've seen actually WANT to fight
>it's all they know
>they are programmed to hate other dogs
>in a sick kinda way they actually get pressure from killing
>other dogs

>add on the fact that most of middle class white america LOVES
>them some pets

Killing ANY animal is wrong, but you are on point with this.

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

Just to recap:

-We shouldnt be talking about this at all because shit is going down in Iraq.

-Dog fighting is somehow related to reparations.

-Dog fighting and the dog killing alleged in this case is ok because lots of people die naturally everyday.




As much as this reasoning hurts my brain, it is kind of appealing because I can now put people and animals in pillow cases, slam them against the ground repeatedly until they die, tell people to shut their mouth about it, and then claim reparations.

>Just to recap:
>
>-We shouldnt be talking about this at all because shit is
>going down in Iraq.
>
>-Dog fighting is somehow related to reparations.
>
>-Dog fighting and the dog killing alleged in this case is ok
>because lots of people die naturally everyday.
>
>
>
>
>As much as this reasoning hurts my brain, it is kind of
>appealing because I can now put people and animals in pillow
>cases, slam them against the ground repeatedly until they die,
>tell people to shut their mouth about it, and then claim
>reparations.
>
>
>
>
>

but uh no
it's all about priorities and how white ppl (and niggas in power) have fucked up ones
the federal gov. is pumping money into this witch hunt....'for who for what?' (c) ricky watters
all them federal agents could be doing some thing more useful wit public money imo
they think vick killed 60 something dogs over a number of yrs?
o word, how bout them 240 BLACK men that died in philadelphia in the first 7 months of this yr?
*pin drop*
can them same agents PLEASE raid north and south philly?
fuck ain't newport news one the worse parts of VA? why ain't them federal agents raiding them drug corners or them illegal gun sellers?
exactly
that's why cats in here bring up iraq and the crime in this country
niggas are SICK of this stupid sensationalist shit used against blacks all the time
yea u love dogs we get it
but its more important shit on americas plate right now
shit is CLEARLY a witch hunt and it's stupid
shit they ain't even trying hide their motives, they didn't even charge the main dude involved...

dumb wag the dog shit like this is why america is so fucked up
we rather talk about paris hilton all day or mike vick fighting some fucking dogs then concentrate on shit that actually MATTERs for our future and our future generation
like our government spending 12 billion a month on a illegal war while refusing to subsidize education or healthcare
or our government cosigning a russian president who kills anybody who writes something negative about him
or our government cosigning a chinese gov. that is raping africa right now
or our government holding a bitch ass grudge against cuba over some shit that happened over 50 yrs ago
the list goes on

>but uh no
>it's all about priorities and how white ppl (and niggas in
>power) have fucked up ones
>the federal gov. is pumping money into this witch hunt....'for
>who for what?' (c) ricky watters
>all them federal agents could be doing some thing more useful
>wit public money imo
>they think vick killed 60 something dogs over a number of
>yrs?
>o word, how bout them 240 BLACK men that died in philadelphia
>in the first 7 months of this yr?
>*pin drop*
>can them same agents PLEASE raid north and south philly?
>fuck ain't newport news one the worse parts of VA? why ain't
>them federal agents raiding them drug corners or them illegal
>gun sellers?
>exactly
>that's why cats in here bring up iraq and the crime in this
>country
>niggas are SICK of this stupid sensationalist shit used
>against blacks all the time
>yea u love dogs we get it
>but its more important shit on americas plate right now
>shit is CLEARLY a witch hunt and it's stupid
>shit they ain't even trying hide their motives, they didn't
>even charge the main dude involved...
>
>dumb wag the dog shit like this is why america is so fucked
>up
>we rather talk about paris hilton all day or mike vick
>fighting some fucking dogs then concentrate on shit that
>actually MATTERs for our future and our future generation
>like our government spending 12 billion a month on a illegal
>war while refusing to subsidize education or healthcare
>or our government cosigning a russian president who kills
>anybody who writes something negative about him
>or our government cosigning a chinese gov. that is raping
>africa right now
>or our government holding a bitch ass grudge against cuba over
>some shit that happened over 50 yrs ago
>the list goes on

I pretty much agree with all of this. It doesn't make Vick any less of an idiot for getting himself caught up in this bullshit when he has so much to lose (dog fighting certainly can't be entertaining enough to warrant risking potential fed time and the loss of millions)......but most of what you said here was spot on.

peace & blessings,

x.

sigless for the summer, y'all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

let's say the shit is inhumane. unless you're gonna take on some post-humanist and post-modern inquiry about what constitutes a sentient being--a move which i wholly applaud--it's quite a poor argument. just as poor as arguing that it is completely unrelated to the cruelty done to humans.

it seems all sentimental to me, dogs being domestic pets and all. people love their dogs, they grow up with them. and this just sounds like someone defending their family.

but leave that behind, and it becomes a very complex debate, a very undecidable one give the opposing points being raised by the minority here. and all of which is getting pinned on michael vick.

meanwhile y'all are cracking jokes about elijah dukes. people aren't even sure if pacman jones deserves another chance or not. that's the telling sign: with pacman, what he might or might not have done, and what consequences it deserves, are up for debate. whereas some of y'all are throwing vick to the dogs. tell me that ain't some shit.

Shooting anyone or animal with a firearm is in my book cruel. I've thought so-called sport hunting with guns is just asanine since a kid. Get a knife or a bow and arrow pussies.


How did the cousin get caught at Wal-Mart with greenery?

I should have listened son!

Seriously though...why is a wealthy man like Michael Vick fighting dogs?

You have the money son.

Gorilla fighting. Tiger fighting.

That's where it's at.

You at least could have been a major player in the Mongoose vs. Cobra fighting scene.

That's what boggles my mind. Spend your money wisely folks.

Sea Cows motherfucker.

This is GREAT.


This post has:

1)Plain Vick Apologists

2)Thoughtful Vick apologists

3)People who think calling the Vick apologists idiotic and/or
satanic makes them more moral.

4)People who use the law to build their morals, when the shit is
supposed to be the other way around(These people are also in
group 3).

5)Galatsaray demolishing motherfuckers.


Grrrreeeat (C) Tony the Tiger

hope u feel the same way about the soilders killing iraqi civilians, or when unarmed negroes are shot 41 times by police. i hope that same fervor stays with u.

...ain't no way they gonna prove he was there when dogs were killed and such.

and plenty of those wins came against the best defense attorneys money can buy.

However much money you think Michael Vick's got stowed away, the federal government has much more.

And they've decided they want to use some of that money to make an example out of Michael Vick, which means he's in some serious shit.......for all the money, ability, and accompanying pussy that dude has I would not trade places with him at this moment. The media scrutiny coupled with potential federal prison time is not an enviable spot to be in.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

http://cereffusion.imageyenation.com/Images/cereffusion/cereffusion2.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

lol

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

bitch, please.

Again, bitch, please.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

it's clear there is a line drawn in the middle of oksports
on one side u got the liberals and on the other u have the realists

http://www.greekanimalrescue.com/Vangeli%20and%20drowned%20dog1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/savebangaloredogs/suchanelaboratefuneral_eh_.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/savebangaloredogs/itsover_noescape.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/savebangaloredogs/itsshocking.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/savebangaloredogs/aaaaaaaah.jpg

>it's clear there is a line drawn in the middle of oksports
>on one side u got the liberals and on the other u have the
>realists

These motherfuckers don't question their own conventions
of right and wrong.

They just reflexively go along with whatever the law already says.

You, on the other hand, ain''t buyin' that shit.

These motherfuckers will say someone is more wrong for dog
fighting relative to hunting SOLELY because the hunter eats the meat
after hunting.

In which case if Vick and his boys made a burger out of that
dog carcass then they'd be okay.

That's what I'm saying: Shit don't make sense.

Don't stand up to any scrutiny, whatsoever.

tell me there's no difference between fighting to the death and a bullet to the head.

>tell me there's no difference between fighting to the death
>and a bullet to the head.

I'm saying that the ACTUAL difference is not proportional
to their LEGAL difference.

Shooting a bear in the gut and watching it bleed to death is sort of
fucked up to me too. You do that, its pefectly legal, as in, few people
question your morality.

You watch two dogs chew on each other, on the other hand, and
you are compared to these child porn cats...lol. Your SANITY
gets called into question.


I think dog fighting is wack too. I just ain't gonna let the laws,
half of which are on some bullshit anyway, DRIVE my morality.

And...lol....

Federal Investigation?


Please.

----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

but don't get reactionary about it and dismiss the entire argument. i personally don't give a fuck about the legal implications - whether vick goes to jail or rolls or whatever. but morally i think any dogfighter is a scumbag and i'm appalled that so many people here defend the morality of dogfighting. you've pointed out already that you're morally opposed to dogfighting, but have issues with the legal interpretations of it. i got no problem with that and you probably have a point, but galatasaray is all over the place defending it from a legal, moral and cultural standpoint and i think 2 of those are fucked up. so when you say he's the only one being a critical thinker here i'd say you're being reactionary based on your position on the legal issues.

most think it's a cruel act, but differ on how it should be intepreted in law especially considering other animal cruelty acts take place on the daily.

i mean, this "you think it's immoral because it's illegal" argument is ridiculous, even though i know it's about the only straw left you have to grasp onto to.

try this argument on for size: it's immoral because it's profoundly fucked up and exposes innocent beings to unspeakable, prolonged suffering to satisfy our basest, most bestial, least utilitarian desires.

if this fool did this, he's a piece of shit. not a child molester level piece of shit, but if the child molester is in the ninth level of hell anyone party to this dogfighting ring has a spot reserved in, oh, the fifth circle or so.

You never actually make a point when we have this exchange.

All you do is justify your gut-instinct perspective, which of course,
is a perspective you didn't choose, but was driven into your skull
via your ambiance that said:

"Brian, hunting is tubular, dude."

Then, you became a liberal academic with a bleeding heart, so
your ambiance told you:

"Let's defend the rights of animals."


Put the two together and you have Bshelly, who has no
problem with sport hunting and lots of problems with
dog fighting.


Oddly enough, I'm the allegedly mean one, and I think
BOTH are fucked up.


Lol.

>i mean, this "you think it's immoral because it's illegal"
>argument is ridiculous, even though i know it's about the only
>straw left you have to grasp onto to.

Uh. No.

That is exactly why people think a lot of shit is immoral.

Perhaps not you, but certainly lots of people.

You should know that.


>try this argument on for size: it's immoral because it's
>profoundly fucked up and exposes innocent beings to
>unspeakable, prolonged suffering to satisfy our basest, most
>bestial, least utilitarian desires.

Interesting because I happen to agree.

Problem is, I can also say that for hunting. I know people who
hunt because they like to conquer big, strong, animals. Seems
pretty primitive and fucked up to me. Surely, to a lesser degree
than dog fighting, but like I said:

(the point no one will touch)

The disparity in the LEGALITY between dog fighting(illegal, with
federal investigators up in your shit) and sport hunting(perfectly
legal) is far more extreme than their moral disparity(both being
fucked up, with dog fighting more fucked up).



>if this fool did this, he's a piece of shit. not a child
>molester level piece of shit, but if the child molester is in
>the ninth level of hell anyone party to this dogfighting ring
>has a spot reserved in, oh, the fifth circle or so.

Then as a hunter, I'd put you in the fourth circle of hell.

Why not?

>Oddly enough, I'm the allegedly mean one, and I think
>BOTH are fucked up.

At least we agree here. Wow, I never thought that would happen.


>Problem is, I can also say that for hunting. I know people
>who
>hunt because they like to conquer big, strong, animals. Seems
>pretty primitive and fucked up to me. Surely, to a lesser
>degree
>than dog fighting, but like I said:

I don't know anyone who hunts for pleasure and throws away the meat. I've never even heard first-hand accounts of someone doing it.

I don't doubt it happens, and I would consider it wrong and sick, but it's a minority of hunters who do that. Unfortunately, I don't know what we can do about it.

Dogfighting on the other hand, HAS NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. The whole notion of it is sick and fucked up. People getting pleasure from animals being abused and tortured is disturbing, period.


>(the point no one will touch)
>
>The disparity in the LEGALITY between dog fighting(illegal,
>with
>federal investigators up in your shit) and sport
>hunting(perfectly
>legal) is far more extreme than their moral disparity(both
>being
>fucked up, with dog fighting more fucked up).

I've addressed this before, but let me expand.

Hunting for meat HAS to be legal because we eat meat. Unless a society is willing to ban meat and ban all killing of animals, hunting will be legal. Always has been, always will be, because people eat meat.

There's no way to LEGALLY separate hunting for meat from hunting from sport. It's absurd to consider a law that REQUIRES you to eat the meat of any animal you kill.

You could, theoretically, make a law that killing for sport is illegal. How the fuck could you enforce it?

I don't think we want the government to FORCE someone to eat something.
(and that even ignores the impossible logistics of how the government would find out who's eating the meat and who isn't)


>Then as a hunter, I'd put you in the fourth circle of hell.

Anyone who hunts for fun and pleasure is not cool with me at all. It's wrong.

>Dogfighting on the other hand, HAS NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. The
>whole notion of it is sick and fucked up. People getting
>pleasure from animals being abused and tortured is disturbing,
>period.


The same way a hunter kills and eats the meat...dogfighting is bet on, so money is made and lost, some of which the winnings will go to buy food.

It's a fucked up rationale anyway you slice it.

Killing period is WRONG. Shells (and I LIKE shels) is throwing folx in hell for killing dogs but if he's religious at all wouldn't exclude himself or any of his hunter friends from that.

The commandment (if you believe in christianity) says, "thou shalt not kill"...not, it's ok if it's for food.

I'm just saying.

>>Dogfighting on the other hand, HAS NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER.
>The
>>whole notion of it is sick and fucked up. People getting
>>pleasure from animals being abused and tortured is
>disturbing,
>>period.
>
>
>The same way a hunter kills and eats the meat...dogfighting is
>bet on, so money is made and lost, some of which the winnings
>will go to buy food.

That's stupid logic man. Think about it - if your argument is that ANY kind of profit justifies doing something immoral, you've just excused just about every crime there is.

Murder for hire? It's okay, because someone got paid and can buy food.
Armed robbery? Ditto.
Basically any crime for profit is now totally cool.

That's pretty dumb.

And it's totally different than killing an animal for food. Humans eat meat. That meat has to come from an animal. That animal has to die.

There is no defensible reason to justify dogfighting. It's animal cruelty, abuse and torture for a human being's enjoyment, and that's completely sick.


>It's a fucked up rationale anyway you slice it.

Not really. Unless you don't believe in eating meat, animals have to die for you to eat meat.

WHY do animals ALSO have to die for your amusement? That doesn't seem fucked to you?


>Killing period is WRONG.

Murder is wrong. Torture is wrong.
Killing someone in self-defense? Not wrong.
Killing someone in a just war (WWII)? Not wrong. (I'm not saying all wars because obviously some wars are wrong and immoral)


>Shells (and I LIKE shels) is
>throwing folx in hell for killing dogs but if he's religious
>at all wouldn't exclude himself or any of his hunter friends
>from that.

I don't speak for him. I've never said anything about people going to hell. That's between them and God. Personally, I think anyone who tortures and abuses animals for pleasure and entertainent is pretty fucked up though.

And personally, I could never kill an animal unless I was starving. It's not in me to do it. It may seem hypocritical to eat meat then, but I do believe human beings are meant to do so - biologically.


>The commandment (if you believe in christianity) says, "thou
>shalt not kill"...not, it's ok if it's for food.

I'm not Christian, but that commandment refers to people. The Bible actually says God put the animals here for us to use - though I don't think He had in mind torturing and abusing them for kicks.

Regardless, the Bible supports all kinds of horrible shit (rape, slavery, stonings, genocide) so I don't put much stock in it. I'm not trying to get the Christians up in arms, so let's not even get into that.

>That's stupid logic man. Think about it - if your argument is
>that ANY kind of profit justifies doing something immoral,
>you've just excused just about every crime there is.

When there are fruits, veggies and other forms of nourishment on planet earth...killing animals for food is immoral. And I ain't a vegan, but I do believe as humans we reserve to live with a certain amount of contempt for certain immoral behaviors. And I don't give a damn about crime. A lot of the laws in this country are skewed anyway. Hunting is immoral (killing animals for sport AND food STILL is immoral), boxing is immoral (having two men fight for your entertainment and profit is immoral), and you're telling me they aren't. I disagree. And if YOUR argument is correct, killing is ok as long as it serves a benefit. Not mine. You're saying there's NO benefit from dogfighting...i showed you the benefit. By YOUR argument, killing a person for food is ok...as long as you eat the body. No. I could understand your point if it meant survival (stuck in a place without any consumable plants) but otherwise...no.

>Murder for hire? It's okay, because someone got paid and can
>buy food.
>Armed robbery? Ditto.
>Basically any crime for profit is now totally cool.
>
>That's pretty dumb.
>
>And it's totally different than killing an animal for food.
>Humans eat meat. That meat has to come from an animal. That
>animal has to die.

Just cuz we eat meat, doesnt mean killing the animal is 'ok'. The difference between humans and animals is that we have the CHOICE not to do so. To show a kinder hand to humanity and all living things. You're cutting a pass here cuz you eat meat...the immorality you CHOOSE to live with but you're condemning others for the immorality THEY choos to live with. It's fucked up logic.

>There is no defensible reason to justify dogfighting. It's
>animal cruelty, abuse and torture for a human being's
>enjoyment, and that's completely sick.

Yes there is, it's entertainment for profit. Is it right? No. But it can be defended just as eating meat, hunting, and boxing can be defended.

>Not really. Unless you don't believe in eating meat, animals
>have to die for you to eat meat.
>
>WHY do animals ALSO have to die for your amusement? That
>doesn't seem fucked to you?

It really is because a lot of people DON'T believe in eating meat. Why do animals have to die due to human nature period? BOTH are fucked up to me. I'm just smart enough not to take a hardline stance on one immoral act while supporting and engaging in another cuz I feel "safe" about it.

>Murder is wrong. Torture is wrong.
>Killing someone in self-defense? Not wrong.
>Killing someone in a just war (WWII)? Not wrong. (I'm not
>saying all wars because obviously some wars are wrong and
>immoral)

Killing is wrong...PERIOD. No matter the cause. You are not God/the almighty/Allah, you have no right to judge when someone's life should be ended. Would I kill someone in self-defense? Yes. Would that fuck up my mind and emotional state for a very long time? Yes. Taking a life should be uneasy for any human because to take life is inhumane.

>
>>Shells (and I LIKE shels) is
>>throwing folx in hell for killing dogs but if he's religious
>>at all wouldn't exclude himself or any of his hunter friends
>>from that.
>
>I don't speak for him. I've never said anything about people
>going to hell. That's between them and God. Personally, I
>think anyone who tortures and abuses animals for pleasure and
>entertainent is pretty fucked up though.
>
>And personally, I could never kill an animal unless I was
>starving. It's not in me to do it. It may seem hypocritical to
>eat meat then, but I do believe human beings are meant to do
>so - biologically.
>
>
>>The commandment (if you believe in christianity) says, "thou
>>shalt not kill"...not, it's ok if it's for food.
>
>I'm not Christian, but that commandment refers to people. The
>Bible actually says God put the animals here for us to use -
>though I don't think He had in mind torturing and abusing them
>for kicks.
>
>Regardless, the Bible supports all kinds of horrible shit
>(rape, slavery, stonings, genocide) so I don't put much stock
>in it. I'm not trying to get the Christians up in arms, so
>let's not even get into that.

As you stated, we won't get into this...

>>That's stupid logic man. Think about it - if your argument
>is
>>that ANY kind of profit justifies doing something immoral,
>>you've just excused just about every crime there is.
>
>When there are fruits, veggies and other forms of nourishment
>on planet earth...killing animals for food is immoral.

But humans are biologically built to eat meat.
We have these teeth called canines - carnivores have them, herbivores don't. We also have molars, like herbivores, which means we also eat plant matter. Thus we are omnivores; we are meant to eat meat AND plants.

Humans evolved as omnivores, and our teeth reflect this history. Did evolution (or even creation, for the fools who believe that dumb shit) design us to be immoral everytime we eat a meal?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html



>And I
>ain't a vegan, but I do believe as humans we reserve to live
>with a certain amount of contempt for certain immoral
>behaviors.

I do believe that humans are supposed to act morally. I do not believe that eating meat is immoral. Some people disagree with this, and I can definitely respect that view.

But I cannot respect the view that eating meat is somehow equivalent to torturing a dog for entertainment. I cannot respect anyone's morality if they find nothing wrong with torturing and abusing an animal for their own amusement.


>And I don't give a damn about crime. A lot of the
>laws in this country are skewed anyway.

Agreed.


>Hunting is immoral
>(killing animals for sport AND food STILL is immoral),

Killing for sport is wrong, killing animals for food is part of life and part of nature.

We would not have evolved into the human beings that exist today if our ancestors did not eat meat.



>boxing
>is immoral (having two men fight for your entertainment and
>profit is immoral),

If two men both agree to it and want to hit each other, why is that immoral? They're exercising free will. Human beings can make choices that are detrimental to themselves. I don't think it's immoral to use drugs unless someone else is being hurt by it (neglecting your child, robbing people to buy drugs, etc). It's your own body. If you want to get drunk, stoned, or stab yourself, go for it.

That doesn't mean you can do what you want to an animal that has no choice in the matter.

I personally have never paid money (and never will) to watch human beings brutalize each other for money. I don't think it's cool to derive pleasure from someone's suffering. But I don't think we need to ban boxing because it's free will. Animals being forced to fight to the death are not choosing that for themselves.

When animals fight in the wild, that's not wrong; it's part of nature. But they do it for survival and competition, not amusement or entertainment.


>and you're telling me they aren't. I
>disagree. And if YOUR argument is correct, killing is ok as
>long as it serves a benefit.

No, I never said it's okay as long as it serves ANY benefit. I simply said that killing an animal for food is okay. That's all I've said. I never said you could kill an animal for profit.


>Not mine. You're saying there's
>NO benefit from dogfighting...i showed you the benefit.

There is no defensible benefit. Profit, pleasure and entertainment are not justification for animal abuse and torture.


>By
>YOUR argument, killing a person for food is ok...as long as
>you eat the body. No. I could understand your point if it
>meant survival (stuck in a place without any consumable
>plants) but otherwise...no.

I NEVER said this. There's a post where I addressed this very point. Human beings have different rights than animals. You can't murder someone to make a cannibal burger.

If the choice was dying of starvation vs murdering another human being? I would starve. I might eat the other person if he died of starvation first, but I wouldn't kill him.

I would probably kill an animal if I was starving, because a human life is worth more than an animal's.
(Although I would never kill and eat my own pet.)


>>And it's totally different than killing an animal for food.
>>Humans eat meat. That meat has to come from an animal. That
>>animal has to die.
>
>Just cuz we eat meat, doesnt mean killing the animal is 'ok'.

Why not? How else do we get the meat?


>The difference between humans and animals is that we have the
>CHOICE not to do so.

Sure, we can choose to be vegetarians. But we're biologically not built for it. That's why I don't think it's immoral.


>To show a kinder hand to humanity and
>all living things. You're cutting a pass here cuz you eat
>meat...the immorality you CHOOSE to live with

If you're conflicted with guilt about eating meat, change your ways. If you're a vegetarian because you don't believe in killing animals for food, I applaud you for your restraint.

But I am not "choosing to live with immorality" simply because I eat meat.


>but you're
>condemning others for the immorality THEY choos to live with.
>It's fucked up logic.

For one thing, not all immorality is equal. Stealing is immoral, but it's not as bad as rape and murder. A career thief can still say, "Murder is wrong." Isn't that obvious to everyone?

So even IF eating meat was inherently immoral, it doesn't excuse people abusing and torturing animals to death.

Period.


If people actually believed that bullshit about "only those without sin can cast the first stone" then no one would EVER speak out about ANYTHING. And what kind of world would that be?

Murder, rape... everything is totally cool because everyone has eaten meat or at least done something wrong in their lifetime.


>>There is no defensible reason to justify dogfighting. It's
>>animal cruelty, abuse and torture for a human being's
>>enjoyment, and that's completely sick.
>
>Yes there is, it's entertainment for profit. Is it right? No.

You answered yourself. It's not right. "Entertainment for profit" is not justification for immoral acts, period. Ever.


>But it can be defended just as eating meat, hunting, and
>boxing can be defended.

No, it really can't. Dogfighting, animal abuse, torture... those things cannot be defended by anyone with a moral compass. There is no way to justify them.

By your reasoning, we might as well wager money on the success of hitmen and then videotape them murdering people. Because that's entertainment for profit.


>>Not really. Unless you don't believe in eating meat, animals
>>have to die for you to eat meat.
>>
>>WHY do animals ALSO have to die for your amusement? That
>>doesn't seem fucked to you?
>
>It really is because a lot of people DON'T believe in eating
>meat. Why do animals have to die due to human nature period?

Human nature is to eat meat. That's just basic biology. We can go against it because we have free will and can choose to deny our own needs. But that doesn't mean we are morally obligated to do so.

We have no biological need to abuse and torture animals.


>BOTH are fucked up to me. I'm just smart enough not to take a
>hardline stance on one immoral act while supporting and
>engaging in another cuz I feel "safe" about it.

So you don't condemn ANYTHING as immoral, because you eat meat?

Do you condemn murder? Why, if all immoral acts are equivalent?


>>Murder is wrong. Torture is wrong.
>>Killing someone in self-defense? Not wrong.
>>Killing someone in a just war (WWII)? Not wrong. (I'm not
>>saying all wars because obviously some wars are wrong and
>>immoral)
>
>Killing is wrong...PERIOD. No matter the cause.

All killing is wrong?

So the moral thing to do is to let someone murder you and your family?

The moral thing to do is watch while genocide is going on in concentration camps, because going to war to stop a genocide is immoral?


>You are not
>God/the almighty/Allah, you have no right to judge when
>someone's life should be ended. Would I kill someone in
>self-defense? Yes. Would that fuck up my mind and emotional
>state for a very long time? Yes. Taking a life should be
>uneasy for any human because to take life is inhumane.

I certainly wouldn't enjoy killing someone. But if the choice is to allow someone to murder me and my family, I have absolutely no moral qualms about it.

And I'm not going to feel guilt about it because I did not do anything immoral.

I don't even believe in capital punishment, but I do think if someone's shooting a gun at me, I am totally justified in killing him.

I don't think taking a human being's life should ever be taken lightly. But I don't think you can simply say "All killing is immoral."

You can say, however, that abusing and torturing animals is immoral, because there's never a valid reason to do it.

>But humans are biologically built to eat meat.
>We have these teeth called canines - carnivores have them,
>herbivores don't. We also have molars, like herbivores, which
>means we also eat plant matter. Thus we are omnivores; we are
>meant to eat meat AND plants.
>
>Humans evolved as omnivores, and our teeth reflect this
>history. Did evolution (or even creation, for the fools who
>believe that dumb shit) design us to be immoral everytime we
>eat a meal?
>
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

Yes but even given the science of how humans are designed, it doesn't mean we have to act on everything we are designed to do. We are made to reproduce but tell me you've never used a condom in your life to prevent that act from happening naturally. You wanted all of the benefit of the act, without the consequences. Eating plant life is getting all of the benefits of nourishment without the consequences of eating meat (killing of animals/health issues). And even if we have the tools (teeth) to eat meat, has there ever been a documented case of health related issues or death from someone who chose NOT to eat meat?

>I do believe that humans are supposed to act morally. I do not
>believe that eating meat is immoral. Some people disagree with
>this, and I can definitely respect that view.
>But I cannot respect the view that eating meat is somehow
>equivalent to torturing a dog for entertainment. I cannot
>respect anyone's morality if they find nothing wrong with
>torturing and abusing an animal for their own amusement.

Ok, let me revamp my argument. KILLING animals to eat their meat is immoral.

>>Hunting is immoral
>>(killing animals for sport AND food STILL is immoral),
>
>Killing for sport is wrong, killing animals for food is part
>of life and part of nature.

Killing animals for food is wrong. We are not animals, we can discern between that...we can develop other means to get those nutrients. And the bottom line to all of this is KILLING animals for food is wrong/immoral. Simply eating the meat of an animal that has died due to natural causes (age/predators in the wild, etc.) is NOT immoral or wrong.

>We would not have evolved into the human beings that exist
>today if our ancestors did not eat meat.

And that's something to be proud of? If killing meat to eat it made man what it is today, then I'd say we should have been vegans from the outset. No one should be taught that murder is good. Even if it's necessary(self defense), guilt should accompany it.

>If two men both agree to it and want to hit each other, why is
>that immoral? They're exercising free will. Human beings can
>make choices that are detrimental to themselves. I don't think
>it's immoral to use drugs unless someone else is being hurt by
>it (neglecting your child, robbing people to buy drugs, etc).
>It's your own body. If you want to get drunk, stoned, or stab
>yourself, go for it.

It's immoral because it's violence against fellow man for the sake of entertainment and profit. Regardless of the 'choice' involved. Immorality is not only based on personal choice you know. There is a societal aspect to morality. And see this is what I don't get about your logic. You think it's 'ok' for a person to use illegal drugs, overconsume alcohol, and commit suicide (if that's what you meant by stab yourself) and don't find these things immoral but dogfighting IS? All 3 of those things are in some form AGAINST human morality in some fashion. Again, personal choice doesn't mean NOT immoral.

>That doesn't mean you can do what you want to an animal that
>has no choice in the matter.

Right...but killing them for nourishment is 'ok'? Letting them die naturally and eating the meat is moral. Bottom line.

>I personally have never paid money (and never will) to watch
>human beings brutalize each other for money. I don't think
>it's cool to derive pleasure from someone's suffering. But I
>don't think we need to ban boxing because it's free will.
>Animals being forced to fight to the death are not choosing
>that for themselves.
>
>When animals fight in the wild, that's not wrong; it's part of
>nature. But they do it for survival and competition, not
>amusement or entertainment.

Ok and animals being shot in the chest for food don't choose that for themselves either.

>No, I never said it's okay as long as it serves ANY benefit. I
>simply said that killing an animal for food is okay. That's
>all I've said. I never said you could kill an animal for
>profit.

Ok...my bad. Over-generalization.

>There is no defensible benefit. Profit, pleasure and
>entertainment are not justification for animal abuse and
>torture.

Neither is nourishment. <---my whole point.

>I NEVER said this. There's a post where I addressed this very
>point. Human beings have different rights than animals. You
>can't murder someone to make a cannibal burger.
>
>If the choice was dying of starvation vs murdering another
>human being? I would starve. I might eat the other person if
>he died of starvation first, but I wouldn't kill him.
>
>I would probably kill an animal if I was starving, because a
>human life is worth more than an animal's.
>(Although I would never kill and eat my own pet.)

Why not take the same stance with animals as you do with humans/pets? Why not WAIT on the natural death of an animal to eat it rather than kill it. It's because you don't believe murder is wrong across the board, only in certain instances, but murder is wrong period. And who are you to decide who's life is worth more than another's?

>Why not? How else do we get the meat?

By waiting on the natural death of animals.

>Sure, we can choose to be vegetarians. But we're biologically
>not built for it. That's why I don't think it's immoral.

Again, are there any studies that say it's detrimental to our health NOT to eat meat and that we cannot get the nutrients we need from other non-mammal sources? It's not immoral to eat meat, it's immoral to KILL to get the meat.

>If you're conflicted with guilt about eating meat, change your
>ways. If you're a vegetarian because you don't believe in
>killing animals for food, I applaud you for your restraint.
>
>But I am not "choosing to live with immorality" simply because
>I eat meat.

I'm not conflicted, I'm using free will to accept my comfort level WITH this immorality. I don't control HOW I get the meat I eat and therefore am accepting that animals are being killed to feed me. But I do wish that there was another way to have this accomplished as rapidly as it is currently without killing animals. Do I feel morally compelled to pursue that accommodation...no. But if you eat meat from animals that were killed to nourish you...you are accepting that immorality.

>For one thing, not all immorality is equal. Stealing is
>immoral, but it's not as bad as rape and murder. A career
>thief can still say, "Murder is wrong." Isn't that obvious to
>everyone?
>
>So even IF eating meat was inherently immoral, it doesn't
>excuse people abusing and torturing animals to death.
>
>Period.

Correct. I will not deny this.

>If people actually believed that bullshit about "only those
>without sin can cast the first stone" then no one would EVER
>speak out about ANYTHING. And what kind of world would that
>be?
>
>Murder, rape... everything is totally cool because everyone
>has eaten meat or at least done something wrong in their
>lifetime.

I agree, but my thing is this...why jump on 'animal cruelty' when there are other things of much more importance going on that actually might ELIMINATE/DECREASE animal cruelty if addressed. Maybe changing the societal view of killing animals for food being OK would be a start. If society as a whole doesn't view ALL animal life as sacred enough to preserve naturally, how can you not expect some of our kind to not become defective in this view and devalue ALL animal life?

>You answered yourself. It's not right. "Entertainment for
>profit" is not justification for immoral acts, period. Ever.

Agreed.

>No, it really can't. Dogfighting, animal abuse, torture...
>those things cannot be defended by anyone with a moral
>compass. There is no way to justify them.

And neither is the malicious breeding and killing of animals for food. We live with it, but it ain't right. (It's kinda like racism)

>By your reasoning, we might as well wager money on the success
>of hitmen and then videotape them murdering people. Because
>that's entertainment for profit.

No by my logic, no killing is moral, regardless of the grounds even if it's necessary and humanity fails daily by not trying to live to that standard.

>Human nature is to eat meat. That's just basic biology. We can
>go against it because we have free will and can choose to deny
>our own needs. But that doesn't mean we are morally obligated
>to do so.
>
>We have no biological need to abuse and torture animals.

Now prove to me that we have a biological need to kill to get that meat. Biology doesn't determine WHAT meat we should eat either so cannibalism is fair game. The reason we don't engage is MORALITY.

In actuality, if we're gonna go with biology as a basis for morality, eating the dead corpse of a passed loved one is more moral than killing an animal for it's meat. Cuz you didn't have to take a life.

No, I'm not promoting cannibalism but using biology in this argument is bs cuz we have free will.

>So you don't condemn ANYTHING as immoral, because you eat
>meat?
>
>Do you condemn murder? Why, if all immoral acts are
>equivalent?

No, but what I'm saying is, how is the pot gonna call the kettle black. You eat processed meat from murdered animals who are bred to feed you and find it ok, yet you are gonna slander someone on an accusation of training dogs to fight until the death for profit. Both are murder and wrong. I can't knock what those men are doing when I eat processed meat. If you wanna take a stand on something, take a stand against ALL animal cruelty...and not just sit on the fence on the shit you feel comfortable with (killing animals for food). THAT'S what i'm saying. It's hypocritical.

>All killing is wrong?

IMO, yes.

>So the moral thing to do is to let someone murder you and your
>family?

No, but killing them in return is immoral. Not to say that I wouldn't do it...I live with certain immoralities daily...but it's wrong. As humans we make mistakes and make the wrong decisions daily, I think the point of life is to minimize those mistakes and learn from them. If there is a way I can stop someone from harming/murdering me and my family without killing them, I would.

>The moral thing to do is watch while genocide is going on in
>concentration camps, because going to war to stop a genocide
>is immoral?

Again, killing the instigators is immoral. War is immoral. Is it necessary, that's arguable but to think that's the only way to resolve things like a genocide is sad.

>I certainly wouldn't enjoy killing someone. But if the choice
>is to allow someone to murder me and my family, I have
>absolutely no moral qualms about it.
>
>And I'm not going to feel guilt about it because I did not do
>anything immoral.
>
>I don't even believe in capital punishment, but I do think if
>someone's shooting a gun at me, I am totally justified in
>killing him.
>
>I don't think taking a human being's life should ever be taken
>lightly. But I don't think you can simply say "All killing is
>immoral."
>
>You can say, however, that abusing and torturing animals is
>immoral, because there's never a valid reason to do it.

This whole statement is a contradictions. You eat meat which involves the killing, abusing and torturing of animals...and you gave a valid reason for doing it. You said you don't believe in capital punishment but you'd kill a man (which a capital punishment) for trying to harm your family. You said you wouldn't enjoy killing someone but would have no qualms about it. If you don't enjoy it, which implies you don't think it's the right thing to do, you DO have a qualm about it. Make up your mind.

>Yes but even given the science of how humans are designed, it
>doesn't mean we have to act on everything we are designed to
>do. We are made to reproduce but tell me you've never used a
>condom in your life to prevent that act from happening
>naturally. You wanted all of the benefit of the act, without
>the consequences. Eating plant life is getting all of the
>benefits of nourishment without the consequences of eating
>meat (killing of animals/health issues). And even if we have
>the tools (teeth) to eat meat, has there ever been a
>documented case of health related issues or death from someone
>who chose NOT to eat meat?

Maybe not death, but a completely began diet is not ideal for the health of a human beings. The best, ideal, most healthy diet for a person includes meat, that's just biology.

I'm no expert, and I'm sure sources can be found to support both sides, but it seems obvious to me that if our bodies are meant to eat meat, that's what best for us, health-wise.


>Killing animals for food is wrong. We are not animals, we can
>discern between that...we can develop other means to get those
>nutrients. And the bottom line to all of this is KILLING
>animals for food is wrong/immoral. Simply eating the meat of
>an animal that has died due to natural causes (age/predators
>in the wild, etc.) is NOT immoral or wrong.

I don't know if it's safe for humans to eat meat from a dead animal. Meat rots, bacteria come along and make it unsafe to eat.

I suppose we could wait for livestock to die naturally, and then quickly scavenge the meat, but it wouldn't be enough and it wouldn't be reliable enough to fill our dietary needs.


>>We would not have evolved into the human beings that exist
>>today if our ancestors did not eat meat.
>
>And that's something to be proud of?

Neither pride nor shame, it is what it is. It's what we are.


>It's immoral because it's violence against fellow man for the
>sake of entertainment and profit. Regardless of the 'choice'
>involved. Immorality is not only based on personal choice you
>know. There is a societal aspect to morality.

Some morality is not cultural. Rape is always wrong. Murder is always wrong (self-defense and war is not "murder"). Slavery is always wrong. Animal abuse is always wrong.


>And see this
>is what I don't get about your logic. You think it's 'ok' for
>a person to use illegal drugs, overconsume alcohol, and commit
>suicide (if that's what you meant by stab yourself) and don't
>find these things immoral but dogfighting IS? All 3 of those
>things are in some form AGAINST human morality in some
>fashion. Again, personal choice doesn't mean NOT immoral.

Why are those things immoral? What is immoral about getting drunk? As long as you don't drive (and risk others' lives), neglect a child, etc - you've done nothing wrong. I can sit in my house and drink as much as I want and no one is hurt (except maybe me, but that's my choice and my right).



>Again, are there any studies that say it's detrimental to our
>health NOT to eat meat and that we cannot get the nutrients we
>need from other non-mammal sources?

I'm certain there are. And I'm certain there are studies saying that we CAN get by without meat. IMO it's common sense that if our bodies are evolved for eating meat, then including meat in our diet is ideal for our health.


>>So the moral thing to do is to let someone murder you and
>your
>>family?
>
>No, but killing them in return is immoral.

So in this case, there IS NO moral solution to the problem, which makes no sense. You are being forced to be immoral because there is no moral choice... I don't buy it.


>This whole statement is a contradictions. You eat meat which
>involves the killing, abusing and torturing of animals...and
>you gave a valid reason for doing it.

The meat industry isn't as humane as it could be, and I'd support efforts to make it more so, even if prices go up. But I don't think the meat industry is akin to abuse and torture (e.g., dogfighting).


>You said you don't
>believe in capital punishment but you'd kill a man (which a
>capital punishment) for trying to harm your family.

Self-defense vs revenge. Capital punishment is killing someone who's already in prison and can't hurt anyone else. Just lock him up for life.
Killing someone in self-defense is just that - defense. If I don't do it, he's gonna kill me or mine. Totally different.


>You said
>you wouldn't enjoy killing someone but would have no qualms
>about it. If you don't enjoy it, which implies you don't
>think it's the right thing to do, you DO have a qualm about
>it. Make up your mind.

Not enjoying it does not imply I don't think it's right.

I simply don't enjoy hurting others, whether it's people or animals. But I'll do it if I have to, and I'll know that I'm morally justified in doing so.

>Maybe not death, but a completely began diet is not ideal for
>the health of a human beings. The best, ideal, most healthy
>diet for a person includes meat, that's just biology.

This is debatable with rampant heart disease statistics.

>I'm no expert, and I'm sure sources can be found to support
>both sides, but it seems obvious to me that if our bodies are
>meant to eat meat, that's what best for us, health-wise.

Yes, that may be true but the source of that meat and how it's come about holds some moral decisions.

>I don't know if it's safe for humans to eat meat from a dead
>animal. Meat rots, bacteria come along and make it unsafe to
>eat.
>
>I suppose we could wait for livestock to die naturally, and
>then quickly scavenge the meat, but it wouldn't be enough and
>it wouldn't be reliable enough to fill our dietary needs.

LOL...we already eat meat from a dead animal...c'mon. Logistically, I agree, it might be a slow process to wait on certain animals to die but I don't think the actual death is a problem.

>Neither pride nor shame, it is what it is. It's what we are.

I thought you meant the human race as is, but from a biology stand point, it seems that you are saying that we are designed to eat meat because of evolution and my retort is, then we should have never began to do so.

>Some morality is not cultural. Rape is always wrong. Murder is
>always wrong (self-defense and war is not "murder"). Slavery
>is always wrong. Animal abuse is always wrong.

Some cultures believe(d) in sacrifice (murder) for the sake of religious beliefs. Some cultures believe that a 14 year old child is capable of marriage and family (which by our countries standards is statutory rape). Some cultures believe that slavery is a byproduct of War. Their SOCIETIES determine what is morally acceptable for them. Granted as westerners we believe these things to be default moral cues, doesn't mean everybody does. But I do agree with what you said outside of the self-defense and war arguments. Though you may not be prosecuted by the law for either, MORALLY on a personal and spiritual level...to me ANY murder is wrong and I include those instances. I refuse to let law makers define when it's "ok" to kill for me as you have.

>Why are those things immoral? What is immoral about getting
>drunk? As long as you don't drive (and risk others' lives),
>neglect a child, etc - you've done nothing wrong. I can sit in
>my house and drink as much as I want and no one is hurt
>(except maybe me, but that's my choice and my right).

Alcohol does damage to the human body. It's not a natural substance to the human body...nor are most illegal narcotics. The excessive use or use of them at all is morally wrong because it goes against self preservation which is a socially moral norm. Not to mention if you have family members, they may be affected by your harm of yourself (emotionally/mentally).

>I'm certain there are. And I'm certain there are studies
>saying that we CAN get by without meat. IMO it's common sense
>that if our bodies are evolved for eating meat, then including
>meat in our diet is ideal for our health.

But it's an ambigious argument then. But the source and process are always choices we make.

>So in this case, there IS NO moral solution to the problem,
>which makes no sense. You are being forced to be immoral
>because there is no moral choice... I don't buy it.

There's always a choice. You could CHOOSE to try and apprehend this person without KILLING them though it might be more dangerous than simply killing them.

>The meat industry isn't as humane as it could be, and I'd
>support efforts to make it more so, even if prices go up.

Good to know...and I think we all would.

>But
>I don't think the meat industry is akin to abuse and torture
>(e.g., dogfighting).

Do some research buddy. Torture is torture...making animals fight each other is one form. Mad cow (which is making cows eat meat of their own kind) is another.

>Self-defense vs revenge. Capital punishment is killing someone
>who's already in prison and can't hurt anyone else. Just lock
>him up for life.

Capital punishment is killing someone who's killed. So yes it's revenge delayed but...

>Killing someone in self-defense is just that - defense. If I
>don't do it, he's gonna kill me or mine. Totally different.

Killing this man is revenge personified. Defense is to STOP something from happening. OFFENSE is to attack, which was your defense. It's INSTANT capital punishment based on intent.

>Not enjoying it does not imply I don't think it's right.
>
>I simply don't enjoy hurting others, whether it's people or
>animals. But I'll do it if I have to, and I'll know that I'm
>morally justified in doing so.

You won't KNOW it, you'll THINK/BELIEVE it. But I guess we all find out sooner or later if the things we believe/have done are morally right when it's our time.

>>Maybe not death, but a completely began diet is not ideal
>for
>>the health of a human beings. The best, ideal, most healthy
>>diet for a person includes meat, that's just biology.
>
>This is debatable with rampant heart disease statistics.

Eating an excess of meat, and not eating any meat at all are both unhealthy. Eating a small to moderate amount of meat is probably best for you, health and diet-wise.

The ideal serving of meat is MUCH smaller than what the average American eats in a meal.


>>I'm no expert, and I'm sure sources can be found to support
>>both sides, but it seems obvious to me that if our bodies
>are
>>meant to eat meat, that's what best for us, health-wise.
>
>Yes, that may be true but the source of that meat and how it's
>come about holds some moral decisions.

Of course, that’s why I’ve said we should strive to get meat in the most humane way possible. But becoming vegan as a whole society is not realistic, and neither is waiting for natural deaths.


>>I don't know if it's safe for humans to eat meat from a dead
>>animal. Meat rots, bacteria come along and make it unsafe to
>>eat.
>>
>>I suppose we could wait for livestock to die naturally, and
>>then quickly scavenge the meat, but it wouldn't be enough
>and
>>it wouldn't be reliable enough to fill our dietary needs.
>
>LOL...we already eat meat from a dead animal...c'mon.
>Logistically, I agree, it might be a slow process to wait on
>certain animals to die but I don't think the actual death is a
>problem.

It’s just not practical at all. Waiting for your livestock to die naturally would simply not be a feasible or reasonable method of providing the entire society with meat.


>>Neither pride nor shame, it is what it is. It's what we are.
>
>I thought you meant the human race as is, but from a biology
>stand point, it seems that you are saying that we are designed
>to eat meat because of evolution and my retort is, then we
>should have never began to do so.

We never chose to evolve to eat meat; it doesn’t work that way.


>>Some morality is not cultural. Rape is always wrong. Murder
>is
>>always wrong (self-defense and war is not "murder"). Slavery
>>is always wrong. Animal abuse is always wrong.
>
>Some cultures believe(d) in sacrifice (murder) for the sake of
>religious beliefs.

And I’d say human sacrifice is inherently and always wrong. It’s not something that can be excused for cultural reasons.


>Some cultures believe that a 14 year old
>child is capable of marriage and family (which by our
>countries standards is statutory rape).

Statutory rape is different than forcible, non-consentual rape. For one thing, statutory rape is about the perceived lack of ability to consent due to immaturity. Since cultures have different views about when someone is sexually/emotionally mature, naturally it will vary. The notion that the day before your 16th birthday it’s morally wrong to have sex, but the next day it’s okay is pretty stupid. But as a society we have to have arbitrary cutoffs somewhere.

Whereas violent, forcible, non-consentual rape is simply always wrong, no matter the culture or context.


>Some cultures believe
>that slavery is a byproduct of War.

It was certainly considered morally acceptable in various cultures in the past, but IMO slavery was, is, and always will be wrong.


>Their SOCIETIES determine
>what is morally acceptable for them. Granted as westerners we
>believe these things to be default moral cues, doesn't mean
>everybody does.

Societies determine what is acceptable in those societies. I guess morality - true actual right and wrong - depends on how you view life, existance, God, religion, etc.

I don’t think most people would buy the idea that murder or rape can be morally acceptable if a culture deems it okay. Some things are just universal and self-evident.


> But I do agree with what you said outside of
>the self-defense and war arguments. Though you may not be
>prosecuted by the law for either, MORALLY on a personal and
>spiritual level...to me ANY murder is wrong and I include
>those instances. I refuse to let law makers define when it's
>"ok" to kill for me as you have.

I don’t let lawmakers guide my morality. I determine that for myself. The reason I don’t murder people is not because it’s illegal, it’s because I believe it’s wrong.

There are some things I don’t think are immoral but I don’t do them because they’re illegal, but it doesn’t work the other way around. In other words, I don’t do things I think are immoral even if they’re legal.


>>Why are those things immoral? What is immoral about getting
>>drunk? As long as you don't drive (and risk others' lives),
>>neglect a child, etc - you've done nothing wrong. I can sit
>in
>>my house and drink as much as I want and no one is hurt
>>(except maybe me, but that's my choice and my right).
>
>Alcohol does damage to the human body. It's not a natural
>substance to the human body...nor are most illegal narcotics.
>The excessive use or use of them at all is morally wrong
>because it goes against self preservation which is a socially
>moral norm.

Again, I could give a shit about “socially moral norms”. I am talking about actual morality.

Why is excessive use of alcohol morally wrong?

Why is self-preservation inherently moral? Are we morally obligated to live our entire lives making choices based on our own self-preservation, or do we do that because we generally WANT to be alive and healthy?


>Not to mention if you have family members, they
>may be affected by your harm of yourself
>(emotionally/mentally).

That’s a pretty weak argument though. So those things would be okay if you didn’t have any family, or if they didn’t care about you? Morality depends on whether you have a caring family?

And what if your family is emotionally harmed because you choose to play a risky sport? Most sports carry the risk of injury, so you are endangering yourself. Is that morally wrong? You’re not acting in your own self-preservation.


>>So in this case, there IS NO moral solution to the problem,
>>which makes no sense. You are being forced to be immoral
>>because there is no moral choice... I don't buy it.
>
>There's always a choice. You could CHOOSE to try and
>apprehend this person without KILLING them though it might be
>more dangerous than simply killing them.

I guess. But that’s not what self-defense is. I guess you could argue that you can always try to talk someone out of it.

But what if it’s a gunman who’s indiscriminantly shooting random people with a rifle? The only way to stop him is to kill him. You could try to use teargas or something, but chances are he’ll have time to kill a handful more people while you’re trying it.


>>But
>>I don't think the meat industry is akin to abuse and torture
>>(e.g., dogfighting).
>
>Do some research buddy. Torture is torture...making animals
>fight each other is one form. Mad cow (which is making cows
>eat meat of their own kind) is another.

Making a cow eat cow meat is not morally equivalent to torturing animals to death.
Would you rather eat a burger with human meat, or be tortured to death?


>>Self-defense vs revenge. Capital punishment is killing
>someone
>>who's already in prison and can't hurt anyone else. Just
>lock
>>him up for life.
>
>Capital punishment is killing someone who's killed. So yes
>it's revenge delayed but...

Which is why it’s wrong. Capital punishment is not about protecting anyone or preventing future murders. It’s revenge, plain and simple.


>>Killing someone in self-defense is just that - defense. If I
>>don't do it, he's gonna kill me or mine. Totally different.
>
>Killing this man is revenge personified. Defense is to STOP
>something from happening. OFFENSE is to attack, which was
>your defense. It's INSTANT capital punishment based on
>intent.

Not sure what you mean here, but “defending yourself” is not revenge. It’s protecting yourself from harm.

Offense would be chasing an unarmed burglar out of the house and then shooting him in the back. Defense is shooting someone who’s sneaking into your bedroom in the middle of the night with a gun in his hand.


>>Not enjoying it does not imply I don't think it's right.
>>
>>I simply don't enjoy hurting others, whether it's people or
>>animals. But I'll do it if I have to, and I'll know that I'm
>>morally justified in doing so.
>
>You won't KNOW it, you'll THINK/BELIEVE it. But I guess we
>all find out sooner or later if the things we believe/have
>done are morally right when it's our time.

True.

a) eat it raw
b) eat it all


What's that you say? You have to cook it first? You don't eat the dicks?

I dunno bout you but I use my sharp teeth for biting into apples and other fruits, as well as ripping apart tofu sandwiches.

(obv. a pro-veg site but interesting info: http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp)

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

>a) eat it raw
>b) eat it all

What does eating it raw have to do with anything? Cooking makes it taste better and makes it safer. The animal is already dead so cooking it does no harm.

Eat it all? A good idea (and probably ideal in reducing the number of animals killed). But not something I want to do personally.


>I dunno bout you but I use my sharp teeth for biting into
>apples and other fruits, as well as ripping apart tofu
>sandwiches.

That's great, and I've said numerous times that I applaud vegetarians. But I find it hard to refute the fact that human beings are biologically omnivorous.


>(obv. a pro-veg site but interesting info:
>http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp)

Interesting but also clearly a site with an agenda.

And as above - we are not carnivores. I never said we were. I said we are omnivores and have characteristics as such. Herbivores don't have canines like we do, for one thing.

The article makes some good points, and my response is that the reason we have some features of carnivores and some features of herbivores is because we are omnivores and eat both. So we are adapted to a diet containing both meat and plant matter.


EDIT
Some links with a counter view:

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
Here's the nutshell synopsis:
Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

And shit, that's even a vegetarian website.


Here's another one I found right quick. Don't know anything about the site or poster but there are some interesting points made:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html


Clearly articles can be found on both sides, and I guess you can claim that both sides have agendas.

I personally think the evidence that we are omnivores is more compelling.

Without vitamin supplements (or perhaps dairy, I'm not sure about that), what's a vegan to do about that?

>>a) eat it raw
>>b) eat it all
>
>What does eating it raw have to do with anything? Cooking
>makes it taste better and makes it safer. The animal is
>already dead so cooking it does no harm.

No other omni- or carnivore eats cooked meat. Why don't humans? What would happen if a person ate freshly killed wild raw meat daily/regularly?

Humans have to cook it to eat it. That's not omnivorous. Why is it different? Is it unnatural?


>
>Eat it all? A good idea (and probably ideal in reducing the
>number of animals killed). But not something I want to do
>personally.
>
>
>>I dunno bout you but I use my sharp teeth for biting into
>>apples and other fruits, as well as ripping apart tofu
>>sandwiches.
>
>That's great, and I've said numerous times that I applaud
>vegetarians. But I find it hard to refute the fact that human
>beings are biologically omnivorous.


>
>
>>(obv. a pro-veg site but interesting info:
>>http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp)
>
>Interesting but also clearly a site with an agenda.
>
>And as above - we are not carnivores. I never said we were. I
>said we are omnivores and have characteristics as such.
>Herbivores don't have canines like we do, for one thing.
>
>The article makes some good points, and my response is that
>the reason we have some features of carnivores and some
>features of herbivores is because we are omnivores and eat
>both. So we are adapted to a diet containing both meat and
>plant matter.


>
>
>EDIT
>Some links with a counter view:
>
>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
>Here's the nutshell synopsis:
>Conclusion
>Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant
>anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology
>for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the
>vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in
>support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and
>health concerns.
>
>And shit, that's even a vegetarian website.
>
>
>Here's another one I found right quick. Don't know anything
>about the site or poster but there are some interesting points
>made:
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html
>
>
>Clearly articles can be found on both sides, and I guess you
>can claim that both sides have agendas.
>
>I personally think the evidence that we are omnivores is more
>compelling.

I'm not ready to decide what's right but I do think there are compelling reasons to consider a typical American's meat-eating diet to be self-destructive and at least partially unnatural.


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

>>What does eating it raw have to do with anything? Cooking
>>makes it taste better and makes it safer. The animal is
>>already dead so cooking it does no harm.
>
>No other omni- or carnivore eats cooked meat. Why don't
>humans?

There are a lot of things human beings do that no other animal does. This does not mean we are not part of the natural world.


>What would happen if a person ate freshly killed wild
>raw meat daily/regularly?

I think that person would survive. Everyone knows humans can eat raw fish (e.g., sushi). Steak tartare is raw beef, and people can eat it without getting sick. A lot of it has to do with how fresh the meat is and how it got to the plate.

Plus, an "ideal" portion of meat is a much smaller amount than most people realize. I don't advocate eating lots of meat, I suggest eating small to moderate amounts of meat as part of an omnivorous diet. Personally, my wife is vegetarian so some of my meals do not have meat (none of hers do, obviously).


>Humans have to cook it to eat it. That's not omnivorous. Why
>is it different? Is it unnatural?

We don't have to cook food to survive in the natural world. If a person was stranded on a desert island and had no way to make fire, that person could supplement a diet of nuts (if they could be found), berries, fruits, etc by eating raw fish, birds or whatever he caught and survive.

In fact, it might be difficult to forage enough food to survive without supplementing with some type of meat, because there's not a lot of calories in fruit.

One good thing about eating meat is that it's almost always available, no matter what climate/habitat you're in. Some climates do not have the diversity of plant matter necessary for a healthy vegan diet.

Not every climate naturally has nuts and legumes, which vegetarians need for protein, right?


Like magilla said below, eating raw meat that comes directly off a freshly killed animal is not the same as eating raw meat from an animal that has been raised as livestock, killed at a slaughterhouse, and then processed and shipped to a grocery over a matter of days or weeks to whatever (I'm not sure how fast we get it but it's hardly "freshly killed").


>I'm not ready to decide what's right but I do think there are
>compelling reasons to consider a typical American's
>meat-eating diet to be self-destructive and at least partially
>unnatural.

A typical American? I agree with you completely. We eat too much overall for one thing. We eat processed foods, too much fat, too much salt, too much cholesterol, etc.

This does not make the case that we should be vegetarian, only that Americans have it wrong.

Until it is proven that vegetarians live longer, healthier lives than their respective counterparts who are eating a healthy, ell-portioned omnivorous diet, there's no final word on the matter.

And it would have to be an impartial study done without an agenda (neither funded by vegetarians nor the meat industry), and it would have to control for a number of other factors (exercise, risk factors like smoking, etc).

is that, under the conditions that mass-market meat is raised, there's a high instance of bacterial infection. If you, for example, raised your own cow (or two) for beef consumption, and just let it run free on a pasture for the course of its life (until you're ready to eat it), you could conceivably eat it raw at no health risk. If you shoot a deer in the woods, you can eat its meat raw with no health risk.

But if you buy a steak from the supermarket? That cow grew up in close quarters, may have eaten its own shit during its life, may have eaten other cows, even. You better cook that shit.

>Oddly enough, I'm the allegedly mean one, and I think
>BOTH are fucked up.

So do I. My dad taught me how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun, and I hated it. I just don't like being the agent of violence, I guess.

But let me underline this for the umpteempth time. This time, I'll even use an example that makes me look bad, which you'll like. I eat meat. I am a worse person, morally speaking, because I go to the supermarket and buy my meat rather than kill it myself. This is because meat raised for sale at the average American supermarket is treated much, much, much worse than what one kills in the wild (but on a tangent still not as bad as fighting dogs are treated). Because I'm squeemish, I let someone else do my dirty work for me, but the trade-off is that I have clearly put myself in moral jeopardy.

Does this make hunting right? Not neccessarily. A vegetarian could come in and say all killing is wrong, and I have to work to respond to that. But the proposition that hunted meat is more ethically sound than mass market meat is solid like bedrock. It's not a debate.

>That is exactly why people think a lot of shit is immoral.
>
>Perhaps not you, but certainly lots of people.
>
>You should know that.

Yes, and I agree with you. Let's hear one more middle aged white dude talk about what a shitty dude Generic Black Athlete is because he smokes pot. It's true that they can't get any further than "it's illegal." I have not seen much of that in this post though.

>Then as a hunter, I'd put you in the fourth circle of hell.

If I hit 50 I'm going veg to try to settle my accounts with the man upstairs. I'm not even kidding. I don't think eating meat is a damnable offense, but eating the shit you get at SuperFresh may be.

and the dogs are raised in conditions that veal calves and maybellene bunnies would find harsh.

or bare they still filthy ass dogs?

or is it that you still don't get it?

>These motherfuckers don't question their own conventions
>of right and wrong.

Show one example of someone saying animal cruelty is wrong BECAUSE it's illegal. You're the first one to mention anything of the sort.


>They just reflexively go along with whatever the law already
>says.

No, animal cruelty is wrong because it's inherently fucked up. There is a law against it BECAUSE it's wrong, not the other way around.

I'd feel the same way about dogfighting if it were legal, and if I ever go to Spain, I'm gonna feel the same way about bullfighting, even though it's legal.

It's still wrong. Hurting an animal for pleasure is sick and fucked up.

I simply don't know what to say to you if you think it's totally cool to abuse, torture and kill an animal for pleasure.


>These motherfuckers will say someone is more wrong for dog
>fighting relative to hunting SOLELY because the hunter eats
>the meat
>after hunting.

I don't understand how someone can be such a fucking simpleton as to not understand the difference between dogfighting, torture, and killing dogs for no reason vs. hunting.

For one thing, most people here never said hunting SOLELY for sport was a wonderful thing. No one is defending it.

If someone told me they were going hunting for sport, and that they were going to shoot a bear in the gut, then kick the shit out of it until it died, then leave it there to rot, I would find that person completely morally repugnant.

Even if they said "I don't eat the meat, I just like to kill things", I'd still find that wrong and sick.
It seems fucking obvious to me - "I like to kill things" = sick.
Also:
"I like to watch dogs fight to the death for my amusement" = sick.
"I torture dogs for fun" = sick
"I electrocute, hang, and body slam dogs to kill them" = sick.


Now, if someone said they were going hunting to get some deer meat to feed their family, I'd say that's not for me but at least you're hunting for food.

Most people who hunt animals eat the meat. If they don't eat the meat, they sell it (and someone else eats it). It would be fucking stupid to leave the meat just lying in the forest to rot, and most reasonable people don't do it. So regardless, someone is getting fed from that meat.

Do you actually know anything about hunting, or are you talking out of your ass like usual?


Here's a quick Q & A:

- Is it wrong to shoot and kill an animal for food?
No, humans are omnivores and are biologically meant to eat meat. It is part of nature to eat animals. Animals have to be killed before we eat them, and hunting accomplishes this.

- Is it wrong to shoot and kill an animal for fun/"sport"?
Yes, I think it's wrong to kill an animal for your own pleasure, when you have no intention of using that animal for food.

- Is it wrong to force dogs to fight each other to the death for your own amusement, and to torture and kill them when they're not good enough?
- FUCK YES. It's sick and disgusting and I can't imagine how a decent human being could do it and live with themselves.


>In which case if Vick and his boys made a burger out of that
>dog carcass then they'd be okay.

I don't have a problem with people eating dog. It's meat. Now, no one is going to eat MY dog, but if someone wants to raise dogs as food, I don't find that immoral. I wouldn't eat it, simply because I like dogs, but I wouldn't have an issue with it. Humans are meant to eat meat.

But humans are not meant to aimlessly torture and kill animals for no reason.

And if Vick and his boys made hamburger out of the loser of a dog fight, I'd say that's still completely fucked up. There's no reason to subject a dog to all that pain and abuse - just kill it humanely and quickly and move on.


>That's what I'm saying: Shit don't make sense.

It does, actually.

>Don't stand up to any scrutiny, whatsoever.

That would be your post.

We both know that SPORT hunting doesn't consist of people hunting for food.

We both know that even people who HUNT for food wound & maim animals that they don't retrieve.

Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deerhunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=53




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>We both know that SPORT hunting doesn't consist of people
>hunting for food.

And numerous times I've condemned anyone who hunts for pleasure and entertainment. People who do that are a minority among hunters.

MOST people eat (or at least sell for food) the animals they kill.


>We both know that even people who HUNT for food wound & maim
>animals that they don't retrieve.

Some do, but not most.


>Pain and Suffering
>Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are
>injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine
>Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who
>are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study
>of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22
>deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,”
>11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty
>percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot
>again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a
>likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A
>South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist
>estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go
>“unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deerhunting
>found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters
>died only after being shot two or more times and that some
>wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before
>dying.(11)
>
>http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=53

A proponent of animal abuse quoting PETA? How bizarre.


Anyway, some of these are good points and I'm not a hunter and never could be.

My response is:
- Humans have evolved to be omnivores and eat meat.

- Hunting is one way for human beings to get meat to eat. We've been hunting for however many hundreds of thousands of years. Without meat/hunting, we'd have evolved in a totally different way.

- Banning hunting but allowing livestock / slaughterhouses doesn't make any sense.

Should we ban eating meat altogether?


I simply don't fucking get how hunting for meat is the same as torturing, abusing, and killing animals for pleasure.

It's ridiculous to think that saying it's okay to eat meat is the same thing as saying it's okay to torture an animal to death for pleasure.

How can people not get this?

NOT ALL HUNTERS HUNT FOR MEAT.. You know that to be the case hence the term SPORT HUNTING...

I am not a proponent of dog fighting. I don't eat meat. Even still, that's totally beside the point.

If you want to continually misrepresent reality.. have at it.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

>NOT ALL HUNTERS HUNT FOR MEAT.. You know that to be the case
>hence the term SPORT HUNTING...

And I've stated numerous times that I do not condone hunting for pleasure or entertainment. What more can I say?

Hunting for meat is not wrong, IMO.

If you don't eat meat, maybe you disagree with that notion. If so, that's certain a defensible position, since humans can definitely survive without meat.

What is not defensible is the notion that because hunting is okay, therefore dogfighting, abuse and torture are all okay. It simply does not follow.


>I am not a proponent of dog fighting. I don't eat meat. Even
>still, that's totally beside the point.

That's good for you. I respect people who don't eat meat. It does bring up the question of why you're excusing or disregarding dogfighting, animal abuse and torture.


>If you want to continually misrepresent reality.. have at it.

I'm not misrepresenting reality. It's all truth.

Here are some basic points:
- Most hunters either eat the meat, or sell the meat for others to eat. I've never heard of anyone intentionally leaving meat to rot in the forest. I'm sure it happens, but rarely.

- Those that hunt for pleasure or entertainment are sick. I don't defend them. That said:

- With regard to the legality of hunting, I see three options:
1 - Ban all hunting
2 - Allow hunting regardless of intent
3 - Allow hunting ONLY if the person "promises" or intends to eat the meat

I think it's a pretty small minority of people who believe # 1. People eat meat. I don't think that's gonna change.

# 3 is ridiculous, because you can't force people to eat something. And you can't measure their intent.

I guess you could put a requirement on the hunting license that states any animal killed will be eaten. However, that law would be so un-enforceable that it would serve no purpose.

So we're left with # 2. It's not ideal, but it's the only real way to address the issue.

What's your solution? Apparently since hunting is legal, it's open season to do whatever the fuck you want to animals.

if Mike Vick can be charged w/a felony for animal cruelty for fighting dogs that mofos with crossbows & assault rifles shooting the shyt out of any animal not named Fido for sport can do so at their leisure.

I'm making a simple point.

That doesn't = thinking dog fighting is good.
That doesn't = thinking torturing animals is permissible.

It = BEING FUCKING CONSISTENT ABOUT ANIMAL CRUELTY. Period.

I think all of the shyt is fucked up but anyone who is upset about animal cruelty should be just as incensed about it in all forms, not just when the media subjectively decides to make it an issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

one animal's life isn't more important or relevant than another's.

stop being reactionary because that's where all this fervor is coming from, plain and simple.

>if Mike Vick can be charged w/a felony for animal cruelty for
>fighting dogs that mofos with crossbows & assault rifles
>shooting the shyt out of any animal not named Fido for sport
>can do so at their leisure.

Hunting an animal for food is simply not the same as torturing an animal to death for kicks. I've said that up and down and if we disagree there's nothing more to say, really.

Shooting a deer and eating its meat (even if it doesn't die instantly) is not = abusing an animal for fun.


>I'm making a simple point.
>
>That doesn't = thinking dog fighting is good.
>That doesn't = thinking torturing animals is permissible.
>
>It = BEING FUCKING CONSISTENT ABOUT ANIMAL CRUELTY. Period.

So, we agree that dogfighting and animal abuse is cruel and wrong.

You also believe that hunting is cruel and wrong.

Let's examine. How is hunting cruel? Is it because the animals suffer? There is no way to kill an animal without any pain. A lethal injection would put chemicals in the meat.

So to get meat (which is not wrong given the fact that humans are biologically designed to eat meat), we have to kill animals, which causes them pain.

That's a biological part of being a human being. It's possible (and shit, commendable) not to eat meat at all, but it's not a reasonable expectation given our biology.

So then the question becomes:
Is shooting an animal with a rifle or crossbow more or less humane than the practices used by slaughterhouses?

I don't know. Do you?


>I think all of the shyt is fucked up but anyone who is upset
>about animal cruelty should be just as incensed about it in
>all forms, not just when the media subjectively decides to
>make it an issue.

I'm not pissed about the animal cruelty in this case because of the media. I'm pissed because animals were tortured, abused, and killed, period.

And yes, I would be equally incensed about animal abuse in all forms. The only thing I've ever defended in this post that some people might call animal cruelty is the hunting of animals for their meat. I don't support sport hunting, I don't believe in fur, etc.

Hunting for meat fills a human biological need, and we (as a species) have been hunting for hundreds of thousands of years.

Torturing and abusing animals for fun, pleasure, entertainment or whatever simply CANNOT be defended with any validity.

SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING

THAT'S THE ONLY TYPE OF HUNTING I COMPARED TO DOG FIGHTING

SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING

SPORT HUNTING = legal animal cruelty
DOG FIGHTING = illegal animal cruelty



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The secrets of the ages, I illuminate with logic...
What I speak is more than just deep, it's bottomless.. © Canibus

I agree that sport hunting is legalized animal abuse. I don't agree with it. I think it's sick to kill an animal for pleasure or sport.

Shit, if there was a law to outlaw just sport hunting I'd support it.

BUT explain to me how to write a law that outlaws sport hunting yet allows hunting for meat.

Now explain how to enforce that law. It's not possible.


Dogfighting? It's animal abuse and torture with no legal analogue like hunting has.

Unless we ban eating meat, people are going to hunt.

However, there is no reason NOT to ban dogfighting.

then the opposite of wet is drenched. FOH.

where this could, you know, be used to somehow positively address and change minds and get people to think critically about cruelty.

it's pretty clear to me that, whatever vick did or didn't do, it's a lot of people in this country who don't have enough respect for other people, and a lot of people in this country that don't have enough respect for other living things.

it's ridiculous that people are making excuses for vick, but it's not like this investigation has ANYTHING to do with a solution. if he did all this shit, the man doesn't need jail time or career jeopardy, he needs a lifetime of community service to BEGIN to address some horribly twisted attitudes and habits that people in this country are thinking is acceptable, from factory farms to hunting to dog fighting to being stupid about their purse pets.

somebody needs to get that british chick from "it's me or the dog" on the phone with all these folks. she's on some dog SCIENCE.

the Race Warriors are DYING to find a way to play their favorite game, "Cop a Plea for Any Black Man." but these are smart dudes, and they realize as the letters appear on screen how bad they look, how there's absolutely no real defense for dogfighting, and that if vick did such a thing he's scum who deserves to go to jail and hell.

and they're sad.

they need a hug.

IllJux, Bags, O_E, I'm here for you.

it's not in ANY WAY suprising that a random person treats an animal like shit.

vick's not a despicable human being for it...or at least any more descipable than the rest of us. this should be a wake up call about the callousness and moral blindspots that we're letting people live with, not a witch hunt. backing dog fighting into a corner legally is just going to mean people are going to do some other destructive and hurtful and irresponsible stuff. we got to go deeper.

a type of love no one can understand.

>IllJux, Bags, O_E, I'm here for you.

And SPM.

Whenever those names appear in a post, I know that it is only going to go downhill. Logical thought gets thrown out the window in favor of cries of 'cism, ridiculous tangents, and sad attempts at getting you riled up.

Once they start stroking each other and getting off with BWAHAHAs and you mads? You know it's time to give them some alone time.

dogfighting is bad.

Vick is ACCUSED of being involved in a dogfighting ring.

Some people are confused about animal cruelty double standards, and want a dsicussion about it.

Some people see a possible witchhunt and piling on by the media, and want to discuss it.

Some people have problems with the investigative procedures and want a discussion about it.

Some people are trippin how "accused of" has become "is absolutely guilty of", and wana discuss it.

But some people just wanna repeat, ad nauseum, "Dog fighting is bad".

And some fool is somewhere making a list of screen names who disagree with him.

>dogfighting is bad.
- YES

>Vick is ACCUSED of being involved in a dogfighting ring.
- YES

>Some people are confused about animal cruelty double
>standards, and want a dsicussion about it.

- Some people are too stupid to understand the difference between hunting and eating meat vs torturing animals for pleasure.


>Some people see a possible witchhunt and piling on by the
>media, and want to discuss it.

- No one seems to really want to discuss it, they just want to use the "witchhunt" as an excuse to dismiss the situation entirely.


>Some people have problems with the investigative procedures
>and want a discussion about it.

- Again, no one seems to want to actually discuss it.


>Some people are trippin how "accused of" has become "is
>absolutely guilty of", and wana discuss it.

- Some people are jumping the gun, but a lot of the anti-dogfighting posters are saying "IF Vick is guilty..."


>But some people just wanna repeat, ad nauseum, "Dog fighting
>is bad".

- It is, and for some insane reason, lots of people (i.e., fucked up idiots) don't even agree.


>And some fool is somewhere making a list of screen names who
>disagree with him.

- I guess.

>>dogfighting is bad.
>- YES
>
>>Vick is ACCUSED of being involved in a dogfighting ring.
>- YES
>
>>Some people are confused about animal cruelty double
>>standards, and want a discussion about it.
>
>- Some people are too stupid to understand the difference
>between hunting and eating meat vs torturing animals for
>pleasure.
This rationale is killing me.
You can blast the head off an animal, eat the meat, STUFF THE ANIMAL as a trophy, and that's somehow MORE humane? Because you "ate" the meat? Come on.
A shotgun shell to the head is just as inhumane...unless you're hunting by lethal injection, IT'S INHUMANE. And the fact that people call it "sport hunting" kills a lot of the point. The only problem cats are having is how is shooting an animal more humane than another form of killing an animal.
And lets not act like hunters are out there hunting animals for survival...the elk at their lodge says otherwise. I love how people say because the hunter killed the animal and ate the meat, it's ok, when the animals hunted range from pheasant, to fox, to deer, to bear.
So the question that a lot of cats are asking is, how is killing any animal humane?


>>Some people see a possible witchhunt and piling on by the
>>media, and want to discuss it.
>
>- No one seems to really want to discuss it, they just want to
>use the "witchhunt" as an excuse to dismiss the situation
>entirely.
Excuse?
People are saying that this is on the SAME LEVEL as child porn and serial killing...that's insane. And if they're comparing Vick to a serial killer/pedophile BASED ON AN ACCUSATION, then it is a witchhunt.
>
>>Some people have problems with the investigative procedures
>>and want a discussion about it.
>
>- Again, no one seems to want to actually discuss it.
People already have their minds made up, and if some media outlets are saying he's the next Jeffrey Dahmer than there's no rational discussion that could take place.
>
>>Some people are trippin how "accused of" has become "is
>>absolutely guilty of", and wana discuss it.
>
>- Some people are jumping the gun, but a lot of the
>anti-dogfighting posters are saying "IF Vick is guilty..."
No. A lot of cats say since he owned the house, he knew something, and he's guilty. People are in here saying that he's innocent until proven guilty, and cats are arguing against that. People already have their minds made up, based on the FBI indictment.
>
>>But some people just wanna repeat, ad nauseum, "Dog fighting
>>is bad".
>
>- It is, and for some insane reason, lots of people (i.e.,
>fucked up idiots) don't even agree.
I don't see anyone saying that dog fighting isn't bad. What people are saying is that in the very long list of what the FBI can and should investigate, this shouldn't be a top priority. I didn't know dog-fighting took priority over the numerous other crimes/issues in the US.

Cats are way too reactionary in the thread as a whole.

>>- Some people are too stupid to understand the difference
>>between hunting and eating meat vs torturing animals for
>>pleasure.

>This rationale is killing me.
>You can blast the head off an animal, eat the meat, STUFF THE
>ANIMAL as a trophy, and that's somehow MORE humane? Because
>you "ate" the meat? Come on.

First, even a blast to the head kills the animal instantly (though I don't think most hunters go for the head). This in no way compares to the abuse, torture, and horrible shit that goes on with dogfighting.

Second, I've said before and I'll say again that I don't support hunting for pleasure or for the trophy.

If you eat the meat (or even sell it for someone else to eat), that's one thing. Killing an animal and just letting the meat rot is entirely different, and I'd call it wrong.

I'm still not cool with the idea of trophies; I think they're disturbing.


>A shotgun shell to the head is just as inhumane...unless
>you're hunting by lethal injection, IT'S INHUMANE.

No, it's not. Would you rather be shot in the head, or tortured to death, hung, electrocuted, etc? Are they really equal in your mind?

A single lethal gunshot seems like a comparatively painless way to kill an animal.


>And the
>fact that people call it "sport hunting" kills a lot of the
>point.

IMO, anyone who kills an animal for pleasure is sick. I make no excuses for that.


>The only problem cats are having is how is shooting an
>animal more humane than another form of killing an animal.

But it is. A quick death vs torture? It's not that hard to see the distinction.


>And lets not act like hunters are out there hunting animals
>for survival...the elk at their lodge says otherwise.

Well sure, most people could survive without hunting. Hell, we could all survive without eating meat at all. So it's not "survival" in the most basic form.

Are you suggesting we should all go vegan?

I think there is a huge difference between eating meat, and killing or torturing an animal for pleasure or entertainment. If you don't see the difference, I don't know what else to say.


>I love
>how people say because the hunter killed the animal and ate
>the meat, it's ok, when the animals hunted range from
>pheasant, to fox, to deer, to bear.

Do you believe humans should eat meat or not? If you believe not, that's an arguable point, but I disagree based on our biology.

But if you think that because meat is okay, therefore dogfighting, torture, and killing animals for pleasure is okay... then there's a huge disconnect between your brain and mine.


>So the question that a lot of cats are asking is, how is
>killing any animal humane?

How would you rather end your life - a single lethal gunshot, or being tortured to death? There is no difference?


>>>Some people see a possible witchhunt and piling on by the
>>>media, and want to discuss it.
>>
>>- No one seems to really want to discuss it, they just want
>to
>>use the "witchhunt" as an excuse to dismiss the situation
>>entirely.
>Excuse?
>People are saying that this is on the SAME LEVEL as child porn
>and serial killing...that's insane.

I agree, that's insane. There's no need for such over-exaggeration. This is horrible enough on its own.


>And if they're comparing
>Vick to a serial killer/pedophile BASED ON AN ACCUSATION, then
>it is a witchhunt.

Agreed. You'll notice I say virtually nothing about Vick personally in my posts. I don't know the specifics, don't really want to. I'm addressing all the sick idiot fucks who think torturing and killing animals is great because it's morally the same as eating meat.


>>>Some people have problems with the investigative procedures
>>>and want a discussion about it.
>>
>>- Again, no one seems to want to actually discuss it.
>People already have their minds made up, and if some media
>outlets are saying he's the next Jeffrey Dahmer than there's
>no rational discussion that could take place.

Agreed, the media is getting excessive. It's not right, but that's what they do.

It has NO relevance to the actual horribleness of dogfighting, torture, etc. Cats in here are saying, "It's just a dog, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it", and that's fucking sick.


>>>Some people are trippin how "accused of" has become "is
>>>absolutely guilty of", and wana discuss it.
>>
>>- Some people are jumping the gun, but a lot of the
>>anti-dogfighting posters are saying "IF Vick is guilty..."
>No. A lot of cats say since he owned the house, he knew
>something, and he's guilty.

Seems unlikely to me that he was completely in the dark, but I'm not commenting on that because I'm not on the jury.

>People are in here saying that
>he's innocent until proven guilty, and cats are arguing
>against that. People already have their minds made up, based
>on the FBI indictment.

True. It does seem like pretty strong evidence, that's all I'm saying.


>>>But some people just wanna repeat, ad nauseum, "Dog
>fighting
>>>is bad".
>>
>>- It is, and for some insane reason, lots of people (i.e.,
>>fucked up idiots) don't even agree.

>I don't see anyone saying that dog fighting isn't bad.

Look again. There are numerous people who are saying that, or saying "fuck dogs", and all kinds of other twisted shit.


>What
>people are saying is that in the very long list of what the
>FBI can and should investigate, this shouldn't be a top
>priority.

Do people think the entire FBI shut down all their other operations to focus 100% on this one case?

Does this not warrant an investigation at all because there are more important things?


>I didn't know dog-fighting took priority over the
>numerous other crimes/issues in the US.

It doesn't, but ignoring this issue because "there are bigger things to worry about" is a fucking stupid and dangerous precedent, no?


>Cats are way too reactionary in the thread as a whole.

Yes.

This makes for good discourse
>>This rationale is killing me.
>>You can blast the head off an animal, eat the meat, STUFF
>THE
>>ANIMAL as a trophy, and that's somehow MORE humane? Because
>>you "ate" the meat? Come on.
>
>First, even a blast to the head kills the animal instantly
>(though I don't think most hunters go for the head). This in
>no way compares to the abuse, torture, and horrible shit that
>goes on with dogfighting.
See, if most hunters don't go for the head, wouldn't that kill the "it's more humane" argument?

>Second, I've said before and I'll say again that I don't
>support hunting for pleasure or for the trophy.
OK, that's good.

>If you eat the meat (or even sell it for someone else to eat),
>that's one thing. Killing an animal and just letting the meat
>rot is entirely different, and I'd call it wrong.
See, that's the thing. A lot of people aren't making that discinction at all. Some people say using the meat doesn't make it as bad, while other people are saying the bottom line is you killed an animal.

>I'm still not cool with the idea of trophies; I think they're
>disturbing.
Agree on this
>
>>A shotgun shell to the head is just as inhumane...unless
>>you're hunting by lethal injection, IT'S INHUMANE.
>>No, it's not. Would you rather be shot in the head, or
>tortured to death, hung, electrocuted, etc? Are they really
>equal in your mind?
Me personally, any cat that caps me off, I would care less what he did. He's killing me for no reason other than to kill me...should it really matter in which way they decided to do so? I would rather not get killed at all

>A single lethal gunshot seems like a comparatively painless
>way to kill an animal.
But it's still killing an animal. If people are saying that one way to kill an animal is "better" or "more humane" than another way, then it looks very hypocritical. It looks like the conversation can go from:
Dog-fighting is bad because of the amount of torture people put these dogs through, and the unyielding cruelty that the dog winds up with because they're being tortured
To this:
Dog-fighting is not as bad because as soon as the dog lost, he was shot in the head. The dog that died got bit in his spine and died immediately, therefore it was quick and painless.

One way or another, an animal died for no reason other than human entertainment. Which is what people argue hunting is, a form of human entertainment (which is why it's called a sport), and animals are dying needlessly.
>
>>And the
>>fact that people call it "sport hunting" kills a lot of the
>>point.
>
>IMO, anyone who kills an animal for pleasure is sick. I make
>no excuses for that.
Agreed
>
>>The only problem cats are having is how is shooting an
>>animal more humane than another form of killing an animal.
>
>But it is. A quick death vs torture? It's not that hard to see
>the distinction.
The distinction is there...but the net result is the same. An animal is being killed.
And let's be honest...if a person shot a dog in the head they'd be crucified just as well. I think since it's dogs were talking about, it hits home more.
>
>>And lets not act like hunters are out there hunting animals
>>for survival...the elk at their lodge says otherwise.
>
>Well sure, most people could survive without hunting. Hell, we
>could all survive without eating meat at all. So it's not
>"survival" in the most basic form.
>
>Are you suggesting we should all go vegan?
No, not that. I eat meat regularly. I don't have any problems with that. But people are acting like Davy Crockett and the only way they'll get food on the table is if they hunt it...which to me sounds crazy.

>I think there is a huge difference between eating meat, and
>killing or torturing an animal for pleasure or entertainment.
>If you don't see the difference, I don't know what else to
>say.
I do see the difference. I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat at all. But I'm saying that hunting for it is an outdated practice, and people do it a lot more for sport than they do for survival. Just because you eat the meat that you hunt, doesn't necessarily make it more humane at all.
>
>>I love
>>how people say because the hunter killed the animal and ate
>>the meat, it's ok, when the animals hunted range from
>>pheasant, to fox, to deer, to bear.
>
>Do you believe humans should eat meat or not? If you believe
>not, that's an arguable point, but I disagree based on our
>biology.
>
>But if you think that because meat is okay, therefore
>dogfighting, torture, and killing animals for pleasure is
>okay... then there's a huge disconnect between your brain and
>mine.
Again, lets be honest. There's numerous amounts of hunting that goes on just for sport, and like you said and I agreed to, it's wrong. But we covered that.
>
>>So the question that a lot of cats are asking is, how is
>>killing any animal humane?
>
>How would you rather end your life - a single lethal gunshot,
>or being tortured to death? There is no difference?
To me, no. Any way you slice it, someone's gonna kill me. And if you want to talk about ways to end your life, some people hang themselves, which is a lot more slow and painful, than a shot to the head...why?
One way or another, if someone's gonna kill me, they're gonna kill me. Murder is murder.

>>>- No one seems to really want to discuss it, they just want
>>to
>>>use the "witchhunt" as an excuse to dismiss the situation
>>>entirely.
>>Excuse?
>>People are saying that this is on the SAME LEVEL as child
>porn
>>and serial killing...that's insane.
>
>I agree, that's insane. There's no need for such
>over-exaggeration. This is horrible enough on its own.
Agreed.
>
>>And if they're comparing
>>Vick to a serial killer/pedophile BASED ON AN ACCUSATION,
>then
>>it is a witchhunt.
>
>Agreed. You'll notice I say virtually nothing about Vick
>personally in my posts. I don't know the specifics, don't
>really want to. I'm addressing all the sick idiot fucks who
>think torturing and killing animals is great because it's
>morally the same as eating meat.
Not you persay. But the situation that was presented was that if someone killed a dog and ate the meat, they are somehow MORE humane than the person that just killed the dog...which is (IMO) kinda crazy. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was more humane than Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
>

>>>- Again, no one seems to want to actually discuss it.
>>People already have their minds made up, and if some media
>>outlets are saying he's the next Jeffrey Dahmer than there's
>>no rational discussion that could take place.
>
>Agreed, the media is getting excessive. It's not right, but
>that's what they do.
That's what a lot of people are saying. It's extremely excessive, and not a lot has been leaked out from the case, other than the indictment. The media is slanting the issue before all the facts get out, and that's terrible reporting.

>It has NO relevance to the actual horribleness of dogfighting,
>torture, etc. Cats in here are saying, "It's just a dog, you
>can do whatever the fuck you want with it", and that's fucking
>sick.
Me personally, I don't put a dog on the same level as a human. I value a human life a LOT more than a dog's life...and I hate dogs
THAT BEING SAID
You're right...there's no reason to do that to a dog...none. I don't even like dogs and I don't see a reason why to fuck up a dog's life like that. It's senseless, and I can't agree with any of that.
>
>>>>Some people are trippin how "accused of" has become "is
>>>>absolutely guilty of", and wana discuss it.
>>>
>>>- Some people are jumping the gun, but a lot of the
>>>anti-dogfighting posters are saying "IF Vick is guilty..."
>>No. A lot of cats say since he owned the house, he knew
>>something, and he's guilty.
>
>Seems unlikely to me that he was completely in the dark, but
>I'm not commenting on that because I'm not on the jury.
That's fair. That's a solid opinion and I can respect that
My opinion is that it's not as unlikely because dude has $ and it's definitely possible that he gave the keys to the crib and dipped (some people mention that there are plenty of instances where people buy multiple properties and never have stepped foot inside). But so far, it's not looking good, but that's based on an indictment by some shady individuals.

>>People are in here saying that
>>he's innocent until proven guilty, and cats are arguing
>>against that. People already have their minds made up, based
>>on the FBI indictment.
>
>True. It does seem like pretty strong evidence, that's all I'm
>saying.
Agreed. The FBI, like someone says, usually swings for the fences. But it's strange to me that they're doing all of this based on the testimony of less-than-credible witnesses.

>>>- It is, and for some insane reason, lots of people (i.e.,
>>>fucked up idiots) don't even agree.
>
>>I don't see anyone saying that dog fighting isn't bad.
>
>Look again. There are numerous people who are saying that, or
>saying "fuck dogs", and all kinds of other twisted shit.
I think some people think like me, in saying that a human life is more important than a dogs life...which isn't necessarily wrong. But I'm not the one to say that since it's just a dog, that the dog deserves to be treated that way.

>
>>What
>>people are saying is that in the very long list of what the
>>FBI can and should investigate, this shouldn't be a top
>>priority.
>
>Do people think the entire FBI shut down all their other
>operations to focus 100% on this one case?
>
>Does this not warrant an investigation at all because there
>are more important things?
Well, to answer your first part, I guess you're right. It's not like the feds are stopping everything just to solve this case. But this is the 3rd time they've searched his house, it seems more "excessive" than anything else.
>
>>I didn't know dog-fighting took priority over the
>>numerous other crimes/issues in the US.
>
>It doesn't, but ignoring this issue because "there are bigger
>things to worry about" is a fucking stupid and dangerous
>precedent, no?
It's not that big a stretch...true the ugly underworld of dog-fighting needs to be exposed and dealt with, but look how much work they put into this case, meaning the federal government, when New Orleans is still a wreck. My thing is (and it's partly media sensationalizing) that look at the coverage this is getting, in comparison to other heinous crimes out there involving the federal gov't.
It's partly because it's a big star in Michael Vick, but it's also some definite sensationalist media coverage, and some people think that there's other things that the federal gov't. should be pouring their resources into.
>
>>Cats are way too reactionary in the thread as a whole.
>
>Yes.
agreed on this one as well...thanks for keeping it civil

>This makes for good discourse
Yeah. It seems rare for people on here to actually listen to what the other person is saying, unfortunately.


>>>This rationale is killing me.
>>>You can blast the head off an animal, eat the meat, STUFF
>>THE
>>>ANIMAL as a trophy, and that's somehow MORE humane? Because
>>>you "ate" the meat? Come on.
>>
>>First, even a blast to the head kills the animal instantly
>>(though I don't think most hunters go for the head). This in
>>no way compares to the abuse, torture, and horrible shit
>that
>>goes on with dogfighting.
>See, if most hunters don't go for the head, wouldn't that kill
>the "it's more humane" argument?

As far as I know (and I'm no expert), most hunters usually go for center mass (chest), just like law enforcement and military do when shooting at people. It's the best way to get a kill, because the head is a smaller, more difficult target.

Granted, shooting at center mass might be less likely to be an instant kill than a head shot, but generally it's a better tactic.

As for more or less humane... I don't know. Lots of factors to consider. And how could we enforce a law that says "you must shoot for the head because it's more humane"?


>>If you eat the meat (or even sell it for someone else to
>eat),
>>that's one thing. Killing an animal and just letting the
>meat
>>rot is entirely different, and I'd call it wrong.
>See, that's the thing. A lot of people aren't making that
>discinction at all. Some people say using the meat doesn't
>make it as bad, while other people are saying the bottom line
>is you killed an animal.

It's about intent. Are you killing the animal for food (which is an integral part of the natural world), or for pleasure/sport/entertainment (which is sick)?
I know it doesn't matter to the animal, but it does matter overall.

It's why there are differences between premeditated murder, murder in the heat of the moment (forget what it's called), manslaughter, etc. They all lead to a death, but intent is very important.

Personally I don't think it's immoral to eat meat (some disagree, we won't get into that here). To eat meat, an animal must die. Ideally, it should be killed in a humane, quick and relatively painless way.

Lethal injection won't work because it puts chemicals into the meat, which is bad. But I don't know the best method.

By most accounts, the animals from slaughterhouses / livestock are not treated as well as they should be. So I don't know if hunting is more or less humane than that. At least the animal lived naturally for years, rather than living its whole life in a cage.



>>>A shotgun shell to the head is just as inhumane...unless
>>>you're hunting by lethal injection, IT'S INHUMANE.
>>>No, it's not. Would you rather be shot in the head, or
>>tortured to death, hung, electrocuted, etc? Are they really
>>equal in your mind?
>Me personally, any cat that caps me off, I would care less
>what he did. He's killing me for no reason other than to kill
>me...should it really matter in which way they decided to do
>so? I would rather not get killed at all

Of course not getting killed is preferable to being killed! But assuming you had to be killed (for the sake of argument), you honestly would have no preference between a quick death and torture?

I'd definitely much rather die quick with a gunshot or something than being tortured to death. No queston.


>>A single lethal gunshot seems like a comparatively painless
>>way to kill an animal.
>But it's still killing an animal. If people are saying that
>one way to kill an animal is "better" or "more humane" than
>another way, then it looks very hypocritical.

I don't see the hypocrisy. Obviously an animal dies in both cases, but with hunting, an animal is dying to serve a valid purpose - as food. Torturing and abusing an animal has no valid purpose at all.


>It looks like
>the conversation can go from:
>Dog-fighting is bad because of the amount of torture people
>put these dogs through, and the unyielding cruelty that the
>dog winds up with because they're being tortured

I'd say dogfighting is wrong because it's inherently cruel.


>To this:
>Dog-fighting is not as bad because as soon as the dog lost, he
>was shot in the head. The dog that died got bit in his spine
>and died immediately, therefore it was quick and painless.

It's still suffering before it gets killed. And its death has no purpose besides entertainment, which is sick. People getting enjoyment out of it is messed up.


>One way or another, an animal died for no reason other than
>human entertainment. Which is what people argue hunting is, a
>form of human entertainment (which is why it's called a
>sport), and animals are dying needlessly.

I don't excuse people who hunt for sport and don't have any intention of eating the meat (or even selling it for food for others). Definitely some people do enjoy hunting, which is disturbing to me.


>And let's be honest...if a person shot a dog in the head
>they'd be crucified just as well. I think since it's dogs were
>talking about, it hits home more.

Shooting a dog in the head for no reason? Sure, they'd be crucified.

But honestly, I don't have a problem if someone wants to eat dog meat instead of pig meat, as long as the dog is killed humanely.

I wouldn't do it because I like dogs, but I'll admit it's pretty arbitrary how societies have determined which animals to eat and which ones not to eat. "Cuteness" shouldn't be a factor.

To me, intelligence and emotional capacity are valid factors... I'd never eat a primate for example.


>>Are you suggesting we should all go vegan?
>No, not that. I eat meat regularly. I don't have any problems
>with that. But people are acting like Davy Crockett and the
>only way they'll get food on the table is if they hunt
>it...which to me sounds crazy.

But do you really think the meat in grocery stores got there in a completely painless, humane way?


>>I think there is a huge difference between eating meat, and
>>killing or torturing an animal for pleasure or
>entertainment.
>>If you don't see the difference, I don't know what else to
>>say.
>I do see the difference. I'm not saying people shouldn't eat
>meat at all. But I'm saying that hunting for it is an outdated
>practice, and people do it a lot more for sport than they do
>for survival. Just because you eat the meat that you hunt,
>doesn't necessarily make it more humane at all.

Somewhat agree. I don't necessarily think hunting for meat is crueler than slaughterhouses and livestock... I don't know enough about both to say definitively.
Hunting for sport is wrong IMO. And it's not the act of eating the meat that makes it more humane - it's the intent. If you kill the animal for food, that's okay. If you kill the animal for pleasure/entertainment, that's fucked up, even if you eat the meat later on just for the hell of it.

Problem is, there is absolutely no way to legally determine a hunter's intent.


>>>So the question that a lot of cats are asking is, how is
>>>killing any animal humane?
>>
>>How would you rather end your life - a single lethal
>gunshot,
>>or being tortured to death? There is no difference?
>To me, no. Any way you slice it, someone's gonna kill me. And
>if you want to talk about ways to end your life, some people
>hang themselves, which is a lot more slow and painful, than a
>shot to the head...why?
>One way or another, if someone's gonna kill me, they're gonna
>kill me. Murder is murder.

For one thing, I'd rather die without pain and suffering. Also, I think intent matters. I'd rather die in an accident or heart attack than being murdered. Hell, I'd rather be killed and eaten by a lion than murdered for no reason by a serial killer.


>>>And if they're comparing
>>>Vick to a serial killer/pedophile BASED ON AN ACCUSATION,
>>then
>>>it is a witchhunt.
>>
>>Agreed. You'll notice I say virtually nothing about Vick
>>personally in my posts. I don't know the specifics, don't
>>really want to. I'm addressing all the sick idiot fucks who
>>think torturing and killing animals is great because it's
>>morally the same as eating meat.
>Not you persay. But the situation that was presented was that
>if someone killed a dog and ate the meat, they are somehow
>MORE humane than the person that just killed the dog...which
>is (IMO) kinda crazy. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was
>more humane than Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.

Again, it's intent. If they killed the dog humanely and ate the meat, that's different than torturing and abusing the animal to death. It's more humane. Right?

With Dahmer, it's a little different because murdering a human being is wrong, even for food.

I do believe that human beings have different rights than animals, including the right not to be killed and eaten by other humans. We call that murder, regardless of whether the meat is eaten (cannibalism is not okay).

I guess it's a little different in cases of extreme starvation. I guess if I had to do it to survive, I could force myself to eat human meat if the person was already dead... but I don't think I could murder someone to do it. I'd rather starve than murder someone.


>>Agreed, the media is getting excessive. It's not right, but
>>that's what they do.
>That's what a lot of people are saying. It's extremely
>excessive, and not a lot has been leaked out from the case,
>other than the indictment. The media is slanting the issue
>before all the facts get out, and that's terrible reporting.

Agree.


>>It has NO relevance to the actual horribleness of
>dogfighting,
>>torture, etc. Cats in here are saying, "It's just a dog, you
>>can do whatever the fuck you want with it", and that's
>fucking
>>sick.
>Me personally, I don't put a dog on the same level as a human.
>I value a human life a LOT more than a dog's life...

Agreed. They still have rights as animals though.


>and I hate
>dogs
>THAT BEING SAID
>You're right...there's no reason to do that to a dog...none. I
>don't even like dogs and I don't see a reason why to fuck up a
>dog's life like that. It's senseless, and I can't agree with
>any of that.

Agreed.


>>Seems unlikely to me that he was completely in the dark, but
>>I'm not commenting on that because I'm not on the jury.
>That's fair. That's a solid opinion and I can respect that
>My opinion is that it's not as unlikely because dude has $ and
>it's definitely possible that he gave the keys to the crib and
>dipped (some people mention that there are plenty of instances
>where people buy multiple properties and never have stepped
>foot inside). But so far, it's not looking good, but that's
>based on an indictment by some shady individuals.

True. No one knows for sure yet.


>>>People are in here saying that
>>>he's innocent until proven guilty, and cats are arguing
>>>against that. People already have their minds made up,
>based
>>>on the FBI indictment.
>>
>>True. It does seem like pretty strong evidence, that's all
>I'm
>>saying.
>Agreed. The FBI, like someone says, usually swings for the
>fences. But it's strange to me that they're doing all of this
>based on the testimony of less-than-credible witnesses.

True.


>>>>- It is, and for some insane reason, lots of people (i.e.,
>>>>fucked up idiots) don't even agree.
>>
>>>I don't see anyone saying that dog fighting isn't bad.
>>
>>Look again. There are numerous people who are saying that,
>or
>>saying "fuck dogs", and all kinds of other twisted shit.

>I think some people think like me, in saying that a human life
>is more important than a dogs life...which isn't necessarily
>wrong.

Agree, but they are taking it too far - "it's wrong to lock up a man for what he did to a dog" - I totally disagree with that.


>But I'm not the one to say that since it's just a dog,
>that the dog deserves to be treated that way.

Agree.


>>>What
>>>people are saying is that in the very long list of what the
>>>FBI can and should investigate, this shouldn't be a top
>>>priority.
>>
>>Do people think the entire FBI shut down all their other
>>operations to focus 100% on this one case?
>>
>>Does this not warrant an investigation at all because there
>>are more important things?
>Well, to answer your first part, I guess you're right. It's
>not like the feds are stopping everything just to solve this
>case. But this is the 3rd time they've searched his house, it
>seems more "excessive" than anything else.

I don't know the details. I know that high profile cases get more attention, which is wrong. But why is everyone so focused on that aspect that they completely ignore the horrible shit that (allegedly) happened?


>>>I didn't know dog-fighting took priority over the
>>>numerous other crimes/issues in the US.
>>
>>It doesn't, but ignoring this issue because "there are
>bigger
>>things to worry about" is a fucking stupid and dangerous
>>precedent, no?
>It's not that big a stretch...true the ugly underworld of
>dog-fighting needs to be exposed and dealt with, but look how
>much work they put into this case, meaning the federal
>government, when New Orleans is still a wreck. My thing is
>(and it's partly media sensationalizing) that look at the
>coverage this is getting, in comparison to other heinous
>crimes out there involving the federal gov't.
>It's partly because it's a big star in Michael Vick, but it's
>also some definite sensationalist media coverage, and some
>people think that there's other things that the federal gov't.
>should be pouring their resources into.

Agree, but you can make that argument about almost anything. There's almost always SOMETHING more important than the issue at hand, but that's a bad precedent to set if we ignore things to focus on "bigger" issues. We should be able to do both.


>>>Cats are way too reactionary in the thread as a whole.
>>
>>Yes.
>agreed on this one as well...thanks for keeping it civil

Cool. Thanks to you as well.

i always used to bug, trynna understand
why cops showed more love to those
sniffer dawgs than the actual people
they arrested.

like, how if a dog got 'killed in
the line of duty' they'd have an
actual funeral for the dog and
whatnot...

reading bshelly's post, and the
obvious anger this cat has for
folks who dismiss dog cruelty,
i get a lot of insight...

just....wow.

i had no idea yall messed with
dogs like that, yo.

vick is done. even if he does no
time, white folks will never forgive
him for being associated with
BODYSLAMMING LASSIE.

"while white folks focus on dogs and yoga".

i since i was a lil nigguh my mother was always bugged out at how white people are about dogs, mainly treating better than the average person is treated and attaching some level of humanity to them. this post is crazy with these white people acting as if vick is the worst person in the world, as if he is a real criminal. it's wild stuff.

nm

we can only hope for the best

you're extremely mad right now. it's a message board pimp. It's not that serious.

Vick is a bitch if he done some shit that's against the law (PERIOD!) But for your women in here crying because a fuckin animal is harmed scare me. You the same lames who would let one man run up into your home and take over your house with a 2in knife, thinkin your poodle got your back. I give a fuck who you are. From boo-hooing over a coaches crack-head son to man hugging in lame threads. DOG FIGHTING!!!!??? Fuck outta here! Mean while, joe white-guy got a permit to rip the head off a deer with a 50cal or blow a 3 ounce bird out the sky with buck shots. But that's different, its a sport. FOH!

and some of you white cats have really showed your ass in this post.

Right?

Just wanted to be clear.

I'm very cool with that.

>So, you're cool with hanging and electrocuting animals
>Right?

I can give a fuck less.

>Just wanted to be clear.

and it's clear your bitchness has been exposed. You call the po-po when your neighbor smokes weed next door don't you?

did you just compare that to dog torture?


----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

And no, I dont call the "po pos" on myself. Thank you for being the first to compare animal torture to gettin high though. That makes it easier for me to avoid any future debate with you.

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Ghandi

America sucks.

This thread has been eye opening to me. I didnt think there were many people left that were so ok with obvious animal cruelty. When I was little it was hard for me to understand the kids that tortured animals for fun. But to hear about grown ass men hanging, electrocuting, and slamming dogs on concrete, and then for a bunch of people to dismiss it!?? That shit is just depressing. For an adult to do that or even be cool with it, it makes them look like some kind of sociopath. What else would they be cool with, you know?

Especially since dogs are more similar to humans than almost all other animals in terms of their visible emotional range.

I think some of the perceived 'fervor' that some of the apologists are calling posters out on is coming from their surprise that people are defending this. I doubt most of the people riding against animal cruelty in this post are big animal rights people, they just ride hard for common sense.

Im holding my judgement on Vick till the trials over, and I think Feds could use their time more wisely. But that doesnt change the fucked up shit this case is about.

...it's in their blood. Especially when they are trained and such, those dogs couldn't have been domesticated anyway.

I find it ironic that Ray Lewis can kill a guy and get a MVP, while Vick allegedly puts down some fighting dogs and mothafuckas wanna end his career.

I'm a dog lover of sorts, loved and studied dogs since i was a child, but dog fighting doesn't bother me, especially with Pitbulls. If you ever watch a Pit fight, even if it wasn't trained it's whole life, it still goes for the neck and doesn't make a sound, it's in the dog's blood. You can never truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to fight, and they enjoy it.

Roy Jones openly fights chickens, I know because he admitted it on TV, is he gonna get a federal indictment too?

Mothafuckas cryin' over Vick killing some dogs, when you got mothafuckas out there killing sport LEGALLY for enjoyment, shooting Bambi and shit, but now they wanna get all disturbed over some dogs...

>You can never
>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to fight,
>and they enjoy it.

My best friend has a purebred pitbull, at his house, right now.

Guess what.

It's "domesticated".

Why? Because it was "raised" right.

And I've been around numerous others that are as well.

and also ask your friend why he got the dog. If he says bcus its cute, he's full of shit.


>My best friend has a purebred pitbull, at his house, right
>now.
>
>Guess what.
>
>It's "domesticated".

and guess what, that dog is subject to snap. It can be raised perfectly and it happens.


>
>Why? Because it was "raised" right.

damn, he should start a business because he must be the only one who got it right.

----------
The Tigers are clearly the best team in baseball and the Red Sox should be lucky to be allowed on the same field as them.

there wouldnt be any issue

>and also ask your friend why he got the dog. If he says bcus
>its cute, he's full of shit.

He got a dog, because he wanted a dog.


>>My best friend has a purebred pitbull, at his house, right
>>now.
>>
>>Guess what.
>>
>>It's "domesticated".
>
>and guess what, that dog is subject to snap. It can be raised
>perfectly and it happens.

You know nothing about the dog. You're generalizing an entire breed. It's nearly 6 years old, and there's never been an issue. Not one. Because, again, it was raised properly. Crazy what a good upbringing can do.


>
>
>>
>>Why? Because it was "raised" right.
>
>damn, he should start a business because he must be the only
>one who got it right.

No. Thousands and thousands of people get it right. Man or animal, you're only as good as your upbringing. Treat your dog like shit, it's gonna be aggresive and pissed off. Treat it well, raise it right, and it wont be. It's really not all that complicated. You, for instance, were raised to think beating animals off of walls, hanging them and electrocuting them, is cool. Me, I was apparently raised differently and think that's disgusting.

There's a clear cultural divide here. Some people are unaware that there are plenty of pits and similar breeds in this country who are raised properly. They've never seen a six year old pit lick a little 3 year old kids hand or face. It's not their reality. You just have to move on.

one is a fighting dog
one is not

both bit me at some point in my life

Whats the common trait?

Not breed
just the fact that they're dogs

>>You can never
>>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to
>fight,
>>and they enjoy it.
>
>My best friend has a purebred pitbull, at his house, right
>now.
>
>Guess what.
>
>It's "domesticated".
>
>Why? Because it was "raised" right.
>
>And I've been around numerous others that are as well.
>

I'm not saying you can not keep one as a pet. I use to have two female Pits, a cat, and two parrots, and they all got along great. The thing is with a Pit-bull, you never know what can set it off, and once a Pit-bull goes off it's very difficult to restrain it. Once that dog gets the taste of blood, you may have to put it down. It doesn't matter how well a Pit is raised, as there are numerous incidents of "domesticated" Pits killing other dogs and children.

I'm not disputing that they make great companions, Pits are some of the highest rated breeds in terms of companionship. Pits are my favorite breed, but the information on Pits is wide ranging, different trainers have different opinions.

that's a far cry from having anything to do with any kind of justification for dog torture via dog fighting.

>
>I'm not saying you can not keep one as a pet. I use to have
>two female Pits, a cat, and two parrots, and they all got
>along great. The thing is with a Pit-bull, you never know what
>can set it off, and once a Pit-bull goes off it's very
>difficult to restrain it. Once that dog gets the taste of
>blood, you may have to put it down. It doesn't matter how well
>a Pit is raised, as there are numerous incidents of
>"domesticated" Pits killing other dogs and children.
>
>I'm not disputing that they make great companions, Pits are
>some of the highest rated breeds in terms of companionship.
>Pits are my favorite breed, but the information on Pits is
>wide ranging, different trainers have different opinions.

>that's a far cry from having anything to do with any kind of
>justification for dog torture via dog fighting.
>

IT'S JUST A FUCKING DOG.

Just the other day I was with my boy, and this dude decided he wanted to run over some ducks in the road. Was that fucked up? Sure, but it's just a fucking duck.

People are trying to ruin this mans livelihood over some fucking dogs, letting the media shape their opinions and shit. This is just a distraction from the real news, every once in a while the MAN will do some shit like this to take the masses minds off of the important issues.

I say again, IT'S JUST A FUCKING DOG.

i have nothing else to say to people like you.

>
>I say again, IT'S JUST A FUCKING DOG.
>

I take it you never took an ethics class in college or did any reading in hopes of expanding your mind and bettering yourself as a person

thats ok
the world needs ditch diggers and useless shitheads too


>>that's a far cry from having anything to do with any kind
>of
>>justification for dog torture via dog fighting.
>>
>
>IT'S JUST A FUCKING DOG.
>
>Just the other day I was with my boy, and this dude decided he
>wanted to run over some ducks in the road. Was that fucked up?
>Sure, but it's just a fucking duck.
>
>People are trying to ruin this mans livelihood over some
>fucking dogs, letting the media shape their opinions and shit.
>This is just a distraction from the real news, every once in a
>while the MAN will do some shit like this to take the masses
>minds off of the important issues.
>
>I say again, IT'S JUST A FUCKING DOG.
>

>It doesn't matter how well a Pit is raised,

>You can never
>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to fight,
>and they enjoy it.

they may remain aggressive (rather than cuddly) animals, but they can be perfectly domesticated, they can get along and live with other dogs.

>>You can never
>>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to
>fight,
>>and they enjoy it.
>
>they may remain aggressive (rather than cuddly) animals, but
>they can be perfectly domesticated, they can get along and
>live with other dogs.
>
>

no shit, did u even read my post? all my pets got along great, but a Pit is always gonna be a wild card, no matter how well it's raised.

>>You can never
>>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to
>fight,
>>and they enjoy it.
>
>they may remain aggressive (rather than cuddly) animals, but
>they can be perfectly domesticated, they can get along and
>live with other dogs.
>


kids are dying all the time because of so-called domisticated pits. THEY ARE bread to be that way. Hell, I guess Loins and Hyenas should be in homes too 'as long as they're domisticated. There are people out there protesting to get pits out of this country, its no joke.

>kids are dying all the time because of so-called domisticated
>pits. THEY ARE bread to be that way. Hell, I guess Loins and
>Hyenas should be in homes too 'as long as they're
>domisticated. There are people out there protesting to get
>pits out of this country, its no joke.

And guess what? There are people out there protesting black people living in the US. There are people out there protesting weed getting legalized...

There is a whole lot of crazy people with crazy agendas in this world.

>Hell, I guess Loins and
>Hyenas should be in homes too 'as long as they're
>domisticated.

>>>You can never
>>>truly domesticate a Pit because they are programmed to
>>fight,
>>>and they enjoy it.
>>
>>they may remain aggressive (rather than cuddly) animals, but
>>they can be perfectly domesticated, they can get along and
>>live with other dogs.
>>
>
>
>kids are dying all the time because of so-called domisticated
>pits. THEY ARE bread to be that way. Hell, I guess Loins and
>Hyenas should be in homes too 'as long as they're
>domisticated. There are people out there protesting to get
>pits out of this country, its no joke.

They be other breeds that look like pits so they say pit bull attacked so and so.

We really need to bury this myth. It does not support anyones theory in this post. They are EASILY trained to be mean because they are very loyal to their owners. They DO NOT have dogfighting or hatred running through their blood - no it is NOT genetic, shocking.


And why does everyone think the feds are only getting involved over dogfighting? Just because that is their attack point, it doesn't mean they won't find a whole world of drugs, gambling, and possibly something worse as people start naming names and shit.

>We really need to bury this myth. It does not support anyones
>theory in this post. They are EASILY trained to be mean
>because they are very loyal to their owners. They DO NOT have
>dogfighting or hatred running through their blood - no it is
>NOT genetic, shocking.
>
>
>And why does everyone think the feds are only getting involved
>over dogfighting? Just because that is their attack point, it
>doesn't mean they won't find a whole world of drugs, gambling,
>and possibly something worse as people start naming names and
>shit.
>
>

Dude, it's genetic. They were specifically bred to be fighting dogs. You cannot deny that, it is a fact.

Or, "raised" to be slaves? Is it in black people's blood to serve old white men, or is that just some fucked up shit some assholes did in the past?

I finally joined the crowd: http://www.myspace.com/kc2atl - Add me, I need some friends.....

Because a mammal is raised/bred/forced into an action, does not mean that action is in it's blood. It means it was raised wrong.

ok, i guess i gotta break this down.

Pit-bulls were bred to be fighters, meaning that people took different breeds of dogs(staff terriers, bull mastiffs?, etc.) , weeding out the necessary traits and characteristics they wanted, and created Pit-bulls. That's what I mean when I say it's in the genetics.

A 60 pound Pitbull would destroy a 100 pound Rottweilder. Why? Because the Pit is EQUIPPED to fight bigger dogs. The lock jaw is genetic, as is the dispostion towards fighting other dogs. Pits don't bark like other dogs do, they give you no warning, because they were selectively bred to have those traits.

Jesus man, look up some information about pit bulls before feeding this bullshit to everyone.

"The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different from that of any breed of dog.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."

>Jesus man, look up some information about pit bulls before
>feeding this bullshit to everyone.
>
>"The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of
>the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in
>proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its
>inferred functional morphology, is no different from that of
>any breed of dog.
>
>There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind
>of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw
>and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."

get a piece of wood, get a pitbull, have the pitbull bite on the wood, then lift the wood in the air with the pit still biting down on it.

now try that same shit with a German Shepperd or some shit, then come talk to me.

I have lifted labradors, rottweilers, and terriers with a piece of play rope they are biting down on. Here's a newsflash, dogs have powerful jaws.

>I have lifted labradors, rottweilers, and terriers with a
>piece of play rope they are biting down on. Here's a
>newsflash, dogs have powerful jaws.

Yea the fuck right. Some dogs will go up to there hind legs and such, but Pits are the only dogs that will actually come off the ground and bite down for any significant amount of time. Don't make shit up now, because i've tried it on all types of dogs too, and there's really no comparison.

Really?

Am I going to have to go one by one talking about my dogs and/or dogs of family and friends? I owned a Rottweiler, her name was Roxanne - I could lift her off the ground for an extended period of time. She was the friendliest dog I ever owned (remember when Rotties were the 'everyone fear them' animal?).

I have plenty more stories (my girlfriends family rescues dogs).

Until you give me one shred of evidence that a pit bull has some super powers, you're the one telling lies.

Pits have a strong jaw strength when biting. Yeah it's so strong that it feels like locking but it's not. Try taking a water hose the next time a pit's biting on something and put it right up tp it's nose. The pit will release. Pits have a strong hold and dogs like Rottweilers have a strong bite. I've seen some Pits beat Rotts ans I've seen some Rotts take out Pits but I wouldn't put my Rott against a Pit....lol.

when he was a puppy of course...lol....I used to dip the rope in something he liked such as cooked beef or dog food in a can and I tell you, that mofo held on to that thick ass rope. Once he got too big, I couldn't lift him anymore though.