Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71
  1. #11
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    It's an interesting, though misguided point.
    There are a lot of hunters on this site, so I'd be interested in getting their opinion.

    What is it about dog fighting that we as a society find so reprehensible?
    Is it just one thing?

    1. Is it the loss of animal life?
    If so hunting and dogfighting could be considered equal

    2. Is it because their dogs, and not other types of animals?
    Is it because many people have dogs as pets that they take a more personal offense when their killed?
    Is killing deer somehow more acceptable than dogs?
    Why?

    3. Is it the manner in which their we killed?
    If Vick just shot underperforming dogs rather than the laughably more difficult drowning or slamming into the ground or electrocuting, would it be more acceptable.

    4. Was it that he was exploiting animals and putting their lives at risk for personal entertainment and $.
    If so, it isn't much of a stretch to consider Horse Racing similar, considering how many get put down when they trip and break a leg.

    Personally I think it's simply because of the violent nature of dogfighting, people can't imagine watching dogs tear each other apart (even if that's what animals sometimes do the wild).
    It's the means to animal death that seems to be the issue, not the fact that dogs are dead, or that Vick was entertained and made money off of it.
    Hunting has its origins in survival.

    Dogfighting has its origins in entertainment.

    Plain and simple, hunting has been an important part of human existence. No humans would have ever perished had dogfighting never come about.

    They are completely different, IMO.

    In fact, we can synthesize food these days. If you wanted to draw it out that far, one could argue that NO animals need be killed EVER. (I don't believe that, btw...)

    It just goes to show that any argument can be spun and twisted to fit within a certain person's opinion.

    Fact of the matter is, he plead guilty and now has to face the consequences. No matter what your opinion is, that is a fact.
    -Sno

  2. #12
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:

    Hunting has its origins in survival.

    Dogfighting has its origins in entertainment.

    Plain and simple, hunting has been an important part of human existence. No humans would have ever perished had dogfighting never come about.

    They are completely different, IMO.

    In fact, we can synthesize food these days. If you wanted to draw it out that far, one could argue that NO animals need be killed EVER. (I don't believe that, btw...)

    It just goes to show that any argument can be spun and twisted to fit within a certain person's opinion.

    Fact of the matter is, he plead guilty and now has to face the consequences. No matter what your opinion is, that is a fact.
    Origins are of no relevance IMO, you have to apply the practice to the modern day.
    Is hunting ever needed for survival anymore?
    Maybe if you're stranded in the wilderness.
    Not that I believe that hunting for food is wrong (as it puts animals through no worse experience than those you pick up at the supermarket), it's just hunting for sport isn't much different than dogfighting in that regard.

    Eating meat is a natural part of the human diet.
    Killing animals for food is not the issue.

    Dogfighting is natural. Dogs, wolves, almost any animal in the wild fights to the death for survival (for food, mating rights, whatever).
    We're talking about two different practices that have their origins in survival.
    The only difference is that humans kill firsthand when hunting for sport, whereas they exploit animals as a third party in the other.
    Why does society view one as so much worse than the other?


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  3. #13
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,533

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    It's an interesting, though misguided point.
    There are a lot of hunters on this site, so I'd be interested in getting their opinion.

    What is it about dog fighting that we as a society find so reprehensible?
    Is it just one thing?

    1. Is it the loss of animal life?
    If so hunting and dogfighting could be considered equal

    2. Is it because their dogs, and not other types of animals?
    Is it because many people have dogs as pets that they take a more personal offense when their killed?
    Is killing deer somehow more acceptable than dogs?
    Why?

    3. Is it the manner in which their we killed?
    If Vick just shot underperforming dogs rather than the laughably more difficult drowning or slamming into the ground or electrocuting, would it be more acceptable.

    4. Was it that he was exploiting animals and putting their lives at risk for personal entertainment and $.
    If so, it isn't much of a stretch to consider Horse Racing similar, considering how many get put down when they trip and break a leg.

    Personally I think it's simply because of the violent nature of dogfighting, people can't imagine watching dogs tear each other apart (even if that's what animals sometimes do the wild).
    It's the means to animal death that seems to be the issue, not the fact that dogs are dead, or that Vick was entertained and made money off of it.
    I think in the NFL's eyes, the gambling is the worse part and is a lifetime ban. The killing of the dogs is a PR nightmare for the team, but there are no official NFL rules about it.

    In the public's eye, the killing of the dog's is worse, because of your #2 reason. People just have an affection for dogs. Hunting isn't the same because they are not transforming the animals into these canibalistic killers.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  4. #14
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:

    Hunting has its origins in survival.

    Dogfighting has its origins in entertainment.

    Plain and simple, hunting has been an important part of human existence. No humans would have ever perished had dogfighting never come about.

    They are completely different, IMO.

    In fact, we can synthesize food these days. If you wanted to draw it out that far, one could argue that NO animals need be killed EVER. (I don't believe that, btw...)

    It just goes to show that any argument can be spun and twisted to fit within a certain person's opinion.

    Fact of the matter is, he plead guilty and now has to face the consequences. No matter what your opinion is, that is a fact.
    Origins are of no relevance IMO, you have to apply the practice to the modern day.
    Is hunting ever needed for survival anymore?
    Maybe if you're stranded in the wilderness.
    Not that I believe that hunting for food is wrong (as it puts animals through no worse experience than those you pick up at the supermarket), it's just hunting for sport isn't much different than dogfighting in that regard.

    Eating meat is a natural part of the human diet.
    Killing animals for food is not the issue.

    Dogfighting is natural. Dogs, wolves, almost any animal in the wild fights to the death for survival (for food, mating rights, whatever).
    We're talking about two different practices that have their origins in survival.
    The only difference is that humans kill firsthand when hunting for sport, whereas they exploit animals as a third party in the other.
    Why does society view one as so much worse than the other?
    Dogfighting is NOT natural. These dogs are bred to fight.

    Origins are relevant, because hunters will claim the historic right to hunt. There is sport involved, i.e. tracking, the element of surprise, etc.

    Forcing two dogs into an enclosed ring is not only unnatural, but it is a pre-determined circumstance.

    If hunters brought deer in to a warehouse, locked the doors, and then proceeded to tear them apart with their teeth, then the two would be the same, and equally sickening.
    -Sno

  5. #15
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:

    Dogfighting is NOT natural. These dogs are bred to fight.

    Origins are relevant, because hunters will claim the historic right to hunt. There is sport involved, i.e. tracking, the element of surprise, etc.

    Forcing two dogs into an enclosed ring is not only unnatural, but it is a pre-determined circumstance.
    To say dogs never fought to the deal before or without man is ignorant.
    Wolves and wild dogs do fight to the death, it is not trained, it is part of nature.
    If you've ever owned a domesticated dog, they are often agressive towards other dogs (although most owners intervene before actually biting occurs).

    Domesticated dogs have been known to fight and kill other animals without being trained to do so.
    The issue is training a dog to do that as their main purpose, and then planting them in artificial situations where they must fight for their lives.

    Sport Hunters can claim whatever they want, the fact that there is sport in it does not change the fact they are killing solely for their own personal entertainment and pleasure.
    I still don't see how that distinguishes it from dogfighting.

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    If hunters brought deer in to a warehouse, locked the doors, and then proceeded to tear them apart with their teeth, then the two would be the same, and equally sickening.
    Ahh, but "unnatural" hunting does occur.
    There are hunting ranges, with stock prey.
    Is it natural to shot deer with a scoped out rifle from a hunting lodge?
    Im sure that's how they did it back when hunting originated.. :
    I would find hunting, where a man is left to his bare hands and a knife/rock much more acceptable than target practice on a live animal with a high powered rifle, there's no honor in that.

    It seems you are arguing that the circumstances (training animals and artificial rings etc.) and not the action (allowing dogs to fight to the death) as more relevant.

    If the circumstances are the issue, dogfighting is not much different that Rodeo or horse Racing.
    If the action is, then I don't see how hunting for sport is much different.

    I understand that history, origins, whatever play a part in society's acceptance of human practices, but at what point do we snap out of "tradition" and start looking at things rationally and objectively?
    Really what distinguishes dogfighting is that people are exploited animals from a distance rather than firsthand.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  6. #16
    NDVikingFan66's Avatar
    NDVikingFan66 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,831

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    In a sport, all participants have the right to take part or not take part.
    Tell me when were these dogs asked if they wanted to take part in this "sport"?
    Especially one that may cost them their life.

    Anyone who thinks this is acceptalbe needs to have their head examined.

  7. #17
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    How about kitten torture?

    By this logic, that should be a sport too.
    It's not?
    Oops.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #18
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:

    Dogfighting is NOT natural. These dogs are bred to fight.

    Origins are relevant, because hunters will claim the historic right to hunt. There is sport involved, i.e. tracking, the element of surprise, etc.

    Forcing two dogs into an enclosed ring is not only unnatural, but it is a pre-determined circumstance.
    To say dogs never fought to the deal before or without man is ignorant.
    Wolves and wild dogs do fight to the death, it is not trained, it is part of nature.
    If you've ever owned a domesticated dog, they are often agressive towards other dogs (although most owners intervene before actually biting occurs).

    Domesticated dogs have been known to fight and kill other animals without being trained to do so.
    The issue is training a dog to do that as their main purpose, and then planting them in artificial situations where they must fight for their lives.

    Sport Hunters can claim whatever they want, the fact that there is sport in it does not change the fact they are killing solely for their own personal entertainment and pleasure.
    I still don't see how that distinguishes it from dogfighting.

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    If hunters brought deer in to a warehouse, locked the doors, and then proceeded to tear them apart with their teeth, then the two would be the same, and equally sickening.
    Ahh, but "unnatural" hunting does occur.
    There are hunting ranges, with stock prey.
    Is it natural to shot deer with a scoped out rifle from a hunting lodge?
    Im sure that's how they did it back when hunting originated.. :
    I would find hunting, where a man is left to his bare hands and a knife/rock much more acceptable than target practice on a live animal with a high powered rifle, there's no honor in that.

    It seems you are arguing that the circumstances (training animals and artificial rings etc.) and not the action (allowing dogs to fight to the death) as more relevant.

    If the circumstances are the issue, dogfighting is not much different that Rodeo or horse Racing.
    If the action is, then I don't see how hunting for sport is much different.

    I understand that history, origins, whatever play a part in society's acceptance of human practices, but at what point do we snap out of "tradition" and start looking at things rationally and objectively?
    Really what distinguishes dogfighting is that people are exploited animals from a distance rather than firsthand.
    If you are asking me if I think it is wrong for dogs and animals to fight in the wild, the answer is no.

    If you are asking me if I think it is wrong for HUMANS to FORCE dogs to fight, the answer is yes.

    Obviously neither of us are changing our opinions.

    So you are saying you agree with dogfighting, or disagree with hunting?
    -Sno

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    237

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    Even a sport hunter in a canned hunt (which I find lame) prides himself in making a clean quick kill with the least amount of suffering possible for the animal. A dogfight enthusiast wants to see the most suffering possible before one of the dogs finally dies.
    Have I ever told you what an outstanding humanitarian I am?

  10. #20
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Stephon Marbury defends Michael Vick, calls dogfighting a sport

    "ColoradoViking" wrote:
    Even a sport hunter in a canned hunt (which I find lame) prides himself in making a clean quick kill with the least amount of suffering possible for the animal. A dogfight enthusiast wants to see the most suffering possible before one of the dogs finally dies.
    What makes you say that?
    People loved watching Mike Tyson in his prime, even if he knocked out someone in 1.5 minutes, why?
    Because people would bet on him.

    Obviously neither of us are changing our opinions.

    So you are saying you agree with dogfighting, or disagree with hunting?
    Its not opinions I'm interested in, it's the similarities between the activities and the public's different reactions to each.


    I don't agree with dogfighting, and I don't agree with hunting for sport.
    To me, I see no relevant differences.

    "NDVikingFan66" wrote:
    In a sport, all participants have the right to take part or not take part.
    Tell me when were these dogs asked if they wanted to take part in this "sport"?
    Especially one that may cost them their life.

    Anyone who thinks this is acceptalbe needs to have their head examined.
    I agree with what you've said, but hunted animals do not get to choose whether or not they want to run away from a human with a rifle, so I don't see your point (perhaps you weren't even relating it to hunting?).


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What about Michael Vick?
    By VikingsFan4Lyfe in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 12:43 PM
  2. USDA: Vick found dogfighting 'funny to watch'
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2008, 01:58 AM
  3. Portis defends Vick
    By Purple Floyd in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 09:21 PM
  4. Stephon Marbury Sig
    By PurpleMafia in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 09:06 PM
  5. Michael Vick...
    By RandyMoss8404 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-24-2004, 12:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •