Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71
  1. #21
    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:

    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.
    ok...

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    I don't agree with dogfighting, and I don't agree with hunting for sport.
    To me, I see no relevant differences.
    isn't that opinion by definition...?
    -Sno

  2. #22
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

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

    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "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?

    The DIFFERENCE is that hunting is LEGAL...dogfighting is NOT.

    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.

    Oh yeah, Vick doesn't follow that law either...see a pattern?

    Hypothetical question for the hunters here...would it be perfectly OK if Vick and others of his ilk were planning to EAT the dogs afterwards?
    LOL
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  3. #23
    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

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "SnoBumMN" wrote:
    "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?

    The DIFFERENCE is that hunting is LEGAL...dogfighting is NOT.

    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.

    Oh yeah, Vick doesn't follow that law either...see a pattern?

    Hypothetical question for the hunters here...would it be perfectly OK if Vick and others of his ilk were planning to EAT the dogs afterwards?
    LOL
    Well-said, dude.
    -Sno

  4. #24
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

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

    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.
    I still have problems with this.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  5. #25
    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

    "C" wrote:
    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.
    I still have problems with this.
    That is really difficult to tell, based on your posts.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  6. #26
    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:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:

    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.
    ok...

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    I don't agree with dogfighting, and I don't agree with hunting for sport.
    To me, I see no relevant differences.
    isn't that opinion by definition...?
    Yes, but that was not what I was analyzing.
    I was simply trying to discern why there is a difference in public perception.
    My opinion is just what I have after looking at the facts, it doesn't change the facts themselves, which was what I was looking at in the first place.


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

  7. #27
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

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

    "Prophet" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.
    I still have problems with this.
    That is really difficult to tell, based on your posts.
    Holla
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  8. #28
    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:
    "ItalianStallion" wrote:

    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.
    ok...

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    I don't agree with dogfighting, and I don't agree with hunting for sport.
    To me, I see no relevant differences.
    isn't that opinion by definition...?
    Yes, but that was not what I was analyzing.
    I was simply trying to discern why there is a difference in public perception.
    My opinion is just what I have after looking at the facts, it doesn't change the facts themselves, which was what I was looking at in the first place.
    Well, I'd assume the public's perceptions are based on their opinions on the matter.

    I am a member of the public.
    -Sno

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    237

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

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    [quote]
    "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.




    Are you kidding me? I remember very clearly how many people were pissed after those fights cuz they felt like they didn't get their moneys worth.
    Have I ever told you what an outstanding humanitarian I am?

  10. #30
    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

    "cajunvike" wrote:

    The DIFFERENCE is that hunting is LEGAL...dogfighting is NOT.

    A similar situation is that cigarettes are LEGAL...and smoking marijuana is NOT.

    Oh yeah, Vick doesn't follow that law either...see a pattern?

    Hypothetical question for the hunters here...would it be perfectly OK if Vick and others of his ilk were planning to EAT the dogs afterwards?
    LOL
    I understand where you're coming from Cajun, but legality and ethics are not synonymous.
    There are many things that can be done "legally" that are not necessarily ethical and many things that are illegal that are not necessarily unethical.

    To say Vick is receiving so much backlash from society I would propose has very little to do with the fact that what he did was illegal.
    There are countless players in all sports who have been caught doing illegal things (smoking mary jane for instance) that barely merit recognition.

    Now of course I won't disagree with you that Vick is an idiot for doing something illegal, which could/will cost him his freedom and career, that isn't really up for argument.
    What I'm saying is that to define what is "right" and "wrong" based on what is "illegal" and "legal" is inaccurate, and everyone knows this.
    The law is not as intuitive, and is usually one step behind (or completely off altogether) ethics and morality.

    Another hypothetical question, if Vick trained these dogs to hunt and kill deer, and let them loose at a hunting range, would the public perceive it as that bad?
    To me all he'd be doing is replacing fighting dog #2 with a helpless animal, but is it illegal?


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

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •