Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stephon Marbury Comments On Vick
WJBF (Augusta, GA) ^ | 21 Aug 07

Posted on 08/22/2007 5:04:23 AM PDT by PurpleMan

Stephon Marbury, NBA star, "...You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."

(Excerpt) Read more at wjbf.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: animalsarepeopletoo; vick
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-253 next last
To: PurpleMan

‘Bout time you chimed in on your own thread...


201 posted on 08/22/2007 12:06:36 PM PDT by gridlock (You’ll never grow old with Hillary-Care!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Is it just a case where one has to realize that there’s not much that can be done to stop such monstrousness?

A lot of things can and should be done. Society should condemn the behavior as abhorrent, which it is. People who engage in it should be shunned. Religious, cultural and community institutions should come out against the practice, whenever it becomes a concern.

Other things can be done to regulate the behavior. For instance, if the Panda is an endangered species, there are laws against killing one. If Joe down the street is a minor, pressure should be brought on his parents to correct his behavior.

But just willy-nilly banning things has never stopped anything. People who advocate banning as a form of expression fail to realize that doing so removes the activity from the realm of polite society and drives it underground, where it thrives. From a strictly practical point of view, banning animal cruelty does very little to stop animal cruelty, and may even promote it.

202 posted on 08/22/2007 12:16:45 PM PDT by gridlock (You’ll never grow old with Hillary-Care!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

The thread began with noticing the continued cultural decline of the NBA as demonstrated by Mr. Marbury’s remarks. The last comment was...

“how do you stop scum from betting on things like how long it takes army ants to kill a strapped down panda?”

It’s been like watching a train wreck.


203 posted on 08/22/2007 12:18:37 PM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas

Besides the ethical question, Vic knew he was committing a crime. Like many celebrities he thought he was above the law, believing laws are only made for the common people. I’ve met some of his defenders who seem to believe the same thing.


204 posted on 08/22/2007 12:43:20 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

Authority is defined as “a power or right delegated or given”. In the context I’m using the word “right”, it is synonymous with “authority”, in that societies have been delegated the right (authority) to make laws by the citizens of said society.


205 posted on 08/22/2007 12:48:05 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

The law should exist to protect peoples inalienable rights, this is why abortion is wrong, it infringes on a person’s rights. I’m not sure how you justify there being endangered species laws whilst on the other hand saying ultimately the gubberment can’t ban animal torture-sports. If an animal is on someones land, why can’t that animal be bought and sold to whoever to do whatever with?

My point is that it is hard to be principled on this subject, and it might not break my heart to be hypocritical in my conservative beliefs when it comes to not sobbing into the constitution if a scum-bag can’t torture animals anymore because he is looking over his shoulder in prison.

I know it isn’t a perfect solution conservative-wise, but how about we issue “animal cruelty licenses” to those wanting to hurt animals fer jollies. Anybody caught hurting animals fer jollies without one and the gubberment steps in. We charge 1000 billion dollars to be licensed to be cruel to animals fer jollies.

Freegards


206 posted on 08/22/2007 12:53:12 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

I’m not talking about legality. As for cruelty...death is the ultimate cruelty. If you think swift death is less cruel or more ethical, more power to you. I however disagree. Nature is cruel.

Personally, I don’t fight dogs or attend dog fights. At the same time, I don’t pretend that this makes me a better man either.


207 posted on 08/22/2007 1:18:38 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear
But, is this actually against the law?

Yes, it is.

208 posted on 08/22/2007 1:23:38 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
I’m not talking about legality. As for cruelty...death is the ultimate cruelty. If you think swift death is less cruel or more ethical, more power to you. I however disagree. Nature is cruel.

No, that is why we have the word 'torture' in the dictionary.

When we execute people we don't make it as painful as possible.

Personally, I don’t fight dogs or attend dog fights. At the same time, I don’t pretend that this makes me a better man either.

If you fought dogs and attended dog fights it would make you a lesser man, whether you admit it or not.

To enjoy watching suffering is the sign of a sadist.

209 posted on 08/22/2007 1:42:03 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“No, that is why we have the word ‘torture’ in the dictionary.
When we execute people we don’t make it as painful as possible.”

Well we’re not talking about people, now, are we? And I guess that’s really what I’m driving at, all you easily outraged seem to be equating man with dog. They are obviously not equal.

***disclaimer for the comprehension impaired***
I am not advocating dogfighting. If you read my posts carefully you would know that. I only was interested in the discussion. Calling me a sadist, sick, etc. is ridiculous.


210 posted on 08/22/2007 1:52:54 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
The NFL has a responsibility to deal with Vick. They are letting the State do it for them. They are failing in their responsibility. They are depending on the state to do that which they should be doing themselves. In doing so, they risk an unjust result.

I agree that the NFL is failing in its resonsiblity in dealing with Vick.

I think they are trying to see how best to cut their losses rather then deal with this a moral issue.

211 posted on 08/22/2007 2:00:22 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
[No, that is why we have the word ‘torture’ in the dictionary. When we execute people we don’t make it as painful as possible.” ]

Well we’re not talking about people, now, are we? And I guess that’s really what I’m driving at, all you easily outraged seem to be equating man with dog. They are obviously not equal.

Never said they were, but suffering is still suffering, just on a higher level.

***disclaimer for the comprehension impaired*** I am not advocating dogfighting. If you read my posts carefully you would know that. I only was interested in the discussion. Calling me a sadist, sick, etc. is ridiculous.

I didn't call you a sadist, I called those who watch animals tear each other apart for 'sport' sadists.

To enjoy watching something suffer that doesn't have a choice in the matter but is being forced to fight is sadistic-which is what dog-fighting, bull-fighting, bear-baiting etc are.

And those involved in it are cowards.

212 posted on 08/22/2007 2:06:13 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“I didn’t call you a sadist, I called those who watch animals tear each other apart for ‘sport’ sadists.”

Others did. I wasn’t singling you out.

“Never said they were, but suffering is still suffering, just on a higher level”

Hard to say since we aren’t dogs. Who knows? You sound like you are projecting. I’m just guessing here (at least I admit that), but sensations in a dog are probably a tad different than what we imagine.


213 posted on 08/22/2007 2:36:16 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
I would reckon that 10% - 20% of the people in this country have no problem with dog and/or cock fighting. This matter far from unanimous, even in this "civilized" society.

FWIW, I'm not a big fan of cultural relativism.

214 posted on 08/22/2007 2:38:02 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner
You just took the bait from a n00bie troll and your inane comments will be posted and quoted on DU within the hour.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

I don’t post here to advance the conservative agenda to leftists. I don’t care who quotes me as what I say is entirely my opinion. As long as you don’t sell crack, or take it off your property there should be no reason for the government searching your premises. Yes I like moonshine. No I don't smoke or grow weed. something the leftist libertarians would love to legalize. My point is that our individual freedoms are being increasingly eliminated by the nanny state. Its just that simple. If I seem cruel and heartless for supporting an individual’s private property rights to a bunch of socialist totalitarians then so be it

215 posted on 08/22/2007 3:26:10 PM PDT by photodawg (It's not about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit ......Rocky Balboa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
I agree that there is a dichotomy here when it comes to abortion, but just because abortion happens to be legal in this country doesn’t mean that we should stoop to the same level when it comes to the treatment of animals.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Many people who would castrate Vick for being “cruel” to a dog would have no problem sticking a knife through the skull of a partially birthed human being. I can’t get too excited about the “rights” of an animal in a society that uses individual rights as an excuse to deprive all human beings of their God given freedom.

216 posted on 08/22/2007 3:32:43 PM PDT by photodawg (It's not about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit ......Rocky Balboa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain

Thus the violation of interstate commerce laws.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Interstate commerce laws. Another way for the feds to control our behavior and take our rights away.


217 posted on 08/22/2007 3:35:03 PM PDT by photodawg (It's not about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit ......Rocky Balboa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain

Geez you are dense...

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Ad hominem attack. Can you refute the premise that the dog has pack instincts and is carnivorous?


218 posted on 08/22/2007 3:37:24 PM PDT by photodawg (It's not about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit ......Rocky Balboa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
It’s unethical to cause unnecessary harm. It is the usual proper function of law to protect the innocent.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Then wtf is Roe v. Wade? The innocents? are you talking about dogs? A dog is a carnivorous animal with no conscience and no rights. Is Vick wrong? Of course he is ....but it's his property and his business. Our freedom is more important than interstate commerce laws or “animal rights”. I understand the law is clear on the side of the dogs. The law is just another example of how far the state has come in eroding our rights. Just like we can’t spank our children, or make liquor on our property. Big brother is in control. The line has been drawn much too far to the left. I agree Vick should go to jail for this. I’m just stretching a point to make a point.

219 posted on 08/22/2007 3:49:26 PM PDT by photodawg (It's not about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit ......Rocky Balboa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: photodawg
My point is that our individual freedoms are being increasingly eliminated by the nanny state. Its just that simple. If I seem cruel and heartless for supporting an individual’s private property rights to a bunch of socialist totalitarians then so be it

I don't think there are any socialist totalitarians on this thread.

Look at what just came from your keyboard.

How many people in your life have told you something to the effect that you are either (a) insane, or (b) have a heart of ice? If it's more than about 800 or so, I suggest that you go have a talk with your clergyperson or physician and get some professional help.

220 posted on 08/22/2007 4:14:52 PM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
We should not empower our government to ban all the things we don't like. If we do, then other people will empower our government to ban the things they don't like, even if we might.

Straw man. There are no proponents here of 'empowering the government to ban everything we don't like.' We are addressing dogfighting specifically. And everything is not a slippery slope.

For instance, if the PeTA types can get 70% of the people to agree that hunting is wrong, should government ban hunting? Because as our population get's more concentrated in the cities and suburbs, the day when 70% will agree to that proposition gets closer every day.

I have suspected that many here have been screaming so loud in opposition due to an underlining fear of a subsequent attack on hunting. Well rest easy. Hunting is a part of our heritage that is still widely acknowledged as acceptable behavior. I'm sure you don't equate morally the killing of animals humanely for food with the viscous, deplorable activity of dogfighting. There's really no need to make that connection. Now I don't hunt, but in no way begrudge anyone for doing so; I think most people who don't hunt feel this way. Sure there are PETA types who would disallow it, but they are considered kooks and are largely irrelevant.

Or if the HGI types can get 80% of the people to agree that a certain type of rifle is bad, should government ban those rifles? We have already seen that happen. Was that right? We should not rely on government to demonstrate our intolerance or discourage all behavior we don't approve of. We should not be willing to give government that much power.

Whether you realize or not (i suspect not) you are advocating anarchy in favor of the rule of law. Not good. I think elsewhere you mentioned that we should shun people or apply pressure to discourage abhorrent behavior...you don't really believe that will work, do you? I'm not a huge fan of govt-- the less the better-- but the reality is that we must have one, and part of its job is to make laws.

Besides, when has the government been any good at discouraging anything? There were already laws against everything Vick did, but he did everything but take out an ad in the Yellow Pages to promote his operation.

In the preceding paragraphs you extolled the dangers of an overlording government drunk with power, whimsically banning this and that; in the this one you dismiss it as essentially impotent. This is a political board and inherent in it is a preference for a conservative style of government, not an absence of one.

I think there are two camps of people who oppose the punishment of vick. One group is comprised of vile, cold-hearted creatures who should be affixed to a rocket and properly blasted off to Uranus, and the other camp that is genuinely concerned about a perceived slow erosion of freedom and distrust of governmental intrusion.(A healthy skepticism is not only great, but a duty) I'd place you in the latter group. I don't expect to change your mind but I believe there is another consideration with which you may not be cognizant. The ramifications of this case could be more profound than the quelling of dogfighting. It very well could shine a light on a subculture rotting in the underbelly of society.

221 posted on 08/22/2007 4:25:16 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: photodawg

So what you’re saying is that because one form of barbarism that you abhor is legal, you’re okay with barbarism as a general principle.


222 posted on 08/22/2007 6:14:58 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
vile, cold-hearted creatures who should be affixed to a rocket and properly blasted off to Uranus

Hey - I may disagree with gridlock on this, but I don't agree with blasting anything off to his anus. He doesn't deserve that. Although I think Michael Vick might need to watch himself in the shower. ;)

223 posted on 08/22/2007 6:20:29 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: photodawg
Just like we can’t spank our children,

I don't know where you live, but here in Florida, we are certainly allowed to spank our children. However, when we cross the line from spankings to abuse, evidenced by bruises, broken bones, etc., then government has a legitimate right to step in and see to it that the child is protected. While I don't argue that dogs should have the same rights as a child, I do argue that a dog has more rights than a lampshade. Perhaps you disagree. If you do, you're wrong, and I'm right.

224 posted on 08/22/2007 6:24:02 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Point taken. That was probably a poor planet choice on my part, but it was purely accidental. I just know I’d like the sick puppies far removed from civilization. Perhaps Pluto— it’s really out there. Oh, wait, there is some debate about it’s planet-worthiness! We should send them up there and conduct some good old fashion field research.


225 posted on 08/22/2007 6:32:17 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
To take your arguments in turn.

If there is no rational reason to support laws, but rather laws are based merely on societal revulsion, then whatever inspires societal revulsion at a point in time is subject to banning. Right now it is dog fighting, where as fifty years ago, nobody cared much about dogfighting. It was acceptable. The changing public attitude has led to this law.

Attitudes about dogfighting is not the only attitude that can change. The next thing to inspire general societal revulsion might be something near and dear to you.

Now if there was a theory of law behind banning animal cruelty, such as the notion that animals have a right to be free from cruelty, that is something that can be debated and tested. I would say such arguments are bunk, but at least they are arguments. The ban on dogfighting appears to be based on nothing more that public opinion.

As far as hunting being a part of our heritage and thus protected, I would note that dogfighting is part of our heritage as well, yet here we are. Furthermore, I would note that you felt the need to temporize your support for hunting, specifying that it must be done humanely and for food. These conditions would pretty much end hunting as we know it. Good hunters go for the clean lung shot to bring down the game quickly and cleanly, but often they fail to get it. The animal can be wounded and take hours to die. This is not humane at all. Furthermore, many hunters hunt for sport, and don’t care about the meat. This would not be permitted under your stated conditions.

I realize that we have government and that government will make laws restricting freedom. It is the nature of the beast. My point is that these laws should have a level of reasoning deeper than the fact that society just doesn’t like something at this point in time.

Furthermore, It is worthwhile opposing government regulation even if they are ineffective. In fact, many would say that ineffective regulation should be opposed most vigorously, because it tends to make criminals of many people but punishes only a few. So punishment becomes a matter of prosecutorial discretion, rather than a matter of law. For instance, if you are a well known but obnoxious sports personality, you might be prosecuted more vigorously than some yahoo that nobody ever heard of.

226 posted on 08/22/2007 7:26:20 PM PDT by gridlock (You’ll never grow old with Hillary-Care!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Now if there was a theory of law behind banning animal cruelty, such as the notion that animals have a right to be free from cruelty, that is something that can be debated and tested. I would say such arguments are bunk, but at least they are arguments. The ban on dogfighting appears to be based on nothing more that public opinion.

Of course animals have the right to be free from a cruel human hand. You are not suggesting otherwise, are you?

The ban on dogfighting is in place for several reasons. Yes, we have determined in society that it's not acceptable. In addition, related criminal activities (gang involvement, stealing for bait purposes, drug dealing, money laundering, violent crime against people, and on and on) permeate the the dogfighting racket. Recall that subculture I mentioned earlier? That is what I'm talking about here.

I don't see any need to carry on with this...Thanks.

227 posted on 08/22/2007 8:13:38 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMan
"...You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport.
It's just behind closed doors."


I'll give Mr. Marbury the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe all he knows about dogfighting, cockfighting, etc. ,
is that it's the practice of select devotees, not done in the
public arena.

But he should be sent a copy of the "Most Evil" series that was
recently on The Discovery Channel, as well as the "Ice Man" specials
(A&E) on the Mafia contract-murderer Kucklinski (sp?).

In those shows he'll learn that abuse of animals is too often
(NOT ALWAYS!!!) the hallmark of a sadist.
Some of which do "graduate" into a sadist and killer of innocent humans.
228 posted on 08/22/2007 8:23:09 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMan
I pray that God in Heaven will bless U.S. Attorney Charles Rosenburg and his staff for taking down the evil dirtbag Vick and the other demons who tortured the poor dogs in Virginia. God Bless Charles Rosenburg.

“Chuck Rosenberg was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in March 2006 to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He was subsequently nominated to that position by President George Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate, unanimously, on June 13, 2006.

As the chief federal law enforcement officer for the District, which includes offices in Alexandria, Newport News, Norfolk and Richmond, Mr. Rosenberg supervises the prosecution of all federal crimes, and the litigation of all civil matters in which the federal government has an interest.” http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/usattorney.html

229 posted on 08/22/2007 8:53:53 PM PDT by GinaLolaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Of course animals have the right to be free from a cruel human hand. You are not suggesting otherwise, are you?

Animals do not and can not have rights. If animals have rights, our entire legal system will be turned upside-down.

230 posted on 08/23/2007 12:25:01 AM PDT by gridlock (You’ll never grow old with Hillary-Care!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMan

That pitbulls are vicious monsters that are only good for mauling children and other pets, and they should all have been exterminated yesterday is a popular position on this board.

Right up until they’re involved in dogfighting at which point they’re our loyal companions again whose death or mistreatment is a moral outrage. Out come the pictures of the injured beasts to elicit, I suppose, sympathy. Fighting is as instinctive and presumably pleasurable to them as eating or f-—ing, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for them?

We’re then righteously told that animal abusers are sociopaths who would just as quickly abuse humans - by people who are openly fantasizing about the abuser himself (that is, a human) being homosexually raped in prison before being dismembered on live TV by packs of dogs in the Georgia Dome.

The hypocrisy is off the charts, and the logic is off the deep end.


231 posted on 08/23/2007 1:08:33 AM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK

Nobody’s fantasizing about anything. I made a simple comment which is made every day as a joke when talking about someone who’s going to prison. If I was the first person to joke about Michael Vick needing to watch his backside in the shower, I’ll eat my shorts.

As for my earlier comment about dog abusers deserving to be doused in blood and thrown to a ravenous pack of pit bulls, I never suggested it be done on live TV at the Georgia Dome. That was YOUR suggestion - I was only commenting on the disgusting nature of what they (the abusers) are doing to the animals in the first place. They deserve a taste of their own medicine. If you want to put it in lights and sell tickets to the event, that’s up to you. I won’t be there.


232 posted on 08/23/2007 4:34:56 AM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
Hard to say since we aren’t dogs. Who knows? You sound like you are projecting. I’m just guessing here (at least I admit that), but sensations in a dog are probably a tad different than what we imagine.

Now, don't be ridiculous.

Dogs yelp when they are in pain and do suffer.

They are not machines.

233 posted on 08/23/2007 4:43:14 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

It’s a freakin dog. You want to incarcerate a human being for pitting one dog against another, but in nature it happens all the time. That’s the irony of PETA. They like to talk about the natural state of things, but seem to know nothing of it. Nature is cruel and suffering is plentiful. Ever heard the phrase, “it’s a dog eat dog world”.


234 posted on 08/23/2007 5:54:23 AM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
You think of Marbury vs. Walt Frazier. I think of Allen Iverson vs. Dr. J or Mo Cheeks.

Class is gone.


Yep. The class acts used to predominate, and the thugs and dopes were the exception. Not so these days.
235 posted on 08/23/2007 8:23:55 AM PDT by Antoninus (The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
As for my earlier comment about dog abusers deserving to be doused in blood and thrown to a ravenous pack of pit bulls, I never suggested it be done on live TV at the Georgia Dome.

You haven't seen the photoshopped graphic that's been posted on every other thread about this, where Vick is suited up on the field being attacked by two pitbulls, soaked in blood, his left arm torn off?

Clearly, animal abuse is not a prerequisite for sociopathy.

236 posted on 08/23/2007 10:46:10 AM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK

I think that people have a natural reaction to want to see “an eye for an eye” so to speak. Since that’s the way Vick treated the animals, many people think he should suffer the same fate. That’s why we don’t allow individuals to seek retribution but instead have granted the state the authority to do so on our behalf.


237 posted on 08/23/2007 12:04:31 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
It’s a freakin dog. You want to incarcerate a human being for pitting one dog against another, but in nature it happens all the time. That’s the irony of PETA. They like to talk about the natural state of things, but seem to know nothing of it. Nature is cruel and suffering is plentiful. Ever heard the phrase, “it’s a dog eat dog world”.

It is a dog, one of God's creatures.

PETA has nothing to do with this.

No, it is not the 'natural state of things', we do not have to be cruel to animals (Pro.12:7).

We are a nation of laws to protect the weak and defenseless from those who would hurt them.

The strong are to protect the weak, not abuse them. (Rom.15:1)

238 posted on 08/23/2007 12:31:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMan

Blame the NBA if you want, but blame the NFL first, it actually has a dogfighting conviction to its credit!


239 posted on 08/23/2007 12:35:31 PM PDT by LiveBait
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Fair point.


240 posted on 08/23/2007 1:20:31 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“No, it is not the ‘natural state of things’, we do not have to be cruel to animals (Pro.12:7). “

Then you know nothing. Crawl out of your hole and get out more(and I mean to third world countries not Florida).

And I didn’t say anyone HAD to do ANYTHING. In nature, dogs and other creatures are (oh for heaven sake...my heart flutters) killed in more heinous ways than this. Humans do it to the animals, and animals do it to each other. Why you are so confused by this is so fascinating.


241 posted on 08/23/2007 1:56:48 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
And I didn’t say anyone HAD to do ANYTHING. In nature, dogs and other creatures are (oh for heaven sake...my heart flutters) killed in more heinous ways than this. Humans do it to the animals, and animals do it to each other. Why you are so confused by this is so fascinating.

Bringing up how animals die in nature has nothing to do with how they should be treated by man.

Nature is cruel enough without man adding to the cruelity for the mere sport of it.

242 posted on 08/24/2007 3:33:46 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

So, you admit that they way they die in nature is cruel....that it is the natural way of things. Good.

And we’ve come full circle. By your logic, horse-racing, slaughter houses, and hunting in general could be outlawed. Since killing these animals IS cruelty all bets are off.

I’m not equating these things with dogfighting, only saying that we don’t HAVE to do these these things; there are alternatives. PETA would be proud of you.


243 posted on 08/24/2007 4:29:30 AM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
So, you admit that they way they die in nature is cruel....that it is the natural way of things. Good.

Ofcourse the way they die in nature is cruel, but that doesn't mean it is good or right!

And we’ve come full circle. By your logic, horse-racing, slaughter houses, and hunting in general could be outlawed. Since killing these animals IS cruelty all bets are off. I’m not equating these things with dogfighting, only saying that we don’t HAVE to do these these things; there are alternatives. PETA would be proud of you.

Well, if you are not equating these things with dog-fighting then why bring them up?

The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.

Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.

If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.

Being concerned for the well-being of animals doesn't mean one is aligned with PETA.

The Bible teaches it.

PETA thinks that animals have rights-they don't.

Man however, has a responsibility as steward of God's creation to handle it correctly.

Conservatives have this uncanny ability to get on the wrong side of issues simply because the Left gets involved in them for the wrong reasons.

244 posted on 08/24/2007 4:38:23 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“Well, if you are not equating these things with dog-fighting then why bring them up?”

Already answered in my prior post. Your arguments could just as well be made to outlaw hunting, slaughterhouses, etc.

” The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.”

Death is the ultimate cruelty. What occurs over the last few minutes of your life doesn’t make it more palatable.

“Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.”

We’re not adding to anything. Suffering has and always will exist. If anything, we maintain the status quo.

“If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.”

You say it has nothing to do with PETA, or the imparting of human rights on animals, but that last statement does coincide with your prior thoughts.


245 posted on 08/24/2007 5:54:18 AM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten

What’s confusing me here is that you don’t seem to recognize sadism, and the fact that there is an inherent sickness to getting enjoyment out of inflicting pain that goes beyond inflicting death. People can bicker day and night as to whether torture or execution is more cruel, but there is a sickness about inflicting pain and taking pleasure out of watching animals suffer that is different than even hunting. I’m surprised that you don’t recognize it. Also, it should be noted that numerous people DO consider torture a worse fate for animals than a quick death, so it doesn’t really work as a mantra. Quite simply, it’s not an indisputable fact, regardless of the situation, and it doesn’t work to dispute “dog-fighting is cruelty”.

Anyway, I do think it’s a key point that you view death as the ultimate cruelty for an animal. Even if it’s true, you are almost deliberately ignoring the fact of sadism and its existence and the nature of it in the case of Vick (and any case in which an animal is tortured before death) because of your insistence that “death is the worst cruelty”. Maybe it is. But the reason and nature of things arises again; there is just a plain difference between killing animals for a living and inflicting unnecessary pain upon them, and those who inflict unnecessary pain on an animal for their own enjoyment when it is preventable are truly sick. By pain, I mean torture, because sadism is an enjoyment in inflicting pain, not death. If you can’t recognize that, then I guess I have nothing more to say.


246 posted on 08/24/2007 10:21:36 AM PDT by baseballfanjm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: baseballfanjm

I guess that would be good and fine if they were simply fighting the dogs. The pleasure probably comes from the gambling, not some sadistic interest in the torture of animals. I’m not saying that nobody enjoys the suffering, only that lumping all involved as sadists is clearly an overreaction. By your logic, anyone who watches boxing is a sadist because of the suffering.

Also, I’ve said nothing about whether Vick is wrong or right. I’ve only said Marbury has a point. Which I know is an unpopular position, but nevertheless stand by that opinion.

Reacting emotionally to a situation is the wrong way to go.
It is no wonder you are confused.


247 posted on 08/24/2007 12:09:41 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
[Well, if you are not equating these things with dog-fighting then why bring them up?” ]

Already answered in my prior post. Your arguments could just as well be made to outlaw hunting, slaughterhouses, etc.

Well, then you are equating them with dog-fighting.

You clearly have a hard time dealing with concepts.

Hunting is not cruel in that no animal is being tortured for sport.

In the slaughterhouse, the animal should be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible, not tortured for sport.

See the difference?

You are like a liberal who cannot see the difference being for the death penalty but against abortion.

Or cannot see the difference in killing in war and murder.

[ ” The issue is cruelty and dog-fighting is cruelty.” ]

Death is the ultimate cruelty. What occurs over the last few minutes of your life doesn’t make it more palatable.

Ofcourse it does.

I am sure you would rather die in your sleep then be tortured.

So, your entire premise is simply wrong.

Everything dies, but death doesn't have to be made a sport, as is dog fighting.

[ “Man should be alleviating suffering, not adding to it.” ]

We’re not adding to anything. Suffering has and always will exist. If anything, we maintain the status quo.

No, if you take dogs out and force them to fight you are adding to their suffering.

They have no volition, you are controlling their fate and making them suffer.

So, you are immoral for doing so.

[ “If any of those activities you listed above have any cruelty or needless suffering involved, those should be addressed and ended.” ]

You say it has nothing to do with PETA, or the imparting of human rights on animals, but that last statement does coincide with your prior thoughts.

Ofcourse it does.

I base my view on the Biblical view that man has been given stewardship over creation and thus should care for it.

PETA thinks that animals have rights, which they don't, only humans have 'rights' since rights entail volition, the ability to make moral choices, which animals cannot make.

You on the other hand, do make choices to add or alleviate suffering.

And God commands us to alleviate it, not add to it.

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel'(Pr.12:10)

248 posted on 08/24/2007 2:56:11 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Over and over you equate humans with dogs; that is your problem not mine. You say that you don’t... yet you do it over and over. It isn’t about whether I don’t want to be tortured before I die, and would rather die in my sleep. It’s about freakin’ dogs. Comprehend Amigo! (READ SLOWLY; IT MIGHT HELP)

YOU are like a liberal, because you think humans and dogs have the same rights. They shouldn’t, but people like you have made it so they do. You are no different than the PETA supporter that believes animals are our equal.

In a prior post someone explained it as property rights. That statement is dead on. And you have wildly concluded that my property somehow has similar rights to my own. You, my friend, are dead wrong.


249 posted on 08/24/2007 3:25:26 PM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
Over and over you equate humans with dogs; that is your problem not mine. You say that you don’t... yet you do it over and over. It isn’t about whether I don’t want to be tortured before I die, and would rather die in my sleep. It’s about freakin’ dogs. Comprehend Amigo! (READ SLOWLY; IT MIGHT HELP)

And it is you who said that the issue is death.

So, for both man and animal, they would rather die without pain then with it.

Not a hard concept to grasp-if you actually try to think it through.

YOU are like a liberal, because you think humans and dogs have the same rights. They shouldn’t, but people like you have made it so they do. You are no different than the PETA supporter that believes animals are our equal.

No, because I understand that while animals do not have rights, man, being the steward of God's Creation, does have responsibilities.

What is being exposed is your own inability to grasp fundamental differences in concepts.

The Bible teaches man to be kind to both man and beast.

In a prior post someone explained it as property rights. That statement is dead on. And you have wildly concluded that my property somehow has similar rights to my own. You, my friend, are dead wrong.

Well, property rights are not viewed outside of other rights and responsibilities.

Since an animal is not an inanimate object, one has a responsibility to treat it differently then one.

But that is why these type of laws have to be made, for the 'its my property' nitwits who think that an animal can be treated like a piece of furniture.

250 posted on 08/25/2007 2:35:33 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson