# Marbury at it again.../Malbury... (merged)



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47708/20070821/marbury_dog_fighting_is_a_sport/



> Newsday -
> Stephon Marbury commented on the Michael Vick situation to a television station in Albany, New York.
> 
> “We don’t say anything about people shooting deers and shooting other animals," said Marbury. "You know what I mean? From what I hear, dog-fighting is a sport. It’s just behind closed doors and I think it’s tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down. I think he’s one of the superb athletes and he’s a good human being. I think he fell into a bad situation.” [READ]


This guy is an idiot lol. People who shoot deer eat it. People who fight dogs (at least in the USA, to my knowledge. Maybe dogfighters in Cambodia eat the meat after) do not eat the meat.

Thoughts? Where is Kiss My Darius to tell us all dogfighting is OK, and Vick should be able to play next year???


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

thats a pretty weak argument to make. But it's not surprising to me that an athlete made it. Im not a fan of hunting (like we need to hunt for food..hunt with a camera instead) but at least the deer has a "fair" shot.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Many people hunt and don't eat the meat. Many just like to have a deer head on the wall. Your comment about eating dogs in Cambodia was childish, at best.

Aside from that, you're right about one thing: Stephon Marbury is an idiot.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



BenDavis503 said:


> http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47708/20070821/marbury_dog_fighting_is_a_sport/
> 
> 
> This guy is an idiot lol. People who shoot deer eat it. People who fight dogs (at least in the USA, to my knowledge. Maybe dogfighters in Cambodia eat the meat after) do not eat the meat.
> ...



I'm right here Benny. So let me understand your "logic" . . .everyone is an idiot that you laugh at if they support Vick in any kind of way.

Maybe when you grow up, you'll be able to better understand the issues and see this isn't a black and white issue( by black and white what is meant is there is no middle ground grey area). 

But I expect someone who hasn't been exposed to the fact dogfighting exists in our society (or someone who hasn't even graduated high school for that matter) has difficulty grasping the realities that some people can use terrible judgment, can commit a crime and still should not be toss into the garbage by society.

It's called forgiveness . . . you know, like the time you were banned from this site but not for life. With as much as you like to call me out, I'm still glad the mods didn't apply your logic and ban you for life (seeing in terms of black and white) but rather showed some degree of reasonableness and banned you until you learned your lesson. Punished you and moved on . . . is that really that hard to understand.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

I have never met 1 deer hunter who didn't eat their deer.

I personally believe going to McDonalds is worse for the environment. The low cost animal farms are much less humane than taking some of the excess animals off nature in a regulated controlled manner. It just appear more warm and fuzzy when someone else does all the slaughtering for you and you can grab a happy meal.

Regardless, Marbury is a *******.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Stephon Marbury said:


> From what I hear, dog-fighting is a sport.


Wasn't Qyntel Woods a Knick for a while?

-Pop


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Oh, and by the way Stephon - the difference between "hunting deers" as you so eloquently put it, and fighting dogs, is that the latter is ILLEGAL. Vick knew about that when he acted in secrecy to find this rural property away from any potential conflicts.

-Pop


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Hap said:


> thats a pretty weak argument to make. But it's not surprising to me that an athlete made it. Im not a fan of hunting *(like we need to hunt for food..hunt with a camera instead)* but at least the deer has a "fair" shot.


We could all eat hatchery farm fish grown from a tank and then we wouldn't need to take anything from the Ocean. But I would rather protect the oceans and then be able to eat natural foods. If you'd rather have farm raised everything go ahead.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Well, I don't think most deer hunters take the deer and slam them into the ground to kill them, or drown them in a river. Though I guess I might be impressed by a hunter who could catch a deer with their bare hands and wrestle them into a river.

If Marbury doesn't have a TV show, I'm betting he will by the time he retires. That guy does NOT hold back on his opinions.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

you can still fish if you catch and release. If you shoot a deer, they tend not to survive. 

I think my point was lost though, hunting for deer/animals started off with a purpose. We really don't *need* to hunt for deer (or even fish..since we can get fish from professional fishermen) since we have access to plenty of food. Im not saying you can't hunt or can't fish, but that it's not the same kettle of fish as dog fighting is.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Alright I hate making Vick's arguments but what I think Marbury is getting at is that there are certain activities in our society invovling the killing of animals that has been deemed acceptable. Therefore, anyone who shoots a deer, shoots a coyote, shoots quails, traps Beavers, bites the head off a live dove (Ozzy), feeds their snake a live rat ect, is not demonized in our society because it is both legal and socially acceptable.

But killing dogs is no way socially acceptable to a majority of us so anyone involved must be a monster. Except that certain people grow up with dog fighting as part of their culture . . . they aren't programed to recognize the cruelty of it given they way they have been exposed to it (just like hunting seems incredibly cruel to me but I'm guessing a hunter will tell you why it is not so cruel).

Has anyone seen a bull fight . . . you have a whole bullring of respectable people in thier society shouting and encouraging the slow death of a bull. This kind of activity goes on to this day in first world countries such as Spain.

I think Marbury is trying to say you why should you demonize Vick for this when what he does is not that far of a deviation from other activites allowed by law. Marbury thinks the reason some want Vick banned for life is this human nature of enjoying seeing people fall from the top. As a fan I think he is partially right, we generally do like to build up althlets and then love to tear them down.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Ozzy never bit the head off a live dove. It was a bat that was thrown to him and he put it in his mouth (because he's a nutter).

But if dog fighting was legal, and people made a stink about it (and don't regarding deer hunting) that's a good analogy.

We do tend to "tear down" athletes, but it's not like Vick is an innocent victim of a smear campaign.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Meth will certainly make you say some outlandish things...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Hap said:


> Ozzy never bit the head off a live dove, or a bat. It was thrown to him and he put it in his mouth (because he's a nutter).
> 
> But if dog fighting was legal, and people made a stink about it (and don't regarding deer hunting) that's a good analogy.
> 
> We do tend to "tear down" athletes, but it's not like Vick is an innocent victim of a smear campaign.



Hey hap . . . I think it's been awhile since you posted. Have you been gone or is it just the slow time and I'm missing your posts?

Well as you can see, you don't need to patrol the site to keep me in place as many other posters are doing that for you.

Just so my position is clear, what Vick did is wrong and he should be punished for it. The question is should he be demonized for it and thought of a dispicable when he grew up in an environment with dog fighting. Clearly if someone has grown up hunting they have rationalized why it is OK to wound or kill animals. I think to some Vick supporters, the thing that separates hunters and Vick is what Vick did is against the law.

I understand that Vick's actions have that "ick" fator (which is why I hate taking this position). But we are still talking about killing of animals and as I understand it, hunting can be pretty ugly as well . . . it's not always the one clean shot that takes them down. Help me out hunters but don't frequently the deer end up bleeding to death or get away with a life threatening injury?


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



yakbladder said:


> Well, I don't think most deer hunters take the deer and slam them into the ground to kill them, or drown them in a river. Though I guess I might be impressed by a hunter who could catch a deer with their bare hands and wrestle them into a river.


first the hunter needs to make the deer fight another deer. :uhoh:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

My only "sympathy" for Vick, if you can call it that, is that other parties equally guilty are escaping with lesser punishment. If you want to send a message that this activity is wrong, don't just punish *one* participant - take them all to the woodshed!

What message is the prosecutor sending here? That as long as you are not a celebrity/jock, you can get away with this crap?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Hey hap . . . I think it's been awhile since you posted. Have you been gone or is it just the slow time and I'm missing your posts?


I was in idaho for 2 weeks.



> Well as you can see, you don't need to patrol the site to keep me in place as many other posters are doing that for you.


I normally "patrol" idears that are different from mind, regardless of who posts them. But I haven't actually paid much attention to your "anti-hap" posts (in the sense of posts that you made that I didn't "agree" with..or if I have I just haven't remembered doing so).


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

to be honest the hunting point is a good one. you can justify it however you want, either way you are killing an animal.


it is a sport, just a really sadistic one.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

What about the hunters side of things where they claim if you didn't kill a certain regulated amount of deer each year in a certain area, that the deer in that area would overpopulate and cause starvation among the majority of deer in the said location?


----------



## lalooska (Jan 17, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Decent article from Greg Easterbrook. Some good points, some not so good, but still a decent perspective. Maybe Deion Sanders has a point...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070816


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



lalooska said:


> Decent article from Greg Easterbrook. Some good points, some not so good, but still a decent perspective. Maybe Deion Sanders has a point...
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070816


it's pretty pathetic that you can still get an OJ jersey (and whats worse is people still buy it) and a Carruth jersey. The wrongness (if thats such a word) of those two examples doesn't really mean anything in relation to the Vick case.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

I think you all have identified a major reason for converting to being a vegetarian. From a deep moral perspective, it is pretty much some sort of rationalization to kill a sentient being. 

Why is killing one species that much different than killing a different species? It is an question anyone can fairly ask. How it is answered is up to each person.

The real issue here, is the legal one. No matter how you slice it, Mr. Vick was breaking the law. In this society that can at least sometimes have consequences. If you want to argue that the law should be changed, go ahead. However, at the time of the transgressions by Mr. Vick, the law was/is what it was/is.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

You call out people making coments about Cambodians eating dogs...this coming from the guy who made this comment after a fellow human died..




hoojacks said:


> Let's just hope he wasn't doing what he was doing the last time he crashed his car.



Kettle???


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Bwatcher said:


> Why is killing one species that much different than killing a different species? It is an question anyone can fairly ask. How it is answered is up to each person.


Do you not kill rats that infest your house? Rodents are sentient. How about roaches? There is a logical end to this argument for most people that falls short of the truly existential question you're asking, Bwatcher. 

But that doesn't mean there's no grey area. For some people, hunting deer , is OK, because it is done in a "wild" situation where the deer may escape (some insist it's only sporting, i.e. "moral" if you use a bow, rather than a rifle...). For others, like Stephon Marbury, executing captive, domesticated dogs that rely on humans completely for their sustenance is also acceptable. The laws of the United States tend to agree with people who see hunting as OK and executing dogs as not OK. While I disagree with Marbury's point of view, it's not without some logic.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

The answers for me are that I try not to, including mosquitos etc. 

I think that we are close to saying something similar. The point is that certainly lines can be drawn, but what is really behind the choice in making those lines? It is really not some consistent "morality" that applies to all. It is, for most people, a set of conventions and cultural habits. In one sense it is not at all surprising that some think dog fighting (and killing the poor competitiors) is OK. However, that doesn't make it legal. So, for me, while the "subculture" argument has some logical explanatory power, it ultimately has no real weight. The issue comes back to the legal one.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

my only question about this situation, people are blasting vick for killing dogs, what do you think about families that put their pets down? who are YOU to decide that Scrappy should live or die tomorrow at the vet instead of 'riding it out'? 

dont get me wrong, i think vick did something terrible. but for us to demonize him (i like that phrase), is another thing. there are a lot of factors of course in this situation and it's not as simple as 1 2 3. oh well. donaghy is still the worst of the two criminals imo.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



deanwoof said:


> my only question about this situation, people are blasting vick for killing dogs, what do you think about families that put their pets down? who are YOU to decide that Scrappy should live or die tomorrow at the vet instead of 'riding it out'?
> 
> dont get me wrong, i think vick did something terrible. but for us to demonize him (i like that phrase), is another thing. there are a lot of factors of course in this situation and it's not as simple as 1 2 3. oh well. donaghy is still the worst of the two criminals imo.


There is a huge difference between doing something that you know, and is meant to cause pain, vs. putting down an animal in a humane fashion. Your argument holds no water for me. 

As to hunting vs. dog fighting, there is the same difference although it is more subtle. But when you add that Vick killed his dogs in outlandish ways, that put it over the top for me. 

Now I admit that I am more bothered because this is a dog and not a cow/deer/fly or whatever. I have bonded is several dogs in my life and so they have come to be very dear to me. Yes, this is cultural but this is also the culture we live in. There are all sorts of laws and norms that go contrary to a subculture because they are the norms of society at large. I can't have seven wives even though there are subcultures that would consider that proper. I can't have sex with under age people even though that's OK by some. And the list goes on. It sure sounds nice to say "live and let live", but that is not how our society is constructed. And in our society dogs are important. I am not saying I think Vick should be sent away for life or be put to death, but I would never spend one single dime on any team or product that willingly associated with Vick from this point on. He has a right to life after his punishment is over, but he does not have a right to my support.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



deanwoof said:


> my only question about this situation, people are blasting vick for killing dogs, what do you think about families that put their pets down? who are YOU to decide that Scrappy should live or die tomorrow at the vet instead of 'riding it out'?


No offense, but I don't think you thought that through very well.

People seem to need a reminder on how much suffering dogfighting produces for these animals. It's really brutal.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

It's illegal to kill deer in the manner Vick killed the dogs. You can't own a deer farm where you have Bucks fight to the death and then hang the ones that lose.

Personally I'm a carnivore and like eating tasty deer. I don't like the idea of killing animals if your not going to use them (eat them) that is wrong to me.

If Vick had a dog farm and humanly killed dogs for his family to eat it would be kind of disturbing to me but I'd accept it and I'd be fine with him not going to jail over it.

But he was a part of dogs fighting to the death for sport, for betting, for laughter. He was a part of needlessly abusing and slaughtering dogs for fun, not for any legitimate use.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



hoojacks said:


> Many people hunt and don't eat the meat. Many just like to have a deer head on the wall.


I've killed a lot of animals in my life on hunting trips. I've hunted with dozens, maybe fifty different hunters. I never met one who didn't eat what they killed when possible. 

My dad has four dead sheep heads, a kudu, a gazelle and a waterbuck all on his wall. All of the critters got eaten, either by him or Africans. I'm not sure what happened to the body of the lion he shot, but I'd guess it was fed to someone or something. 

Most hunters don't go with the primary objective of getting food. It's a lot cheaper to buy lobster and steaks from the grocery store. For many, the big draw is having a trophy on a wall. (I've never been that way myself.) 

But you have to eat what you shoot. Doing otherwise isn't hunting--it's poaching. Illegal and unethical.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Poaching is hunting something out of season or otherwise illegally, it doesn't matter if you eat it or not.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

The hunting argument is a very very weak one.

Dog fighting is illegal because it's basically the torture of a live animal for the purpose of money and/or entertainment. It's the same principal as bull fighting (which is also illegal in the US). Dog fighters keep their animals in poor living conditions. They starve them. They don't tend to their wounds. Did anyone see what the dog looked like after Qyntel Woods dumped it into that alley? Not a pretty site.

Hunting is a tool used by the State of Oregon to control the over population of certain species of animals. Maybe some of you haven't been out to Eastern Oregon, but deer aren't exactly an endangered species out there. If they are allowed to over populate, they begin to starve and spread into the nearby farmlands. 

This is the same principle for cougars, bears, or any other predator from this region. At one point cougars were hunted to the brink of extinction in Oregon. At that time the state disallowed the use of dogs to hunt these mountain cats and the species rebounded... heavily. Now the state is over populated with cougars and we have virtually no way to hunt them due to the lack of dogs trained for the purpose. You might ask why we would need to cull the herd so to speak, well the current over population of cougars is decimating the deer population in certain areas, and with no way to stem the tide the state is beginning to panic. I've heard they might have to fly in hunters from other states in order to solve the problem. 

Just a little insight into the point of view of a hunter.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

We all, except a few religious sects like the Jains, (whose priests are not allowed to bathe becaues it would kill skin micro-organisms) make value judgments. I kill snails in my garden. I don't use poison because poison is harmful to other animals and the environment. I use Frontline to keep fleas off my cats. I have made a judgment that my cats' health and comfort is more important to me than the lives of the fleas. For that matter, I am currently taking antibiotics for my abscessed tooth. The bacteria are alive. I am killing them. But spiders in my house I just try to put outside. I put net over the fruit trees to keep the birds from eating all of the fruit (but some is left uncovered for them) but don't kill birds. I am making a value judgment. 

Personally, I could not hunt. I am not observant, but hunting is forbidden by Jewish law so there is no hunting tradition in my family. Someone gave me some deer once and all I could think of was that I was eating Bambi. I ended up giving it to the cats. But I am not a vegetarian. Maybe that is contradictory. Hunting is needed to reduce population because humans have intervened. There are not enough wolves and others left to control the deer. When left alone, the population controls itself as predators kill off the surplus prey. Not pretty, but nature often is not pretty. 

I bell my cat Orlando to keep him from catching birds. But it is not 100%. I saw him race across the lawn with astonishing speed and launch himself into a flock of crows feeding there. And he nabbed one. I was not happy, but I can't scold him for being a cat. He is following his own nature when he hunts.

And that is the difference between a cat (or wolf) and a human. A cat cannot make moral judgments of his/her own behavior. A person can and should.

I have no idea if Vick grew up where dog fighting was common or condoned. But so what? He's a grown man. He makes his own decisions. The fact that he kept the operation secret shows he knew at least that it was illegal, and he cannot be so dumb as to be unaware that it is highly disapproved. He made his choice. Perhaps he just thought he would never be caught. I don't know, I'm not in his head. Whether any NFL team wants him after his jail time is up to them.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

KMD and anyone else who says if grew up dog fighting so we should back off him. so are you saying that someone who grows up in a drug house with drugs always around them and when they get older they get caught manufacturing and dealing drugs that we should lay off them and give them a break? no. he is a grown man.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

oh yeah and last i checked no one bull fights in our country. and fizzleraider had a great post. and the jewish man above me had a great post too. props


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Resume said:


> KMD and anyone else who says if grew up dog fighting so we should back off him. so are you saying that someone who grows up in a drug house with drugs always around them and when they get older they get caught manufacturing and dealing drugs that we should lay off them and give them a break? no. he is a grown man.


Depends how you define a "break." If a break means they should be criminally prosecuted and given the same amount of prison time as anyone else who commits the same crime and then help them transition into society so they have a chance to suceed if life . . . then yes, I think they deserve a "break".


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Resume said:


> oh yeah and last i checked no one bull fights in our country. and fizzleraider had a great post. and the jewish man above me had a great post too. props


I think only one poster identified explicitly as Jewish (unless I missed something) and that was me. I'm a woman.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Resume said:


> oh yeah and last i checked no one bull fights in our country. and fizzleraider had a great post. and the jewish man above me had a great post too. props



I think you are missing the point with bull fighting. If a bull fighter from Spain, breaks the law and does a bull fight in aonther courty that it isn't allowed (say France) . . . France prosecutes and punishes the bull fighter giving him jail. When he gets out of jail, comes to the US and has the skills to play in the NFL . . . should the NFL say no way, you are a bull fighter and broke the laws so no NFL for you.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

I have to be done with this thread, but after reading through it I think we are all in basic agreement:

1. Vick should be criminally prosecuted and punished by jail for his actions.

2. If no NFL team wants to touch him because of his actions, that is life and no one is going to feel sorry for him because he created the situation himself.

3. If an NFL organization wasnt to gamble on him, the NFL should not step in ban Vick from the NFL . . . at least not for life.

I don't know how many times I have to say it but I'm not saying that Vick should go unpunished for his actions . . . I just think the punishment should fit the crime and a lifetime ban does not fit the crime. It sounds like most agree . . .


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

sorry cran i didn't know you were a woman. my apologies. kmd you got some decent points. good thread man! i like to argue it was fun.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I have to be done with this thread, but after reading through it I think we are all in basic agreement:
> 
> 1. Vick should be criminally prosecuted and punished by jail for his actions.
> 
> ...


I agree. I do not think a person should be forever blacklisted, although I can understand reluctance to hire for certain types of positions. In fact, the permanent blacklist that can follow even a brief term for a relatively minor crime is a big cause of recidivism (not sure if I'm spelling that correctly).
And I also agree that when someone completes a prison term, he/she needs some transitional help.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Resume said:


> sorry cran i didn't know you were a woman. my apologies. kmd you got some decent points. good thread man! i like to argue it was fun.



Thanks for the comment . . . good thread for you, I personally hate this thread. :biggrin: 

For the record: I am a dog owner and love dogs (my dog is my child)

I'M OUT!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



mgb said:


> Poaching is hunting something out of season or otherwise illegally, it doesn't matter if you eat it or not.


wrong. poaching is the taking of game illegally. in most places it's illegal to kill most game without making an effort to use the dead animal as food.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



crandc said:


> I think only one poster identified explicitly as Jewish (unless I missed something) and that was me. I'm a woman.


Hey crandc, I too am Jewish and not very observent. I have never heard that hunting is against Jewish law. Interesting. Do you know what that is from? Are you sure? Not that I have ever hunted or would want to, but it seems very odd to me for a people who has been around for such a long time to forbid hunting. I know we can't have dairy with the deer. Or any oysters or catfish cause they are bottom dwellers, but I have never heard we can't hunt. I am not saying you are wrong cause I just don't know, but I would be interested for a little more info on the topic. I wonder if that is just an extention of having to kill in a humane way? That could be it. Just thinking as I type. I wonder if a hunter shot a deer and then killed the deer in the humane way dictated by law, and took the deer to a rabbi for blessing, if that would be legal under Jewish Law. Very very interesting. Thanks for any info you have on the subject. :cheers:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



mook said:


> wrong.* poaching is the taking of game illegally.* in most places it's illegal to kill most game without making an effort to use the dead animal as food.


The bold part is right, which I said, the rest isn't true as far as I know. It certainly is frowned on not to eat what you kill, but I've never heard a law against it. Someone could have a animal stuff and dispose of the meat and not be breaking any laws.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poaching is illegal hunting or fishing. It may be illegal because:

The game or fish is not in season. 
The poacher does not possess a license. 
The Hunter used an illegal weapon for that animal. 
The animal or plant is on restricted land. 
The right to hunt this animal is claimed by somebody. 
The means used are illegal (for example, baiting a field while hunting quail, or using spotlights to stun or paralyze deer). 
The animal or fish is protected by law or that it has been listed as extinct animal or an Endangered Animal (see for example the Endangered Species Act for the USA) 
The animal or plant has been tagged by a researcher 

No where does it say anything about not eating it constitutes poaching.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



GOD said:


> Hey crandc, I too am Jewish and not very observent. I have never heard that hunting is against Jewish law. Interesting. Do you know what that is from? Are you sure? Not that I have ever hunted or would want to, but it seems very odd to me for a people who has been around for such a long time to forbid hunting. I know we can't have dairy with the deer. Or any oysters or catfish cause they are bottom dwellers, but I have never heard we can't hunt. I am not saying you are wrong cause I just don't know, but I would be interested for a little more info on the topic. I wonder if that is just an extention of having to kill in a humane way? That could be it. Just thinking as I type. I wonder if a hunter shot a deer and then killed the deer in the humane way dictated by law, and took the deer to a rabbi for blessing, if that would be legal under Jewish Law. Very very interesting. Thanks for any info you have on the subject. :cheers:


Hunting is forbidden because Jewish law only allows certain mammals (cloven hoof and chewing a cud) to be eaten, and all animals to be eaten, including mammals and birds, must be slaughtered and prepared per kosher guidelines. It is common but incorrect belief that kosher meat is "blessed". It is not blessed, rather, the rabbi is there to observe and certify the animal was killed per dietary law. Deer cannot be eaten at all, since they don't chew a cud, and animals that could potentially be eaten like pheasant or wild turkey cannot be shot. So if hunted they could not be eaten. 

So since the animals hunted could not be eaten, they are being stalked and killed solely for sport and that is cruelty to animals, hence forbidden.

Fishing is allowed, provided they are true fish with fins and scales, since the fish can be eaten. For reasons unknown, fish are not considered "meat" in dietary law.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

In the Idaho Fish and Game manual it says "Hunters are required to remove and care for the edible meat of big game animals, except mountain lion. This includes the meat of the front quarters as far down as the knee, hindquarters as far down as the hock, neck meat, meat along the backbone, and meat covering the ribs. It does not include meat of the head, internal organs, or meat on the bones after close trimming." Page 16. (Warning, it's a 10 meg pdf file.)
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/rules/bg/07_biggame.pdf

I haven't looked through the F&G regs for the other 49 states, but I suspect it says pretty much the same thing. 

So is it illegal not to eat the meat? Technically, no. But if you shoot a deer and try to go through a Fish and Game check station in Idaho with just a deer head, you are going to get busted because *it's against the law*. 

Once you get home, of course, you can throw a hundred pounds of Elk in the garbage can if you want. I've never heard of anyone doing that, though. It'd be easier (and less nasty smelling) to just donate it to a charity or give it to friends or something. Or just eat it. It's a fair amount of work to drag that much meat all the way home and just throw it away.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



crandc said:


> Hunting is forbidden because Jewish law only allows certain mammals (cloven hoof and chewing a cud) to be eaten, and all animals to be eaten, including mammals and birds, must be slaughtered and prepared per kosher guidelines. It is common but incorrect belief that kosher meat is "blessed". It is not blessed, rather, the rabbi is there to observe and certify the animal was killed per dietary law. Deer cannot be eaten at all, since they don't chew a cud, and animals that could potentially be eaten like pheasant or wild turkey cannot be shot. So if hunted they could not be eaten.
> 
> So since the animals hunted could not be eaten, they are being stalked and killed solely for sport and that is cruelty to animals, hence forbidden.
> 
> Fishing is allowed, provided they are true fish with fins and scales, since the fish can be eaten. For reasons unknown, fish are not considered "meat" in dietary law.


Thanks crandic, I totally forgot about the cloven hoof/non cud chewing parts of law. 

I would have a very hard time adhering to dietary law. Nothing beats a good bacon cheesburger and vanilla shake. 

Still, I have a lot of respect for those who are willing and able to follow not only dietary law but all 613 mitzvots.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

The bottom line for me is not the law, it is that what Vick and his accomplices did to the dogs was for the one purpose of causing them pain and suffering. FAR more pain and suffering than, say a deer that is shot. 

If I had to die (say be executed), and someone gave me the choice of being shot in the heart, possibly not killing me immediately, in which case my throat would be slit, or I could be starved close to death for a couple years, then be sent into a ring to fight dogs that would attack my throat, and tear me to pieces, and, if I was somehow able to defeat the dog, I would then be hanged, electrocuted, or drowned, possibly after having to do more fights, I'll take the quick and easy death any day, thank you very much.

Killing is killing, any way it's sliced, but there is a BIG difference between killing and torture. What Mike Vick and his cohorts did was torture.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



 GOD said:


> Hey crandc, I too am Jewish and not very observent. I have never heard that hunting is against Jewish law.


Is it because hunting is not Kosher? Or whatever that kosher thing you guys do? I don't know much about the Jewish religion but doesn't kosher mean you have to kill your food in the least painful way? Maybe hunting is too painful.

I don't know, just bored and posting.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

Kudos to the sociopaths in this thread who see no difference between sadistically raising, fighting, and then slaughtering an animal that has been culturally domesticated and humanized in the US (dogs) vs. animals who are hunted, often in order to protect farmland (deer and other wild game).

The internet is a place for everyone. Good luck with those opinions in the real world, gang. :yay: :cheers:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



PapaG said:


> Kudos to the sociopaths in this thread who see no difference between sadistically raising, fighting, and then slaughtering an animal that has been culturally domesticated and humanized in the US (dogs) vs. animals who are hunted, often in order to protect farmland (deer and other wild game).


Pit bulls were bred to fight. They were bred to kill other dogs.

They are being used for what they were bred for... the way they've always been used. Deer are being used for what they've always been used for.

Our society in general puts MUCH more emotional stock into dogs than we do into deer. I know that I do. Obviously there are both individuals and elements of different cultures--even within our own country--that disagree. It doesn't mean that they're right, or that they aren't breaking the law just because of this difference of opinion.

It's ridiculously condescending to act like any sort of comparison between hunting and dog fighting is irrational, however, and I think it shows a narrow mindedness to not see how or why people could come to that set of values without being insane or evil.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Ed O said:


> Pit bulls were bred to fight. They were bred to kill other dogs.
> 
> They are being used for what they were bred for... the way they've always been used. Deer are being used for what they've always been used for.
> 
> ...


As much as I hate to wade back into this thread - Ed, you're either completely misinterpreting PapaG, or you're completely wrong. Now that I have your attention :biggrin: - You'll notice the key word in PapaG's statement "sadistically". He's not referring to just raising dogs to fight, then letting them kill each other, although I would argue that even that is far and away different from going out and hunting deer. I believe he is nodding towards the manner in which they are raised, how they were treated when they lost, and how they were killed. To somehow try and legitimately tie that together with hunting deer requires either a quasi sociopath or someone who has an entirely disconnected set of emotions from any action they may take. I'd throw in a standard lawyer joke here but I'm sure you've heard them all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



yakbladder said:


> As much as I hate to wade back into this thread - Ed, you're either completely misinterpreting PapaG, or you're completely wrong. Now that I have your attention :biggrin: - You'll notice the key word in PapaG's statement "sadistically". He's not referring to just raising dogs to fight, then letting them kill each other, although I would argue that even that is far and away different from going out and hunting deer. I believe he is nodding towards the manner in which they are raised, how they were treated when they lost, and how they were killed. To somehow try and legitimately tie that together with hunting deer requires either a quasi sociopath or someone who has an entirely disconnected set of emotions from any action they may take. I'd throw in a standard lawyer joke here but I'm sure you've heard them all.


Goddammit. I had a lot of stuff typed up and it crashed on me. I'll be brief:

-- I can't believe that so many people think that THEIR belief system is the only sane one.

-- Ancient Greeks and Romans widely detested dogs. Did that mean that they were all quasi sociopaths or that they had entirely disconnected sets of emotions?

-- Some cultures eat dogs. Is that culture evil?

-- We eat cows, and veal is from calfs often less than 3 months old. Are we NOT an evil culture because they're cows, and not dogs?

-- Vick's dogs are going to be destroyed by the state. These are some of the finest dogs of their kind in the WORLD. They include dogs that are stronger, tougher, and (in their way) smarter than any other dogs. Yet we're going to have them destroyed, rather than allow them to do what they were bred to do. If we're just being fair to the DOGS (which, presumably, is why people are so angry about all of this... I don't think the argument is that the treatment of dogs is impacting people adversely) aren't we being a bit selective in terms of what we think is "good" for them? We think that a life with the possibility of defeat and death is worse than death, alone?

I have no problem with the law being carried out. I have no problem with the LAW.

I do have a problem with people who are so emotionally wrapped up in their love of dogs and/or so morally superior that they call those that can see other perspectives sociopaths.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Ed O said:


> Goddammit. I had a lot of stuff typed up and it crashed on me. I'll be brief:
> 
> -- I can't believe that so many people think that THEIR belief system is the only sane one.
> 
> ...


What's wrong about what Vick did is that he tortured the animals, not that he killed them.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Fork said:


> What's wrong about what Vick did is that he tortured the animals, not that he killed them.


What do you mean he tortured the animals?

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Ed O said:


> Goddammit. I had a lot of stuff typed up and it crashed on me. I'll be brief:


 Karma :biggrin:

Ed, have you been drinking before noon? This isn't just my belief system. This is a belief system of a majority of the world that you don't go around and hideously torture dogs or kill them (purposely) in very cruel ways. 


> -- Vick's dogs are going to be destroyed by the state. These are some of the finest dogs of their kind in the WORLD. They include dogs that are stronger, tougher, and (in their way) smarter than any other dogs. Yet we're going to have them destroyed, rather than allow them to do what they were bred to do. If we're just being fair to the DOGS (which, presumably, is why people are so angry about all of this... I don't think the argument is that the treatment of dogs is impacting people adversely) aren't we being a bit selective in terms of what we think is "good" for them? We think that a life with the possibility of defeat and death is worse than death, alone?


The dogs were also bred to hold off bulls for their master and their original ancestors were bred to hunt vermin, but that's another matter. No one here is saying kill all the dogs right now.



> I do have a problem with people who are so emotionally wrapped up in their love of dogs and/or so morally superior that they call those that can see other perspectives sociopaths.


I have no problem claiming moral superiority in this field when compared to those people. I'm sure other people surpass me in many other fields by a mile, but in this one, no way.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



yakbladder said:


> Ed, have you been drinking before noon? This isn't just my belief system. This is a belief system of a majority of the world that you don't go around and hideously torture dogs or kill them (purposely) in very cruel ways.


I don't drink.

Setting that aside: What is the problem here? The dogfighting, or the torture, or the way the dogs were killed? If they had been bred and trained and used to fight, but then had their throats slit to end their lives, would it be OK?

Or if they'd been shot in the head? Or if they'd been injected with a proper cocktail of sedatives while lying on a big puffy dog bed?

It seems like I address one point and someone says that it's another point. Which is fine... I'm discussing this with more than one person, but it's hard to argue when people keep changing what the issue is.



> The dogs were also bred to hold off bulls for their master and their original ancestors were bred to hunt vermin, but that's another matter. No one here is saying kill all the dogs right now.


The dogs that Vick has were bred to fight. I would bet there were several generations of dogs that were chosen for their strength and aggressiveness that culminated in his stock at the time of his arrest. The breed overall is a subclass of animals that were selected for what you listed, but Vick's dogs clearly existed due to (both in terms of cause and in terms of desired role) dogfighting.



> I have no problem claiming moral superiority in this field when compared to those people. I'm sure other people surpass me in many other fields by a mile, but in this one, no way.


OK. It must be nice to feel comfortable taking that kind of refuge. I can't do that.

Ed O.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

unfortunately, i live in Portland for almost 5 years, and this is very typical, to put down any opinion that differ from an Oregonian. you think this is bad, say something abt a gay person and watch the response you'll receive,


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



mook said:


> I've killed a lot of animals in my life on hunting trips. I've hunted with dozens, maybe fifty different hunters. I never met one who didn't eat what they killed when possible.
> 
> My dad has four dead sheep heads, a kudu, a gazelle and a waterbuck all on his wall. All of the critters got eaten, either by him or Africans. I'm not sure what happened to the body of the lion he shot, but I'd guess it was fed to someone or something.
> 
> ...




Please, i just don't believe, I know plenty of hunters myself, most live in OR, and all do not eat their kill, abt half and half.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



NateBishop3 said:


> The hunting argument is a very very weak one.
> 
> Dog fighting is illegal because it's basically the torture of a live animal for the purpose of money and/or entertainment. It's the same principal as bull fighting (which is also illegal in the US). Dog fighters keep their animals in poor living conditions. They starve them. They don't tend to their wounds. Did anyone see what the dog looked like after Qyntel Woods dumped it into that alley? Not a pretty site.
> 
> ...



over population is just another way for white to justify what they do, "they have to fly in other hunters from other states." have you ever see a dear starving to death. probably not


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> Please, i just don't believe, I know plenty of hunters myself, most live in OR, and all do not eat their kill, abt half and half.


If your pals don't eat the game they kill, they are breaking the law (unless they're hunting cougar.)

From the current Oregon Hunting Regs:

No Person Shall: Waste any game mammals or parts thereof, except that meat of cougar need not be salvaged.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/OFWbiggamerevised12-20-06 (2).pdf (Pg. 31)

Wanker: I believe the charge in Oregon is 'Wanton waste of a game animal', and the fine is substantial.

Go Blazers


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> unfortunately, i live in Portland for almost 5 years, and this is very typical, to put down any opinion that differ from an Oregonian. you think this is bad, say something abt a gay person and watch the response you'll receive,


All people are like that, not just Oregonians.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> unfortunately, i live in Portland for almost 5 years, and this is very typical, to put down any opinion that differ from an Oregonian. you think this is bad, say something abt a gay person and watch the response you'll receive,


Well, furious style, my response will depend on what you say about me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> unfortunately, i live in Portland for almost 5 years, and this is very typical, to put down any opinion that differ from an Oregonian. you think this is bad, say something abt a gay person and watch the response you'll receive,


it depends on what you say, and how you say it. If you said "that guy's a ****ing ***!", in most civilized areas in the US (and Canada) you'll have some strange looks and responses.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Hap said:


> it depends on what you say, and how you say it. If you said "that guy's a ****ing ***!", in most civilized areas in the US (and Canada) you'll have some strange looks and responses.[/QUO
> 
> 
> i don't think so, you think that because you are from OR, and people from OR tend to think that there views are shared by the rest of the world, which is far from the truth. my sisters, and favorite uncle are homosexuals and the would not agree with what you are saying. most of the world are apathetic towards gays at best. By the way i have nothing against homosexuals i just think that it is wrong, it is an alternative
> sexual preference and not who you are.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

So some eat wolves?


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



crandc said:


> Well, furious style, my response will depend on what you say about me.


if you choose to have a sexual relationship with the same gender,well, if you like, I love it, i wont say anything bad abt gays , at least not in public.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> if you choose to have a sexual relationship with the same gender,well, if you like, I love it, i wont say anything bad abt gays , at least not in public.


abt is not a word. I've seen you use it a couple times now.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



zagsfan20 said:


> All people are like that, not just Oregonians.


 No one does it like Portland, I resided in a lot of cities and visited a lot more, and besides Springfield,OR, Portland is the worst. I'm so happy i moved my family out of there. Furthermore with the exception of the fine trailblazers fans that I've had the privilege running across on this forum, your belove basketball squad has the most fair weather fans I've ever seen. if you guys had not landed the top pick of the draft, you would not sell out none of your games this up coming season. And yes, I've been to plenty of trailblazers games, 
if i had a penny for every empty seat on any given game night at the Rose garden i would be able to buy about 2000 Telfair jerseys.:lol:


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



zagsfan20 said:


> abt is not a word. I've seen you use it a couple times now.


it's a habit i started from taking notes in school, it short for about, i meant to say it's srt 4 abt, and i notice most of your post have no substance, and quit boring.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



zagsfan20 said:


> abt is not a word. I've seen you use it a couple times now.


Oh yeah I've in Spokane to, and Gonzaga is the only good thing abt that town.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



BealzeeBob said:


> If your pals don't eat the game they kill, they are breaking the law (unless they're hunting cougar.)
> 
> From the current Oregon Hunting Regs:
> 
> ...


so because it's illegal, thats means people don't do it? great that means murder, and rape should cease any day now


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> if you choose to have a sexual relationship with the same gender,well, if you like, I love it, i wont say anything bad abt gays , at least not in public.


Actually, you already did.

I think you are punctuation challenged.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> it's a habit i started from taking notes in school, it short for about, i meant to say it's srt 4 abt, and i notice most of your post have no substance, and quit boring.


Your posts are full of substance as well, they're also very easy to read. School doesn't look like it paid off.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> so because it's illegal, thats means people don't do it? great that means murder, and rape should cease any day now


What an ignorant response, thanks. No, it doesn't mean people don't do it. It means honest, law abiding hunters don't do it. And, that your buds aren't honest, law abiding hunters. Sorry that that's the class of friends you have.

Go blazers


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> over population is just another way for white to justify what they do, "they have to fly in other hunters from other states." have you ever see a dear starving to death. probably not


You have GOT to be kidding. Its actually VERY, VERY common to see deer or elk starving in the wild. The number of deer and elk licenses issued every year is directly correlated to the population of deer and elk that year. 

A suggestion..... step away from the keyboard, experience the world outside of your Californian mindset, and learn something.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

furious styles said:


> if you guys had not landed the top pick of the draft, *you would not sell out none* of your games this up coming season.


Do you make pretzels for a living and do they talk to you? And seriously, how do you expect readers to intuitively comprehend a unique shorthand system that you personally created? If you want to be understood, it would make the most sense to write in terms that most readers are familiar with as opposed to whats easiest for you.

STOMP


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> Furthermore with the exception of the fine trailblazers fans that I've had the privilege running across on this forum, your belove basketball squad has the most fair weather fans I've ever seen. if you guys had not landed the top pick of the draft, you would not sell out none of your games this up coming season. And yes, I've been to plenty of trailblazers games,
> if i had a penny for every empty seat on any given game night at the Rose garden i would be able to buy about 2000 Telfair jerseys.:lol:


I hate to break the news to you, but the Blazers sold out some games last year (before we had Oden) toward the end of the season. Every team has it's share of fair weather fans, the Blazers are certainly no exception, but I think that they are quicker to jump back on than most other groups of fans would whose team has gone through the stuff the Blazers have.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Ed O said:


> I do have a problem with people who are so emotionally wrapped up in their love of dogs and/or so morally superior that they call those that can see other perspectives sociopaths.


If you have HBO, watch the Real Sports investigative report on dogfighting. You can find it On Demand. I watched it yesterday, and I still can not get the images I saw out of my mind. It is absolutely disgusting. Dog Men (as they are called) kill any dog that "quits" because it could quit again and could breed into their kennel passing on the "quitting" gene. Dog Men kidnap other people's animals (bait animals) injure the animals so they are defenseless and use them as "sparring" partners to train their dogs. One Dog Man was so infuriated when his dog quit he skinned the dog and used it to train other dogs. The dogs are often malnutritioned to make them more aggressive. There is some underground footage of dogfighting, and it is horrible in my opinion. How is this not sadistic? Dogfighting is just one step removed from gladiators. Gladiators were trained to be the best fighters in the world. Before galdiator matches, they would often have animal v. animal matches. At least some gladiators were volunteers. I can't tell if the dogs volunteer, but my guess is that if they had a say they would probably choose another line of work.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Zybot said:


> How is this not sadistic?


Sadism is the causing of pain for pleasure.

Nothing you've listed above (and I believe that it does all happen) indicates that "Dog Men" do this to feel good about themselves or to get off... they do it to breed the best dog possible.



> Dogfighting is just one step removed from gladiators. Gladiators were trained to be the best fighters in the world. Before galdiator matches, they would often have animal v. animal matches. At least some gladiators were volunteers. I can't tell if the dogs volunteer, but my guess is that if they had a say they would probably choose another line of work.


Would they? They've been BORN TO FIGHT. They are built for it, they are predisposed to it. It's all they know.

I know thinking about what a dog "wants" is silly, but do you think they'd prefer to be able to fight and train and reproduce (i.e., screw female dogs)... or be put to sleep because of what they are?

Would the gladiators rather have been given a fighting chance in the arena--even with all of the difficulties and challenges associated with it--or be put to death, instead?

As for whether dogs volunteer to fight: having seen my dog punctured to the point of having to go to the vet a few times following run-ins with pit bulls at dog parks (and these dogs weren't even trained or bred for game in the last few generations, based on what I knew of their owners)... I can tell you that dogs DO volunteer to fight sometimes... it makes no sense to me, but there's something in them that causes them to want to dominate, and if the other dog wants to dominate, as well, that leads to fighting. To biting and to bleeding and to general nastiness even OUTSIDE of a staged dog fight.

Ed O.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> No one does it like Portland, I resided in a lot of cities and visited a lot more, and besides Springfield,OR, Portland is the worst.



As have I, and I can say with the utmost certainty, *DELETED*. Portland is far, far, far from the worst.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Zybot said:


> Dogfighting is just one step removed from gladiators. Gladiators were trained to be the best fighters in the world. Before galdiator matches, they would often have animal v. animal matches. At least some gladiators were volunteers.


Football players are our modern gladiators. They play a game where they line up to destroy the bodies of their opponent and themselves on every play. Besides typically suffering from the after effects of crippling physical injuries the rest of their far shortened lives, former players run a much higher chance of suffering from depression and other phycholgical disorders brought on by cumulative concussions. The high rate of violent criminal acts that football players commit away from the field causes concern for how the game molds young people as well. 

The chances of me allowing my son to play competitive football are right there with the chances I'd enter my dog in a fight... zippo. Yet one form of violent entertainment is wildly celebrated by the public as the "Nations Passion" while the other is condemned as evil and deemed illegal. 

To each their own I guess but niether are for me for the same reasons.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*

please wanker, er...mook, let's at least have a realistic cartoon. Like anyone in the US cares what happens in Darfur. *









*people do, Im trying to make a funny


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Marbury... Yet... Again...*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2988480

This guy is great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Marbury... Yet... Again...*

Who cares? He is a tard.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Mook the cartoon is great and sadly true. Do you have a link?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> Mook the cartoon is great and sadly true. Do you have a link?


sorry. I just happened to find it using Stumbleupon the other day and immediately thought of this thread. It was just floating by itself in cyberspace. 

btw--do people still say "cyberspace"? it sounded soooooo 1999 when I wrote it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Mook the cartoon is great and sadly true. Do you have a link?


The link to the image itself is http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/puppyprinciple.gif

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



Bwatcher said:


> I think you all have identified a major reason for converting to being a vegetarian. From a deep moral perspective, it is pretty much some sort of rationalization to kill a sentient being.
> 
> Why is killing one species that much different than killing a different species? It is an question anyone can fairly ask.


Generally speaking, Darwin answered this pretty explicitly around 150 years ago.

But if "seeing is believing" applies to your thought process, take a look around you right now and observe some other species.

What's that bird doing right this minute? Looking for seeds and worms and bugs to eat. Out here in Beautiful Central OR I've seen so many "critters" kill and eat other "critters" it's like seeing the neighbor get his newspaper from the tube. A part of daily life.

I hunt because that's the natural thing to do. It's why we're here. Without hunting, mankind would have died like a candle in a hurricane.

Some "evolved" people have happily made the transition from man's most basic survival instinct to a more docile role, separated from the killing chore. Being served by the meat industry somewhat like a pet.

The horrors of what people actually consume "unknowingly" each day when they swallow that food item filled with a myriad of chemicals and toxins that's been handled by literally dozens of people all over the nation in varying degrees of health and cleanliness should be enough to demonstrate the simple logic in someone preferring to farm his own organic crops, catch his own wild fish, and hunt for his lean, wild venison.

Don't NEED to hunt?

What I don't NEED is someone to raise me a fat, sickly cow that has a huge cancerous tumor in it's neck that the guy at the slaughterhouse carves out of it and sends the rest of the meat down the line, eventually to my dinner table.

Different strokes, I guess.

That, and the fact that it's how mankind has survived for a very long time.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



MARIS61 said:


> I hunt because that's the natural thing to do. It's why we're here.


Maybe you are here to hunt, but I am here to have sex. When you come home from the hunt, I, having mated with your females, will steal your food and run away into the night. 

barfo


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



barfo said:


> Maybe you are here to hunt, but I am here to have sex. When you come home from the hunt, I, having mated with your females, will steal your food and run away into the night.
> 
> barfo


:clap2: 

I guess you're a dear hunter then?

Go Blazers


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



barfo said:


> Maybe you are here to hunt, but I am here to have sex. When you come home from the hunt, I, having mated with your females, will steal your food and run away into the night.
> 
> barfo


Historically speaking, the best providers have attracted the best mates.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



furious styles said:


> Please, i just don't believe, I know plenty of hunters myself, most live in OR, and all do not eat their kill, abt half and half.


Having hunted in Oregon since I was 4, I am confident that is a blatant lie.

I have yet to meet a single hunter who wastes game. They either eat it or their family or friends do.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



PapaG said:


> Kudos to the sociopaths in this thread who see no difference between sadistically raising, fighting, and then slaughtering an animal that has been culturally domesticated and humanized in the US (dogs) vs. animals who are hunted, often in order to protect farmland (deer and other wild game).
> 
> The internet is a place for everyone. Good luck with those opinions in the real world, gang. :yay: :cheers:


A closer parallel exists between dog-fighting and the meat industry, which confines and raises animals in inhumane conditions, experiments on them with chemicals, then kills them for profit.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

My cat Orlando brought me a lizard yesterday.

Actually, the ants are eating it. Since neither Orlando nor I really want to.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

On a different twist . . . Vick has helped me gain an appreciation for hunting.

I am one who thinks what Vick did is much worse than hunting but there is some correlation. So I have been reading articles and watching shows to test my theory. 

After all those articles and shows, I still don't know how close hunting is to what Vick did, but I have learned about hunting and sort of understand the mentality. One example (from TV) is a hunter who killed a trophy buck and was sitting there petting the dead animal while talking about his appreciation for "this beautiful creature." At first my thought was if it so beautiful, why kill it. But then I think about how I fish and how I think I appreciate fish more than non-fisherman yet I still kill them. 

I don't think I'm explaining myself well . . . but again Vick has made stop and anaylze hunting on a much deeper level . . . and it has shifted my view about hunting.

About the eating the animal . . . I son't think that has a lot to do with the correlation. If it did, does that mean hunters who kill cougars or elephants or whatever else they hunt and don't eat, are as bad as Vick? 

Also I have a friend that will sit on his back porch and drink all afternoon until a mole finally pops up and he shoots it. Where is he on the Vick scale?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Also I have a friend that will sit on his back porch and drink all afternoon until a mole finally pops up and he shoots it. Where is he on the Vick scale?


Alcohol and Guns.

A time tested perfect match combination.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> About the eating the animal . . . I son't think that has a lot to do with the correlation. If it did, does that mean hunters who kill cougars or elephants or whatever else they hunt and don't eat, are as bad as Vick?
> 
> Also I have a friend that will sit on his back porch and drink all afternoon until a mole finally pops up and he shoots it. Where is he on the Vick scale?


I'm an avid hunter and I won't kill anything I won't eat. but my older brother shoots rock chucks for fun sometimes. I personally find the idea nauseating. his son (only 12 and pretty impressionable) asked me if he could shoot a squirrel off a limb one day while we were grouse hunting, and I explained to him that there was nothing preventing him from doing it, and indeed his dad might do it, but that doesn't make it ethical. I took so long explaining my philosophy that the squirrel got away, so I can't say for sure I convinced him of anything. 

things have to die so that people can live. it's pretty obvious for us meat eaters, but it's true even for strict vegetarians. the way farmers raise corn right now has wiped out more pheasants than all the hunters combined. a million dollar mansion in central Idaho destroys more deer habitat, and thus destroyed generations of possible deer, than I ever could. hunting is just the most honest way I can imagine of recognizing this basic existential equation. 

we have to kill, but we don't have to kill wantonly. if I regularly kill deer to eat it, the free market will adjust and one less cow may be butchered. 

what is done with the dead animal is absolutely critical in how I evaluate the ethics of killing, and what separates (in my mind, at least) hunting from cruelty.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Marbury at it again...*



MARIS61 said:


> Having hunted in Oregon since I was 4, I am confident that is a blatant lie.
> 
> I have yet to meet a single hunter who wastes game. They either eat it or their family or friends do.



Just because you haven't met them, doesn't mean they don't exists. I have met plenty of "Sport Hunters" over the years. True they are very small percentile, but they are out there.


----------

