# 300 athletes involved in dog fighting?



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

According to espn that's the number of professional athletes involved. Qyntel was, Zach was his best friend and also owned Pit Bulls........That trade is looking better and better each day.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

It's now a Federal Offense. I hope a lot of these punks go down.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> It's now a Federal Offense. I hope a lot of these punks go down.




Me too. I'd love to see all of them go to prison and die the same way those poor dogs did.


Sorry, that was my conservative side rearing it's head.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?



Yep. What exactly does that have to do with dog fighting in the United States? I mean drugs are legal in other countries as well. Doesn't mean it's ok to do them here.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?


yeah... but where are we?


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?


Like cattle is here. They are bred for food and most likely killed humanely. Pitbulls that are bred to fight sometimes fight to the death. And people like Vick, if they don't fight up to his likings he kills them slowly by hanging, drowning, and slamming to the ground. 

You can't compare the two.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?



and in some countries cows are sacred.

this is about blatant cruelty for sport, not about killing to eat (obviously).


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Cows are sacred to me too. The Temple of the Hamburger has many locations!:biggrin:


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

It'll be a great day when Vick is sent to prison for a better part of a decade


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> It'll be a great day when Vick is sent to prison for a better part of a decade




Better day when he pleads down by giving up names of other athletes. This could be bigger than steroids IMO.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



hasoos said:


> Cows are sacred to me too. The Temple of the Hamburger has many locations!:biggrin:



some of those locations might be worshipping false horse gods


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> Yep. What exactly does that have to do with dog fighting in the United States? I mean drugs are legal in other countries as well. Doesn't mean it's ok to do them here.


Legality has nothing to do with it. It's about the morality of the situation. I can give a **** if you're a law abiding citizen or not. This country has so many unjust and unconstitutional laws and should not figure into an argument about the degree of the act.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?


And the winner for irrelevant point of the century goes to....*TLo!* Humane food killing != torture. Vick put two animals against each other for the point of them killing each other, then if he didn't like a dog, he tortured it to death. He's the lowest form of human being and I hope he fries.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I like dogs a lot (and not to eat), and I hope that if people broke the law, they get punished. I find it amusing how emotional people get over this issue, though.

Dog torturers are the lowest form of humans? REALLY?

What about cat torturers? Or human torturers?

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I work in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry. I am opposed without condition to the torture of animals or harming and degrading animals for "fun".

I am not a pacifist. I am opposed without condition to the torture of human beings or to harming and degrading humans for "fun".

On the Outsports discussion board yesterday, someone commented that the Blazers have gotten such good guys they are in danger of becoming too boring because they are so nice. I ask, why is nice boring? To even ask if you'd rather have Oden or Vick is an absurdity.

Evil is essentially boring. Really. When it comes to harming others there is not a lot new. When it comes to creativity there is always something new.

:soapbox:


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> Sorry, that was my conservative side rearing it's head.


On this issue, at least, this liberal agrees with you that those found guilty should hang by their toes.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Dog torturers are the lowest form of humans? REALLY?
> 
> What about cat torturers? Or human torturers?


It's a certain level of cowardice to torture and maim an animal that can't defend itself.

Read some of the reports on how Vick and his cronies killed dogs that they considered to be useless to them, and then you tell me that this kind of person wouldn't have the ability to have the same cold, remorseless attitude about killing a fellow human being in the same fashion.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



chris_in_pdx said:


> On this issue, at least, this liberal agrees with you that those found guilty should hang by their toes.




Probably on most issues. I'm a liberal, just a conservative one.....Or am I a liberal conservative?????


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Just checking, but you guys do know that in some Asian countries dogs are considered dinner, right?


That like something Nike would use to defend their position if they had not decided to suspend the release of the Zoom Vick V

Something along the lines of, the people that made those shoes ate dogs


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> Probably on most issues. I'm a liberal, just a conservative one.....Or am I a liberal conservative?????


That would be called a moderate.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Where are the Vick articles about how he would treat dogs who didn't perform well? I have not read that yet.

And for the record, I am 100% against torturing animals of any kind, and the ones who do this need to be accountable for their actions.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



chris_in_pdx said:


> It's a certain level of cowardice to torture and maim an animal that can't defend itself.


I don't know if it's cowardice... is he supposed to strangle the dog to death, and maybe the braver animal win? Being a coward has nothing to do with it, to me.

Of course, that doesn't mean he's not an *******.



> Read some of the reports on how Vick and his cronies killed dogs that they considered to be useless to them, and then you tell me that this kind of person wouldn't have the ability to have the same cold, remorseless attitude about killing a fellow human being in the same fashion.


OK. This kind of person wouldn't have the ability to have the same cold, remorseless attitude about killing a fellow human being in the same fashion.

Or wouldn't necessarily, at least.

One of my dogs growing up had an enlarged heart. It caused fluid to get into his lungs, and there was nothing that we could do. Eventually, I went with my mother (my dad was out of town) and our dog to the vet one final time. He peed on the bushes outside the office one final time. He wagged his tail trustingly as I petted him as he sat on the vet's treatment table one final time.

I watched him die, and I knew that I was part of the decision to do it. Was it for his own good? I think so. Might others have let him live until he was bed-ridden and unable to breath 24/7? Maybe.

Would I be able to choose to kill another person for their own good? Probably not. 

As much as I "loved" that dog, he was still just a dog. He relied on us, and we cared for him, and he was important to me... but that doesn't mean he was a person, and it doesn't stand to reason that how someone treats a dog (or a cat, or a cow, or a spider) is the same way they'd treat a person.

Ed O.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> Like cattle is here. They are bred for food and most likely killed humanely.


Sorry, but that's just not true. Even if you feel that there's a 'humane' way to be killed for food, it's not in practice in the US.
I don't want to start a debate on meat eating or anything, just challenging your statement.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> Probably on most issues. I'm a liberal, just a conservative one.....Or am I a liberal conservative?????


you sound like a moderate indepublicrat


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



#10 said:


> Sorry, but that's just not true. Even if you feel that there's a 'humane' way to be killed for food, it's not in practice in the US.
> I don't want to start a debate on meat eating or anything, just challenging your statement.



I think what he's getting at is that they are not beat against the ground or drowned.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> Me too. I'd love to see all of them go to prison and die the same way those poor dogs did.
> 
> Sorry, that was my conservative side rearing it's head.


Not everything is political in nature, MM. That was just your moral center rearing it's head. Many liberals and conservatives have them.

And I agree with you 100%.

PBF


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Actually there tends to be a direct correlation between people who torture/kill animals and those who kill people. That is definitly what lead to some of the laws we have today, and why we will see this case be prosecuted now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



mediocre man said:


> I think what he's getting at is that they are not beat against the ground or drowned.


Stunning an animal and then slitting its throat is better? How much better?

And if there are a hundred or a thousand times more animals that are being killed 50% more humanely, which is worse?

Ed O.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



chris_in_pdx said:


> Read some of the reports on how Vick and his cronies killed dogs that they considered to be useless to them, and then you tell me that this kind of person wouldn't have the ability to have the same cold, remorseless attitude about killing a fellow human being in the same fashion.


Whoa!

I'm not, by any means, condoning what Vick did, but to extrapolate their treatment of dogs to be exactly how they would treat humans is hooey.

How many people do you know who hunt? Do they also do that to humans? Hunting, after all, is for entertainment (at least for most) just as dog-fighting was for Vick.

I am sure there is a very small minority that would treat humans the same as they treated their dogs just as there is likely a small minority of hunters who may enjoy hunting humans but to make such a statement with such a sense of certainty that is sounds almost as if it were fact is baseless unless you can provide concrete examples of a large majority of dog-fighting owners/participants.

My disagreement with the assertion aside, I too hope he spends considerable time in jail as well as any others who are found to also be participants.

Gramps...


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> As much as I "loved" that dog, he was still just a dog. He relied on us, and we cared for him, and he was important to me... but that doesn't mean he was a person, and it doesn't stand to reason that how someone treats a dog (or a cat, or a cow, or a spider) is the same way they'd treat a person.


We strongly disagree on this topic, but that's okay. Different viewpoints are healthy for the discussion.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

We can debate whether euthanasia or assisted suicide is proper for humans. Different subject.

But are some people being deliberately obtuse? How can one equate humane euthanasia of ill and suffering companion animals to electrocuting or body slamming a dog? Keeping dogs starved so they will be vicious? Training them to fight to the death?

Sounds like something a defense lawyer with no case would try to bring up to throw wool into the jury's eyes and it probably would not work. Most of us know the difference.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



hasoos said:


> Actually there tends to be a direct correlation between people who torture/kill animals and those who kill people. That is definitly what lead to some of the laws we have today, and why we will see this case be prosecuted now.


Bullcrap. We're going to see it prosecuted now because a bunch of people we can't relate to are breaking laws that strike at our hearstrings. Does anyone think that Michael Vick is going to kill someone? Seriously?

As for the correlation: it is (from what I understand) a correlation involving *children* that kill animals, not between people, generally. I don't think that bow hunters are more likely to kill a person, for example, and I find it hard to believe that, normalizing for socioeconomic factors, a person involved in cockfighting is more likely to be a killer.

Ed O.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Loyalty4Life said:


> Where are the Vick articles about how he would treat dogs who didn't perform well? I have not read that yet.


I did find the article that discusses the specifics of what was alleged in the dogfighting:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/17/dohrmann.vick/index.html

I would recommend not reading this if you're sensitive about reading stories of animal abuse.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



crandc said:


> I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I work in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry. I am opposed without condition to the torture of animals or harming and degrading animals for "fun".
> 
> I am not a pacifist. I am opposed without condition to the torture of human beings or to harming and degrading humans for "fun".


You do realize your industry tortures and kills hundreds of thousands of animals each year in order to develop their products?

And many of the posters here enthusiatically support the maiming, torture and murder of innocent humans in Iraq.

I am certain there are a few boxing fans here.

Dog-fighting has no redeeming quality that I can see, and I question the sanity of anyone who enjoys watching it, but I am always amused at stones being thrown from glass houses.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



GrandpaBlaze said:


> Whoa!
> 
> I'm not, by any means, condoning what Vick did, but to extrapolate their treatment of dogs to be exactly how they would treat humans is hooey.


I said "had the ability", meaning the mindset and the lack of caring for another living creature, that he could kill a living thing that he felt had no entertainment value left to him in a non-humane manner that just turns my stomach to think about.

That's not to say that Vick WOULD do that to another human being, just that he would be more pre-dispositioned to do so than, say, me. Scientific studies back me up on this one.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Are cats considered animal?

If so, I got to go home and hide my M-80s.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



crandc said:


> But are some people being deliberately obtuse? How can one equate humane euthanasia of ill and suffering companion animals to electrocuting or body slamming a dog? Keeping dogs starved so they will be vicious? Training them to fight to the death?


Pit bulls are BRED to fight. They have had decades and perhaps centuries of having the "game" bred into them. They feel less pain, they have strong jaws with a different bite signature to maximize the damage they can do to other dogs, and they have an ingrained tendency towards dog aggression.

Is this news to people?

Do you all think that Michael Vick made these dogs out of thin air?

He deserves to be punished for breaking laws, but the moral outrage at this is wasted energy IMO.



> Sounds like something a defense lawyer with no case would try to bring up to throw wool into the jury's eyes and it probably would not work. Most of us know the difference.


Most people SHOULD know the difference between raising dogs to fight and being willing to kill a human being. The reason I brought up my euthanasia story is because my decisionmaking process was different for Pongo (yes, a cliche name... 2 guesses as to his breed  ) than it would be for a person.

Dogs are great. But they are NOT people, and just because someone treats a dog one way doesn't mean that they will necessarily be lacking in all compassion and empathy for other humans.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



chris_in_pdx said:


> I said "had the ability", meaning the mindset and the lack of caring for another living creature, that he could kill a living thing that he felt had no entertainment value left to him in a non-humane manner that just turns my stomach to think about.
> 
> That's not to say that Vick WOULD do that to another human being, just that he would be more pre-dispositioned to do so than, say, me. Scientific studies back me up on this one.


Uh-oh.

I saw Oden swat a mosquito at Pioneer Place.

KP better dump him fast.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

What a load of crap. We know this can't be on the level of someone killing another human. But this is killing and torturing animals for the pure entertainment value from these hoodlums. 

They didn't just shoot these 8+ pitbulls. They hung, drowned, slammed to the ground and electrocuting animals that were deemed useless because they didn't want to fight. "It's just a dog," get off the high horse, ED O. I know it's your style to disagree with everyone because you can, but you're looking at this issue with blinders on. Just because it's not on par with killing a human doesn't make it right or something you can brush under the rug.

Maybe you have something against Pitbulls. Would your opinion change if it were a Bichon Frise these hoodlums were torturing?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Bullcrap. We're going to see it prosecuted now because a bunch of people we can't relate to are breaking laws that strike at our hearstrings. Does anyone think that Michael Vick is going to kill someone? Seriously?
> 
> As for the correlation: it is (from what I understand) a correlation involving *children* that kill animals, not between people, generally. I don't think that bow hunters are more likely to kill a person, for example, and I find it hard to believe that, normalizing for socioeconomic factors, a person involved in cockfighting is more likely to be a killer.
> 
> Ed O.


Its pretty amazing with all the present NFL players convicted over the last couple of years and ex NFL players who stories do not reach the papers once they are out of the limelight, that you would make a statement like that. Pacman Jones. Ray Lewis. Tank Johnson. Ray Carruth. But OH NO Michael Vick wouldn't do anything like that!

Secondly you are wrong. Yes children who kill animals tend to turn into murderers. So do many adults, animals usually are their first kills. There have been many psychological profiles written up that show this is a trend. Disrespect for life is is a general theme. Jeffrey Dahmer is a prime example. 

So take your hard to believe normalized socioeconomic factors and apply them to that.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



chris_in_pdx said:


> I said "had the ability", meaning the mindset and the lack of caring for another living creature, that he could kill a living thing that he felt had no entertainment value left to him in a non-humane manner that just turns my stomach to think about.
> 
> That's not to say that Vick WOULD do that to another human being, just that he would be more pre-dispositioned to do so than, say, me. Scientific studies back me up on this one.


The way it was stated was along the lines of "don't tell me this person wouldn't have the ability...". Such a statement, to me, implies that all people who engage in such activities have that ability. I find it hard to believe that the studies found that EVERYONE had the ability, but rather that there is a higher percentage of people in such groups with the ability as compared to the general population.

I don't disagree that there is likely a correlation, I just don't like the correlation used as a fact to state that this person HAS the ability.

A: 50% (random number) of dog-fight owners have the ability to act similarly to humans
B: Vick is a dog-fight owner
C: Vick has the ability to act similar to humans

The logic just doesn't fly. That is all I am trying to say.

Gramps...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> What a load of crap. We know this can't be on the level of someone killing another human. But this is killing and torturing animals for the pure entertainment value from these hoodlums.


"Hoodlums", huh? Who's on a high horse now?



> They didn't just shoot these 8+ pitbulls. They hung, drowned, slammed to the ground and electrocuting animals that were deemed useless because they didn't want to fight. "It's just a dog," get off the high horse, ED O. I know it's your style to disagree with everyone because you can, but you're looking at this issue with blinders on. Just because it's not on par with killing a human doesn't make it right.


Do you know what a straw man is? I'll tell you, because I doubt you do.

It's when someone is in an argument and they misrepresent the other side's position and then attack it (the "straw man") rather than the substance of the other's position.

You say I've got "blinders on" (which makes no sense to me... what am I failing to see?). You say I'm "on the high horse" (which is odd, considering YOU are the one calling others hoodlums). Those are your opinions, and you're welcome to them.

What I don't think is fair is saying that I think it's "right" just because they're not humans. I've never said that. I've never implied it. It's a ridiculous position to take, IMO, and it's not one I would EVER take. It's like arguing that rape is OK because it's not murder. It's just silly.

So, as a straw man, it's a pretty good one; it's easy to attack and take a stand against. But it's a sad statement that you would ascribe that position to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Cruelty is far, far worse than execution. Breeding animals to fight is itself pretty bad. Having them fight is barbaric - and so is torturing or otherwise incentivizing them to fight well. 

I am a proud meat eater, secure in the knowledge that the animals I eat are killed in as humane a method as possible. People are superior to animals, and we are free to take advantage of our world to better humanity and standards of living. But like with the environment, superiority does not mean we have a license to totally abuse our position. Taking hours to kill an animal, and thriving on its fear, is not something we should tolerate in people, even if "animals" enjoy it.

I know that a lot of human torturers in history *loved* animals, and would not hurt a hair on their heads. I believe that Dr. Mengele, who did unspeakably cruel things to Jews in the concentration camps, did so to reduce the need for animal testing. Cruelty to people does not necessarily translate into cruelty to animals, or vice-versa. But either are unacceptable in a civilized world.

Any people who thrive on watching animals tear each other apart in a fight to the death should get help to get away from their sickness. A prison cell works.

iWatas


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



hasoos said:


> Its pretty amazing with all the present NFL players convicted over the last couple of years and ex NFL players who stories do not reach the papers once they are out of the limelight, that you would make a statement like that. Pacman Jones. Ray Lewis. Tank Johnson. Ray Carruth. But OH NO Michael Vick wouldn't do anything like that!


It must be a great world where you can lump a bunch of black men together, throw one killer in, and then call them all killers.

Reality need not apply, huh?



> Secondly you are wrong. Yes children who kill animals tend to turn into murderers. So do many adults, animals usually are their first kills. There have been many psychological profiles written up that show this is a trend. Disrespect for life is is a general theme. Jeffrey Dahmer is a prime example.


Did he start killing animals as an adult?

No, he didn't.

That he *killed animals as a child* is the critical component. I shot a goose once when I was a young adult and I've somehow managed to avoid killing anyone so far.

In any event, do many killers kill or torture animals? Sure. Do many more torturers and killers of animals grow up (or remain) healthy, productive (non-human-killing) members of society? Clearly they do.

Ed O.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

What would you call Vick? An athlete who merely made a mistake? The guy is a thug. Calling him a hoodlum _is_ justified. It is also a federal offense to fight these dogs. There is a reason why this '_hoodlum_' is facing nearly 10 years in the pen. 

I might add, they have overwhelming evidence to convict this hoodlum.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



> Dog torturers are the lowest form of humans?


I agree Ed...They are scumbags, but some people who say this need to wake up....

Killing a dog is one thing..it is sick and it is wrong...But molesting and killing a child...something which seems to happen FAR too often these days is a FAR FAR FAR...I can't emphasize how FAR of a worse offense...

and it isn't even close...I hope some of you remember that


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Why must we make this into a contest of who the lowest form of humans are? Anyone who can torture a living thing is evil. 

But if it's a scary looking Pitbull I guess that makes it an issue you can brush under the rug because it's a tier lower than toruting a cat or a human, right Ed?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Kmurph said:


> I agree Ed...They are scumbags, but some people who say this need to wake up....
> 
> Killing a dog is one thing..it is sick and it is wrong...But molesting and killing a child...something which seems to happen FAR too often these days is a FAR FAR FAR...I can't emphasize how FAR of a worse offense...
> 
> and it isn't even close...I hope some of you remember that




I couldn't agree more with this.

The one thing I will say is that some people will sort of link them. Both are helpless, and can't really defend themselves from the idiots that do those things.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> Why must we make this into a contest of who the lowest form of humans are? Anyone who can torture a living thing is evil.


Well, it's not a contest of who is lowest... some of us are taking issue with the dramatic and emotional statement that dog torturers are the lowest form of human. Personally, I don't even think there's a million-way tie for the lowest, or a simple "evil" or "not evil" pair of buckets.

Was I evil last week when I trimmed my lawn?



> But if it's a scary looking Pitbull I guess that makes it an issue you can brush under the rug because it's a tier lower than toruting a cat or a human, right Ed?


Are you really this incapable of understanding my position?

edit: Don't think you need this line -sa1177-

Ed O.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



MARIS61 said:


> You do realize your industry tortures and kills hundreds of thousands of animals each year in order to develop their products?


Nuts. Torture means the desire to cause pain. Animal testing is for a *purpose* - predominantly to find ways to better the lives of human beings.





MARIS61 said:


> And many of the posters here enthusiatically support the maiming, torture and murder of innocent humans in Iraq.


Ridiculous. Saddam killed 200 people, on average, every day of his reign of terror. The number now is a small fraction of that. If you cared about human life, you, too, would support intervening in Iraq and anywhere else where copious innocent blood is shed.



MARIS61 said:


> I am certain there are a few boxing fans here.


Good point. Same pleasure instinct from watching pain being dealt. Which is why gloves need to come off - people can't hit as hard without gloves, and it *hurts*. Make boxing more like a sport again.




MARIS61 said:


> Dog-fighting has no redeeming quality that I can see, and I question the sanity of anyone who enjoys watching it, but I am always amused at stones being thrown from glass houses.


No glass houses here. I value life. I don't believe blood should be spilled for entertainment, and certainly not to maximize pain and suffering. None of your "counter-examples" even come close to passing the smell test as compared to dog fighting.

iWatas


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Well, it's not a contest of who is lowest... some of us are taking issue with the dramatic and emotional statement that dog torturers are the lowest form of human. Personally, I don't even think there's a million-way tie for the lowest, or a simple "evil" or "not evil" pair of buckets.
> 
> Was I evil last week when I trimmed my lawn?
> 
> Ed O.


Now you're talking out of your ***. You said _"Dog torturers are the lowest form of humans?!?!?"_. So tell me, who are the lowest? Is a dog torturer _this side_ of someone stomping on a bug?

A torturer is evil plain and simple. Regardless of who or what they kill. Torture is the term for inflicting excruciating pain, sheer cruelty, mind you.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

The point I was alluding to in my earlier post is that this is a cultural issue. I love dogs and would never treat them cruelly. However, within some cultures it is perfectly acceptable to treat them that way. It doesn't make Vick a horrible person in my opinion. I think he should pay for whatever crime he has committed, but I am not particularly "outraged" at his actions. I believe the culture in which he has grown up finds this to be normal behavior.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> The point I was alluding to in my earlier post is that this is a cultural issue. I love dogs and would never treat them cruelly. However, within some cultures it is perfectly acceptable to treat them that way. It doesn't make Vick a horrible person in my opinion. I think he should pay for whatever crime he has committed, but I am not particularly "outraged" at his actions. I believe the culture he has grown up finds this to be normal behavior.



This is America. "Some cultures" overseas wouldn't care but that's irrelevant here in the United States.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Torturing and killing living creatures, whether they be Dogs, Frogs, Cats, Bats or Humans for pleasure is simply wrong and sadistic.

Obviously taking a humans life needs far greater punishment then animal abuse but people who do either of these things are scumbags and I don't see the point in trying to make one type of POS worse then the other. Just because person A has done a more heinous act then person B doesn't change the fact that person B is still an asshat.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> The point I was alluding to in my earlier post is that this is a cultural issue. I love dogs and would never treat them cruelly. However, within some cultures it is perfectly acceptable to treat them that way. It doesn't make Vick a horrible person in my opinion. I think he should pay for whatever crime he has committed, but I am not particularly "outraged" at his actions. I believe the culture in which he has grown up finds this to be normal behavior.



Wow...

This is a cultural issue? What culture is this that Vick is a part of that finds torturing and killing animals for pleasure ok?


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> This is America. "Some cultures" overseas wouldn't care but that's irrelevant here in the United States.


I would argue that "some cultures" here in the USA don't find anything wrong with it. Obviously the dudes participating in the dog fights were fine with it. My dad used to tell me he would shoot dogs that would get into his family's fields when he was younger. He grew up in the south. I think you would find that there are many cultural differences when you compare yourself to others in the rural south.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I just hope everybody here gives their dog a nice big hug tonight before they go to bed!


----------



## I Own 2 Microwaves (May 30, 2007)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

yeah but in American culture they are consider "man's best friend" thats why it illegal here

if he tortured a bunch of rats no one would care


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Spoolie Gee said:


> Torturing and killing living creatures, whether they be Dogs, Frogs, Cats, Bats or Humans for pleasure is simply wrong and sadistic.
> 
> Obviously taking a humans life needs far greater punishment then animal abuse but people who do either of these things are scumbags and I don't see the point in trying to make one type of POS worse then the other. Just because person A has done a more heinous act then person B doesn't change the fact that person B is still an asshat.


Do you like fishing? I do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> Now you're talking out of your ***.


I am based on that post? What are you talking about?



> You said _"Dog torturers are the lowest form of humans?!?!?"_.


No I didn't. I don't use that sort of punctuation unless I want to look uneducated.



> So tell me, who are the lowest?


I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to define the lowest.



> Is a dog torturer _this side_ of someone stomping on a bug?


Yes, I think so. Do you? Or do you just think that anyone who tortures a living thing is evil, and it doesn't matter if it's a fly or a baby human?



> A torturer is evil plain and simple. Regardless of who or what they kill. Torture is the term for inflicting excruciating pain, sheer cruelty, mind you.


OK. So, by that definition, the killing of those dogs by electrocution or by slamming them isn't torture. In fact, having the dogs FIGHT isn't torture.

They killed the dogs because they were losers (like their owners... hehe), or because they didn't have the "game" that they wanted to breed. It's the same motivation as letting a purebred puppy with bad coloration not breed, really. 

The EXECUTION (if you will) of the motivation is shockingly, appallingly, different, but if you're just defining torture as a state of mind, and you are defining all torture of living things as evil, then you've got some problems.

If I tear bark off of a tree, wondering if it's feeling some sort of pain, is that torture? Is it evil?

What if I KNOW in my head that trees feel pain, and I put a nail in it to draw out some sap, cackling mercilessly as the precious life fluids drain out? Is that evil?

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> I just hope everybody here gives their dog a nice big hug tonight before they go to bed!



Which means I can expect a big hug from this entire board . . . since I'm treated like a dog here. :biggrin:


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Do you like fishing? I do.


I love to fish. But I dont slam them into the ground and electrocute them for pleasure, do you?


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> This is America. "Some cultures" overseas wouldn't care but that's irrelevant here in the United States.


I believe Tlo is talking about the southern culture of dog-fighting that Clinton Portis referred to several months ago.

Lowest form of human probably ranks (1 lowest others not so low etc)

1. Child Abusers
2. People who abuse the disabled.
3. Animal abusers
4. People who abuse women.
5. Common murderer.

How much people get outraged depends on how much of a chance the victim had to defend themselves. Just a sad fact of life.

Wars and mass murdering people are different because you become numb to it. Like Stalin said - ""One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Do you like fishing? I do.


I don't. I find it boring and more than a bit cruel to the fish. Especially the "catch and release" aspect of it.

And to think: some waterways are stocked with fish JUST so they can be caught by humans. And, sometimes when they're caught, they're clubbed until they suffocate and die.

Poor fish. Oh, well. Evil is everywhere, it seems.

Ed O.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> I just hope everybody here gives their dog a nice big hug tonight before they go to bed!



edit: No personal insults please. -sa1177-


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I love to fish. But I dont slam them into the ground and electrocute them for pleasure, do you?


You think that the dog owners did that for their jollies? Really?

It seems much more likely that it was an expedient way to destroy the dogs so they didn't have to feed them or care for them. It's ****ed up, that's for sure, but I'm not sure that it was done for fun.

Ed O.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Some of you dont seem to understand that it isnt just the dog fighting that is pissing people off. At least speaking for myself, it's the torture and killing of the animals after the fights that I find especially reprehensible.

I dont like **** fights, bull fights and dog fights but I can understand that it may be a part of someones culture. But the beating into the ground, electrocution and hanging of these animals is the big issue to me.


----------



## Stugots (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I don't care what is done in other cultures to dogs. This is America, and Vick needs to do the maximum amount of time possible for animal cruelty. Torturing any living being to death is absolutely a very real sign of anti-social personality disorder, and despite what many here say demonstrates quite a bit about Vick's attitude toward life. Forget about dog fighting in general; the grisly scene that was found on MV's property is far more than some "ring casualties".

Ed, your analogy about putting your dog to sleep has absolutely no relevance here; euthanasia is a demonstration of mercy. Torture is about as evil as it gets in my book, human or not. There is no common thread whatsoever. Think of it this way: even if you are not opposed to dog fighting, or torturing dogs, the lowlife pieces of human trash that raise a dog to kill another dog kill children all the time. Having a dog like this out in the open is as good as leaving a loaded gun out. Perpetuating violent animals only perpetuates violence.

Spoolie Gee is right... there is no hierarchy of evil. But I don't see how you could think the torturing of animals is harmless.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> I don't. I find it boring and more than a bit cruel to the fish. Especially the "catch and release" aspect of it.
> 
> And to think: some waterways are stocked with fish JUST so they can be caught by humans. And, sometimes when they're caught, they're clubbed until they suffocate and die.
> 
> ...


So now your comparing fishing to tourturing dogs. Nice.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I love to fish. But I dont slam them into the ground and electrocute them for pleasure, do you?


You said torturing frogs was immoral or some such thing. Wouldn't you consider pulling something around in the water with a metal hook stuck in it torture?


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> You said torturing frogs was immoral or some such thing. Wouldn't you consider pulling something around in the water with a metal hook stuck in it torture?


Immoral? Try reading my posts buddy.

Fish dont have nerves in their mouth and dont feel the hook. Most fish that are caught and released live just fine. Most fishermen, including myself, get pleasure from fishing because of the challenge to catch the fish or from eating it. Not from killing it. But I can see how you'd compare that to killing a frog for jollies.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> You think that the dog owners did that for their jollies? Really?
> 
> It seems much more likely that it was an expedient way to destroy the dogs so they didn't have to feed them or care for them. It's ****ed up, that's for sure, but I'm not sure that it was done for fun.
> 
> Ed O.


Slamming a dog repeatedly into the ground is a "expedient way to destroy" them? That's ridiculous. 
Death by hanging isn't "expedient" either. 

A bullet to the head or a shot of the proper drugs would be the "expedient" way to do things. Both are simple and very viable alternative options IMO. Certainly makes me wonder about the motivation of Vick and his cronies.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Posters here seem to equate my arguments to condoning what Vick is accused of. That is not the case. I think dog-fighting is bad and have previously stated I would never do something like that. My point is that you cannot automatically infer that someone is "evil" because he fights dogs.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

His view on 'torture' is warped. It's almost like he has a level of torture that isn't that bad depending of what creature it is.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Posters here seem to equate my arguments to condoning what Vick is accused of. That is not the case. I think dog-fighting is bad and have previously stated I would never do something like that. My point is that you cannot automatically infer that someone is "evil" because he fights dogs.


Everyone has their own definition of "evil."


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Posters here seem to equate my arguments to condoning what Vick is accused of. That is not the case. I think dog-fighting is bad and have previously stated I would never do something like that. My point is that you cannot automatically infer that someone is "evil" because he fights dogs.


This really is a seperate issue. This argument has more to do with the dogs he deemded unworthy. He flat out tortured these animals to their deaths. You do know about the pitbulls he hung, drowned, and slammed to the ground?


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

so, who are the other 297?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



wizmentor said:


> so, who are the other 297?


Well every Laker player has to be involved right.....afterall we all know the Lakers are "evil.":biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



sa1177 said:


> Slamming a dog repeatedly into the ground is a "expedient way to destroy" them? That's ridiculous.
> Death by hanging isn't "expedient" either.


Sure it is. Hanging only takes rope and man power. Slamming a dog into the ground doesn't even take a rope, I wouldn't think.



> A bullet to the head or a shot of the proper drugs would be the "expedient" way to do things. Both are simple and very viable alternative options IMO. Certainly makes me wonder about the motivation of Vick and his cronies.


It is much LESS simple to get "proper drugs" or to get a gun and bullets than to kill a dog by hanging.

Less messed up? Sure. More planning, etc.? I would think so, yes.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Spoolie Gee said:


> So now your comparing fishing to tourturing dogs. Nice.


Why wouldn't I?

Setting aside the legality of it (which is, of course, a consideration in terms of who ought to get punished or not)... what's the difference?

Dogs are fuzzy and nice and fish are slimy and disgusting? Or is it that we eat one and not the other? Or is it that dogs are a higher form of life than fish?

I'm not saying they're the same thing... but they're no more the same thing than humans and dogs are.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Stugots said:


> Ed, your analogy about putting your dog to sleep has absolutely no relevance here; euthanasia is a demonstration of mercy.


Sure it does. It goes to two points:

1. I like dogs... have loved some in the past, and
2. Dogs and people are not treated the same and how one treats a dog is not necessarily indicative of how one treats a person.



> Spoolie Gee is right... there is no hierarchy of evil. But I don't see how you could think the torturing of animals is harmless.


Can you please point to *one post* in this thread where anyone (especially me) says that torturing animals is harmless? Thanks.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Sure it is. Hanging only takes rope and man power. Slamming a dog into the ground doesn't even take a rope, I wouldn't think.


Yes but it's definetly not "expedient." Easier in terms of what is required sure but I wouldn't consider either a expeditious way to kill something. 




> It is much LESS simple to get "proper drugs" or to get a gun and bullets than to kill a dog by hanging.
> 
> Less messed up? Sure. More planning, etc.? I would think so, yes.
> 
> Ed O.


For some reason I don't think Vick and cronies would have much trouble finding a loaded gun. I'll buy the drugs argument though.

So basically it comes down to the fact that Vick and his buddies where to lazy to get a gun or poison and kill these dogs in a much quicker more humane way? Seems pretty disturbing to me.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Seriously, get your head out of your ***. Using a gun is quick and instant. Well, if you're Vick, you'll probably want to take a little off the knees and neck first. These hoodlums hung these dogs from a tree, watching them die slowly. This is torture. Your view of torture is obviously warped. It seems like I'm trying to reason with a wall.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



sa1177 said:


> So basically it comes down to the fact that Vick and his buddies where to lazy to get a gun or poison and kill these dogs in a much quicker more humane way? Seems pretty disturbing to me.


So is laziness evil?

Is laziness torture?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> Seriously, get your head out of your ***. Using a gun is quick and instant. Well, if you're Vick, you'll probably want to take a little off the knees and neck first. These hoodlums hung these dogs from a tree, watching them die slowly. This is torture. Your view of torture is obviously warped. It seems like I'm trying to reason with a wall.


We've been posting together a long time. I can't recall being insulted personally so often by anyone from our community.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Animal fighting, people who watch animal fights for entertainment, and people who abuse animals (or people) turn my stomach. Sorry, that's just how I react to those kinds of things.

I hope justice for these people is both swift and severe.

PBF


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> So is laziness evil?
> 
> Is laziness torture?
> 
> Ed O.



It's nice how you're disregarding facts in this case. This was obviously a choice Vick and his leaches made. Pulling a trigger takes but a mere split second. Slamming a dog numerous times would imply it took a little effort and time. Lazy? Nope. Evil? without a doubt.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> So is laziness evil?


Well, sloth IS one of the seven deadly sins, dontcha know...

PBF


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Spoolie Gee said:


> Immoral? *Try reading my posts buddy*.
> 
> Fish dont have nerves in their mouth and dont feel the hook. Most fish that are caught and released live just fine. Most fishermen, including myself, get pleasure from fishing because of the challenge to catch the fish or from eating it. Not from killing it. But I can see how you'd compare that to killing a frog for jollies.



Why don't I just re-post what you said?



> Originally Posted by Spoolie Gee
> Torturing and killing living creatures, whether they be Dogs, Frogs, Cats, Bats or Humans for pleasure is simply wrong and sadistic.
> 
> Obviously taking a humans life needs far greater punishment then animal abuse but people who do either of these things are scumbags and I don't see the point in trying to make one type of POS worse then the other. Just because person A has done a more heinous act then person B doesn't change the fact that person B is still an asshat.



I don't think there is much difference in torturing and killing frogs from fishing.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



QRICH said:


> This really is a seperate issue. This argument has more to do with the dogs he deemded unworthy. He flat out tortured these animals to their deaths. You do know about the pitbulls he hung, drowned, and slammed to the ground?



Are you sure Vick himself hung, drowned, and slammed pitbulls to the ground?


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Wow alot of cruel people in this country, maybe Bush should pay attention to whats going on down here as well.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



TLo said:


> Are you sure Vick himself hung, drowned, and slammed pitbulls to the ground?



close witness say he did.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Iwatas said:


> Nuts. Torture means the desire to cause pain. Animal testing is for a *purpose* - predominantly to find ways to better the lives of human beings.
> iWatas


Nuts to you.

Animal testing is done predominately to minimize cost and maximize profit.

As for torture:

Torture defined by all historic dictionaries is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". Individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders. In addition, Political Torture or state sponsored torture may be inflicted on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be "intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"[1], as defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The original historic definition of torture needs to be retained to encompass all motives, otherwise no clear definition exists to describe the horrific experiences of victims of non-political torture, and for Political Torture that cannot be proven to be inflicted by, or on behalf of, an official.

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, and prohibited by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

The international legal prohibition on torture is based on a universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.[2] A further moral definition of torture proposes that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain.[3] These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report that the use of torture condoned by states is widespread in many regions of the world.[4]


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



o.iatlhawksfan said:


> close witness say he did.


Well, I can't rush to judgement on that. That's pretty sick if he did, but I'll choose to believe that he didn't until it is proven otherwise.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Iwatas said:


> Ridiculous. Saddam killed 200 people, on average, every day of his reign of terror. The number now is a small fraction of that. If you cared about human life, you, too, would support intervening in Iraq and anywhere else where copious innocent blood is shed.


The Bush boys have killed and tortured far, far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. If you cared about human life you would know this.



Iwatas said:


> Good point. Same pleasure instinct from watching pain being dealt. Which is why gloves need to come off - people can't hit as hard without gloves, and it *hurts*. Make boxing more like a sport again.


Uh...this doesn't exactly jibe with your next statement:



Iwatas said:


> No glass houses here. I value life. I don't believe blood should be spilled for entertainment, and certainly not to maximize pain and suffering. None of your "counter-examples" even come close to passing the smell test as compared to dog fighting.
> 
> iWatas


There's a smell here all right.

Your posts smell of hypocrisy.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Wow . . . this thread went from the torture of dogs . . . to fishing . . . to swating of flies . . .to the use of insecticides . . . to the use of citronella candles . . . to picking flowers 

OK maybe not that far . . . but give it a couple more pages


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Wow . . . this thread went from the torture of dogs . . . to fishing . . . to swating of flies . . .to the use of insecticides . . . to the use of citronella candles . . . to picking flowers
> 
> OK maybe not that far . . . but give it a couple more pages


You left out racism. :biggrin:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Well, this thread is definitely getting a great PPV (posts per view) count.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I love dogs - better than most humans I know - and I hope the guilty receive serious punishment.

OTOH, I have great suspicion for the concept of guilt by association.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I like turtles.

PBF


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Regardless of which method of killing is most "expedient", when Vick and his coconspirators had 8 dogs to kill, they used at least three metods to kill the dogs. That is certainly not expedient, but is most likely to occur because the thugs were having fun and wanted to try new ways to kill. 

And, I do equate dog fighting wil being evil. There may be worse crimes, but at some point, crimes are unforgivable and torture of dogs meets the criteria for me. So does rape, murder and a host of other crimes. I hope that if Vick is guilty, that he goes away for a long long time.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Wow, so much to say in response to all this. Two main points I wanted to say though. 

Maris, if you think the Bush boys have killed more Iraqies then Sadaam, you are seriously mistaken. I have no "death count" link to back me up, but I am sure people on this forum agree.

Second, a big huge WOW goes out to Ed O. The things you say and believe. Good Lord, you must be a court appointed defense attorney or a disgruntled used car salesman with those comments. I can't believe some of the things you say!

Lastly, bottom line is. Dog fighting is wrong. Killing animals for fun is wrong. ELECTRICUTING ANIMALS to death is wrong!!! Slamming an animal on the concrete so hard to the point of death is wrong!!! There are no ifs, ands or buts. I am not a religious man, I am not preaching and I am not an Athiest, but I do believe in civil society. People, sit back and take a good look about what you are reading. You are reading about a superstar sports player KILLING ANIMALS in brutal fashion. Do you want your 7 year old son who loves football and the popular Mike Vick thinking this is ok?

This thread is amazing...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



MARIS61 said:


> You do realize your industry tortures and kills hundreds of thousands of animals each year in order to develop their products?
> 
> And many of the posters here enthusiatically support the maiming, torture and murder of innocent humans in Iraq.
> 
> ...


Maris, I am aware of the controversy over animal use in research. I am far more familiar than you are with the issue and "torture" is an exaggeration. Nearly everyone who works in the field likes animals and does their best to treat them kindly. I mentioned my job to point out that I can see times when using animals in research is necessary but it is not the same as getting kicks from torturing animals. As for boxing, what is the relevance? Boxers choose to fight. The dogs have no option.

Those who protest the torture of animals and embrace the torture of humans are the ones with a contradiction, not me. I oppose both.

As for throwing stones from glass houses, well, I'd suggest a glass mirror.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Aaaaahhhhhh its good to be back 

Down with Vick!!! No one needs to look up to a guy like this.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Maris, if you are ever in the Bay Area, I will be happy to tour you where I work so you can see the "tortured" animals. My position is that anyone who opposes testing drugs on animals should ask the thalidomide offspring how they feel about untested drugs. I am painfully aware of the profit motive and how it distorts both research and health care but saying pharmaceutical development tortures animals because it is cheaper shows profound ignorance. Animal testing is in fact very expensive. Even mice and rats. These are not mice from the pet store or caught in someone's garden, they are specially bred with certain characteristics and have very special dietary and health needs. And testing is required on non-rodent species at a certain point. It gets more and more expensive. I think the animals cost more than the salary and benefits of the people who do the work and where I work at least we are well compensated. Believe me, if toxicology testing could be done on cell cultures it would save TONS of money. Unfortunately it can't. You have to have a live body. 

Humans are animals. I say this as a fact, not a moral judgment; we are biologically animals. Animals don't have the capacity to photosynthesize or chemosynthesize. Therefore to survive we must eat other living things. Plants or other animals. There is no other option. The carrot I pull out of the ground is not sentient, to be sure, but it is as alive as a salmon or a steer. Who does the killing, whether it's the person doing the eating or someone else, is in the end irrelevant, the plant or animal is dead.

This is not the same as torturing animals for pleasure. I mean, supposedly we all are to some degree intelligent, right? Can people truly not see the difference between eating and torturing for fun? 

Or is it OK if you can say someone else tortures more?

If something is wrong it is wrong. It does not matter if you think someone else does something wrong. Murder is not OK because someone else also killed. Torture is not OK because someone else tortured. Animal abuse is not OK because someone else somewhere else did it. Why is that such a difficult concept? Or is this some nefarious plot by evil homosexuals (hell, every other irrelevant topic has been dragged in)?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



crandc said:


> Maris, I am aware of the controversy over animal use in research. I am far more familiar than you are with the issue and "torture" is an exaggeration. Nearly everyone who works in the field likes animals and does their best to treat them kindly. I mentioned my job to point out that I can see times when using animals in research is necessary but it is not the same as getting kicks from torturing animals. As for boxing, what is the relevance? Boxers choose to fight. The dogs have no option.
> 
> Those who protest the torture of animals and embrace the torture of humans are the ones with a contradiction, not me. I oppose both.
> 
> As for throwing stones from glass houses, well, I'd suggest a glass mirror.


No, it's certainly not the same. It's on a much larger scale and committed by highly-educated people who you would expect to have a higher moral standard.

"Torture" is an extreme understatement when describing the prolonged, cruel deaths animals meet at the hands of product testers in the name of bettering lives for humans. You set yourself up for ridicule by denying this. Anyone wishing to know the horrifying details need only go to PETA for the well-documented information.

Whether those who torture the animals feel compassion for them is completely beside the point. Given the choice I'd rather die relatively quickly at the hands of Vick and Co. than over a period of weeks or months at the hands of some drug or cosmetic company.

True, boxers have a choice.

For most, it's the same choice prostitutes have.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



crandc said:


> Or is it OK if you can say someone else tortures more?
> 
> If something is wrong it is wrong. It does not matter if you think someone else does something wrong. Murder is not OK because someone else also killed. Torture is not OK because someone else tortured. Animal abuse is not OK because someone else somewhere else did it.


I'd like to think we agree on this point, but you have already found your own justification for torturing animals in the name of saving humans. You say that makes it "OK".

Would I turn down a drug that came from animal torture if it would save my life or that of a loved one? Not in a million years.

But that doesn't make it "right". It just means most of us have a price.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Resume said:


> Wow, so much to say in response to all this. Two main points I wanted to say though.
> 
> Maris, if you think the Bush boys have killed more Iraqies then Sadaam, you are seriously mistaken. I have no "death count" link to back me up, but I am sure people on this forum agree.


Oh don't worry, Maris has a really good source that says Bush has killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein. Care to know what it is? Probably moveon.org. You know anything funded by George Soros is a legitimate source right?  



> Second, a big huge WOW goes out to Ed O. The things you say and believe. Good Lord, you must be a court appointed defense attorney or a disgruntled used car salesman with those comments. I can't believe some of the things you say!


Hey, some people just can't get their work/career out of their system when they hit the internet. Some people like to complain for the sake of complaining because that's what they do best. It's until they annoy the crap out of their spouse, friends, and family members that they realize they don't need to stage an argument where ever they go, including internet message boards. Ed O. just be cast as the next Riddler in the next Batman movie. You can't seriously expect an answer out of the guy unless you are satisfied with a completely hypothetical question in return. 



> Lastly, bottom line is. Dog fighting is wrong. Killing animals for fun is wrong. ELECTRICUTING ANIMALS to death is wrong!!! Slamming an animal on the concrete so hard to the point of death is wrong!!! There are no ifs, ands or buts. I am not a religious man, I am not preaching and I am not an Athiest, but I do believe in civil society. People, sit back and take a good look about what you are reading. You are reading about a superstar sports player KILLING ANIMALS in brutal fashion. Do you want your 7 year old son who loves football and the popular Mike Vick thinking this is ok?
> 
> This thread is amazing...


Agreed on all counts, but it's been done to death now and we know how most people feel about this subject. Although, I'm still puzzled as to how guys like Ed O. and Maris can't see how this compromises a man's character. Allegedy, Vick slammed the dogs repeatedly into the ground? Anyone else see this as abnormal and violent? It's called conduct disorder people. If they were children, authorities would call them future killers of America, but since they are black males we should think they aren't violent? Uuhhh, it takes a lot to repeatedly slam a dog to death. You don't have normal brain activity if that's what you're doing and I wouldn't feel safe around anyone who did something like that. These guys certainly had guns to finish the dogs off in one shot and it would be far more convenient to do so. Anyways I'm done, there's nothing to say about this topic that hasn't already been said, I think the sub-topic is more interesting actually, that anyone can argue the outrage and compare it to fishing? Jesus Christ on a stick what a horrible freakin' comparison.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

I really don't want to get into a big debate about numbers of iraqis killed under Saddam vs. from the war, but here is a non-movo.org article for you.
Wall Street Journal

The article is already 9 months old, but it reports a study that showed that around 600,000 iraqis have been killed since the war began.


> WASHINGTON -- A new study asserts that roughly 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a figure many times higher than any previous estimate.


It does note that other studies have placed the death toll between 50,000 and 150,000 killed. The true figure is likely somewhere in between.

Also from the article is this quote for referance


> Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.


I am not asserting that the 600,000 figure is correct, but I do believe that far too many have been killed since the nation did not have any of the reported WMDs and was not involved in terrorism until after Bush decided to attack.




Impeach Bush


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



GOD said:


> I really don't want to get into a big debate about numbers of iraqis killed under Saddam vs. from the war, but here is a non-movo.org article for you.
> Wall Street Journal
> 
> The article is already 9 months old, but it reports a study that showed that around 600,000 iraqis have been killed since the war began. It does note that other studies have placed the death toll between 50,000 and 150,000 killed. The true figure is likely somewhere in between.


Even if 600,000 is accurate, that doesn't equate to OUR military killing that many people. Look at who's doing most of the killing over there. Each time these guys blow themselves up, they take 30+ with them as well. 



> Also from the article is this quote for referance
> 
> 
> I am not asserting that the 600,000 figure is correct, but I do believe that far too many have been killed since the nation did not have any of the reported WMDs and was not involved in terrorism until after Bush decided to attack.
> ...


Well I don't believe any numbers unless they come from the UN. There weren't any WMDs and that's a screw up sure. Who do you want to replace Pres Bush with? Nearly everyone else including leading candidates from both sides voted FOR the war. To say there was no terrorism involved though is rediculous, look at the place. Iraqis have lived under suppession from Saddam and they aren't doing much to make their country better even now. That's what happens when people live in the stone ages, and Pres. Bush should have realized that sooner. It is his fault that he was being too short sighted about people wanting to make a sudden change to democracy, but at the same time it was a noble thing this country did and I don't think we get credit for it. I was always against the war and I think unfortunately, we've created more terrorists. Though this isn't the genesis of fundamentalism, that would go to Jimmy Carter helping Khomeini gain power in Iran during the revolution.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Sambonius said:


> Well I don't believe any numbers unless they come from the UN.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Now *that* is an unimpeachable source! 

Incredible. This is the UN that, to quote Mark Steyn, was involved in:



> UN participation in the sex-slave trade in
> Bosnia; the UN refugee extortion racket in Kenya; UN involvement in massive
> embezzlement in Kosovo; the UN's cover-up of the sex-for-food scandal in
> West Africa involving aid workers demanding sexual favours from children as
> ...



Then, of course, we have the massive Oil-For-Fraud scandal, which helped preserve Saddam Hussein's reign of terror in return for shoveling billions of dollars into the pockets of UN grandees. And Syria and Libya chairing the human rights commission. Why, exactly, should we trust the UN's numbers?!

iWatas


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> So is laziness evil?
> 
> Is laziness torture?
> 
> Ed O.


No and No....I was referring to your ridiculous argument that these methods were used because they were the most "edpeditious" available.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Since this is devolving into Maris accusing me of what I did not say and Iwatas and others debating who killed the most people in Iraq and whether that justifies torture, I'd suggest we either:
get back on topic
OR
Move to OT forum

Obviously this got into my head. I dreamed last night one of my cats was being tortured. Not a cat I live with now, the one I grew up with who died about 25 years ago. I did not ID the torturer except that he was white, male and by speech was clearly American. I was told he'd cut my hands off if I tried to reach into the cage to get to my cat. And she'd still be tortured. I woke up and hugged Orlando a long time while he purred ecstatically.

Clearly I should not read about animal torture in the evening.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



sa1177 said:


> No and No....I was referring to your ridiculous argument that these methods were used because they were the most "edpeditious" available.


Why is it ridiculous?

You think that getting "proper drugs" to euthanize dogs is realistic for people running an illegal dog fighting ring? 

You think that gunshots to kill dogs are going to go unnoticed by neighbors?

It's laughable to me that you all would expect them to be humane in how they destroy animals after putting those animals in a position to tear one another to shreds.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

Neither Ed O. or myself has defended Vick and Co. in any of our posts so stop implying that.

Ed is simply saying many posters are going off the deep end in ranking him with people like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Bush...

I am simply saying the attacks reek of hypocrisy, as most attacks of other people's "morality" usually do.

And to make excuses like Bush has tortured 100,000 less humans than Saddam just boggles the mind.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Why is it ridiculous?
> 
> You think that getting "proper drugs" to euthanize dogs is realistic for people running an illegal dog fighting ring?
> 
> ...


Vetrinary drugs are not hard to obtain. These breeders are constantly vaccinating and treating their dogs while training them. 

I don't expect them to do any of those things...I just think your reasoning that they did what they did because it was the quickest and easiest way to dispense of the dogs is ridiculous. They experimented with mulitple ways of killing..none of witch are humane..hanging, slamming the dog on the pavement, electrocution.....I just don't buy the argument that they did all that because it was the easiest most convenient most "expeditious" way to do things.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



MARIS61 said:


> And to make excuses like Bush has tortured 100,000 less humans than Saddam just boggles the mind.


Maris, you need a serious reality check. The US military, at a cost to itself of 1/20th the fatalities of Vietnam, has freed a country the size of California. Deaths *caused* by the US military (and thus blamable to our President) have been in the tens of thousands range. Saddam Hussein's soldiers killed over a MILLION Iranians in the 1980s. 

There is no comparison between Saddam's regime and that of US servicemen and servicewomen. To imply otherwise is to show a profound lack of perspective.

Heck, even when some people torture and kill a few dogs, we get UPSET about it, because we can tell right from wrong. 

At least most of us can. 

iWatas


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



sa1177 said:


> Vetrinary drugs are not hard to obtain. These breeders are constantly vaccinating and treating their dogs while training them.


I'm not an expert (I only worked in a pharmacy for about a year, and never in a vet's office) but I would bet that getting dog vaccines and antibiotics is a lot easier than medication capable of killing an animal in a humane way.



> I don't expect them to do any of those things...I just think your reasoning that they did what they did because it was the quickest and easiest way to dispense of the dogs is ridiculous. They experimented with mulitple ways of killing..none of witch are humane..hanging, slamming the dog on the pavement, electrocution.....I just don't buy the argument that they did all that because it was the easiest most convenient most "expeditious" way to do things.


Humanely destroying the animals clearly wasn't the point. But a lack of humane treatment does not equate to torture. I think that it's much more likely mere indifference.

The dogs meant nothing to them, and when it came to killing them they didn't give a **** about how the dogs died. It's not the way I look at dogs or the world, and I think that those who did it should be punished. But I'm not leaping to conclusions that it was torture or done for the mere pleasure of watching the animals suffer as they died.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> I'm not an expert (I only worked in a pharmacy for about a year, and never in a vet's office) but I would bet that getting dog vaccines and antibiotics is a lot easier than medication capable of killing an animal in a humane way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they had simply hung all of the dogs then I might buy that it was simply indifference that was the motivation but the fact that they killed them in three different ways leads me to believe it was something else.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

This is absurd! People are arguing over what was the best way to kill the dogs? They had no right to kill the dogs in the first place.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*

First: I was born and raised in Virginia for 18 years of my life, and this has been a tough year for our state all the way around! Surprising all of these hardships involve Va Tech in one way or another. No blame, just freaking strange!!!

That said: 

Every person that has eaten a hamburger or hotdog has been cruel to an animal to some degree. Makeup for our women often tested to the demise of animals not to mention all the medical experiments and leather products we all know we have.

I think where we can make sense of this crime against these tragically treated dogs is as follows;

These Pitbulls were not killed for human advancements nor our nourishment or well being in any way. They were slaughtered for sport, ego, rage, weakness and gambling! Non of these motives are justified in my eyes! 

As a society we pick and choose our animals of value and the hypocracy is GREAT! Yet if we drove by a cow pasture and saw cows being dismembered and left to slowly die for no purpose I think we'd be alarmed and outraged.

Mike Vick broke the law not because he killed animals but because he tortured them for sport and used them for illegal revenue without an ounce of feeling. No one but Vick and company benefitted from this acitvity and society as a whole is much worse because of it!

Mike should be put out on the football field without pads and made to run end to end with a starving lion waiting for him on the 50 yard line. He might then understand the "SPORT" of his actions!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



sa1177 said:


> If they had simply hung all of the dogs then I might buy that it was simply indifference that was the motivation but the fact that they killed them in three different ways leads me to believe it was something else.


I understand what you're saying. But maybe hanging was too difficult. Or maybe it took too long, or maybe they felt bad about it.

I don't know the order of the things they did, or even if they were done by the same person. There are too many unknowns for me here, and I think there are definitely more painful ways to kill a dog than those, if they JUST wanted to cause them pain.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



crandc said:


> This is absurd! People are arguing over what was the best way to kill the dogs? They had no right to kill the dogs in the first place.


Actually, he probably did have the right. My understanding is that dogs are property, and can be killed at the owner's discretion. The question is, actually, HOW they are killed... clearly hanging them or slamming them into the ground to death is cruel and not legal.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Ed O said:


> Actually, he probably did have the right. My understanding is that dogs are property, and can be killed at the owner's discretion. The question is, actually, HOW they are killed... clearly hanging them or slamming them into the ground to death is cruel and not legal.
> 
> Ed O.



Gosh you make me mad Ed O . . . because I think you're right. :biggrin: 

(Not a slam on you, just upsetting thought that owners do have the right to kill their pets)


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

*Re: 300 atletes involved in dog fighting?*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Gosh you make me mad Ed O . . . because I think you're right. :biggrin:
> 
> (Not a slam on you, just upsetting thought that owners do have the right to kill their pets)


I'm hardly a legal expert, but my take is that technically companion animals are property in that if you kill someone's dog or cat it is not murder. You can't sue to recover damages beyond the monetary value of the animal and unless he/she is purebred that is probably zilch. And humans have the right to euthanize animals, not just because they are sick and suffering, but because the human just decided they don't want to have the animal around.

But there are animal cruelty laws. Even if some jerk decides their dog is too much trouble, to the best of my knowledge they can't legally just kill the dog. They have to go to a vet and have the animal humanely euthanized. 

Anyone know for sure?


----------

