• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Does anybody else think it's bull the way NFL is teating Vick?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I hope he gets a fair trial; and then, afterwards, if he is found guilty, I hope they hang him by his balls from the nearest bridge...
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
I'm sorry, slip of the tongue; I meant bullfighting. Certainly not anywhere near as common as the rodeo this side of Espana, but still done, and plenty brutal.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
The dogs in the arena, the players on the field, the race cars on the track; admit it you are only watching for the thrill of the blood, the injury, the crash.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Ummm... I think one teeny weeny diference might be that the people choose to do that of their own free will, while the animals do not.

I won't bother to bring up the fact that part of his "problem" is brutally killing dogs.

Otherwise, I don't see much in common with many of these things besides "competition". I enjoy MMA and there is much to respect in the demonstration of skills, IMO. I don't see how there are any such skills on dog fighting, just brutality.

Fern
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Ummm... I think one teeny weeny diference might be that the people choose to do that of their own free will, while the animals do not.

I won't bother to bring up the fact that part of his "problem" is brutally killing dogs.

Otherwise, I don't see much in common with many of these things besides "competition". I enjoy MMA and there is much to respect in the demonstration of skills, IMO. I don't see how there are any such skills on dog fighting, just brutality.

Fern
Beating one's dog into submission and fear is a wonderful talent. Don't you list that on your resume (pardon the non-accented "e")?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Right, because boxing and cage fighting is to the death, and when the loser doesn't die, but is too injured to make any more money, they drown him or beat him to death with bats. Yeah, ironic.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
no they dont yank the bull balls. your ignorance is amazing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
Topic Title: Does anybody else think it's bull the way NFL is treating Vick?

Now the Falcons are going to suspend him for 4 games due to fighting animals allegations. keep in mind when you're suspended no pay either.

Since when was an indictment a guilty verdict?

I think it's a shame.
Apparently the Falcons have a P&Nr on their staff and they heard you.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the NFL has a behavior policy which does not require one to be convicted of a crime before they are punished.

Based on what little I have read about the case and the evidence I wouldn?t be surprised if Vick never plays in the NFL again.
Bingo. Vick probably will not see another day on the field, and judging from the indictment, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. All pro athletes have code of conduct clauses, which have different standards than criminal court........

 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I hope he gets a fair trial; and then, afterwards, if he is found guilty, I hope they hang him by his balls from the nearest bridge...

:thumbsup:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
This just isn't about dog fighting, but the horrible, cruel, and sadistic ways in which he allegedly killed the dogs, sorry but that's just sick.

Anyone trying to downplay the seriousness of this kind of behavior is f'ing retarded.
Gimme a break drama queen - when a dove doesn't die after being blown from the sky you rip thier heads off to end it. I just caught about 50 crappie tonight and after taking them out of my live well all suffocated in bag I put in the fridge to fillet in the morning. What's the difference? Why are dogs so special? Bulls in Spain are brutally taunted, harrased and bleed to death for hours and everyone loves it. The cultural anthropological aspect is interesting to me to say the least. On the one hand we can brutalize each other and some animals but dogs are off limits.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: ayabe
This just isn't about dog fighting, but the horrible, cruel, and sadistic ways in which he allegedly killed the dogs, sorry but that's just sick.

Anyone trying to downplay the seriousness of this kind of behavior is f'ing retarded
.
Gimme a break drama queen - when a dove doesn't die after being blown from the sky you rip thier heads off to end it. I just caught about 50 crappie tonight and after taking them out of my live well all suffocated in bag I put in the fridge to fillet in the morning. What's the difference? Why are dogs so special? Bulls in Spain are brutally taunted, harrased and bleed to death for hours and everyone loves it. The cultural anthropological aspect is interesting to me to say the least. On the one hand we can brutalize each other and some animals but dogs are off limits.

Dogs are mans best friend. What is the strongest instict in your body, to survive. A dog is the only animal that will willingly lay down it's life for your own. Try that to a bull and most other animals in the US you can be charged with cruelty. I don't blame the NFL for taking action and they have every right.

I hope he gets the time he deserves, although he should first have to fight every dog he "trained".
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: ayabe
This just isn't about dog fighting, but the horrible, cruel, and sadistic ways in which he allegedly killed the dogs, sorry but that's just sick.

Anyone trying to downplay the seriousness of this kind of behavior is f'ing retarded.
Gimme a break drama queen - when a dove doesn't die after being blown from the sky you rip thier heads off to end it. I just caught about 50 crappie tonight and after taking them out of my live well all suffocated in bag I put in the fridge to fillet in the morning. What's the difference? Why are dogs so special? Bulls in Spain are brutally taunted, harrased and bleed to death for hours and everyone loves it. The cultural anthropological aspect is interesting to me to say the least. On the one hand we can brutalize each other and some animals but dogs are off limits.
I don't kill dove's or even pigeons and I don't support bullfighting either. How about no brutality against any animals? If you compensate for your inadequacies by abusing a lower life form you are a sad sack and so are those who support or enable your behavior.

Tack on the number of people each year, especially children who are mauled or even killed by pit bulls or other fighting dogs and it adds up to a serious problem. Did you know that most pit bulls are euthanized immediately if they make it to the pound? They are too much a of a risk even if they were never fighting dogs. It's poisoned the breed completely, even though they can be very sweet dogs.

Killing a fish or a deer for food is one thing, raising a dog to be brutalized for your enjoyment and profit and then torturing them to death when they displease you is a crime and rightfully so.

People who abuse animals have deeply rooted psychological problems, if you look at a lot of the most prominent serial killers they were abusing all kinds of animals when they were young.

 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
no they dont yank the bull balls. your ignorance is amazing.
http://rodeo.about.com/od/bull...gfaq/f/bullbucking.htm

Citirx, you are correct, but what glutenberg said is a very common and popular misconception - no need for the holier than thou bullshit :roll:
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I can not see much difference between boxing and dog fighting. At least we dont torture the loser to death or summarily kill him. Football is not much better. You line up on your side and run into the guy on the otherside. If you are lucky the object in football is to hit the other guy hard enough to injure the other player, so you can gain advantage, or injure the Quarterback.

We train dogs to attack people as guard dogs all the time.

Then there is the running of the bulls that the networks all carry every year.

Americans love violence.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: piasabird

I can not see much difference between boxing and dog fighting.

Clue - One is legal and one is not legal, care to guess which one?

 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
no they dont yank the bull balls. your ignorance is amazing.
Hence it was a question not a statement of fact. I'm just surprised how enraged the bulls get from someone sitting on their backs for 8 seconds.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
no they dont yank the bull balls. your ignorance is amazing.
Hence it was a question not a statement of fact. I'm just surprised how enraged the bulls get from someone sitting on their backs for 8 seconds.
have someone jump on your back, see how you like it ;)

More proof mankind is disgusting and that we are all gods children (said the atheist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3NueKXS6dk&eurl=

My point is that man (and i guess killer whales) is the only creature that gets off on violence and killing for fun and not for survival. Clearly other creatures are more than happy to coexist peacefully. And hippos kill more people in africa than any other animal. Go figure.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
Don't they yank on the bull's genitals to enrage it? Other then by your significant other (and in a gentle fashion) would you enjoy having your genitals yanked as hard as possible, thrown into a frenzy, and then mounted for a joy ride?

As far as your opinion about fish goes, it can pretty much be applied to the torturing of any animals.
no they dont yank the bull balls. your ignorance is amazing.
Hence it was a question not a statement of fact. I'm just surprised how enraged the bulls get from someone sitting on their backs for 8 seconds.
have someone jump on your back, see how you like it ;)

More proof mankind is disgusting and that we are all gods children (said the atheist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3NueKXS6dk&eurl=

My point is that man (and i guess killer whales) is the only creature that gets off on violence and killing for fun and not for survival. Clearly other creatures are more than happy to coexist peacefully. And hippos kill more people in africa than any other animal. Go figure.
I can't remember the post but I remember someone posting up a link to a study that showed that as the intelligence of the creature increased, the more likely they are to fiddle with life.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Jmman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the NFL has a behavior policy which does not require one to be convicted of a crime before they are punished.

Based on what little I have read about the case and the evidence I wouldn?t be surprised if Vick never plays in the NFL again.
Bingo. Vick probably will not see another day on the field, and judging from the indictment, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. All pro athletes have code of conduct clauses, which have different standards than criminal court........
Look for Vick in a Raiders uniform in the next year or two.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Right, because boxing and cage fighting is to the death, and when the loser doesn't die, but is too injured to make any more money, they drown him or beat him to death with bats. Yeah, ironic.
Boxers and Football players die every year from engaging in their sport, yet no one is screaming to ban them. (Sorry, Sweden already banned boxing)
This is overreaction by the Peta, animal rights fascists.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Right, because boxing and cage fighting is to the death, and when the loser doesn't die, but is too injured to make any more money, they drown him or beat him to death with bats. Yeah, ironic.
Boxers and Football players die every year from engaging in their sport, yet no one is screaming to ban them. (Sorry, Sweden already banned boxing)
This is overreaction by the Peta, animal rights fascists.
Can't believe I'm bothering to respond to your tortured argument. On the extremely rare occasion that a boxer or football player happens to die, it is by accident, and not the very foundation and purpose of the sport. There is a difference between dangerous activities that engender the chance for severe injury, and activities of which the purpose is to inflict severe injury. We don't ban skiing, NASCAR, surfing, crossing the street, or appearing on talk shows even though people sometimes die doing these activities because their main purpose is to do something other than die.

Before you start blathering about how in boxing the intention is to severly injure the other boxer, recognize that they voluntarily get in the ring, they wear gloves, have a ref ready to break up a match when it gets lopsided, and ringside doctors ready to administer aid if it becomes necessary. They don't get put in cages after the fight, they aren't tortured to become mean, and they don't drown the loser.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: marincounty
What I find ironic is this Michael Vick, who is basically a modern day gladiator playing in the NFL, is being prosecuted for fighting dogs, while fighting humans, in boxing matches, cage fighting, and the NFL is perfectly legal.
Right, because boxing and cage fighting is to the death, and when the loser doesn't die, but is too injured to make any more money, they drown him or beat him to death with bats. Yeah, ironic.
Boxers and Football players die every year from engaging in their sport, yet no one is screaming to ban them. (Sorry, Sweden already banned boxing)
This is overreaction by the Peta, animal rights fascists.
Can't believe I'm bothering to respond to your tortured argument. On the extremely rare occasion that a boxer or football player happens to die, it is by accident, and not the very foundation and purpose of the sport. There is a difference between dangerous activities that engender the chance for severe injury, and activities of which the purpose is to inflict severe injury. We don't ban skiing, NASCAR, surfing, crossing the street, or appearing on talk shows even though people sometimes die doing these activities because their main purpose is to do something other than die.

Before you start blathering about how in boxing the intention is to severly injure the other boxer, recognize that they voluntarily get in the ring, they wear gloves, have a ref ready to break up a match when it gets lopsided, and ringside doctors ready to administer aid if it becomes necessary. They don't get put in cages after the fight, they aren't tortured to become mean, and they don't drown the loser.
And you are using tortured argument to condemm this. It is very close to boxing and football, except for the choice issue. Cock fighting is just as brutal and is legal in some states. I think people were ignoring this and other animal abuse issues until a RICH, BLACK CELEBRITY got caught doing it, and then the press got hold of it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY