Commanders apologize for Portis' remarks on dog fighting; Samuels says he was wrong

[iceberg]

Jerry, the guy is being digested. He was eaten. The cannibal didn't wait for a discussion. He did a Hannibal Lecter and is smacking his lips. Did he have the right to eat him?

i went lookin for the good side here. : )

there are no rights here. the motto "the strongest survives" is true.

it's not PC but it's true.

no rights. rights are given by a society that agrees to live by a set of circumstances common to all to adhere to.

being born doesn't mean squat.

a dog is born.

it's what you choose to do out of what you're capable of doing that defines you.

if i can demand rights for me - i can do it for my dog. it's strength and power that backs *either* up. you're a hypocritical fool if you think because you can express youself a bit more clearly, you have "rights" others don't. come on fuz - show me how you think for yourself in this "contradiction".

fuzzy - you lose. think for yourself all day long but you're wrong.

 

[silverbear]

Just for accuracy purposes, I feel I should point out that man has never been (physically) a carnivore. We are designed to be omnivorous.

You are correct... doesn't change the main thrust of that argument, that craving meat is imprinted in man's DNA code... it is a craving that can be overcome by some, obviously...

 

[silverbear]

now by no means am I speaking for Fuzzy...with that understood...

What I gathered from my brief time in this thread is that Fuzzy see's this (dog fighting) as animal abuse but he also sees other legal forms (hunting, fishing, caging of animals etc...)as animal abuse and in his mind it would be hypocritical to call out one without also condemening the others...

I understood that, ol' buddy, and my response was that there are degrees of cruelty, and killing animals for food is more justifiable (at least to me), than setting animals to kill each other for fun...

Now should it enter into anyones mind... Let me make it perfectly clear...I am against cruelty to everything.

I would definitely be in favor of mandating humane treatment of those animals we intend to kill for food, including the manner in which we slaughter them... I see no reason to be grauitously cruel to them, except that it's more efficient and thus more profitable to do so...

But again, this does not bother me NEARLY as much as killing animals for fun... I include bullfighting and cock fighting in the same category as dog fighting...

 

[silverbear]

Silverbear: i like how you embraced the DVS thing. I dig the sense of humor.

As Madison Avenue showed us, sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't... I was in a weird mood when I started down that road, and had some fun following that weird mood where it led... LOL...

However, I have pointed out in another post that if i were given the choice of being trained to fight to the death and then fighting to the death or being put into a box that rendered me unable to move for 6 months before being killed by electrocution to postierer i think i would go with the fighting chance. Heck if i had to fight or get just the electroshock i think i would still just go woth fighting. Both are totally and utterly inhumane.

I understand what you're saying, but as I've said all along, there are degrees of cruelty, and when you put the slaughtering of animals for food on one side of the scale, and setting animals against each other to fight to the death on the other side, the scale tilts heavily toward the latter...

Both are wrong (and I will agree wholeheartedly with you that we could treat the animals we intend to eat more humanely prior to actually slaughtering them, and that we could even slaughter them less cruelly), but least one has some justifiable reason for it, while the other does not...

And rather than come to your conclusion-- that animals have no rights-- my conclusion is they should ALL have the right not be treated with cruelty, as much as is possible... for humans to deny animals such rights diminishes their humanity...

I'm guessing you don't own pets... I do, and love my mutt unreservedly, just as she loves me... when one of my dogs dies on me (which has happened twice over the years, Ally is my third dog), the ONLY way I can deal with that grief is to go right down to the pound, within a day or so, and get another pup...

Perhaps if you understand that aspect of my take on it, you'll understand why you can never hope to sway my opinion on this issue; anybody who engages in the sport of dogfighting, or attends a dogfight, is a subhuman piece of crap-- period... it's both right and good that this practice is illegal...

 

[Zaxor]

But again, this does not bother me NEARLY as much as killing animals for fun... I include bullfighting and cock fighting in the same category as dog fighting...

I too abore such despicable behavior... and find myself wondering if it isn't more appropriate to name those who commit such heinous acts... animals

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As Madison Avenue showed us, sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't... I was in a weird mood when I started down that road, and had some fun following that weird mood where it led... LOL...



I understand what you're saying, but as I've said all along, there are degrees of cruelty, and when you put the slaughtering of animals for food on one side of the scale, and setting animals against each other to fight to the death on the other side, the scale tilts heavily toward the latter...

Both are wrong (and I will agree wholeheartedly with you that we could treat the animals we intend to eat more humanely prior to actually slaughtering them, and that we could even slaughter them less cruelly), but least one has some justifiable reason for it, while the other does not...

And rather than come to your conclusion-- that animals have no rights-- my conclusion is they should ALL have the right not be treated with cruelty, as much as is possible... for humans to deny animals such rights diminishes their humanity...

I'm guessing you don't own pets... I do, and love my mutt unreservedly, just as she loves me... when one of my dogs dies on me (which has happened twice over the years, Ally is my third dog), the ONLY way I can deal with that grief is to go right down to the pound, within a day or so, and get another pup...

Perhaps if you understand that aspect of my take on it, you'll understand why you can never hope to sway my opinion on this issue; anybody who engages in the sport of dogfighting, or attends a dogfight, is a subhuman piece of crap-- period... it's both right and good that this practice is illegal...

So if we eat the loser in the dog fight it becomes okay?

The slaughterhouses are much much worse than the animals involved in dogfighting. Dogfighting is basically UFC without a ref to pull them off of each other. The meat industry is akin to a concentration camp or the killing fields in Cambodia.

I have cats and a dog. i love my petts but i really dont care what other people do with their animals. this includes pet owners, farmers, dogfighters et al.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yes. they are. why? because we as a society have given them to the animals we domesticate.

why do *you* have rights? because you're alive? sorry. depending on the government in power you have what you have and that's that. do those in n. korea have "rights" like you and i do? why not?

cause the government / society has deemed it otherwise.

if you think that simply because you're alive and "man" you have "rights" you're wrong.

meet a killer in an ally, even these USA rights are worthless if he chooses to put a bullet in your head, right? who's there to defend those rights? you can't do it on your own in this instance, so you depend on "the system" to be there for you.

now if this "system" can be put into place for man, it can be put into place for pretty much whatever we choose because it *is* a choice.

so you tell me - who "afforded" you these "rights" and just how do you define these "Rights"?

like crown said, no one has defined "rights" yet. if they're given to us by ourselves, we can give them to anyone or anything.

I hold nothing self evident. I also stated before that the rights of man and the rights of animals to be seperate so why you constantly bring up the rights of man in this discussion is beyond me. Its beyond obvious that when policy is actually created it is democratic in nature in this instance. i still hold it as hypocritical that dogs get special treatment while we go to rodeos and eat baby cows when it is completely unnecessary.

The torture and killing of animals is normal course. Genocide, at least for the last century or so, has not been the normal course, the balkans, subsaharan africa, cambodia and the ***** notwithsatanding. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, there is absolutely zero harm to a society from dogfighting beyond some people getting their panties in a wad. On the otherhand people subjected to genocide typically lead to wars and things of that nature or more typically are a symptom of war.

Killing a mink or holding a rodeo satisfies a human appetite just as dogfighting does. The treatment of the animals is not in question it is the appetite that is being held in contempt.

 

[iceberg]

I hold nothing self evident. I also stated before that the rights of man and the rights of animals to be seperate so why you constantly bring up the rights of man in this discussion is beyond me. Its beyond obvious that when policy is actually created it is democratic in nature in this instance. i still hold it as hypocritical that dogs get special treatment while we go to rodeos and eat baby cows when it is completely unnecessary.

The torture and killing of animals is normal course. Genocide, at least for the last century or so, has not been the normal course, the balkans, subsaharan africa, cambodia and the ***** notwithsatanding. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, there is absolutely zero harm to a society from dogfighting beyond some people getting their panties in a wad. On the otherhand people subjected to genocide typically lead to wars and things of that nature or more typically are a symptom of war.

Killing a mink or holding a rodeo satisfies a human appetite just as dogfighting does. The treatment of the animals is not in question it is the appetite that is being held in contempt.

because i don't view them as seperate. we have them because we agree to what they are and we work to protect them. then again how can you seperate what doesn't exist?

if we can do that for ourselves, we can do it for whatever we as a society chooses to do it for.

given that dog fighting is illegal in every state, wouldn't you think that choice has been made to extend these rights?

i know you "think for yourself" and all and that's wonderful. but when you go against the very system that feeds you because you don't like aspects of it, that's as others have pointed out - hypocritical. i also agree we all can be at times - gay men i can't watch. gay women???? a whole nother story. but if a system can be developed to ensure our rights then it is a man made system that did this because otherwise we simply DO NOT have rights because we're born.

so if we can put a system in place for ourselves, we can do it for others.

like it or not, think for yourself or not.

 

[Viper]

gay women i can't watch. gay men a whole nother story.

Care to explain Ice?, not that there is anything wrong with it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

because i don't view them as seperate. we have them because we agree to what they are and we work to protect them. then again how can you seperate what doesn't exist?

if we can do that for ourselves, we can do it for whatever we as a society chooses to do it for.

given that dog fighting is illegal in every state, wouldn't you think that choice has been made to extend these rights?

i know you "think for yourself" and all and that's wonderful. but when you go against the very system that feeds you because you don't like aspects of it, that's as others have pointed out - hypocritical. i also agree we all can be at times - gay men i can't watch. gay women???? a whole nother story. but if a system can be developed to ensure our rights then it is a man made system that did this because otherwise we simply DO NOT have rights because we're born.

so if we can put a system in place for ourselves, we can do it for others.

like it or not, think for yourself or not.

You are all over the place here.

First of all i am not against the food processing, fur or dogfighting industry. I don't see how that is anyway hypocritical nor how anyone has pointed out that it is so. It seems that you have admitted to the hypocrisy in the anti-dogfighting stance which is good.

You say animal rights don't exist and then you say they do exist but only because we agree with them. Now i am not antidemocratic by any means but its very difficult to discuss soemthing when you cant take a position.

And again animals rights are not human rights. If they were then the incessant killing and torturing of animals that we humans execute as part of our daily lives would be unacceptable. Comparing the two is one thing but using how one is formed to show how another should or should not be formed is ludicrous.

This is not to say that we could put a system into place; however it is absurd to limit the consumption of one type of animal based on an emotional attachment.

Really the absudity of the antidogfighting position can be summed up by the solution. Just process and package the losers for consumption. Pacific islanders especially eat dog or are you going to say that they are immoral as well?

 

[iceberg]

You are all over the place here.

First of all i am not against the food processing, fur or dogfighting industry. I don't see how that is anyway hypocritical nor how anyone has pointed out that it is so. It seems that you have admitted to the hypocrisy in the anti-dogfighting stance which is good.

You say animal rights don't exist and then you say they do exist but only because we agree with them. Now i am not antidemocratic by any means but its very difficult to discuss soemthing when you cant take a position.

And again animals rights are not human rights. If they were then the incessant killing and torturing of animals that we humans execute as part of our daily lives would be unacceptable. Comparing the two is one thing but using how one is formed to show how another should or should not be formed is ludicrous.

This is not to say that we could put a system into place; however it is absurd to limit the consumption of one type of animal based on an emotional attachment.

Really the absudity of the antidogfighting position can be summed up by the solution. Just process and package the losers for consumption. Pacific islanders especially eat dog or are you going to say that they are immoral as well?

i said your rights don't exist "because you're simply alive".

you choosing what you hear and making contradictions i never said.

rights we have and enjoy are here not because we're alive and the "superior" man. at least not for that alone.

they exist because as a society we want them to and we agree to live by standards that ensure those rights. so in essence, we create them for us and then we fight to defend our way of life.

so if we can extend ourselves "rights" in this manner - we can do it for animals also.

you wanna stay dense have at it - but if you fail to see that simple concept then there isn't much point in going on.

 

[silverbear]

So if we eat the loser in the dog fight it becomes okay?

Man, you're really stretching to make a point...

I have cats and a dog. i love my petts but i really dont care what other people do with their animals. this includes pet owners, farmers, dogfighters et al.

I do, and really can't understand why any pet owner, who loves his animals, doesn't...

Perhaps I should offer an analogy... I hate bigots (IOW, I'm bigoted against bigots, LOL)... can't understand why anybody would hate another person based solely on the color of their skin... part of it is the way I was raised, but a bigger part of it is the fact I have an aunt who many, many years ago adopted a girl of mixed race ancestry...

A more delightful young woman, you could never want to meet-- she's pretty, in a Rae Dawn Chong kind of way, with the sunniest attitude... I honestly believe she proves that you can't hate a race of people if you know and love just one of them... my opinion regarding animal cruelty is based in that belief... if you love one dog, you love all dogs...

At least, that's the way it works for me...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Man, you're really stretching to make a point...



I do, and really can't understand why any pet owner, who loves his animals, doesn't...

Perhaps I should offer an analogy... I hate bigots (IOW, I'm bigoted against bigots, LOL)... can't understand why anybody would hate another person based solely on the color of their skin... part of it is the way I was raised, but a bigger part of it is the fact I have an aunt who many, many years ago adopted a girl of mixed race ancestry...

A more delightful young woman, you could never want to meet-- she's pretty, in a Rae Dawn Chong kind of way, with the sunniest attitude... I honestly believe she proves that you can't hate a race of people if you know and love just one of them... my opinion regarding animal cruelty is based in that belief... if you love one dog, you love all dogs...

At least, that's the way it works for me...

Don't skirt the issue. If the dog is eaten would it make it okay? And if not why? Are the people in the phillipines that eat dog as a matter of course immoral?

It goes to the very heart of why making dogfighting illegal is poorly founded and Im sorry if its inconvenient to your position but seeing that eating dog is very common especially in certain parts of the world its not a stretch by any means.

I mean really screw subsaharan Africa, Bangladesh and north korea we should invade the majority of the pacific rim to stop the evil dogeating peoples. I mean dogs get special treatment right?

If eating or wearing the animal as an end justifies any means like every other animal then why not just tack that onto dogfighting and make it a day?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i said your rights don't exist "because you're simply alive".

you choosing what you hear and making contradictions i never said.

rights we have and enjoy are here not because we're alive and the "superior" man. at least not for that alone.

they exist because as a society we want them to and we agree to live by standards that ensure those rights. so in essence, we create them for us and then we fight to defend our way of life.

so if we can extend ourselves "rights" in this manner - we can do it for animals also.

you wanna stay dense have at it - but if you fail to see that simple concept then there isn't much point in going on.

You lose repect for me but quite frankly you begin to bore me.

I did not state a contradiction based on you not admitting to a priori rights. The entire point of my excercise has to come up with a calculus as to how rights should be generated. Perhaps if you were to actually address it that would be for the best.

A democratic bill of rights would be a clusterfrick that would constantly change on to the various moods of the people. You are the one that are talking about ***** and what your talking about is a right being based on the whims of people at a particular time. I can understand why the framers of the constitution put in the Bill of Rights and the electoral college even if the latter is now a sham of what it was intended for.

I would think a better way is to establish a standard of what would be good for civilization. Things like equal protection, nonviolence except in self defense or to overthrow tyranny, free expression and things of that light. A right should not be based on your sentimental attitude towards your pet but what is best for human civilization.

A dog fight is not going to create civil discord beyond people such as yourself getting your panties in a wad. Killing people, taking their property (including dogs), limiting their freedom to speak etcetera do cause civil discord.

So basically the reasons why dogfighting should be illegal is sentiment. Well i really like my guitars so Pete Townsend needs to go to jail.

 

[iceberg]

You lose repect for me but quite frankly you begin to bore me.

I did not state a contradiction based on you not admitting to a priori rights. The entire point of my excercise has to come up with a calculus as to how rights should be generated. Perhaps if you were to actually address it that would be for the best.

A democratic bill of rights would be a clusterfrick that would constantly change on to the various moods of the people. You are the one that are talking about ***** and what your talking about is a right being based on the whims of people at a particular time. I can understand why the framers of the constitution put in the Bill of Rights and the electoral college even if the latter is now a sham of what it was intended for.

I would think a better way is to establish a standard of what would be good for civilization. Things like equal protection, nonviolence except in self defense or to overthrow tyranny, free expression and things of that light. A right should not be based on your sentimental attitude towards your pet but what is best for human civilization.

A dog fight is not going to create civil discord beyond people such as yourself getting your panties in a wad. Killing people, taking their property (including dogs), limiting their freedom to speak etcetera do cause civil discord.

So basically the reasons why dogfighting should be illegal is sentiment. Well i really like my guitars so Pete Townsend needs to go to jail.

good. you just come across as bone-dense and refusal to acknowledge alternative thinking and "society mentality" simply because you like saying you think for yourself.

you have that right - sure. it was developed and given to you by "society mentality" you now laugh at cause you disagree with a part of it.

panties in a wad - one of the last ditch efforts to stay generic with the insults as it assumes the other persons position on it.

but it also shows how full of moose crap you are.

the NFL commish has apologized and said it's something civilized man doesn't do.
many athletes have condemned it and taken action
many private citizens have expressed their rage
PETA is having a field day
look at the long arse thread here and how many others have said how wrong it it.
look at the extent of what a lot of these people will do to stop it.

i had 3 things stolen out of my truck this week. 'eh, they're gone now. but if dogfighting were going on around the corner i'd have the authorities there pretty damn fast.

how does it feel to be so...wrong?

go away now - i'm done with you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

good. you just come across as bone-dense and refusal to acknowledge alternative thinking and "society mentality" simply because you like saying you think for yourself.

you have that right - sure. it was developed and given to you by "society mentality" you now laugh at cause you disagree with a part of it.

panties in a wad - one of the last ditch efforts to stay generic with the insults as it assumes the other persons position on it.

but it also shows how full of moose crap you are.

the NFL commish has apologized and said it's something civilized man doesn't do.
many athletes have condemned it and taken action
many private citizens have expressed their rage
PETA is having a field day
look at the long arse thread here and how many others have said how wrong it it.
look at the extent of what a lot of these people will do to stop it.

i had 3 things stolen out of my truck this week. 'eh, they're gone now. but if dogfighting were going on around the corner i'd have the authorities there pretty damn fast.

how does it feel to be so...wrong?

go away now - i'm done with you.

Like i said you bore me. And i hope you realize that calling me dense while you completely ignore my arguments is really truly ironic.

You completely ignore the central point of how a democratic synthesis of rights is unwise. And you cannot show how dogfighting leads to civil disorder beyond people like yourslef getting sentimental.

And wow the Goodell and other people in this thread agree with Ice argument. WOW!! That truly impresses me. Really.

 

[iceberg]

Like i said you bore me. And i hope you realize that calling me dense while you completely ignore my arguments is really truly ironic.

You completely ignore the central point of how a democratic synthesis of rights is unwise. And you cannot show how dogfighting leads to civil disorder beyond people like yourslef getting sentimental.

And wow the Goodell and other people in this thread agree with Ice argument. WOW!! That truly impresses me. Really.

and almost everyone else in this thread.

but for giggles and grins - fine. how did you obtain these rights *you* have but animals don't?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and almost everyone else in this thread.

but for giggles and grins - fine. how did you obtain these rights *you* have but animals don't?

Well they are certainly not obtained through Roger Goodell, the 'majority' of the people in this thread and yourself.

I would have to say that the rights that I currently enjoy were afforded by the Constitutional Convention form the latter part of the 18th century.

In fact when it comes down to it, the US Constitution grants no rights specific to animals. As far as i know, no government in the world grants rights specific to animals. So if youre keeping score, no government in the world recognizes animal rights.

Basically, you have a segment of sentimental hypocrites in the US that got a law passed. WOW!!

 

[iceberg]

Well they are certainly not obtained through Roger Goodell, the 'majority' of the people in this thread and yourself.

I would have to say that the rights that I currently enjoy were afforded by the Constitutional Convention form the latter part of the 18th century.

In fact when it comes down to it, the US Constitution grants no rights specific to animals. As far as i know, no government in the world grants rights specific to animals. So if youre keeping score, no government in the world recognizes animal rights.

Basically, you have a segment of sentimental hypocrites in the US that got a law passed. WOW!!

great - so the constitution grants rights to "people". so rights can be "given" - the precident is set. they're given because the governing body, fed by information from "we the people" set up these rights and a system to protect them.

it became law. you rather seem to enjoy *this* law.

now that animal fighting is illegal - it's also "law" - set about by "man" and common society driving it.

you don't like "this" law.

find a hobby and deal with it cause it *is* the law and your agreeing with it matters not. go sponsor a dog fight and tell the judge your stance and let's see how far you go.

you'll belong to the guy with the most cigs in no time flat and the only rights you'll have then is the right to play hard to get at the prison dances.

unless you can do better than you've in here before the judge, of course. convince him the laws don't apply despite them being setup in the same fashion your own rights were.

if you don't like this law, work to change it. let's see how far you get.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

great - so the constitution grants rights to "people". so rights can be "given" - the precident is set. they're given because the governing body, fed by information from "we the people" set up these rights and a system to protect them.

it became law. you rather seem to enjoy *this* law.

now that animal fighting is illegal - it's also "law" - set about by "man" and common society driving it.

you don't like "this" law.

find a hobby and deal with it cause it *is* the law and your agreeing with it matters not. go sponsor a dog fight and tell the judge your stance and let's see how far you go.

you'll belong to the guy with the most cigs in no time flat and the only rights you'll have then is the right to play hard to get at the prison dances.

unless you can do better than you've in here before the judge, of course. convince him the laws don't apply despite them being setup in the same fashion your own rights were.

if you don't like this law, work to change it. let's see how far you get.

If you think the framers of the constitution cared for any input from the layman youre just kidding yourself.

As i have said before I dont condone dogfighting. I just dont condemn it. I just think you and others like you are hypocrites and really you have done nothing to assuage that.

So if you want to be smug becuase there is a law in place then you go with it. In the hierarchy of stupid laws, dogfighting takes a back seat.