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

[DallasEast]

I guess you haven't seen this!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5s5qGg01nE&mode=related&search=

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

some guys have all the luck.

If i am so deplorable why am I not on your ignore list?

im sorry that i dont buy that your pets inherently have any more rights than any other animal.

 

[Crown Royal]

I can understand that but to me killing and torturing is killing and torturing. Golding had more to do with rationalizing phenomenon and this is different.

I could very well eat vegitarian, not wear leather or eat veal but as long as I choose not to I am facilitating the torture and killing of animals. it might be convenient for me to pick and choose but i cannot do that and truly believe that it is right

I didn't realize that ethics were all or nothing. You would do something that might be immoral to keep from being a hypocrite?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't realize that ethics were all or nothing. You would do something that might be immoral to keep from being a hypocrite?

Im just saying is that i see them as the same thing. Its just substituting one form of torture for another and pretending they are different as far as i am concerned.

And in my view animals have no rights so how can it be immoral?

 

[Crown Royal]

Im just saying is that i see them as the same thing. Its just substituting one form of torture for another and pretending they are different as far as i am concerned.

And in my view animals have no rights so how can it be immoral?

Well that's a different issue, though I would love to know why you feel that animals have no rights. If you said it earlier in this thread, please forgive me, as I haven't read the entire thing, just a few pages back.

I suppose to answer my question, you would have to give a definition of rights and the criterion for posession thereof.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well that's a different issue, though I would love to know why you feel that animals have no rights. If you said it earlier in this thread, please forgive me, as I haven't read the entire thing, just a few pages back.

I suppose to answer my question, you would have to give a definition of rights and the criterion for posession thereof.

i have to go by my store to take care of some things but i will be back to talk about this.

The beginning of it is that the essential right of man. Life, liberty and happiness obviously do not apply to animals. We as humans kill, enslave and harm animals to the better of our causes as a course of our daily lives. At best the right of animals are limited. Its a pure utilitarian standpoint but i dont just stop at survival.

i definitely do not differentiate between vertebrates.

 

[DallasEast]

A cannibal was shipwrecked on a desert island. As its only resident, he established a law that the only living thing, which would ever have rights on the island, would be himself.

Another guy found himself shipwrecked on the same island shortly afterwards. Was it immoral for the cannibal to have eaten him?

 

[Concord]

Goodell blasts Portis' dog-fighting comments


'I'm extremely disappointed and embarrassed,' NFL commissioner says


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18783681/

Washington Commanders running back Clinton Portis first said dog-fighting was 'OK,' then said he didn't condone the activity.

By Mark Maske

Updated: 7:54 a.m. PT May 23, 2007

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday condemned comments by Washington Commanders tailback Clinton Portis in support of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, who is under investigation for his possible involvement in an alleged dogfighting operation in Virginia.

"I'm extremely disappointed and embarrassed for Clinton Portis," Goodell said in a written statement following a one-day NFL owners' meeting. "This does not reflect the sentiments of the Commanders, the NFL or NFL players."

The Commanders, who on Monday issued a statement for Portis expressing his regret for the remarks, on Tuesday evening apologized for Portis's comments. "The Washington Commanders, as an organization, obviously would never condone anything related to animal cruelty," the Commanders said in a statement. "The team takes the recent comments of Clinton Portis very seriously and apologizes to everyone that was offended."

Goodell said at a news conference earlier Tuesday that he was "very concerned about the issues revolving around" Vick but wasn't ready to make a decision about possible disciplinary action. A league official said that disciplinary measures against Portis were not under consideration.

Authorities in Virginia are deciding whether to bring charges against Vick for alleged animal cruelty and dogfighting at a house he formerly owned in Surry County. Police raided the property on April 25 and found dozens of dogs and items associated with dogfighting, which is a felony in Virginia and 47 other states.

In an interview with a Virginia television station Friday, Portis and a teammate, offensive tackle Chris Samuels, defended Vick. Portis said that if Vick is charged and convicted of dogfighting, "then you're putting him behind bars for no reason."

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property. It's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it," Portis told WAVY-TV in Norfolk.


Samuels laughed as Portis spoke and said it wasn't fair that people were rushing to conclusions about Vick's involvement. "You can't accuse this man of something and throw the book at him right now," Samuels said.

At Commanders Park on Tuesday, Samuels said that he and Portis were wrong for joking about dogfighting. "It's very serious," Samuels said. "We don't agree with dogfighting."

Samuels said that as soon as the interview was finished, "I said, 'You know what? This might be a mess.' "

"We knew we were on camera," Samuels said. "We did a live shot before and then we had the taped interview, and we were kind of joking the whole time we were there. Once that question came about, and we were joking about that in a sense, I was kind of caught off guard with it. . . . We were wrong for joking about the situation."

Portis did not attend Tuesday's voluntary workout and was not available to comment.

 

[DallasEast]

Samuels said that he and Portis were wrong for joking about dogfighting. "It's very serious," Samuels said. "We don't agree with dogfighting."

Samuels is a good teammate because he's lying for Portis' sake about the joking part. Portis wasn't joking. Not one bit.

 

[Concord]

Samuels is a good teammate because he's lying for Portis' sake about the joking part. Portis wasn't joking. Not one bit.

Yeah Samuels needs to get off the Portis was joking thing.

It's really not even in dispute that he wasn't.

 

[jackrussell]

Why am I on ignore? Because you cannot hang with me?

It's cool to just look the other way when something does not please you...just act like it's not there, huh?

I couldn't care less if I'm on ignore...at least the other posters know what my stance is!

If you are so much of a coward running to the corner so that you cannot see mean 5Stars...that tells me alot about why you think the way you do!

You cannot handle the REAL world...you live in your little own "consistant dream world"...

At least I'm your buddy...that you are afraid to talk too!

:laugh2:

Chicken !! Squawk, squawk...

An interesting take on why someone would have anyone on ignore. I know up until recently I never used it myself.....figured I'd just go right by the things I didn't feel the need to see.

But then a few things dawned upon me....one was some folks just never seem to have anything of interest to say, or are just acting the pain. Working with kids everyday just told me I didn't need this kind of experience on a message board.

Enter the ignore button.

Wow, what freedom! I could finally breeze through threads bypassing the immature rantings of the idiots, and get straight to those posters I wanted to read. Kind of took the approach of 'would I sit down over a beer with this person and shoot the bull?'

Then the dog fighting issue came along. Needless to say, it's a very passionate subject for me. It just doesn't pertain to dogs...I've always had a cringe toward anything inhumane toward anything. Personally, I can seperate the need for filling our troughs for nutrition and that of senseless exploitation through cruelty. Apparently, some can't.

Reading some of these beliefs and explanations sickened me. They come from people I would now consider the bottom of the food chain. I would not care one bit nor respect anything they would have to say on ANY subject based on the fact they show no compassion or decency for defenseless beings.

I hold true to you can tell how someone treats people as to how they treat the gifts bestowed upon us we call 'animals'.

I am not a coward, nor do I live in my own self contained world. I can hang with the best, and stomp on rest. There are some that can tell you I've gone volumes on discussions where we didn't agree in the least sense of the word.

I'm here to gain some information, and try and have a little fun at my expense as well as others. I know you're taking a jab at lumpy....and I very rarely take a too serious approach to a discussion. But I have nothing but contempt for these low lifes...and have no time in my life for their kind, ergo, the ignore button.

 

[Crown Royal]

i have to go by my store to take care of some things but i will be back to talk about this.

The beginning of it is that the essential right of man. Life, liberty and happiness obviously do not apply to animals. We as humans kill, enslave and harm animals to the better of our causes as a course of our daily lives. At best the right of animals are limited. Its a pure utilitarian standpoint but i dont just stop at survival.

i definitely do not differentiate between vertebrates.

So - the essential right of man, by your definition, is the one that Thomas Jefferson gave us? Well, two came from Locke, I believe. That's the criteria? I personally hold no truths to be self evident, but that's me.

As far as enslaving & harming animals to the better our causes as a course of our daily lives, that's hardly an ethical argument, considering that I personally do none and my life is not affected by it. If I do, it is at a minimal level and that which is only necessary for my survival.

I'm not sure what your comment as far as vertebrates means.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Certainly not by you.

so weak

just like your argument

 

[fortdick]

Your argument is pretty clear. "No my position is that animals have no rights. Do with them what you will."

So, beastiality is ok?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Great post, jackrussell. :clap2:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

So, beastiality is ok?

:laugh2:

 

[peplaw06]

Finally found the time to read yet another dog-fighting thread... quite the controversy nowadays. Thought I'd throw my $.02 in. I know, you're all sooo excited

1) Clinton Portis is a moron. I condemn him because of his words. Not that I think he deserves to be punished, just gives me a context for reading or listening to his words in the future. Not that I needed any more evidence of his "eccentricity" given his previous words and penchant for playing dress up.

His "apology" wasn't even issued by him, but by the team speaking on behalf of him. Damage control I guess, even if there may not be any damage done ultimately.

2) If Vick is prosecuted for dog fighting, and ultimately convicted of a felony, he deserves to be punished. If Goodell wants to remain consistent the NFL will have to act on this at some point. Vick is someone who has a past, and Goodell has thus far been pretty even-handed IMO, so it will be interesting to see what he does.

3) Dog fighting is inhumane. It is also illegal in every state I believe. Some means of killing of some animals for furs and/or food are inhumane. It is not illegal, at least not in all of its forms. One is a felony, one is not. If I condemn someone for acting illegally, and fail to condemn someone else for acting within the law, I don't see the inconsistency in that.

4) I am dizzy... In this thread there has been one voice stating that he "refuses to condemn" those who act illegally because he feels it would be inconsistent not to condemn those who act in a similar manner, even though those actions may be legal. This comes obviously from a desire to be consistent.

However, also in this thread he has taken "the moral high ground" over those who feel justified in condemning an alleged criminal, essentially condemning those of us who he does not perceive to be his moral equivalent. I don't know if it's ironic, hypocritical, or makes a lick of sense, but that's the impression I have.

We now return to your regularly scheduled bickering already in progress.

 

[iceberg]

i have to go by my store to take care of some things but i will be back to talk about this.

The beginning of it is that the essential right of man. Life, liberty and happiness obviously do not apply to animals. We as humans kill, enslave and harm animals to the better of our causes as a course of our daily lives. At best the right of animals are limited. Its a pure utilitarian standpoint but i dont just stop at survival.

i definitely do not differentiate between vertebrates.

if you want to get right down to it "humans" have no rights either.

we've been bought and sold.
as you say - we kill and enslave
animals can and do further *our* cause.

what gives *us* this right? why do we have rights just because we can't understand animals perhaps as well as they understand us at times?

we have rights simply because we took them - for no other reason. in many of our own lifetimes blacks didn't have the same rights as whites. why? cause that was the general mentality of society, wasn't it?

but again, how come you *have* rights? if we ever get taken over and you have to learn say chinese, are you going to argue for your rights while they bamboo cane your back into 1000 scars?

you have no inherant rights just because you're alive. you have them because society says so and will fight and die to protect them.

no other reason i know of.

so if society can give you rights - they can give it to animals also. it's ours to give and if you don't like it - feel free to express your opinion - sure. but in this instance you're wrong.

our society says we have rights because that is the system we have setup. NO OTHER REASON. and if that system can do it for people, it can do it for animals.

and i really don't think they give a damn if you agree or not.

 

[Crown Royal]

if you want to get right down to it "humans" have no rights either.

we've been bought and sold.
as you say - we kill and enslave
animals can and do further *our* cause.

what gives *us* this right? why do we have rights just because we can't understand animals perhaps as well as they understand us at times?

we have rights simply because we took them - for no other reason. in many of our own lifetimes blacks didn't have the same rights as whites. why? cause that was the general mentality of society, wasn't it?

but again, how come you *have* rights? if we ever get taken over and you have to learn say chinese, are you going to argue for your rights while they bamboo cane your back into 1000 scars?

you have no inherant rights just because you're alive. you have them because society says so and will fight and die to protect them.

no other reason i know of.

so if society can give you rights - they can give it to animals also. it's ours to give and if you don't like it - feel free to express your opinion - sure. but in this instance you're wrong.

our society says we have rights because that is the system we have setup. NO OTHER REASON. and if that system can do it for people, it can do it for animals.

and i really don't think they give a damn if you agree or not.

Everything you just said can be summed up by Hume:

"[SIZE=-1]The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster."[/SIZE]

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Personally, I can seperate the need for filling our troughs for nutrition and that of senseless exploitation through cruelty. Apparently, some can't.

that's the point most of us are trying to drive home here

dog-fighting serves no purpose whatsoever other than the personal gain of a few individuals, again, this phrase pertains to this argument more than anything:

the end justifies the means

and quite frankly, I don't see what end dog-fighting is accomplishing other than the torture, maiming and ultimately the death of innocent animals

I guess Fuzzy doesn't think African-American's deserve reparations, or at least an apology, for being slaved, tortured and murdered because they had no rights back in the day:bang2: