DMN piece on Michael Vick alias Ron Mexico

[iceberg]

I no longer involve myself in the "morality" arguments, because they're completely IRRELEVANT... whether or not you think dog fighting is immoral, the plain truth is it's ILLEGAL...

Just because you think a law's wrong, it doesn't follow that you can ignore it... there are laws out there I don't like, but I obey them...

i have to agree here and this is what i tried to stress to wonder-fuzz.

we created laws to live by that govern acceptable behavior
we created "rights" we have by being in this country

*we* did this. it's not given to us by God, we don't pop out and get handed our "inalienable" book of rights - we defined them and we build a system to defend them.

so they can be given, apparantely. by law that society will and has determined through their own vocal behavior and actions.

this same behavior has made dog fighting illegal. you can argue animal rights all day and all night but it doesn't change the law - hypocracy or not. he's more than welcome to make it legal if he wishes, or at least try. thsi i could respect.

but to sit around and flip your nose up at the sections of society you don't like and *them*wrong is just kinda ballsy, but no real surprise for the lump.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Well, what else can we expect from a freakin' hillbilly?? We here in the Old Dominion have earned our right to call ourselves good Southerners... LOL...

You must be confusing me with Brain when calling me a hillbilly.

We are just plain old God fearin rednecks down here :laugh2:

 

[silverbear]

You must be confusing me with Brain when calling me a hillbilly.

We are just plain old God fearin rednecks down here :laugh2:

I've been to Tennessee, it's all hill country... it ain't just West by Gawd that has hillbillies, y'know...

 

[Yeagermeister]

I've been to Tennessee, it's all hill country... it ain't just West by Gawd that has hillbillies, y'know...

You haven't been down my way then. It's pretty much flat.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

I hate to break this news to you, but Vick is from Newport News. If you've ever been to the Hampton Roads are, you will find that the people there identify themselves more with the Northeast than the Southeast.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've been here about 4 years now. I'll admit they're not quite "southern" around here because of the overwhelming presence of the Navy and other military but neither are they northeastern. It's more of a regional limbo than anything else...

 

[AtlCB]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've been here about 4 years now. I'll admit they're not quite "southern" around here because of the overwhelming presence of the Navy and other military but neither are they northeastern. It's more of a regional limbo than anything else...

They seemed like Northerns to me. I lived there for six years after living in the South most of my life. Most of the state of Virginia is definitely Southern, but most of the east coast talks and acts more Northeastern than Southern. They even pronounce Norfolk - Nof-folk.

 

[peplaw06]

I no longer involve myself in the "morality" arguments, because they're completely IRRELEVANT... whether or not you think dog fighting is immoral, the plain truth is it's ILLEGAL...

Just because you think a law's wrong, it doesn't follow that you can ignore it... there are laws out there I don't like, but I obey them...

See I disagree with this first paragraph... and I tried to convey that to Fuzzbuster in I believe the last locked thread. Morality is entirely relevant when considering what is and is not illegal. It is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws.

 

[iceberg]

See I disagree with this first paragraph... and I tried to convey that to Fuzzbuster in I believe the last locked thread. Morality is entirely relevant when considering what is and is not illegal. It is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws.

i agree - it's the "majority morality" that dictates our freedoms, laws, and basically governs our society. it changes over time - prohibition, prohibition gone. maybe one day weed will be legal and enough people really felt like fuzzbucket, make dog fighting legal also.

i'm anti abortion but the facilities should be there for those who are not as it's their choice - not mine. if/when i have that choice to make i'll exercise my morality and lead by example.

but this is what i've been saying - we have "rights" not because we're alive but because we agreed how to live to ensure them. our "tradeoffs" so to speak. if we can give ourselves rights *and* the "moral majorit" says it's illegal - it is. if you don't like it work for change but stop the whining in the meantime.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See I disagree with this first paragraph... and I tried to convey that to Fuzzbuster in I believe the last locked thread. Morality is entirely relevant when considering what is and is not illegal. It is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws.

HERE is a list of laws passed by the 110th congress. Looking over it it is easy to see that none of them were basd on morality. In fact other than naming certain buildings after people which i wouldnt necessarily call moral I would say that they all had major economic basis for passage.

Now there was the nutrition bill but as i have said that the entire principle if children as our future is basically for longterm societal existence. You can call that morality, i will call it survival.

You can keep your little pie in the sky ideals all you want but they simply are not based in reality. i would go further that all property laws including but not limited to moral terpitude are the absolute basis for our economy and as such are primarily economic in basis.

But that really wasnt the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion was whether or not if something was illegal that it was automatically immoral. You by admission stated that not all laws were morally based but rather most of them. Thus legality does not define morality.

Your carebear view of why laws are made is nice and all but really had nothing to do with the disussion at hand.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i agree - it's the "majority morality" that dictates our freedoms, laws, and basically governs our society. it changes over time - prohibition, prohibition gone. maybe one day weed will be legal and enough people really felt like fuzzbucket, make dog fighting legal also.

i'm anti abortion but the facilities should be there for those who are not as it's their choice - not mine. if/when i have that choice to make i'll exercise my morality and lead by example.

but this is what i've been saying - we have "rights" not because we're alive but because we agreed how to live to ensure them. our "tradeoffs" so to speak. if we can give ourselves rights *and* the "moral majorit" says it's illegal - it is. if you don't like it work for change but stop the whining in the meantime.

I believe it was Plato that talked of the evils of democracy and how the majority rule would destroy the minority despite virtues they may have at the benefit of themselves. Mob rule has been derided throughout history. This is exactly why in the beginning of the 19th century that a few hundred guys established the rights that we enjoy today. it was the constitutional convention that gave us our rights. This i see as a good thing as many here do not hold dear things that i do such as due process and equla protection under the law.

the only other rights that our government actually recognizes would be those passed by the UN. This once again is a few hundred people and not the majority. Additionally the laws that we have today are not passed by anything other than a few hundred people in legislatures accross this country.

if you wre to click on the link in my above post and recognize even 10% of the laws passed in our last congress i would be stunned. Making your stance of majority morality even more laughable is that the majority of people in this country dont even vote. The turnout for federal elections are miserable and state and municple are worse.

 

[iceberg]

great - so now plato is the defacto "know it all".

smart man, i'm sure. but there are smart men on both sides of the coin. if a democracy bugs you so much, work to change it, or leave it. but poking it with a stick and whining about it gets old.

 

[peplaw06]

HERE is a list of laws passed by the 110th congress. Looking over it it is easy to see that none of them were basd on morality. In fact other than naming certain buildings after people which i wouldnt necessarily call moral I would say that they all had major economic basis for passage.

Now there was the nutrition bill but as i have said that the entire principle if children as our future is basically for longterm societal existence. You can call that morality, i will call it survival.

You can keep your little pie in the sky ideals all you want but they simply are not based in reality. i would go further that all property laws including but not limited to moral terpitude are the absolute basis for our economy and as such are primarily economic in basis.

But that really wasnt the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion was whether or not if something was illegal that it was automatically immoral. You by admission stated that not all laws were morally based but rather most of them. Thus legality does not define morality.

Your carebear view of why laws are made is nice and all but really had nothing to do with the disussion at hand.

You provide a list of 27 passed laws and think that disproves my stance? :laugh2:

Do you have any idea how many laws are in existence. It's impossible to state that ALL laws have one basis, and one basis only for their passage. That's why I didn't.

And call it pie in the sky all you want, the fact is you're only looking at things on a superficial level and that is where you are wrong.

Bills that may seem to be passed on economic bases on the surface are a means to get something done. What is that I wonder? Maybe it's a way for the government to provide for its people... a moral philosophy.

You remind me of one Will Hunting from one of my favorite movies. A cocky kid who can't be wrong in any forum of discussion. You think that because you're well-read that you have all the answers. Robin Williams had a great quote in a long monologue in an exchange where he said, something to the effect that, "I can't learn anything about you, that I can't read in some ******* book." You love "proving people wrong," but can't see any instance where you yourself might be wrong. You quote Plato and consider it the end all be all. Life and our society aren't black and white, yet you're trying to paint them that way. I never once stated that legality defined morality, but you try to paint me in that corner. I got news for ya, it ain't happenin. You continue to believe that economics is the end all be all, and I'll disagree with you. I do know that legality doesn't define economics. There's no point in arguing over it anymore... I'm not budging on this one and neither are you.

 

[iceberg]

You provide a list of 27 passed laws and think that disproves my stance? :laugh2:

Do you have any idea how many laws are in existence. It's impossible to state that ALL laws have one basis, and one basis only for their passage. That's why I didn't.

And call it pie in the sky all you want, the fact is you're only looking at things on a superficial level and that is where you are wrong.

Bills that may seem to be passed on economic bases on the surface are a means to get something done. What is that I wonder? Maybe it's a way for the government to provide for its people... a moral philosophy.

You remind me of one Will Hunting from one of my favorite movies. A cocky kid who can't be wrong in any forum of discussion. You think that because you're well-read that you have all the answers. Robin Williams had a great quote in a long monologue in an exchange where he said, something to the effect that, "I can't learn anything about you, that I can't read in some ******* book." You love "proving people wrong," but can't see any instance where you yourself might be wrong. You quote Plato and consider it the end all be all. Life and our society aren't black and white, yet you're trying to paint them that way. I never once stated that legality defined morality, but you try to paint me in that corner. I got news for ya, it ain't happenin. You continue to believe that economics is the end all be all, and I'll disagree with you. I do know that legality doesn't define economics. There's no point in arguing over it anymore... I'm not budging on this one and neither are you.

wild you not only go to one of my favorite movies of all time, but pick one of my (2) favorite quotes in that movie.

well argued on your part pep. it's good to see us able to get into discussions - fevered ones at times - yet know when to say when. i'm about there with fuzzybritches also for very much the same reason - singular argument and pushing what is said to extremes (not actually what's said) to bolster his own argument. if you're not careful you wind up in a 1 sided argument you can't win cause you're suddenly defending things you never said - like dog fighting was the worst a man could do (another thread still in the main forums).

no one ever said that. even "implied" is iffy. but fuzzy needed it that way for his argument to work, so he put it there and wisely, no one followed.

my favorite scene from the movie is when they go to the park and robin williams take will hunting a part peice by piece and will knows it. talks about the smells in the cistine chapel (spelling, i know) and things you have to experience, not read, to understand. and when done, he just gets up and says "your move chief".

one amazing movie. however, like you - i'm done. you can't talk with someone who won't meet in the middle and sometimes, that's as far as you can go.

 

[peplaw06]

wild you not only go to one of my favorite movies of all time, but pick one of my (2) favorite quotes in that movie.

well argued on your part pep. it's good to see us able to get into discussions - fevered ones at times - yet know when to say when. i'm about there with fuzzybritches also for very much the same reason - singular argument and pushing what is said to extremes (not actually what's said) to bolster his own argument. if you're not careful you wind up in a 1 sided argument you can't win cause you're suddenly defending things you never said - like dog fighting was the worst a man could do (another thread still in the main forums).

no one ever said that. even "implied" is iffy. but fuzzy needed it that way for his argument to work, so he put it there and wisely, no one followed.

my favorite scene from the movie is when they go to the park and robin williams take will hunting a part peice by piece and will knows it. talks about the smells in the cistine chapel (spelling, i know) and things you have to experience, not read, to understand. and when done, he just gets up and says "your move chief".

one amazing movie. however, like you - i'm done. you can't talk with someone who won't meet in the middle and sometimes, that's as far as you can go.

******. I intended for that to be my closing line, but I lost my train of thought at the end there.

I'll say it now.

Your move Chief.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

i love this. Its been weeks since the raid and so far no charges have been filed against Vick yet everyone already has the rope out. Love this place. Save the dogs but forget about prima facia innocence.

None of you know the facts of the case. Do not know the specifics of what was said about Vick or by who these statements were made but judgemnet has been passed.

I was right on when i coined the DVS.

after the Duke fiasco, I think it's unlikely that DAs will do anymore rushing to charge athletes, they will take their time w/ this, no charges being filed does not mean they are throwing up their hands

 

[Bob Sacamano]

See I disagree with this first paragraph... and I tried to convey that to Fuzzbuster in I believe the last locked thread. Morality is entirely relevant when considering what is and is not illegal. It is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws.

fuzzywuzzy's spin about rape and child-molestation laws being based on economics was one of the most hilarious spins I ever witnessed

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You provide a list of 27 passed laws and think that disproves my stance? :laugh2:

Do you have any idea how many laws are in existence. It's impossible to state that ALL laws have one basis, and one basis only for their passage. That's why I didn't.

And call it pie in the sky all you want, the fact is you're only looking at things on a superficial level and that is where you are wrong.

Bills that may seem to be passed on economic bases on the surface are a means to get something done. What is that I wonder? Maybe it's a way for the government to provide for its people... a moral philosophy.

You remind me of one Will Hunting from one of my favorite movies. A cocky kid who can't be wrong in any forum of discussion. You think that because you're well-read that you have all the answers. Robin Williams had a great quote in a long monologue in an exchange where he said, something to the effect that, "I can't learn anything about you, that I can't read in some ******* book." You love "proving people wrong," but can't see any instance where you yourself might be wrong. You quote Plato and consider it the end all be all. Life and our society aren't black and white, yet you're trying to paint them that way. I never once stated that legality defined morality, but you try to paint me in that corner. I got news for ya, it ain't happenin. You continue to believe that economics is the end all be all, and I'll disagree with you. I do know that legality doesn't define economics. There's no point in arguing over it anymore... I'm not budging on this one and neither are you.

are you mad pep? well i certainly wouldnt want you to budge on your pie in the sky ideals.

just for feces and giggles HERE is a link to all the laws passed by the last 17 us congresses. youre the one that said that 90% of laws passed were moral in nature. well for the last 17 years maybe 5% could be construed as moral at all. but hey you say im the one that wont admit when im worng.

actually when im wrong i am more than happy to admit. people like hos and theo can attest to that fact. they can also attest to the fact that when i think im right i wont just give up on it.

i also think its cute that a kid fresh out of law school is using that quote from goodwill hunting and then quoting a movie to boot. you do understand irony dont you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also as an aside, the scene in the movie you are talking about is a guy that is using his education to make ben affleck's character look stupid. if anything you are the one that ahs thrown the fact that you have a law degree and specialize in criminal and family law in my face.

the guy also quoted things from a book and didnt give credit. i dont quote platos book as my own. so while that is a great scene you didnt apply it well at all.

i have an idea though lets just pick scenes from our favorite movies and say tht im the villain cause people like summer will actually think it makes a modicum of sense.

instead of red herrings, argue the point or go away.

 

[silverbear]

See I disagree with this first paragraph... and I tried to convey that to Fuzzbuster in I believe the last locked thread. Morality is entirely relevant when considering what is and is not illegal. It is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws.

You misunderstood my point... yes, morality is the leading reason behind the passage of most laws... but in this situation, the issue of morality, i.e., whether or not it OUGHT to be illegal is moot, because it IS illegal...

IOW, the people have, in their infinite wisdom, decided the issue of morality when they chose to make dogfighting illegal... you might not like their decision, but you are bound by the law they chose to pass...

 

[peplaw06]

are you mad pep? well i certainly wouldnt want you to budge on your pie in the sky ideals.

just for feces and giggles HERE is a link to all the laws passed by the last 17 us congresses. youre the one that said that 90% of laws passed were moral in nature. well for the last 17 years maybe 5% could be construed as moral at all. but hey you say im the one that wont admit when im worng.

actually when im wrong i am more than happy to admit. people like hos and theo can attest to that fact. they can also attest to the fact that when i think im right i wont just give up on it.

i also think its cute that a kid fresh out of law school is using that quote from goodwill hunting and then quoting a movie to boot. you do understand irony dont you?

Yeah I'm mad.... :laugh2:

That ego of yours would lead you to believe that you could have that effect over an internet message board.

So, once again in your failure to budge an inch, you accuse me of hypocrisy, yet again refuse to budge. Fine, I'm a hypocrite in this instance. BUT I THINK FOR MYSELF ******!!:laugh2:

So you still didn't address my point about your superficial analysis of these "economically" influenced laws, but that's cool. I didn't expect a good answer anyway.

Also as an aside, the scene in the movie you are talking about is a guy that is using his education to make ben affleck's character look stupid. if anything you are the one that ahs thrown the fact that you have a law degree and specialize in criminal and family law in my face.

the guy also quoted things from a book and didnt give credit. i dont quote platos book as my own. so while that is a great scene you didnt apply it well at all.

i have an idea though lets just pick scenes from our favorite movies and say tht im the villain cause people like summer will actually think it makes a modicum of sense.

instead of red herrings, argue the point or go away.

Did you even watch that movie? Wait, what am I thinking?? You probably read the book. Ben Affleck's character had zero education, and for that matter neither did Matt Damon's character. The only education Damon's character got was through reading.

I never threw anything in your face about my education. I can't help it if you're insecure about that fact. I've only indicated that I speak from some experience. Not a lot mind you, but some, which I would venture is more than you have. There... how's that for throwing it in your face?

And I argued the point to some extent, you ignored it. It's cool. It's not even worth arguing anymore because you've convoluted the argument to the point of namecalling and insults. It's cool. I don't expect much from ya anymore, except some choice "cutes," "kids," "pies in the skies," and the like. Very drama queenish.