NewyScruggs Blog: Wade Phillips Stands Behind Michael Vick

[Jay-D]

Domestication refers to the process of taming a population of animals . Likewise, animals domesticated for home companionship are usually called pets while those domesticated for food or work are called livestock or farm animals.


As usual, open mouth and insert foot!

:laugh2:

OK now I KNOW you don't read your own posts.....because nobody is this inane.

 

[AtlCB]

I would say 'good guys' dont go around shooting animals to hang there heads on the wall for kicks.

I have to agree and disagree with that point. I'm ok with someone hunting deer or other animals for the purpose of eating them. I think it's a little creepy when someone displays a head on their wall. As much as I abhor hunting when the hunter doesn't intend to consume the animal, I still see a huge difference between hunting an dogfighting. Animals are usually killed quickly by hunters. These animals aren't mistreated their who lives and forced to suffer for hours in a fight against other animals for the amusement of their masters.

 

[Stautner]

This post puts into words everything I've tried to say.

Nice!

The thing you guys fail to recognize is that if people were raising cattle, or chickens or pigs for the purpose of fighting to the death and then drowning or hanging those considered inferior it would be illegal just as it is with dogs.

This isn't about species, it's about motivation and intentional cruelty.

You guys are twisting the topic to fit your point.

The method and motivation is the key, not the species.

 

[5Stars]

Your premise is sound, Jay-D, and is basically just an outline on the moral relativity and hypocrisy of animal cruelty being wrong for one species because we've deemed them pets and friends, while it is ok for another species because we've deemed them food.

Some of the ways you present it are a little out there, but your premise is solid. You'll get nowhere, though. Open-mindedness and anything farther than "OMG, you think dog fighting and killing cows are exactly the same" is a rare thing to find on this topic. Everyone's too emotionally attached to the animal in question to acknowledge that the morals on animal treatment are sketchy, and differ from culture to culture, even within America. Heck, Iran has nearly eradicated their dog population, and in many nations, they are food.

Morally, the distinction between two unnecessary evils of dog fighting and let's say cattle slaughter (among others) is fuzzy at best. Both are unnecessary for humans, and at the end of the day - the dog is just as dead as the cow, and both for our enjoyment. Somewhere along the line, we just decided dogs get rights and cows don't. Doesn;t make it right, just makes it the law.

Excellent response, punk!

 

[5Stars]

OK now I KNOW you don't read your own posts.....because nobody is this inane.

The only reason that you posted what you did, is because I posted the meaning of "domesticated"!


Please, keep up...

 

[Pats Fan]

Went out for dinner, came back and read all these comments.

Thinking. I think we are missing the point.

Cruel behavior whether it be man or beast is wrong. That includes cattle (yes we eat steak, but please be humane), and dogs, and cats, and our wildlife, and yes humans. As "rulers" of our planet we can do better.

It made me think when I was a young adult during Vietnam. There was a case where a guy named Cally headed up a division and was told by his superiors to take a village out. His idea of taking it out was killing babies in cribs, shooting a young boy running, slaughtering entire families including grandmothers. I read the story and almost threw up. But I was -- I'm going to guess one of only about 10% of the population that thought it was wrong. I wanted the death penalty. I remember those days and I was absolutely outraged. I could not understand it. I will never understand it. Oh, and just so I am clear, there were guys there that walked away. They said h*ll NO, I will not do this. I would have been one of them, and have been proud.

Where this all gets back to football, just take a look at the nonsense going on with football players. This is a game we all love. It's nuts. I think in the name of winning we have lost our way. I stand firmly, 100% that Vick should never see another day in an NFL uniform. It is bad for the game. Whether he was involved, or just condoned it, it is the same. As I said, it is not the dog fighting it was how the dogs were treated. It is outrageous. How can you think otherwise?? And if not, what does that say about you???

I just want to watch the game that I love without knowing that a bunch of scum is on the field. For those people that just "kind of like the game", well, they will go away and the game we love will go away.

I'm no saint, never will be. But cruel is something for sure I am not. In the face of it, I stand up and I will be counted.

 

[5Stars]

The thing you guys fail to recognize is that if people were raising cattle, or chickens or pigs for the purpose of fighting to the death and then drowning or hanging those considered inferior it would be illegal just as it is with dogs.

This isn't about species, it's about motivation and intentional cruelty.

You guys are twisting the topic to fit your point.

The method and motivation is the key, not the species.

Damn! You are one really fart smeller!

Again, I agree 100%..!

(now i know how abersonic feels)

 

[Hostile]

Hostile.....the thing I find interesting about you is that sometimes it seems that you allow your ideas about right and wrong to be shaped by laws and what the government allows you to think is right and wrong.

Mike Vick may have done a very bad thing. That remains to be seen.

On the other hand, we have ALL done a very bad thing every time we buy and use an animal product.....and it's completely legal.

You're right, I do shape my ideas of right on wrong PARTIALLY upon the laws. I make NO apologies for this.

There are laws I agree with. There are laws I don't. I still respect the laws I don't agree with. Want an example?

The legal drinking age. I don't drink. I've never had my first one and will never have it. I come from a family of alcoholics and it is a road I choose not to travel down myself. I don't like drunks. I've been in more fights because a drunk got in my face than I care to remember. I do NOT agree with the legal drinking age as 21. To me it is absolutely stupid that at 18 years old someone can vote, get married, have kids, and go to war, but cannot have a beer.

Agree with that law or disagree with it, I still believe when someone breaks that law they should deal with the consequences. I wish everyone who decided to drink would do it in their own home and never to excess. That's a fantasy world. I know this. If the legal limit for intoxication were lowered, I'd agree with it. If the penalties were stiffer, I'd agree with it. If there was better education about people deciding as I have not to drink, I'd agree with it.

If however, someone wants to tell me that the legal age is right at 21, I won't agree and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my own personal experiences. I've been around it all my life. I've seen the horrible side of it far more than I care to admit. I still won't change my mind.

So when I say "partially" my views are shaped by the laws I really do mean it.

 

[Jay-D]

The only reason that you posted what you did, is because I posted the meaning of "domesticated"!


Please, keep up...

CATTLE ARE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

Lather, rinse, and repeat that until it becomes a part of you.

Then we'll talk.

 

[fortdick]

I would say 'good guys' dont go around shooting animals to hang there heads on the wall for kicks.

Actually, hunting is an instinct most males possess. You made a statement that we have no need to eat red meat. Yet isn't the eating of protien derived from meat one of the catalysts that drove the enlarging of the brain, the evolution of society and the development of domesticated animals?

It may be true that we can live on soy products, but if you look at the cultures that are predominantly vegetarians, they are physically inferior to those that eat meat protien. There are advantages and disadvantages to both diets.

One article I read was pointed out to me by my wife while she was doing research on some diet related physical problems I was having. It turns out that my blood type (type O) requires the consumption of red meat. Other blood types require more grains and fruits, etc., but type O is a rather basic blood type that is unique. It is also the oldest blood type. Prolly some connection there.

I have read some articles on this stuff. I am sorry I can;t link to them, but I am sure that most have read similar stuff. Hunting has a positive psychological effect on people. It satisfies some primeordial instinct. It is true we no longer need to hunt for food, but we still have the instinct.

Anyone that has hunted knows that the animals have to make a serious mistake to get taken. Many mmore deer starve each year than are harvested by hunters. I guess you would prefer to see the deer starve than be shot. We have eradicated the main predators of the deer population, i.e., wolves, cougars, etc., and have created an environment that stimulates over population. Hunting serves many purposes, not least of which is the overall health of the populations.

It could be argued that there is an over population of dogs, and that Vick and his friends are doing their part to manage this overpopulation. They could be closet environmentalists just trying to cull the weaker dogs form the gene pool. IN fact, I am now certain, having heard all your arguments, that what they were doing was actually good for dogs.

Now bull fighting....

there is a human way of disposing of excess male bovines!

 

[Pats Fan]

Went out for dinner, came back and read all these comments.

Thinking. I think we are missing the point.

Cruel behavior whether it be man or beast is wrong. That includes cattle (yes we eat steak, but please be humane), and dogs, and cats, and our wildlife, and yes humans. As "rulers" of our planet we can do better.

It made me think when I was a young adult during Vietnam. There was a case where a guy named Cally headed up a division and was told by his superiors to take a village out. His idea of taking it out was killing babies in cribs, shooting a young boy running, slaughtering entire families including grandmothers. I read the story and almost threw up. But I was -- I'm going to guess one of only about 10% of the population that thought it was wrong. I wanted the death penalty. I remember those days and I was absolutely outraged. I could not understand it. I will never understand it. Oh, and just so I am clear, there were guys there that walked away. They said h*ll NO, I will not do this. I would have been one of them, and have been proud.

Where this all gets back to football, just take a look at the nonsense going on with football players. This is a game we all love. It's nuts. I think in the name of winning we have lost our way. I stand firmly, 100% that Vick should never see another day in an NFL uniform. It is bad for the game. Whether he was involved, or just condoned it, it is the same. As I said, it is not the dog fighting it was how the dogs were treated. It is outrageous. How can you think otherwise?? And if not, what does that say about you???

I just want to watch the game that I love without knowing that a bunch of scum is on the field. For those people that just "kind of like the game", well, they will go away and the game we love will go away.

I'm no saint, never will be. But cruel is something for sure I am not. In the face of it, I stand up and I will be counted.

I'm waiting for the comment that kids carried around bombs in Vietnam. Response -- before you say it -- babies in cribs???? Explain that.

 

[Jay-D]

You're right, I do shape my ideas of right on wrong PARTIALLY upon the laws. I make NO apologies for this.

There are laws I agree with. There are laws I don't. I still respect the laws I don't agree with. Want an example?

The legal drinking age. I don't drink. I've never had my first one and will never have it. I come from a family of alcoholics and it is a road I choose not to travel down myself. I don't like drunks. I've been in more fights because a drunk got in my face than I care to remember. I do NOT agree with the legal drinking age as 21. To me it is absolutely stupid that at 18 years old someone can vote, get married, have kids, and go to war, but cannot have a beer.

Agree with that law or disagree with it, I still believe when someone breaks that law they should deal with the consequences. I wish everyone who decided to drink would do it in their own home and never to excess. That's a fantasy world. I know this. If the legal limit for intoxication were lowered, I'd agree with it. If the penalties were stiffer, I'd agree with it. If there was better education about people deciding as I have not to drink, I'd agree with it.

If however, someone wants to tell me that the legal age is right at 21, I won't agree and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my own personal experiences. I've been around it all my life. I've seen the horrible side of it far more than I care to admit. I still won't change my mind.

So when I say "partially" my views are shaped by the laws I really do mean it.

Now see......I agree with you 100% on all your views on alcohol. The only difference being that I do like to indulge once in a while.

While I know it is for my own benefit to follow and obey all laws.....I know that some laws are wrong and some are simply money-driven.

That's OK too......because I sure can't change the entire world.......but when I see people jumping on Vick without thinking about thier own trespasses, I'm gonna have to say something.....even if it's not the popular view. Even if only just to make them think about an issue from a different angle.


I'm not afraid to take the road less traveled.

 

[5Stars]

CATTLE ARE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

Lather, rinse, and repeat that until it becomes a part of you.

Then we'll talk.

So are dogs.

dogg...

 

[Pats Fan]

This is a post on this site.


It could be argued that there is an over population of dogs, and that Vick and his friends are doing their part to manage this overpopulation. They could be closet environmentalists just trying to cull the weaker dogs form the gene pool. IN fact, I am now certain, having heard all your arguments, that what they were doing was actually good for dogs.


I hope with the utmost sincerity that you are joking. You actually really cannot be serious.

 

[Hostile]

Went out for dinner, came back and read all these comments.

Thinking. I think we are missing the point.

Cruel behavior whether it be man or beast is wrong. That includes cattle (yes we eat steak, but please be humane), and dogs, and cats, and our wildlife, and yes humans. As "rulers" of our planet we can do better.

It made me think when I was a young adult during Vietnam. There was a case where a guy named Cally headed up a division and was told by his superiors to take a village out. His idea of taking it out was killing babies in cribs, shooting a young boy running, slaughtering entire families including grandmothers. I read the story and almost threw up. But I was -- I'm going to guess one of only about 10% of the population that thought it was wrong. I wanted the death penalty. I remember those days and I was absolutely outraged. I could not understand it. I will never understand it. Oh, and just so I am clear, there were guys there that walked away. They said h*ll NO, I will not do this. I would have been one of them, and have been proud.

Where this all gets back to football, just take a look at the nonsense going on with football players. This is a game we all love. It's nuts. I think in the name of winning we have lost our way. I stand firmly, 100% that Vick should never see another day in an NFL uniform. It is bad for the game. Whether he was involved, or just condoned it, it is the same. As I said, it is not the dog fighting it was how the dogs were treated. It is outrageous. How can you think otherwise?? And if not, what does that say about you???

I just want to watch the game that I love without knowing that a bunch of scum is on the field. For those people that just "kind of like the game", well, they will go away and the game we love will go away.

I'm no saint, never will be. But cruel is something for sure I am not. In the face of it, I stand up and I will be counted.

Dude, none of what you were shouting about before has one thing to do with what you witnessed in Viet Nam.

You basically shouted against the US Constitution if you want to know the truth. Whenever you do that you're going to get lit up.

Whether you like Vick or not. Whether you detest dog fighting or not. Those two things are irrelevant to the fact that he has inalienable rights under our Constitution and when any citizen reminds us of these facts that person is right. It does not mean they support Mike Vick or his actions.

It doesn't mean that at all.

 

[Pats Fan]

Hostile - Ask Pacman.

Vick is bad for the game. Much worse than Pacman and he was banned for a year.

What happens to him in terms of jail time is not the issue -- he is poison for the game. Absolute poison.

 

[5Stars]

Hostile - Ask Pacman.

Vick is bad for the game. Much worse than Pacman and he was banned for a year.

What happens to him in terms of jail time is not the issue -- he is poison for the game. Absolute poison.

So, is he poisoned...?

 

[Pats Fan]

So, is he poisoned...?

That would be sweet.

$20.00 on the game 5 Stars. When Vick is gone, we can talk football. The one last great sport, hopefully.

 

[Hostile]

Now see......I agree with you 100% on all your views on alcohol. The only difference being that I do like to indulge once in a while.

While I know it is for my own benefit to follow and obey all laws.....I know that some laws are wrong and some are simply money-driven.

That's OK too......because I sure can't change the entire world.......but when I see people jumping on Vick without thinking about thier own trespasses, I'm gonna have to say something.....even if it's not the popular view. Even if only just to make them think about an issue from a different angle.


I'm not afraid to take the road less traveled.

Let me tell you something Jay-D, I don't give a flying crap about how your offenses stack up to Mike Vick's. Nor anyone else's for that matter.

We need to stop rationalizing the wrongs of others because we ourselves are not perfect. That's a foolish thing and we all do it from time to time. I see nothign at all rational about saying, "you can't decry what Mike Vick has done because you are a hunter and you kill for sport."

That just doesn't make a lick of sense to me, because the hunter is not breaking the law. He's not involved in racketeering. He's not involved in stealth and attempting to hide his activities. He's doing something that he enjoys. I've known hunters who were more animal lovers than some people who won't eat meat because it was an animal. Do I understand that? Not really, but for me to paint them as cruel to animals is such a stretch. I can't go there.

I have nothing against those who speak out against the fur trade except one thing. Why don't they ever throw paint on biker's leather jackets? Why pick on women? Would I be upset if the fur trade ended? No. I wouldn't. But I also have nothing against a woman wearing a fur coat. Some do. I understand that, but not their methods. I find their methods cruel.

I have nothing against those who don't eat meat. You can tell me all the horror stories out there and I will never care. If that makes me a hypocrite so the hell what? I've already said we all are on some level or another. I enjoy my food. How it gets on my plate is something for you and fuzzy and others to worry about. That's your thing. Fine, so be it.

 

[Hostile]

Hostile - Ask Pacman.

Vick is bad for the game. Much worse than Pacman and he was banned for a year.

What happens to him in terms of jail time is not the issue -- he is poison for the game. Absolute poison.

So then are you absolute poison for the Constitution since you don't believe in it?