The Big Picture: Maddening

[II2none]

Dogs are not humans, the only reason why they are "loyal" is because they have pack mentalities and have been bred to be domesticated would be loyal to anyone who took care of them. They dont cure diseases, they dont build houses, they dont pay taxes and they DONT HAVE SOULS!

I agreed with everything here except the no souls part.
I'm still an atheist but I've seen intelligence in some pet's eyes. They're not empty in there.

Yeah this isn't my post i messed up trying to quote someone else.

I'm a christian, I do think dogs have souls but dogs will never be of higher importance compared to humans.

Don't care what anyone says, I'll say it loud and proud even in the face of animal activist.

 

[Groundchuck]

I totally agree with what was said here (from the EA soaking people every year to Mike Vick not deserving the cover of Madden 12 ). Although I highly doubt he got his hands dirty with the dog fighting ring (as far as killing and so forth) but i could be wrong, he most likely organized and had the money to back this depraved pass time. I also wont over look grilling a star athlete brings A LOT more gravity and press to something that goes on in just about every major metropolitan area as well as most small towns. He was made to be an example, and rightly so. The comparison of farmers raising cows for slaughter to feed society as well as afford to take care of their families is a weak argument, and if that is how you rationalize your dog fighting past time...well...DIAF. Personally Him and Ray Lewis (he actually killed someone!!!) should be rotting in a cell, not getting the opportunity to make millions and have influence on the youth of the world, let alone make it to the Hall of Fame... it only takes away from all the players that came before them. Oh and being from Pittsburgh i wont weigh in on any of the Steelers (Big Ben) talk, what he did is no different then a lot of men do, the only difference hes a 2 time Super Bowl champion millionaire, and the rest of us are not. Oh and PATS are a bunch of cheats who's rings are a lie, and even though I'm not a Giants fan way to go ruining the perfect season and bringing another championship to New York. Before its brought up loosing to Green Bay in the Superbowl was not as bitter as finding out you where cheated in 2 AFC championships, and Green Bay was the better team that day plain and simple.

 

[Groundchuck]

This is hysterical nonsense

Acording to many major religions dogs and other animals dont have souls...

And the religions that do treat dogs and animals as important spiritual elements dont believe in hell.

A lot of you high and mighty folks need to get over yourselves and take a look in a mirror or at least a look around you and see if you are living a pious enough lifestyle to wish ill will upon someone.

im not going to rehash the same argument ive had 100 times ill just make it quick

Killing animals for fun whether dogfighting or hunting is a what and a what, i dont care what you say to rationalize it about being legal im sure if the dog and the moose could speak the would say the same thing.

Dogs are not humans, the only reason why they are "loyal" is because they have pack mentalities and have been bred to be domesticated would be loyal to anyone who took care of them. They dont cure diseases, they dont build houses, they dont pay taxes and they DONT HAVE SOULS!

You may not live in America, but this is the land of second chances, especially if you are economically bankable. And as backwards as it may be (I know this well because i am a Teacher who hasnt had a raise in 4 years) economics not altruism guides the amount you get paid.

So yes Vick, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant, Dany Heatly, Mel Gibson, R. Kelly, Micheal Jackson, Woody Allen, Robert Downy Jr, Barrack Obama, George Bush- and his wife who killed a guy! ALL GET SECOND CHANCES! Much like most Americans, its just that some second chances involve millions of dollars and some dont

Finally somebody with some sense.[/quote]
Really... As much as what you say is wrapped in the guise of a truth, you take all the religion out of it your comparison of hunting and dog fighting being in the same ball park shows you obviously have no idea about either. We don't torture the moose during it upbringing to fight another moose only to kill the looser. True hunters make clean kills in a single shot and show humanity by not letting them suffer, all dog fighting is from the moment the puppy is born is suffering. And as far as people killing people goes religion has had a pretty dark past in that respect.

 

[II2none]

This is hysterical nonsense

Acording to many major religions dogs and other animals dont have souls...

And the religions that do treat dogs and animals as important spiritual elements dont believe in hell.

A lot of you high and mighty folks need to get over yourselves and take a look in a mirror or at least a look around you and see if you are living a pious enough lifestyle to wish ill will upon someone.

im not going to rehash the same argument ive had 100 times ill just make it quick

Killing animals for fun whether dogfighting or hunting is a what and a what, i dont care what you say to rationalize it about being legal im sure if the dog and the moose could speak the would say the same thing.

Dogs are not humans, the only reason why they are "loyal" is because they have pack mentalities and have been bred to be domesticated would be loyal to anyone who took care of them. They dont cure diseases, they dont build houses, they dont pay taxes and they DONT HAVE SOULS!

You may not live in America, but this is the land of second chances, especially if you are economically bankable. And as backwards as it may be (I know this well because i am a Teacher who hasnt had a raise in 4 years) economics not altruism guides the amount you get paid.

So yes Vick, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant, Dany Heatly, Mel Gibson, R. Kelly, Micheal Jackson, Woody Allen, Robert Downy Jr, Barrack Obama, George Bush- and his wife who killed a guy! ALL GET SECOND CHANCES! Much like most Americans, its just that some second chances involve millions of dollars and some dont

Finally somebody with some sense.

Really... As much as what you say is wrapped in the guise of a truth, you take all the religion out of it your comparison of hunting and dog fighting being in the same ball park shows you obviously have no idea about either. We don't torture the moose during it upbringing to fight another moose only to kill the looser. True hunters make clean kills in a single shot and show humanity by not letting them suffer, all dog fighting is from the moment the puppy is born is suffering. And as far as people killing people goes religion has had a pretty dark past in that respect.[/quote]

take it up with feeqmatic, I didn't quote correctly.

My opinion in short is : He paid for his crimes, let him be.

 

[lizards]

i agree on everything you just said rock on seriously this is exactly my viewpoint even the fishing and hunting thing

 

[lizards]

This is hysterical nonsense

Acording to many major religions dogs and other animals dont have souls...

And the religions that do treat dogs and animals as important spiritual elements dont believe in hell.

A lot of you high and mighty folks need to get over yourselves and take a look in a mirror or at least a look around you and see if you are living a pious enough lifestyle to wish ill will upon someone.

im not going to rehash the same argument ive had 100 times ill just make it quick

Killing animals for fun whether dogfighting or hunting is a what and a what, i dont care what you say to rationalize it about being legal im sure if the dog and the moose could speak the would say the same thing.

Dogs are not humans, the only reason why they are "loyal" is because they have pack mentalities and have been bred to be domesticated would be loyal to anyone who took care of them. They dont cure diseases, they dont build houses, they dont pay taxes and they DONT HAVE SOULS!

You may not live in America, but this is the land of second chances, especially if you are economically bankable. And as backwards as it may be (I know this well because i am a Teacher who hasnt had a raise in 4 years) economics not altruism guides the amount you get paid.

So yes Vick, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant, Dany Heatly, Mel Gibson, R. Kelly, Micheal Jackson, Woody Allen, Robert Downy Jr, Barrack Obama, George Bush- and his wife who killed a guy! ALL GET SECOND CHANCES! Much like most Americans, its just that some second chances involve millions of dollars and some dont

Finally somebody with some sense.[/quote]

what does religion have to do with any of this? first off even if that was a valid arguement most people on this site are athiests (smartly) so your not even going to pull any heartstrings with that eiter so really, what was the point of even bringing religion into this?

and if you do want to start bringing the value of life arguements into this and i can do that: so if life has different assigned values then who decides these values? a god? well if your going to say a god then i dont know how you could know that, a god could easily value an animal that doesnt fuck eachother for fun, pick on eachother to make the other animals feel bad, destroy the earth because the animals need new apartment complexes, kill for fun, or engage in wars because they dont like what the other animals are saying, hell if i was a god humanity would be one of the things that i would immediately destroy, and if their isnt a god and these values are just magically assigned then what about humans? its mark zuckerbergs life worth more than that girl who works at the diner uptown? while yes she is a nice person an all and mark zuckerberg has doen some dickish things he did move us forward technology and start connecting people across the globe with facebook, what about your life and an peace corp worker? yes you may be a teacher but this guy is devoting his life to making the world a better place

you cant just decide what life is valued more than other life(espcially without a ruling figure either a king or god and we have no global king and as stated earlier god is nonexistent in my mind and most other peoples mind on this site

 

[II2none]

Not my post I quoted wrong im the one that said :finally someone with some sense.

But Dude seriously its called common sense, who's more important someone you care for a some cat.

So your pretty much telling me that the people who raised and care for you are of equal importance as livestock? your telling me your friends are the equivalent of a rhino or a lion or even a fly?

I'll never understand this mentality.

 

[Groundchuck]

I dont disagree with the fact, not all life is equal, in fact I am under the belief that humans are number one and that animals are just part of the food chain we comfortably sit atop of. That said, its not the act of the dogs dying that really gets me, its the mentality of a person who trains and fights the dogs themselves. These are very disturbed people that obviously struggle with some sort of mental issue (wether learned or inherited). Just as children torturing a household pet is a early sign that your kid maybe a serial killer, some way this has to fit in their somewhere. For me its not the end result that bugs me its the utter disregard for life in general, be it a human or animal regardless of there position in the world as we see it. He did serve time and for that i agree with you, but my problem is that he will never live this down in a lot of peoples eyes and it will always come up in conversations about him, so for the youth it sets a president that if your good at a sport and moderately successful (not like he has any superbowl rings) you can be held to a different standard regardless of what you may do in your private life, just like you said about this being the land of second chances, all of your examples are of celebs and politicians, so for everyone of those examples theirs a hundred John and Jane Smiths rotting in jail for the same offenses that did have the social or economical means to get their way out of it. But that is life and to me you seem like the kind of guy i could sit an have a beer with so i kindly respect your opinion although i don't fully agree.
Cheers
And sorry about the quote thing my bad...

 

[Siege_TF]

I learned in Sociology 101 that one of the ways to guage the quality of a country's people and government is how it treats it's most vulnerable; Among these are the young, the old, the infirm, and animals. In other words animal cruelty doesn't just reflect poorly upon the character of the purpotrator, but poorly on the character of his or her society and culture as a whole.

This, above any sentiment of forgiveness towards the guilty party or indefference twoards the victim is why crimes against animals should be punitive, and deserve harsh sancions. To compare, consider when suicide was a crime; it was anit-capitolistic; the person who just attempted to kill him or herself would have intentionally squandered the investment of time, money, and effort that had society invested into that person up until that point.

In short, just as suicide was once a crime becuase it was considered extremely deviant economically, so too is animal cruelty currently a crime because it is extremely deviant socially.

 

[Zydrate]

Dogs are not humans, the only reason why they are "loyal" is because they have pack mentalities and have been bred to be domesticated would be loyal to anyone who took care of them. They dont cure diseases, they dont build houses, they dont pay taxes and they DONT HAVE SOULS!

I agreed with everything here except the no souls part.
I'm still an atheist but I've seen intelligence in some pet's eyes. They're not empty in there.

Yeah this isn't my post i messed up trying to quote someone else.

I'm a christian, I do think dogs have souls but dogs will never be of higher importance compared to humans.

Don't care what anyone says, I'll say it loud and proud even in the face of animal activist.

Oops xP

 

[feeqmatic]

what does religion have to do with any of this? first off even if that was a valid arguement most people on this site are athiests (smartly) so your not even going to pull any heartstrings with that eiter so really, what was the point of even bringing religion into this?

and if you do want to start bringing the value of life arguements into this and i can do that: so if life has different assigned values then who decides these values? a god? well if your going to say a god then i dont know how you could know that, a god could easily value an animal that doesnt fuck eachother for fun, pick on eachother to make the other animals feel bad, destroy the earth because the animals need new apartment complexes, kill for fun, or engage in wars because they dont like what the other animals are saying, hell if i was a god humanity would be one of the things that i would immediately destroy, and if their isnt a god and these values are just magically assigned then what about humans? its mark zuckerbergs life worth more than that girl who works at the diner uptown? while yes she is a nice person an all and mark zuckerberg has doen some dickish things he did move us forward technology and start connecting people across the globe with facebook, what about your life and an peace corp worker? yes you may be a teacher but this guy is devoting his life to making the world a better place

you cant just decide what life is valued more than other life(espcially without a ruling figure either a king or god and we have no global king and as stated earlier god is nonexistent in my mind and most other peoples mind on this site

Im the orriginal poster who brought up religion.

My point for bringing up religion was that an earlier poster brought up something about spirituality or souls or something, and even compared a small dog to a small child. Im not a zealot but i was just pointing out general religious doctrine that says taht an animals life does not equate to a mans.

To clarify my point-

1- People>dogs+any other animal. This is not to say that nature is not important or anything of the like, but im not going to equate the life of a dog to the life a man.

2- Vick did a horrible thing, served his time, paid a huuuuuge debt, turned his life around, etc. You dont have to forgive or forget what he did, but to wish for his downfall and deny him the essentially human right to redemption is stupid and wrong and probably has little to do with his crime and more to do with who he is and what he represents.

3- Anyone who spouts on the evils of Vick and compares what he did to hitler while holding a hunting liscence, wearing leather, and supporting the meat packing industry is a hypocrite. Yes there are some humane elements to hunting, and surely there more merrits in hunting and eating meat than in dog fighting, but the gap isnt nearly wide enough for someone to shout from the top of their ivory tower about how horrible Mike Vick is. If you are a person who is a vegan or only eats humane/organic meat, doesnt wear leather, etc. Then at least i can respect that you have a different life perspective and we can agree to disagree. if you are not then you are full of shit.

 

[Seamus8]

Mike Vick can do whatever he wants to dogs under his charge and care.

Now if he were to do it to dogs under someone else's charge, they would (in my eyes) be justified in killing him, his children, or other family members. After all dogs are more valuable than humans, dogs are great companions and have other more practical uses depending on breed while humans just waste oxygen for the most part.

 

[Serioli]

You say you don't agree with PETA, but you sure sound a lot like them.

I mean, I like dogs and animals in general, I would never hit an animal - unless it was going to hurt me ofc; but you compared an illegal dog-fighter to Hitler ffs. I mean, it's immoral and a very nasty thing to do to an animal, but at the end of the day - it isn't human and it's nowhere, nowhere near as bad as hurting or torturing a human.

You're blowing this way out of proportion tbh. I mean only a subset of North Americans actually buy that game because no-one else plays the sport on the same scale. I, for example, couldn't give less of a shit about American football - I've heard the matches can go on for ~3 hours! Now THAT is torture XD

I think that you just have to keep in perspective that while this is a bad thing to do to a dog - at the end of the day, it is just a dog. I mean that in the sense that if you had to choose who would die out of:

A) A human.

or

B) A dog.

Who would you choose? Every time, right? Exactly.

It's not nice or pleasant, but it's the truth - it's called reality.

Not picking on you specifically, just the closest post to illustrate the point. I agree with your post in those exact circumstances but that is not what happened. If he had killed a dog to save himself/another human there would not be the (often hypocritical) rage.

However, a more accurate question would be:

If you had to choose who would die out of:

A) A human
B) A dog
C) Neither because it is unnecessary

Which would you choose? Every time, right? Exactly.

The animal died because he likes dog fighting. That's the rage

 

[kara_bulut]

You say you don't agree with PETA, but you sure sound a lot like them.

I mean, I like dogs and animals in general, I would never hit an animal - unless it was going to hurt me ofc; but you compared an illegal dog-fighter to Hitler ffs. I mean, it's immoral and a very nasty thing to do to an animal, but at the end of the day - it isn't human and it's nowhere, nowhere near as bad as hurting or torturing a human.

You're blowing this way out of proportion tbh. I mean only a subset of North Americans actually buy that game because no-one else plays the sport on the same scale. I, for example, couldn't give less of a shit about American football - I've heard the matches can go on for ~3 hours! Now THAT is torture XD

I think that you just have to keep in perspective that while this is a bad thing to do to a dog - at the end of the day, it is just a dog. I mean that in the sense that if you had to choose who would die out of:

A) A human.

or

B) A dog.

Who would you choose? Every time, right? Exactly.

It's not nice or pleasant, but it's the truth - it's called reality.

I would choose people like you who don't give a damn about these kind of serious things.

A former friend of mine ran over a cat. I told him to stop the car so we can check on it.
He said it's just a cat get over it. I had a fight with him that day and emmidetly cut
my conenction with him.

If one does not care for animals than that person has some serious issues in his brain.
I wouldn't trust anything of mine to some sort of person.

 

[Treblaine]

OK, I looked into this Michael Vick thing and Bob seems to imply he was snatching cute little innocent puppies off the streets, tying them up and going Silence of the Lambs

It was dog-fighting.

I mean that's pretty bad but torture at a stretch. Many dog breeds are inherently violent, bred even to ENJOY fighting, it's horrible but is not the same as something like skinning them alive or something. I mean these dogs are no babies, most of them had to be removed to separate kennels because they continued to be so violent to other dogs even after being removed from any dogfighters influence.

Also surprising how outraged all the (mostly white) commentators are and the only people to defend him are black. Hmm. I'm not saying anything but this sure is cause to step back and look at this objectively.

[sarc]Then again Bob has his expensive hunting licence and registered gun to go on his acceptable blood-sport. I guess the black man is just plain wrong with his blood sport of dog-fighting. Why can't they see which blood-sports are acceptable?[/sarc]

Dog fighting may be cruel and callous but it's not torture and it's not murder.

Bob is trying to paint a pretty nasty picture of this black sportsman, especially showing a load of high domesticated pedigree puppies and implying none of them could possibly ever deserve anything but kindness and happiness.

google search: "pit bull maul"

Look at how many results are of little children with torn up faces.

These breeds of dogs are not little angles, they are killing machines.

 

[Treblaine]

If you are completely by yourself on the road, driving too fast for the road, see the dog and not even attempt to avoid the dog you clearly see, then you are a contemptible bastard with little regard for any form of life that is not you.

It's that the humans and dogs are equal in importance of their life. It's that there is NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER THAT YOU COULD NOT ATTEMPT TO NOT KILL THAT CREATURE SAVE THE FACT YOU MAY HAVE TO SLOW DOWN AND GET TO SOME PLACE, WHICH PROBABLY ISN'T ALL THAT IMPORTANT ANYWAY, SLIGHTLY LATER.

That is what people would hold you in high contempt for. A lack of respect for life. Putting your own whims over any other creature's life. Pretty much sociopathy but to a small level you can function in society fairly well.

I got a few questions for you:

What the hell were you doing letting your dog on the streets off a leash and out of your sight? That's incredibly irresponsible and careless.

How do you know this driver did "not even attempt to avoid the dog he clearly sees" when you were not in the car with him?

Why would he stay if he couldn't do anything anyway (how many know dog CPR)?

How can you expect him to loiter around considering how angry you are?
He has every reason to fear for his own safety as you may try rearranging his teeth with a tyre iron.

"NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER THAT YOU COULD NOT ATTEMPT TO NOT KILL THAT CREATURE"

Wow, a TRIPLE negative.

"Putting your own whims over any other creature's life."

Are you vegan? If now where do you think beef and pork come from.

 

[Treblaine]

Not picking on you specifically, just the closest post to illustrate the point. I agree with your post in those exact circumstances but that is not what happened. If he had killed a dog to save himself/another human there would not be the (often hypocritical) rage.

However, a more accurate question would be:

If you had to choose who would die out of:

A) A human
B) A dog
C) Neither because it is unnecessary

Which would you choose? Every time, right? Exactly.

The animal died because he likes dog fighting. That's the rage

Well you are missing the point. He clearly said dog-killing is not as bad as human-murder (though this Big Picture sure seemed to imply they were as bad)

now you are going off on a tangent saying basically:

"Both are bad, should do neither, lets ignore the distinction between the two"

Which is kind of a conceit that they are EQUALLY bad, in response to bob's video. Which is kind of trivialising of actual murder and hyperbolic of this case.

"The animal died because he likes dog fighting."

Consider this: dog-fighting is a blood sport that used to be widely popular and is now acceptable in the impoverished black communities that Vick has come from.

Why do you think 'mid-air-plane-combat' was called "dogfighting" back in the early 20th century, because back then the practice was common enough in society.

Maybe all those poor black folk should pay $10'000 per hunting licence for the "socially accepted" blood sport of deer hunt as practised predominantly by white people.

Or maybe we all need to step back and realise that it is a bunch of white people (who had very sheltered upbringing) demonizing a black man who lived a life of poverty until comparatively recent success, and the only people who are defending him are other black people.

 

[MovieBob]

OK, I looked into this Michael Vick thing and Bob seems to imply he was snatching cute little innocent puppies off the streets, tying them up and going Silence of the Lambs

That's actually an integral part of the type of dogfighting he was involved with; they're called "bait animals," and are typically abducted pets and/or strays. You can look that up, though I'm not responsible for some of the things you'll see.

The rest of your post is so full of assumptions it's actually difficult to know where to start...

 

[Samurai Goomba]

OK, I looked into this Michael Vick thing and Bob seems to imply he was snatching cute little innocent puppies off the streets, tying them up and going Silence of the Lambs

That's actually an integral part of the type of dogfighting he was involved with; they're called "bait animals," and are typically abducted pets and/or strays. You can look that up, though I'm not responsible for some of the things you'll see.

The rest of your post is so full of assumptions it's actually difficult to know where to start...

The assumption that pit bulls were bred for dog fighting (they were) and that you eat meat and support industries which cause much more suffering to animals (albeit different animals, but pigs are at least as smart as dogs, they just taste better)?

You really do seem to be playing the part of a knee-jerk PETA reactionary type, only you're something like several years too late for this issue to even be relevant. I'm very much against dog fighting (hey, I'm against dog BREEDING, because there are already so many homeless/suffering dogs out there, and it's pretty selfish to pay bunches of money for a specific breed of puppy when you could rescue a dog from the shelter system), but the guy did the time. Maybe YOU don't think that's worth enough, but when you start threatening people via the Internet, there's little to differentiate you from the average "butthurt" troll.

Dog fighting isn't even comparable to the Holocaust. Don't even go there. Go reread MAUS, Slaughterhouse Five or whatever and rethink how dumb such a comparison would be. You might as well compare the way cows wind up on your plate to the Holocaust, because that's at least as brutal.

 

[Treblaine]

OK, I looked into this Michael Vick thing and Bob seems to imply he was snatching cute little innocent puppies off the streets, tying them up and going Silence of the Lambs

That's actually an integral part of the type of dogfighting he was involved with; they're called "bait animals," and are typically abducted pets and/or strays. You can look that up, though I'm not responsible for some of the things you'll see.

The rest of your post is so full of assumptions it's actually difficult to know where to start...

Well did Michael Vick actually do that?

He was convicted of simply dog-fighting and what I know of pit-bulls is they don't need much encouragement to fight each other - they certainly don't need encouragement to attack children and even little babies. Why do they go for the face. Anyway, I'm pretty sure if Vick had abducted some family's dog then they'd charge him with that and the family in question would be all over the news.

I mean really, black sports stars going to steal your family dog and torture it to death?

Isn't this a TAD BIT alarmist?

Yeah, it's a cruel blood sport, but it's not so unprecedented, America didn't completely ban it till 1976 and haven't enforced it well as evident by how popular the pit-bull breed remains.