rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 My point in saying what you quoted is that...dogfighting over the history of humanity went from being accepted by kings/elite...to being outlawed (but not enforced)...to being enforced w/ lax laws...to becoming an atrocity that should stop someone from ever living their life again.... As well it should... Gladiator fights were also enjoyed by kings at one time. Should we feed you to the lions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 What I can't understand is why he would ^ jeopardize a lucrative career doing something he had to know was illegal. The ^ enterprise went on for, what, 4 or 5 years? As such a high profile person, he had to know that sooner or later people would catch wind of his ^ involvement. Was he really that oblivious to the implications of his actions? Edit: Insert "alleged" or "allegedly" at the ^ appropriate places above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 congrats...tell him what he wins Charlie....daa da daaa dooo dadaSeriously, I didn't read all of it but in my opinion its too difficult to connect racism to this case. I believe the same groups who try to connect it to rap music/hiphop culture are of the same mind of those who think this is all about race. Some people just look for excuses too much without seeing what happened right in front of them. I had the pleasure of sitting on a task force for minority hiring in Atlanta with Mrs. Abernathy. She is one of the most intriguing, genuine, intelligent women I have ever met. And her feelings towards the treatment of Vick and well founded in her experiences.It's a great piece when limitted to that context. The issue I have is that it does not address those in the black community who know nothing about the past, have no connection to any mistreatment by authorities but still grasp onto the idea that this is a black people versus establishment situation. It's a lazy excuse for them to blame someone else for their problems. People like Mrs Abernathy have every reason and earned the right to question the reasons behind this maelstrom. The average Joe at McDs doesnt get that luxury. I read it yesterday. It's a good article, but it's a real reach. Connecting Ron Mexico to the Civil Rights movement is doing the latter a serious injustice. I pretty much agree with all these comments. I thought the article was more interesting for it's history than the attempted connection to Vick. What I DO the think the article correctly highlighted, though, is that viewing the motives behind his prosecution with skepticism within the black community is understandable given history. Hell, I'm a middle class white Jewish guy and I have very little faith in law enforcement or their motives. It's difficult to realize because I didn't actually grow up with it but my African American peers grew up with parents who DID deal with racism and segregation and grew up hearing stories of what happened from a very real, first hand perspective. I can certainly see where the skepticism comes from and I do think we often dismiss the impact of the things that happened back then because they seem so long ago when in fact, the impact of those events is still very much relevant and present throughout our society. Again though, I don't think this applies to Vick, he was just incredibly stupid. Separate from race, I do wish they would let him play and let the legal process determine his guilt or innoncence but I'm probably in the minority there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 To answer the crazy question "should he be denied the right to make a living while under investigation?" YES. HELL YES. F@#KINA RIGHT YES. I'd do the same thing to anyone I employed as well. An individuals right to the assumption of innocence applies to the Govt, not to private businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 So people should just be allowed to treat animals anyway the see fit with not fear of legal repercussion? That's pretty ****ing sick. Did I say that either? Dogs = deer = pigs = cattle. No one of them is more important because they're revered. There shouldn't be laws in place to reflect a sentiment, or to reflect how successful our society was in domesticating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 My point in saying what you quoted is that...dogfighting over the history of humanity went from being accepted by kings/elite...to being outlawed (but not enforced)...to being enforced w/ lax laws...to becoming an atrocity that should stop someone from ever living their life again.... Slavery was kinda the same way, wasn't it? I'm not necessarily comparing dogfighting and slavery, I'm just saying that your argument here is exceptionally poor. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 To answer the crazy question "should he be denied the right to make a living while under investigation?"YES. HELL YES. F@#KINA RIGHT YES. I'd do the same thing to anyone I employed as well. An individuals right to the assumption of innocence applies to the Govt, not to private businesses. Then risk the resulting lawsuit should he not be found guilty? I don't know if you can compare your job unless you operate under a CBA with a union.... I'm talking under the assumption of Vick being guilty. Should it stop him from working his job (NFL Player, not sure what your profession is)? Of course money will never be an issue for him...but should he be held out of a league because of charges that definitely wouldn't prevent him from being able to work his same job, with the same proficiency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Slavery was kinda the same way, wasn't it? I'm not necessarily comparing dogfighting and slavery, I'm just saying that your argument here is exceptionally poor. :2cents: Um no...slavery wasn't abolished because the Federal government wanted more power to prosecute crimes. Slavery being abolished wasn't some moral epiphany Lincoln had...I think everyone knows that. I can't even believe you'd bring the forced labor of HUMANS into an argument about the treatment of domesticated animals. Can you not see why that'd be a tad insulting? :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Then risk the resulting lawsuit should he not be found guilty? I don't know if you can compare your job unless you operate under a CBA with a union....I'm talking under the assumption of Vick being guilty. Should it stop him from working his job (NFL Player, not sure what your profession is)? Of course money will never be an issue for him...but should he be held out of a league because of charges that definitely wouldn't prevent him from being able to work his same job, with the same proficiency? The league has to worry about the overall image of it's product. I similarly have to worry about the overall image of my business in the community. He's not being suspended for being guilty, he's being suspended for being indicted. It's perfectly legal to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I say that either? Dogs = deer = pigs = cattle. No one of them is more important because they're revered. There shouldn't be laws in place to reflect a sentiment, or to reflect how successful our society was in domesticating them. truth in post form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I say that either? Dogs = deer = pigs = cattle. No one of them is more important because they're revered. There shouldn't be laws in place to reflect a sentiment, or to reflect how successful our society was in domesticating them. You're exactly right. And the next time they break up our local pig fighting ring, I'll be right there wanting to through the book at those guys too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Um no...slavery wasn't abolished because the Federal government wanted more power to prosecute crimes. Slavery being abolished wasn't some moral epiphany Lincoln had...I think everyone knows that. Uh... what? You completely missed the point. Slavery - like dogfighting - was once perfectly acceptable, then it was outlawed but not really enforced (early sharecropping was essentially slavery), then it was enforced in a lax manner (Jim Crow laws, "separate but equal"), and then it slowly became an atrocity across the board. Granted, I probably shouldn't just limit it to the term 'slavery' because I'm equating it moreso to the progression of civil rights. I can't even believe you'd bring the forced labor of HUMANS into an argument about the treatment of domesticated animals. Can you not see why that'd be a tad insulting? :2cents: Nope. In many ways I have more respect for animals than most humans and no, that doesn't make me some crazy PETA person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Nope. In many ways I have more respect for animals than most humans and no, that doesn't make me some crazy PETA person. Maybe he meant insulting to animals. Hell, I'm forced to work everyday, but I'd never hurt my dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I imply that either?I do however think that it's extreme for the life of a human to be taken away over dogs. No law put into place somehow will change that belief. I'm guessing that's fairly routine huh, guys rotting in jail (8x10 no less)...for dogfighting? My theory is that Mr. Megared is really Ron Mexico. That is the only explanation for the incredibly ignorant comments such as the one above. Nothing personal Mr. Mexico, the comments are just ridiculous. Here's an idea, how about we let 2 pitbulls attack you. We won't hold them accountable because they see themselves as superior. No way should 2 dogs waste away in a kennel or be killed because they attacked what they felt was an inferior animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Uh... what? You completely missed the point. Slavery - like dogfighting - was once perfectly acceptable, then it was outlawed but not really enforced (early sharecropping was essentially slavery), then it was enforced in a lax manner (Jim Crow laws, "separate but equal"), and then it slowly became an atrocity across the board. Granted, I probably shouldn't just limit it to the term 'slavery' because I'm equating it moreso to the progression of civil rights. Slavery wasn't acceptable by everyone...It was mostly by the people that benefitted from the practice. There were ALWAYS people that opposed the idea, and didn't support the practice, or didn't live in the climate to benefit from the practice. It's just something about thinking about the way domestic dogs were/are treated...then equating that to the treatment of a group of people (generally worse). There's just no comparison...wanting laws changed to be tougher doesn't = a civil war where people's freedom came as a consequence. Nope. In many ways I have more respect for animals than most humans and no, that doesn't make me some crazy PETA person. That's your problem then. There's alot of other animal injustices going on as well...why don't don't you take some of those causes up? Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Slavery wasn't acceptable by everyone...It was mostly by the people that benefitted from the practice. There were ALWAYS people that opposed the idea, and didn't support the practice, or didn't live in the climate to benefit from the practice. It's just something about thinking about the way domestic dogs were/are treated...then equating that to the treatment of a group of people (generally worse). There's just no comparison...wanting laws changed to be tougher doesn't = a civil war where people's freedom came as a consequence. So, what about gladiator fights. Once enjoyed by kings, now it's so obviously illegal I'm not even sure there's specific laws about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Maybe he meant insulting to animals. Hell, I'm forced to work everyday, but I'd never hurt my dog. Forced like... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Forced like... Nope. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 So, what about gladiator fights. Once enjoyed by kings, now it's so obviously illegal I'm not even sure there's specific laws about it. People still fight for the enjoyment of others...safety precautions advancing haven't changed that. You'd think if you were truly opposed to the idea of violence that all of it would be abolished, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Nope. What's your point? That you aren't 'forced' to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 People still fight for the enjoyment of others...safety precautions advancing haven't changed that. You'd think if you were truly opposed to the idea of violence that all of it would be abolished, right? Errr... you know there is a MAJOR difference between gladiator fights and boxing (namely, one isn't to the death, forced, and the combatants make millions), right? That's like comparing dog fighting to my dog wrestling with the neighbors. P.S. it's amazing the lengths you seem to be going to to defend dog fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 That you aren't 'forced' to work. I would contend that most of us in this life are forced to work in order to survive. We just have the luxury of choosing how we it is that we work. Slavery wasn't acceptable by everyone...It was mostly by the people that benefitted from the practice. There were ALWAYS people that opposed the idea, and didn't support the practice, or didn't live in the climate to benefit from the practice. Dog fighting was never accepted by everyone, either. It's just something about thinking about the way domestic dogs were/are treated...then equating that to the treatment of a group of people (generally worse). There's just no comparison...wanting laws changed to be tougher doesn't = a civil war where people's freedom came as a consequence. The Civil War was not nearly as much about slavery as people often think it was. Either way, I fail to see what you're getting at here. That's your problem then. There's alot of other animal injustices going on as well...why don't don't you take some of those causes up? Hmmmm... This obviously isn't the only issue I take a level of concern with, it is one of many. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 OK so we actually have someone defending Vicks actions???? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Errr... you know there is a MAJOR difference between gladiator fights and boxing (namely, one isn't to the death, forced, and the combatants make millions), right? That's like comparing dog fighting to my dog wrestling with the neighbors. P.S. it's amazing the lengths you seem to be going to to defend dog fighting. Most dogs aren't fought to the death either. I don't support the selective moralism that applies to dogfighting but excludes hunting, products tested on animals, the meat industry, materials manufactured from animal parts, products tested on animals first, industries that profit from using animals as entertainment period. If you don't want dogfights get rid of Pits. This isn't a widespread issue with MANY different species of dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 My theory is that Mr. Megared is really Ron Mexico. That is the only explanation for the incredibly ignorant comments such as the one above. Nothing personal Mr. Mexico, the comments are just ridiculous. Here's an idea, how about we let 2 pitbulls attack you. We won't hold them accountable because they see themselves as superior. No way should 2 dogs waste away in a kennel or be killed because they attacked what they felt was an inferior animal. How bout it Ron. Should I send over the dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.