Enough of Lovie after vick endorsement

[SoxFan1]

I personally feel Lovie's endorsement of Vick comes from the fact they both share the same skin color.

Ugh.

[akshaz]

I get what you are saying, but in the case of dog fighting, the descision was made for Vick years ago.(illegal) I would say yes to your question about dogs, as I have a more than obvious bias. A good dog would never harm it's human family.

 

Chicken fighting is illegal too. They can also be pets too.

 

Actually, there are many stories about dogs harming/mauling/killing children of the family, especially breeds like pit-bulls and rottweilers. There are plenty of other stories about "possessive" dogs only listening to the "patriarch" of the family and intimidating everyone else.

 

There are a lot of abused women and other animals that would love the protection everyone seems to give to dogs.

[akshaz]

I take it you're not a dog man, just kiddin.

 

I'm not going to get into the morality of dog fighting.

 

I think you just need to look at it from the NFL's side. They promoted Vick heavily to sell their product much like they do with Brady and Manning. Vick benefited from it and got extra endorsements. He broke the law and served major time due to this. This embarrassed the NFL and tainted Vick's name to almost an OJ Simpson like shadow.

 

They have no obligation to let him back in their company just like the it's a dell dude didn't get hired after he dealt with his issues. The company itself also does not benefit either by Vick's return. It's doing quite well without him.

 

Personally, I could care less what happens to him as long as he's not a Bear. He never was a good QB, he was just highly mobile. You don't win championships with a QB that can only run. Look at how much better the WR's he had looked once they got a new, rookie even, QB this year.

 

I think this is a rationale perspective. It's a very fair question whether or not Vick can help us. He was never the best QB, but a great athlete. Maybe we have a place for him. Maybe not.

 

I just believe it's hypocritical to throw him out of the league permanently for his crime when there are, IMHO, far worse crimes committed by players. He has paid his debt to society and lost almost everything he has worked for. If a team thinks he can help them win and wants to bring him in, he should be allowed to play.

[lemonej]

whoa whoa whoa, where is this coming from? Where in the world did I ever say Lovie is a racist? I know he is married to a white woman, so what? But that doesn't mean he can't think black people are still being "oppressed." Also, where did I ever refer to Lovie as a "brotha" or ever strictly refer to him by only his skin color? He's black, we get it. I really don't care, as long as he gets the job done. However, historically, minorities have been known to look after each other, and I just feel if Vick was white, he wouldn't be getting all the endorsements by Lovie. He is in no way an Al Sharpton, but that doesn't mean he doesn't share some similar trains of thought.

 

However, this is getting pretty ridiculous and I regret bringing it up. It was a simple observation by me, and now I'm a racist and race baiter, which is complete bull.

 

Lets just go back to the Bears and why or why not Vick would make sense.

First of all the first part of your original post you stated that his comments about Vick were skin color related.Did you or did you not post that? What does him thinking that Vick deserves another chance have to do with oppression? Brotha was a slang expression I used because people of my race refer to each other that way.You didn't realize the can of worms you have opened up by making that statement.Saying all minorites look after each other "historically" is somewhat racist.Your saying that Italians, Irish and others don't look out for each other? Come on dude! You have no idea what minorities think and the fact that you said historically sounds as if this is something you read or heard.I know what it is like to be a minority in this country and have known what oppression feels like first hand. BTW I could care less what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do or say.Lovie Smith and I are the same age you think he might have a similar train of thought with me since Iam person who is diehard Bear Fan?

[akshaz]

First of all the first part of your original post you stated that his comments about Vick were skin color related.Did you or did you not post that? What does him thinking that Vick deserves another chance have to do with oppression? Brotha was a slang expression I used because people of my race refer to each other that way.You didn't realize the can of worms you have opened up by making that statement.Saying all minorites look after each other "historically" is somewhat racist.Your saying that Italians, Irish and others don't look out for each other? Come on dude! You have no idea what minorities think and the fact that you said historically sounds as if this is something you read or heard.I know what it is like to be a minority in this country and have known what oppression feels like first hand. BTW I could care less what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do or say.Lovie Smith and I are the same age you think he might have a similar train of thought with me since Iam person who is diehard Bear Fan?

 

The kid is in high school. Once that was brought to my attention, it made things more clear. I just stopped discussing this with him.

[lemonej]

IMO as a dog owner the people who Vick was involved with in the dog fighting ring all have the same thing in mind.They think that it is sport.I would compare it to the guys who mount Elk heads and Lions etc. on their walls from safaris,hunting etc.I think all of it is cruel and should stop.That being said do I think Vick could add something to the Bears?No! Why? Its simple he was never a polished QB in the first place and then what would the Bears do with him? I think it would be similar to what happened when the Bears brought in Kordell Stewart.If the Bears want an athletic type mobile QB like Vick then draft Pat White.He has the same skill set in a smaller package.

[DrunkBomber]

Chicken fighting is illegal too. They can also be pets too.

 

Actually, there are many stories about dogs harming/mauling/killing children of the family, especially breeds like pit-bulls and rottweilers. There are plenty of other stories about "possessive" dogs only listening to the "patriarch" of the family and intimidating everyone else.

 

There are a lot of abused women and other animals that would love the protection everyone seems to give to dogs.

Comparing dog fighting to abused women?

 

Theres a lot more to dog fighting then you seem to realize. Theres illegal gambling involved in it, theres theft when the trainers go around and steal peoples dogs to teach the fighters how to kill, theres the way they torture the dogs and the unsanitary conditions they live in.

 

The only example you gave thats even in the ball park, barely, was chicken fighting. Even that isnt a good example because those animals arent domesticated and most of them are slaughtered for food anyway.

[lemonej]

The kid is in high school. Once that was brought to my attention, it made things more clear. I just stopped discussing this with him.

I read that post also but in the true meaning of "equality" we shouldn't look down on someone because of their age either.I consider my responding to his post as me sharing my experience in life to someone younger than myself.

[akshaz]

Comparing dog fighting to abused women?

 

Theres a lot more to dog fighting then you seem to realize. Theres illegal gambling involved in it, theres theft when the trainers go around and steal peoples dogs to teach the fighters how to kill, theres the way they torture the dogs and the unsanitary conditions they live in.

 

The only example you gave thats even in the ball park, barely, was chicken fighting. Even that isnt a good example because those animals arent domesticated and most of them are slaughtered for food anyway.

 

Comparing dog fighting to abused women is fair. Both stem from one in power displaying violence to or against a weaker being. Again, I believe that beating up women is far worse than dog fighting because I cherish/value HUMAN life more than lives of animals.

 

Those chickens used to fight are NOT consumed for food. They are raised and trained specifically to fight and kill each other. They even have little chicken-sized weapons and armour. It's the real deal. You obviously don't realize that chickens are very much domesticated in many areas throughout the country. Many folks hold them as pets.

 

Why are the others invalid? Because they make you think? Hunting for sport is only more palatable to some because they understand the culture. Bullfighting and hunting aren't even fair fights. The animal is almost guarenteed to be tortured, lose then die.

 

Either you don't fully understand the examples I provided. Or you simply believe that dogs' lives are more important than other animals and some humans.

[azbearsfan]

I read that post also but in the true meaning of "equality" we shouldn't look down on someone because of their age either.I consider my responding to his post as me sharing my experience in life to someone younger than myself.

 

 

Usually I would agree with you, but in this type of discussion its relevent as a maturity and ignorance issue. Think back to when you were in school. Surely some of your views and beliefs have been changed by life experiences and interacting with different types of people.

 

Hopefully he can learn something from you.

[azbearsfan]

Comparing dog fighting to abused women is fair. Both stem from one in power displaying violence to or against a weaker being. Again, I believe that beating up women is far worse than dog fighting because I cherish/value HUMAN life more than lives of animals.

 

Those chickens used to fight are NOT consumed for food. They are raised and trained specifically to fight and kill each other. They even have little chicken-sized weapons and armour. It's the real deal. You obviously don't realize that chickens are very much domesticated in many areas throughout the country. Many folks hold them as pets.

 

Why are the others invalid? Because they make you think? Hunting for sport is only more palatable to some because they understand the culture. Bullfighting and hunting aren't even fair fights. The animal is almost guarenteed to be tortured, lose then die.

 

Either you don't fully understand the examples I provided. Or you simply believe that dogs' lives are more important than other animals and some humans.

 

 

Surly you dont cherish ALL human life over animals. There are shades of gray for these types of things.

Like you wouldn't choose to save someone who murdered your neighbor over your pet dog. I dont know about you but my dogs are part of my family and I absolutely value their lives over some of the scumbags who inhibit our planet.

[lemonej]

Usually I would agree with you, but in this type of discussion its relevent as a maturity and ignorance issue. Think back to when you were in school. Surely some of your views and beliefs have been changed by life experiences and interacting with different types of people.

 

Hopefully he can learn something from you.

Maybe that's me being a little naive since I attended a racially mixed high school I learned about diverse cultures at 14 years of age.

[azbearsfan]

Maybe that's me being a little naive since I attended a racially mixed high school I learned about diverse cultures at 14 years of age.

 

 

Oh so did I. All of my schools growing up were a mix of black, white, and hispanic. To me, we were all just people. Actually my first experience with racism was when I moved to Florida for two years in junior high.

 

But still, I assume you still learned things about people and how to deal with and understand them after high school.

[DrunkBomber]

Comparing dog fighting to abused women is fair. Both stem from one in power displaying violence to or against a weaker being. Again, I believe that beating up women is far worse than dog fighting because I cherish/value HUMAN life more than lives of animals.

 

Those chickens used to fight are NOT consumed for food. They are raised and trained specifically to fight and kill each other. They even have little chicken-sized weapons and armour. It's the real deal. You obviously don't realize that chickens are very much domesticated in many areas throughout the country. Many folks hold them as pets.

 

Why are the others invalid? Because they make you think? Hunting for sport is only more palatable to some because they understand the culture. Bullfighting and hunting aren't even fair fights. The animal is almost guarenteed to be tortured, lose then die.

 

Either you don't fully understand the examples I provided. Or you simply believe that dogs' lives are more important than other animals and some humans.

Well, first off, women are humans. Pretty much everyone agrees a humans life is more important than an animal. Also, unless there are women being forced to fight against each other AGAINST their will until death then it is much different.

 

I admittedly dont know much about chicken fighting, which is why I thought it was the closest comparison you made, because it is animals being forced to fight each other against their will. However, dogs are looked at differently than chickens by most people. Now, thats not a fact, but youll be hard pressed to prove to me that chickens are looked at the same way as dogs are.

 

Now, Im not a hunter but as long as its legal, its different. Same with bull fighting, which isnt the same circumstance anyway.

 

Either way, what Vick did was bad enough to earn time in a federal prison. Nobody, including Pacman or Chris Henry came anywhere close to that. If you have a problem with the laws and/or punishment thats a different issue.

[akshaz]

Well, first off, women are humans. Pretty much everyone agrees a humans life is more important than an animal. Also, unless there are women being forced to fight against each other AGAINST their will until death then it is much different.

 

I admittedly dont know much about chicken fighting, which is why I thought it was the closest comparison you made, because it is animals being forced to fight each other against their will. However, dogs are looked at differently than chickens by most people. Now, thats not a fact, but youll be hard pressed to prove to me that chickens are looked at the same way as dogs are.Now, Im not a hunter but as long as its legal, its different. Same with bull fighting, which isnt the same circumstance anyway.

 

Either way, what Vick did was bad enough to earn time in a federal prison. Nobody, including Pacman or Chris Henry came anywhere close to that. If you have a problem with the laws and/or punishment thats a different issue.

 

That's my entire point. A lot of people have such a fascination with dogs that their lives are greater than all other animals, and some people.

 

Let me make sure I understand you. Your problem with Vick is legal, not moral. Therefore, if he was fighting dogs in a state or jurisdiction where that activity wasn't illegal, you'd have no problem with it?

[lemonej]

Well, first off, women are humans. Pretty much everyone agrees a humans life is more important than an animal. Also, unless there are women being forced to fight against each other AGAINST their will until death then it is much different.

 

I admittedly dont know much about chicken fighting, which is why I thought it was the closest comparison you made, because it is animals being forced to fight each other against their will. However, dogs are looked at differently than chickens by most people. Now, thats not a fact, but youll be hard pressed to prove to me that chickens are looked at the same way as dogs are.

 

Now, Im not a hunter but as long as its legal, its different. Same with bull fighting, which isnt the same circumstance anyway.

 

Either way, what Vick did was bad enough to earn time in a federal prison. Nobody, including Pacman or Chris Henry came anywhere close to that. If you have a problem with the laws and/or punishment thats a different issue.

Some psychologist suggest that in the case of some mass murderers their behavior can be tied into the way they may have treated the family pet.If a murderer was abusive to animals or pets as a child they tend to not have any value for life at all Human or animal as an adult.

[lemonej]

The only way I look at a chicken is with a beer can stuck up the center half filled with BBQ sauce on my grill.LOL

[DrunkBomber]

That's my entire point. A lot of people have such a fascination with dogs that their lives are greater than all other animals, and some people.

 

Let me make sure I understand you. Your problem with Vick is legal, not moral. Therefore, if he was fighting dogs in a state or jurisdiction where that activity wasn't illegal, you'd have no problem with it?

In terms of being aloud to play in the NFL its legal. In terms of what my opinion is on him its moral. There are things I dont like that people do that are legal but I dont think that should prevent them from working or making a living.

 

I will always have a problem with dog fighting whether its legal or not. However, if it was legal, I wouldnt want Vick black balled from the NFL, I just would despise him personally. Its kind of similar to how I feel about Pacman. A fight he allegedly started ended with a man paralyzed by one of his entourage. To me that is atrocious. However, with no conviction, its hard to say he shouldnt be allowed to be in the NFL. His situation is different because he has tons of other problems, Im just isolating the one incident.

 

Personally, a dogs life is more valuable to me than say a chicken or bull. Im not saying thats right, thats just the way it is with the circumstances that effect my life. Im a dog lover and Im not a vegan or a member of PETA. I just consider a dog a part of the family.

[madlithuanian]

He should only be "allowed" to play if the league decides so. It is for no one else to decide.

 

Vick can get jobs elswhere to help pay the bills. He no right to perform for the NFL or any other company.

 

 

 

I think this is a rationale perspective. It's a very fair question whether or not Vick can help us. He was never the best QB, but a great athlete. Maybe we have a place for him. Maybe not.

 

I just believe it's hypocritical to throw him out of the league permanently for his crime when there are, IMHO, far worse crimes committed by players. He has paid his debt to society and lost almost everything he has worked for. If a team thinks he can help them win and wants to bring him in, he should be allowed to play.

[madlithuanian]

I personally think dog-fighting and cock fighting are wrong. Both are instances where animals are subject to cruelty for the pure sadistic enjoyment of the viewers. It's like a snuff film almost. We can argue that cock fighting may reserve more or less punishment by virtue of the types of animals...but that's a different matter.

 

Hunting, in most cases is used a means to curb populations of wild animals that would go out of control since we've erradicated most of their natural predators. I personally do not hunt, nor want to. But I know many hunters and fully understand their point of view. Also, most the hunting brings food on the table as well. We are a carnivourous society and have been eating prey for eons. When done in this fashion...it is just a step closer to the wild than at a meat packing plant per se. Most hunters I know do not shoot the animal in question to see it writhe in pain. The intention is a clean shot to take it down fast.

 

Bullfighting is also an odd spectacle. However, the animal in question is used for food and leather goods. Yes, there is a barbaric element, and I personally don't like it. Many countries have banned it. It is banned here, and I see no reason to defend it.

 

Basically, I just don't see how you can truly compare legal hunting to your examples.

 

The fighting of animals is wrong. Domestic violence is wrong. There should be punishment for both, etc. Just because you think domestic violence punishment isn't stiff enough does not in turn mean that the puinshment for dog-fighting is too hard. They are seperate issues. Sometimes cases of domestic violence are truly hard to find true facts. In dog-fighting, it's pretty cut and dry.

 

Comparing dog fighting to abused women is fair. Both stem from one in power displaying violence to or against a weaker being. Again, I believe that beating up women is far worse than dog fighting because I cherish/value HUMAN life more than lives of animals.

 

Those chickens used to fight are NOT consumed for food. They are raised and trained specifically to fight and kill each other. They even have little chicken-sized weapons and armour. It's the real deal. You obviously don't realize that chickens are very much domesticated in many areas throughout the country. Many folks hold them as pets.

 

Why are the others invalid? Because they make you think? Hunting for sport is only more palatable to some because they understand the culture. Bullfighting and hunting aren't even fair fights. The animal is almost guarenteed to be tortured, lose then die.

 

Either you don't fully understand the examples I provided. Or you simply believe that dogs' lives are more important than other animals and some humans.

[madlithuanian]

I can't argue with that!

 

The only way I look at a chicken is with a beer can stuck up the center half filled with BBQ sauce on my grill.LOL

[akshaz]

Basically, I just don't see how you can truly compare legal hunting to your examples.

 

On all of my hunting/feeding examples, I mentioned for the "sport" or "entertainment" of it. If those guys are hunting to put food on the table, I have no problem with it at all. However very, very few of hunters are hunting to eat. We both know this. They are only concerned with the "killing" part of it. When it comes to "big-game" hunters, it is not a question at all whether or not they're hunting for food. They are clearly killing for the fun and sport of it. "Curbing the population" is just an excuse.

 

All this being said, it's obvious that I believe it's hypocritical to condemn Vick to such levels for animal abuse when there is all sorts of animal abuse around you. The think is, you don't care for the other animals as much. So, they are expendable and don't really count.

[madlithuanian]

OK. Even in the sport part of it, (and I'm not talking about illegal big game hunters that kill lions, rhinos for pelts, horns,etc...) the intention is to kill hte animal quickly and bring it down. Then the carcass is used for food and clothing. The head of a deer may make it to the taxidermy, but nothing in the head is really used for food, etc. The hunting element is still a truly needed activity as I mentioned earlier. Since early settlers,etc irradicated wolves, mountain lions, bears,etc...there are few natural predators to curb populations of deer,etc... It's tantamount to fishing. yeah, for some people it's fun. Even some let the fish go once caught. But most kill n' grill. They could easily just go to the supermarket and buy a fliet of fish, but they enjoy the element of getting it themselves. Yes, they do enjoy that...and I can point to you numerous fish and game persons that can spell out why it is needed. However, it's not torturous by nature, unlike dog-fighting.

 

I believe it's obvious to you that you think it's hypocritical. I'm not sure that many others share your thinking. Civilized society has deemed certain bahviors OK and others not. We all choose to eat meat (at least a vast majority), and cows, chickens, pigs,etc are all killed to satiate those wants. Yep, the animal is killed. However, it's been pretty much deemed that killing an animal for just about any other reason is uncalled for. Minks are no longer killed in the US, we don't bash seal heads in, etc...nor do we allow for death matches.

 

I just still do not see your analogy.

 

Just curious, what to you think should be done of dog-fighting? Should it be legal?

 

 

On all of my hunting/feeding examples, I mentioned for the "sport" or "entertainment" of it. If those guys are hunting to put food on the table, I have no problem with it at all. However very, very few of hunters are hunting to eat. We both know this. They are only concerned with the "killing" part of it. When it comes to "big-game" hunters, it is not a question at all whether or not they're hunting for food. They are clearly killing for the fun and sport of it. "Curbing the population" is just an excuse.

 

All this being said, it's obvious that I believe it's hypocritical to condemn Vick to such levels for animal abuse when there is all sorts of animal abuse around you. The think is, you don't care for the other animals as much. So, they are expendable and don't really count.

[akshaz]

I believe it's obvious to you that you think it's hypocritical. I'm not sure that many others share your thinking. Civilized society has deemed certain bahviors OK and others not. We all choose to eat meat (at least a vast majority), and cows, chickens, pigs,etc are all killed to satiate those wants. Yep, the animal is killed. However, it's been pretty much deemed that killing an animal for just about any other reason is uncalled for. Minks are no longer killed in the US, we don't bash seal heads in, etc...nor do we allow for death matches.

 

I just still do not see your analogy.

 

Just curious, what to you think should be done of dog-fighting? Should it be legal?

 

Absolutely not. Just playing a bit of devil's advocate to stress a point about Vick. Personally, I don't hunt. But, I believe that others should be able to do so, for food and sport, in the right situation. I'm just saying that one form of torture/animal abuse/animal killing shouldn't be "dinner-table" acceptable while the other is condemned.

 

In regards to the fish, have you ever had one? I personally own predatory fish. I know they think. Therefore, I know they feel. I would seriously challenge your point that fish don't suffer "not tortuous" during the practice of fishing. Surely, they aren't having a good time with that hook stuck through their lip, bleeding, gasping, unable to breathe or free themselves.

 

What if they legalized shooting stray dogs in the street? Would you support it? You know, to curb the population. Would you feel the same way?

[madlithuanian]

I am glad!

 

I just still do not see the correlation. Killing an animal does not inherently mean it is tortuous and maybe that's not even the correct term. Some of the dogs in question were being tortured, but just pitting them agasint one another is beyond repulsive. I have owned fish, have fished, have eaten fish, and have had to flush dead ones down the toilet... Most fish do eat other fish if given the chance barring the algae eaters. All animals think and feel pain. I even read on CNN recently where crabs can feel and remember pain. Regardless, I love me some crab legs... But I digress for the sake of humor.

 

Again, I go back to intention. Hunting (and I include fishing in that), is basically a sporting version of eating. Instead of going to Dominick's, you do it yourself. The intention is not to see the animal writhe in pain and dance a gig when it is being brutally mauled or mauling. The end result is to enjoy the tasty morsel and get some odd pleasure of doing it yourself (I too am not a hunter and coulnd't enjoy that personally...).

 

I seriously doubt your example would come to fruition, but in theory, I do not have a problem with it. If cities were truly over-run with stray dogs (much like dingos in Australia), and people had to get a dog shooting licence to shot the dogs, I would not have a problem. It would be sanctioned by the govt and popluation as a whole by default. There would obviously have to be some rules/regulations in how to properly shoot, when to, how to dispose, etc... Not just electrocuting or strangling loser dogs and burying them in one's backyard... Not everything illegal is immoral and not everything immoral is illegal. In the case of dog-fighting, it happens to be both immoral and illegal.

 

 

 

Absolutely not. Just playing a bit of devil's advocate to stress a point about Vick. Personally, I don't hunt. But, I believe that others should be able to do so, for food and sport, in the right situation. I'm just saying that one form of torture/animal abuse/animal killing shouldn't be "dinner-table" acceptable while the other is condemned.

 

In regards to the fish, have you ever had one? I personally own predatory fish. I know they think. Therefore, I know they feel. I would seriously challenge your point that fish don't suffer "not tortuous" during the practice of fishing. Surely, they aren't having a good time with that hook stuck through their lip, bleeding, gasping, unable to breathe or free themselves.

 

What if they legalized shooting stray dogs in the street? Would you support it? You know, to curb the population. Would you feel the same way?