Reply With Quote
I'm not a fan of dogfighting at all, but how does it differ from Bull Fighting in Spain?
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...ng_is_a_sport/Newsday -
Stephon Marbury commented on the Michael Vick situation to a television station in Albany, New York.
“We don’t say anything about people shooting deers and shooting other animals," said Marbury. "You know what I mean? From what I hear, dog-fighting is a sport. It’s just behind closed doors and I think it’s tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down. I think he’s one of the superb athletes and he’s a good human being. I think he fell into a bad situation.”
I'm not a fan of dogfighting at all, but how does it differ from Bull Fighting in Spain?
he's got a point.
dogfighting is cruel & sick, and the way he killed dogs was just cold-blooded.....but somehow blowing away a deer with a rifle and hanging it's head in your living room isn't?
Generally you hunt deer in order to eat it, whereas the way he killed dogs was cruel and pointless.
That being said, I intend to become a full vegetarian soon
I don't know how Starbury can confirm that Vick is a good person given what he's done
Maybe he knows Vick personally? And good people do shady things all the time. You don't base judgments off of one incident.
and mounting it's head in your study is part of the eating process?
He obviously doesn't know about the underground deerfighting circuit.
Is there a difference between killing a deer, bear, etc. with a gun or arrow in the vital organs to kill them quickly OR hanging, electrocuting, and drowning a dog?
So what you are saying is, if they just shot the dogs in the head after they were done with them, it would be okay?
It would have been a of a lot better than torturing the things. And frankly, if they had just shot the dogs in the head, there would be less in terms of outrage.
True. I don't think its about the killing of the dogs. It's more of an argument of the torture the dogs go through. Not to mention they would steal house dogs for training purposes.
why split hairs here? what michael vick and his buddies did was wrong, hunting is not.
He absolutely has a point. One is legal, one is not, but really, other than that, what is the difference? Killing animals for your gratification and amusement. I fail to see the difference.
Rich people eat veil, where a baby calf is tied up and not allowed to move an inch until it dies. They also consume foie gras, where a goose is tied up and fed until its liver explodes. We're also allowed to hunt animals for sport, and yet we're supposed to work up some sort of special outrage over dogfighting? God forbid you get some mini T-Rex's fighting each other to death and then the refrain switches to "Lock this black man up!"
You don't have to be rich to eat veal.
(I don't, fwiw).
If you can point me to the underground goose and calf fights around Austin, I'll make a comparison.
Anyone who can't see the difference...c'mon. Out of all the lame excuses, this is by far one of the stupidest.
I have never hunted, I'm a fisherman, but I can easily tell the difference.
Yeah, we get it, one is legal, one is not, but is there a difference between hunting animals for your gratification that ends in their death or dogfighting for your gratification that ends in death?
I think that the differance is that if these dogs were not trained to fight, they would be someones pet. Dogs do fight in the wild, but it is not for sport, it is for the porpose of determaning dominance ... once that is sorted out, the fighting is over .. rarely is the "loosing dog" killed, he becomes beta dog, not alpha dog.
In dog fighting, the dogs are tortured before the fight, put into the fight, and if they loose they do not become beta dog, they get tortured until they die as to the dog fighter, they have no worth anymore.
All this is done for money .. This is not a sport, this is a gambling oppertunity ... Dogs die because of a gambling oppertunity.
The uproar is all about the what happens to the loosing dog. In horse racing, we do not kill the loosing dog, we breed to make the next generation faster. We do not kill the dogs that loose at the dog track.
When two dogs get into a fight, one of them is going to die (Either in the fight or after). For a person to put an animal into that position just for an oppertunity to gamble is barbaric.
There is nothing similar to hunting in dogfighting. Train a deer to use a gun and bet on the outrcome and it would be closer. I doubt anyone would train a deer to shoot and then go hunting for it for money ... Its just stupid.
Veal and Foie Gras are foods, they are food products. There is no betting, there is no "Fight or Die", there is no "You loose, You Die" ... There are food, it is that simple.
Nah, you don't.Yeah, we get it
would Vick be in this much trouble if he was involved in fighting* and drowned and electrocuted roosters?
*the obvious jokes are so obvious that nobody needs to say them.
so putting an animal through torture and an agonizing death is okay as long as you eat it. great.
i heard about a few in Des Moines but that's just hearsay.
Tell me, other than legality, what is the difference between hunting and dogfighting?
In hunting, before shooting the animal (say deer) you don't keep it living in cages or on a chain and have them fight with another deer until one of their eyes are gouged out, ears bitten off, etc. A proper hunter bam pow shoots the unsuspecting deer so it really doesnt suffer at all. Prior to being shot it gets a lifetime of frolicking in the woods.
You're still killing an animal for your gratification. Did the deer ask if he wanted to be hunted for sport?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
