Reply With Quote
FromWayDowntown: I absolutely agree with you that dogfighting is much more heinous than boxing or ultimate fighting. But just because one combat sport may be less heinous than the other, does that make it okay to support it, yet condemn the other?
I still think that most people would have the same reaction to the barbarism of dog fighting, even if the dogs weren't condemned when their fighting careers ended. Dogs are sentient beings that experience pain -- and dog fighting brings with it great pain to those who actually participate in the fight itself.
Again, to me the line that makes dog fighting so repugnant to people of conscience (and what saves those who disdain dog fighting but revel in boxing non-hypocrites) is the issue of self-determination. Until a dog has a choice in the matter, the "sport" is built entirely on a culture of abuse, a complete disregard for the value of the lives of sentient creatures, and an exploitation of animals whose nature is to do as they're told.
FromWayDowntown: I absolutely agree with you that dogfighting is much more heinous than boxing or ultimate fighting. But just because one combat sport may be less heinous than the other, does that make it okay to support it, yet condemn the other?
One is legal, the other isn't.
Please stop being so ing stupid.
^^^ Both are extremely violent and brutal, yet we cheer for one and condemn the other. I see that as hypocracy!!! Now go die of AIDS!!!
One is a legal sport played by willing participants by a set of rules and are aware of the risks. The other is an illegal activity where animals are forced to take part and thousands are killed every year. You are the dumbest bag on the planet that has access to a computer.
And just so you know, crying about the brutality of boxing while wishing someone to die of a disease because he made you look stupid is "hypocracy".
^^^ Are you trying to say that boxing and Ultimate fighting aren't brutal sports just because it is legal with willing participants? Whether or not the particapants are willing to go into the ring and fight each other, people cheer for them to beat the living out of the other guy until one of them gets knocked out and can't get up. The bloodier the better and you find that to be okay and not dogfighting. I understand that one is much worse than the other, but does that make the lesser of the two okay? That's like justifying shooting someone in the leg and rationalizing it by saying atleast you didn't kill them!!!
Oh, and just for the record I really could give a about those boxer dudes, I'm just pointing out the hypocracy. Damn, that sounds insensitive, but I guess I'm just a product of the violent American culture. So go and ride Magic Johnson's HIV riddled , prick.
Your analogy is inapt. Believing that boxing is okay isn't "like justifying shooting someone in the leg and rationalizing it by saying at least you didn't kill them!!!!" Believing that boxing is okay is more like justifying someone having been shot based on an understanding that he agreed to be shot and rationalizing it by saying at least he wasn't killed. The actor in the latter case might be viewed as stupid by some, but he at least consented to the injuries that were visited upon him based on the conduct to which he consented.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand the point that you're trying to make by continuing to relate boxing and dogfighting. That Americans have a bloodlust? If so, what difference does that make to the discussion at hand? Is your argument that boxing should be outlawed? Is your argument that dogfighting should be legalized? That dogfighting shouldn't be seen as such a bad thing? I can't understand, again, how voluntary participation by humans in one activity could conceivably justify the sort of abject cruelty that dogfighting entails.
I'm done with this discussion with you until you can actually tell me what your point is.
No. I'm saying that you are the dumbest ing bag on the face of the planet for comparing any legal human sport with dogfighting.
Again, you are trying to justify an illegal activity by comparing it to a sport because both are violent, despite their being violent in staggeringly different degrees. I find your stupidity to be fascinating. I wonder how you are capable of functioning.
You are justifying rape by saying that women like sex. Did I mention how ing stupid you are?
Now that you've gotten your ass handed to you, it's convenient that you would claim not to care about your argument. Frankly, it's so Goddamn dumb that I don't blame even a mouth breather like you for abandoning it so quickly. You are more likely a product of pre-natal drug use or incest. Someone should throw you into a dog ring while you cry about Darfur.
FromWayDowntown: The point I'm making is that I just don't understand how people can condemn one violent sport and cheer for the other. It is like they care more about animals than they do about their fellow man. So do Americans have a bloodlust, maybe, at the very least they have been descensitized against violent acts on human beings. Also yes I understand about the whole one is voluntary the other isn't, but does that make it okay for people to cheer them on while they are beating the out of each other? Also, I find dogfighting to be sick, but I don't see how cheering on your fellow man to beat one another to a bloody pulp is seen as okay. It's like they care more about animals than humans!!!
Hopefully I was able to get my point across!!!
Dogfighting. Is. Not. A. Sport. You should go join NAMBLA and help them try to argue that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be valued.
Football is, in many ways, more brutal than even boxing. I don't see you contending that Americans' love of football is somehow hypocritical in the face of the condemnation of dogfighting.
I guess, ulimately, I don't get your point here and will never agree with you in terms of principles on this issue. If people choose to engage in boxing matches because, in so doing, they will be compensated through the receipts of money from those who enjoy watching them beat the crap out of each other, that's their prerogative. The dogs who are made to fight have no such choice and receive no such benefits -- for them, it's purely a diminishing return and one that is based on the decisions of others.
It's simplistic, but I do think that the fundamental difference is the legality of one and the illegality of the other. Boxing is legal, I think, because the mortality rate directly attributable to boxing matches is miniscule and that possiblity is a known contingency for those who choose to engage in the sport. I don't pretend to understand why so many bystanders are fascinated by watching two men voluntarily beat the crap out of each other, but I think there are things other than bloodlust that can explain that. But as brutal as boxing can be, it's nowhere remotely as brutal and cruel as dogfighting.
Boxers rarely are killed in the ring and, in most cases, are able to continue to lead worthwhile lives when they stop boxing; the dogs, of course, are frequently killed in the pit (from what I understand) and never lead worthwhile lives after their "careers" end.
Apparently the prosecution in the case does have a plea on the table for Vick, if ESPN is to be believed. That makes me wonder about what kind of evidence they have and the strength of the witnesses against him. Unless they just want to avoid a trial and get this thing over with quickly, I see no reason for Vick to be offered a plea unless the evidence combined is shaky at best.
If that's the case, it presents a an interesting decision for Vick. Take a chance that the evidence is weak and you can beat it, or plead out now while there's only one count with a max of 5 yrs on the table? Apparently the judge is known for giving out max or near max sentences, so it would appear the possibility of Vick getting at least 3.5 to 4 years if he pleads may be pretty good.
There could be an offer on the table because the case is simply so overwhelming that only a moron would go to trial and they expect Vick to take a plea just like all his co-defendants.
It makes sense to me that the government would be inclined to enter into a plea deal that results in a conviction even if its evidence was very strong. The government would rather have a guarantee that a bad guy will be put away than take a chance that the defendant will somehow beat the rap. In the case of someone like Vick, who's going to be prosecuted in a jurisdiction in which he's likely well-regarded, the possiblity that a jury might nullify the evidence in favor of a celebrity/star is significant. I can see why the government might be willing to enter into a plea that saves Vick from facing every charge that might be levied against him but still satisfies the government's need to secure a conviction and put him to some punishment.
Normally I'd agree with the celebrity status swaying the jury, but this dog fighting thing has the media treating him like a combination of Manson and Berkowitz. The guy's been villified constantly and I'd think that would work in the government's favor. That said, I see your point. It's obvious they don't have the hard on to get Vick that they would have had he kidnapped a federal judge's daughter's dog and strangled it.
Excellent analogy. Youre subs uting your subject based on nothing more than whim. Because something is violent but accepted, does not make something else violent and accepted.
OV pointed out NAMBLA, which is rich. Your example, using his subject matter, would be...
"So sexual relations with a minor is a horrible atrocity in a society that accepts sexualism?! HYPOCRISY!"
Try to understand that.
I've lived in communities in Western Illinois and Southeast Kansas where it was highly recommended that the citizens NOT leave their dogs out unattended (even in a fenced yard) because kidnappings for sparring partners were a too common occurrence.
Damn, you're pretty stupid.
The reason I'll be voting straight ticket Democrat is because Bush and the Repubs aren't doing a damn thing about Darfur.
For you to generalize and say that "nobody seems to care about suffering black people is just plain ignorant." You really are quite ignorant.
Did you know that the actress Mia Farrow has been busy trying to pressure Republicans (and Democrats, to be fair) to commit to the Darfur situation?? Does your hate for anything non-black really blind you this much?? If Darfur is so important to the African American community, why hasn't there been a louder protest about it from said community??
Why??
I'm starting to think you're just a kid whose being mentored by his biggoted older uncle and is just repeating things he says.
You're not contradicting yourself, you're reaching for straws and it's prett pathetic. What other excuse are you going to use to defend Vick . . . we don't care about the civil rights problems in China?? We're ignoring the plight of the Untouchables in India?? We don't care about Global Warming's effects on the Eskimo population??
Come on, man!!!
You sound desperate and pathetic.
Poor logic. There's a plea available to most everybody with every crime (even murder). Sometimes they aren't much of a deal, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there.
Plea bargains save the prosecution money + time (which is probably more important given their case loads), and in addition to that, they offer a sure thing, which you can never count on in a court of law (especially with a celebrity defendant).
Because there are many factors beyond simple violence involved.
That's like saying that a person can't be pro-NASA and anti-Nuclear (or Nucelar as some might pronounce it...) weapons because they both involve rockets.
You're simplifying it well past the point of absurdity.
That's the problem with the system. Instead of punishing these people in a deserving manner the gov. accepts lesser punishments. Reason? The system takes toooooooo ing long to decide anything. Extremely inefficient.
You don't have to be around law enforcement or the courts much to see that DAs are about convictions - not justice.
Inefficent, yes. But at least they feign their intent to preserve the rights of the accused in a court of law.
Eh, many problems but nothing's perfect. I'm not turning this into the political forum.
Agreed, it's the nature of the beast. Our legal system is the worst there is, except for all the others...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions