Law School Discussion

Micheal Vick: Is it just me?

Funia

  • ****
  • 132
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #90 on: August 01, 2007, 12:19:23 AM »
The reason people care isn't because the media is pushing it on them, it's because every once in a while, somebody in a position that others dream of being in, does something so horrible it shocks the collective conscience of the country.  Some things -such as the slaughter of cows- might bother some and not others, but it's generally accepted and legal.  I thin kwe can agree on that.  Dog fighting is not only illegal, but seen by most people as sick and unnacceptable.  Add to that the fact that dogs were hanged, electrified, and beat into the ground until dead.  There's such a disregard for life that it is shocking.  That's why this is different.

And it has been shown in numerous studies that abuse to animals leads to and is a pre-indicator of abuse and violence toward people.

And do you guys REALLY think OJ deserved to get off???


Arthur Blanks and Nike and every NFL fan should be happy then - Vicks in a violent sport.

OJ paid for it, why not?  its the way our system works isnt it?  haha..it works for a black man and here we are talking about it almost 15 years later.  whats that say?


To the first point:  there is a difference between the structured "violence" of a contact sport such a football or hockey than violence off the field - and it is THIS violence to which I was referring.  It has been shown time after time that the ability to abuse animals leads to the abuse of people.  Plus, people rarely view the QB as a really violent player in the NFL.  I mean just take one look at the Manning brothers!

To the second, oh PLEASE!  Why does everyone always say "you're just mad 'cause OJ was Black?"  Yes, he got good lawyers and won.  But he also most likely killed them (did anyone hear the title to that little book he was going to release??).  It has nothing to do with race - it has to do with celebrity.  People aren't upset that a Black man got off, but that somone got off because of celebrity status.  Why does everything always ALWAYS seem to need to be about White people being angry when Black people do well?  I'm White, and let me assure you that I don;t spend my day getting angry whenever a Black person does well.  What impact does that REALLY have on my life?  None.


Honestly,  I think a lot of the white people who are so outraged about OJ are angry because he's black.  I mean, does anyone even care that Robert Blake got off after killing his wife?


The reason people were upset about OJ (both white and rational blacks) is because OJ was clearly guilty.  There was DNA evidence tying him to the clime, he fled for Mexico on national TV, and he couldn't even come up with an alibi for the time during the crime. 

The only reason he got off was because the jury was retarded.

There was far less evidence regarding Blake.  Moreover, his wife was clearly a skanky sleazeball, while OJ's wife was a decent woman who had legally divorced him, and just wanted to be left alone.


Excuse me? Decent. Naw

Not while Oj was with his first wife, and u riding by honking your horn to come pick him up at their house and laughing. Decent, naw. Skank is more like it.


I was wondering by what estimation Bonnie Lee Bakely can be considered a "sleaze" but Nicole Brown Simpson and upstanding woman of great moral fiber.  But I didn't want to go there.   :)


Thank you. Trust me, from what has come out about Nicole, she could make Bonnie look like Mother Teresa. However, I acknowledge that doesn't in anyway mean she deserved to die but if we're going to paint an accurate picture of all the key players, then the story must be told correctly.If OJ is indeed innocent, her hardly reported lifestyle could be related to her murder. Yet, some folks like to tailor the victim's life story to fit their stance. (Hint: Natalee Holloway)

Somehow I have digressed from the topic at hand.  :-\

Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!

  • ****
  • 718
  • Exhibiting the discipline necessary for Law School
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #91 on: August 01, 2007, 03:03:39 AM »
but...what about the people who discard their pets at the pound out of inconvenience? why not picket outside their homes? 

but...why do some pounds put animals down with/in such a short amount of time? hard to "save" an animal if it only has a week to live.

we, as a society, kill dogs every day. just because we don't actually SEE it does not mean it does not happen.

When people leave a dog at the pound they KNOW what's likely to happen. We all KNOW what's likely to happen. Nothing PETA currently does is going to change that. Why don't they set up a nature preserve to house the dogs long enough for them to be adopted? (I bet it's because they don't REALLY care. They probably just want a cause.)

Personally, I care more about rainforest flora than I do about suburban america fauna.

I'm so sick and tired of upper middleclass/rich people looking for a cause and choosing animals. What about the ethical treatment of humans? Homelessness? Poverty? War?



I don't really get your argument.  PETA is an animal rights group.  It advocates for animal rights.  Other groups fight against homelessness, war and other social ills.  And, as several people have said, you can "care about" more than one issue.  It's not as though you can't be disgusted by the egregious abuse of animals just because there are worse things happening in the world.

As for the pound dog argument, all animal rights groups try to prevent people from buying and breeding unwanted animals.  This is the only way we can stop euthanizing animals - spay and neuter all your pets, don't let them have kittens or puppies, only adopt if you know you are committed to the animal for the long haul, don't give pets to other people, etc.  Education works better than trying to shame people by picketing outside their windows, as you suggested.
[/quote]

I've been flaming throughout this entire thread, but have a question.  Who says it is OK to subjugate an animal for human needs?  we subjugate everything for human needs, then subjugate the needs of lesser humans for greater humans and on and on.  where are we following this road to?  and when are we going to start seeing the warning signs posted on the sides of this road?

we have to eat, yes.  but the needs of humans are becoming insatiable.

Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #92 on: August 01, 2007, 04:00:54 PM »
This is a long post, but I'll try to be concise.

Animals, as they are not humans, are not entitled to all the rights that humans are entitled to (IMO).  Whereas it is never appropriate to kill or even harm  humans to help, protect or save other humans, it is sometimes appropriate to impose physical suffering (or even death) upon animals.

This is true, and I agree, but there is a difference between that and cruelty towards animals, regardless of purpose.



I am most disturbed by Vick (and dogfighters in general) because of their motives.  In this situation, animals aren't being tortured to further any goal, they are only suffering so that sick people can delight in their torment.  This is wrong.

If dogfighting were necessary to cure AIDS or cancer or in some other way benefit humans, I would say go for it, even though these dogs would still have to endure the same pain and suffering.  Humans are just more important.

This is why I am less upset about the USDA's practices.  Humans are naturally omnivorous and animal flesh is a necessary part of most people's diets.  I don't believe, as you claim, that farm animals are "tortured" - I do agree that they suffer physical discomfort and I think this is ok, if unfortunate, because as I said, human needs eclipse animal rights.

Physical discomfort is different from abuse, which is unecessary and not required to accomplish the task of feeding people. It is already known that animals suffer in some ways, how can they not? I am against abuse/torture of any kind. Also, since when is animal flesh a necessary part of most people's diets???


That said, humans should not have license to cause gratuitous pain and suffering for animals.  Though not human, they have the capacity to feel pain and we should try to keep their discomfort to a minimum.

Agreed.


! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #93 on: August 05, 2007, 08:18:48 PM »

I think our language fails us when it comes to this.  when the word racist is used it can be said to describe slave owners and lynchers to people that are just ignorant to people that mean no harm at all and are the kindest people in the world but have misconceptions.  using the word kills discourse.  I think we should make the word have degrees.  Like you are a 9th degree racist which includes bla bla, or a first degree which only includes innocent sh*t, but whatever.  I think people should feel free to discuss racial issues without necessarily being called a racist.  I see where those folks in my group were coming from, but it was frustrating, and when I started naming negative aspects people became real uneasy.  I dont think they were racist.  Its just the nature of race relations.



You're absolutely right!  I always assume racist to imply intent.  Ignorance is the other spectrum.  And I can tell you - from a White perspective - why those members of your group feel uncomfortable:

It is often told to White people - by our families and well meaning friends - not to engage in racial conversations with Black people.  For whatever reason, we are taught that it is not apropriate for us to discuss any aspects of Black culture or Black / White relations that upset us, for fear of being called discriminatory.  I'm not saying that every Black person takes every comment someone makes as racist.  I'm just saying that it's often instilled in us from early on that if we disagree with any politically correct position, we are racist.

Now, I disagree with a lot of things that are politically correct.  But that doesn't mean that I don't value my Black friends and their views and opinions.  It simply means that my experiences and beliefs have led me to different conclusions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.  Even if it is blood boiling, discourse is a good thing.  People remaining silent, concealing their true fealings, is what breeds resentment and true hatred.


you are giving too much credit to the passe and debunked term, "race"...it has NO real meaning...what you are really...for real...no really discussing is SKIN COLOR not race...these people who judge others on their skin color are, COLORISTS...

if you want to follow the "passe" and "european labeling" line of reasoning then it is important to note that in {for example} sub-saharan africa  their are MANY races among people whose skin color is chocolate-brown.

just thought aye'd clear that up for ya. 8)


colorist makes sense.  I'm aware of three "black" races in sub saharan africa. at any rate, our language fails when it comes to nuance and the term racist.

"folk on this board complain about fox, cnn, msnbc...but they are still watching it."

I watch everything.  Also, I dont see Obama as being on the brink of anything. and even if i did, him being black doesnt do it for me.  thats not freedom or change, to me.  still operating inside that COLORIST box...

ah...you are focusing on obama as a color: "black"... as your immediate reaction...and not as an innovative new hope for change in politics...he doesn;t seem to want to be like the old politico...clinton...bush...c heney...that is his message.  aye see him as as a rising statesman; inspriational and charismatic...who happens to be african american...not BLACK...that is a passe term for people with darker complexions put on them by passe...former european labeling...and an old de-bunked system.

why did you focus on his skin color, yourself?  ...just think about it... :)

obamas father was from kenya...his mother from america..far as aye know...that makes him african american...if you feel the need to label him. ;)





"I", not "aye".

then u understand. ;)   congratulations. :)

jarhead

  • ****
  • 2715
  • "i keeps it reeaal!"
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #94 on: August 05, 2007, 09:01:12 PM »
look i think the whole michael vick thing is way out of proportion i'm not for animal cruelty but it's not like the guy killed somebody. i think if he was white the hullaballo would still be the same because those PETA people are nazis and the media is out of control. that being said im soooo super sick of the racism thing. michael vick is an idiot he has a bad rep and gets in trouble because he's an idiot. he's one of the many superstar athletes and or entertainers who've been blessed with a lifestyle that most of us will never realize but and blow it all doing dumb ish with their dumb friends (most of who are just there to leech and will be gone as soon as the money is), under the guise of keeping it real...stupid

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2007, 11:56:04 PM »

I think our language fails us when it comes to this.  when the word racist is used it can be said to describe slave owners and lynchers to people that are just ignorant to people that mean no harm at all and are the kindest people in the world but have misconceptions.  using the word kills discourse.  I think we should make the word have degrees.  Like you are a 9th degree racist which includes bla bla, or a first degree which only includes innocent sh*t, but whatever.  I think people should feel free to discuss racial issues without necessarily being called a racist.  I see where those folks in my group were coming from, but it was frustrating, and when I started naming negative aspects people became real uneasy.  I dont think they were racist.  Its just the nature of race relations.



You're absolutely right!  I always assume racist to imply intent.  Ignorance is the other spectrum.  And I can tell you - from a White perspective - why those members of your group feel uncomfortable:

It is often told to White people - by our families and well meaning friends - not to engage in racial conversations with Black people.  For whatever reason, we are taught that it is not apropriate for us to discuss any aspects of Black culture or Black / White relations that upset us, for fear of being called discriminatory.  I'm not saying that every Black person takes every comment someone makes as racist.  I'm just saying that it's often instilled in us from early on that if we disagree with any politically correct position, we are racist.

Now, I disagree with a lot of things that are politically correct.  But that doesn't mean that I don't value my Black friends and their views and opinions.  It simply means that my experiences and beliefs have led me to different conclusions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.  Even if it is blood boiling, discourse is a good thing.  People remaining silent, concealing their true fealings, is what breeds resentment and true hatred.


you are giving too much credit to the passe and debunked term, "race"...it has NO real meaning...what you are really...for real...no really discussing is SKIN COLOR not race...these people who judge others on their skin color are, COLORISTS...

if you want to follow the "passe" and "european labeling" line of reasoning then it is important to note that in {for example} sub-saharan africa  their are MANY races among people whose skin color is chocolate-brown.

just thought aye'd clear that up for ya. 8)


colorist makes sense.  I'm aware of three "black" races in sub saharan africa. at any rate, our language fails when it comes to nuance and the term racist.

"folk on this board complain about fox, cnn, msnbc...but they are still watching it."

I watch everything.  Also, I dont see Obama as being on the brink of anything. and even if i did, him being black doesnt do it for me.  thats not freedom or change, to me.  still operating inside that COLORIST box...

ah...you are focusing on obama as a color: "black"... as your immediate reaction...and not as an innovative new hope for change in politics...he doesn;t seem to want to be like the old politico...clinton...bush...c heney...that is his message.  aye see him as as a rising statesman; inspriational and charismatic...who happens to be african american...not BLACK...that is a passe term for people with darker complexions put on them by passe...former european labeling...and an old de-bunked system.

why did you focus on his skin color, yourself?  ...just think about it... :)

obamas father was from kenya...his mother from america..far as aye know...that makes him african american...if you feel the need to label him. ;)





"I", not "aye".

then u understand. ;)   congratulations. :)

do u not "c" the irony, lindburgh, man?

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2007, 12:21:40 AM »
the Vick saga has taught me 2 things...

1) tons of people care more about animals than people
2) people have no concept of reality.

do people not realize that dog fighting goes on every day in just about every town across the South especially? (i cannot speak directly to the same culture possibly existing in the North) if people really care as much as they seem to about this story then they would force the law enforcement agencies to shut it down.

Hannibal

  • ****
  • 299
  • I love it when a plan comes together
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2007, 12:31:24 AM »
Yes, it is that bad and there are several reasons why:

1)tested his dogs for cruelty and killed those who failed by beating them and drowning them. 
2)he trained innocent and peaceful creatures to brutally main and kill other creatures

so not only did he encourage dogs to kill other dogs for sport, he also trained them to be vicious and killed the dogs that didn't meet his expectations.

But no, just like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, it doesn't need to be on every channel.  Blame 24hr news channels for that one.

Okay, this I agree with. My issue is, there are people who call dog fighting (the breeding and killing of dogs) inhumane and go to Mcdonald's and enjoy the hell out of a Big Mac. Those animals are bread to die also and some claim they die a deplorable death. In my opinion, by eating that meat one is supporting a similar process.


The pitbulls are brutalized and killed.  Cows are tenderized and grilled.  (You have to say it in your best "Reverend" Jackson voice or it won't make sense)

I don't like what the Vicky did to his dogs.  I don't know what Burger King does to cows...but whatever it is, it's DELICIOUS.

I was more upset when BK stopped offering the Whopper for 99 cents.  $2.59 is just too much.

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: Micheal Vick: Is it just me?
« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2007, 03:18:51 AM »
dogs get tenderized and grilled in dozens of countries around the world daily  :D