Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 162

Thread: Tomlin wanted Vick in Pgh

  1. #61
    Backup Notleadpoisoned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NotPittsburgh
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by stopplayn View Post
    We have some good ole boys in the Steelers Nation. I'll share a statement a buddy shared with me once when I spurted something racist when Kordell was constantly bleeping up. My buddy said "Just think if they had all of the blacks on one team and all the whites on the other team. I know who you would root for but who do you think would win. GOING AWAY??? A little perspective
    Who would be the 2 starting cornerbacks on the white team? You'd probably have to find some experienced white corners on the Division 2 or Division 3 level just to fill the position.

  2. #62
    Hall of Famer fezziwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,975
    you really don't need to worry about having white corners, the other teams qb won't be that good anyway.

  3. #63
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,341
    wow Fezzi.. you are really showing your azzz. Do you live in Beaver County? LOL...

    Now as far as black QB's go... this is a Steeler tradition, not a Tomlin tradition and it makes sense that Tomlin would consider Vick given his talent on field, cheap asking price and his connection to Tony Dungy.

    Now the Dog fighting and killing... I think FlaSteel hit the nail on the head. Not sure how people can claim being a christian and then turn around and say burn and hell.

    Some people view dog fighting/cock fighting/bull fighting as a sport... I've seen video's of pit bulls chasing and ripping up pigs at festivals in the midwest... ESPN and Outdoor channels show people hunting wild animals in controlled areas..

    The guy paid his debt and hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.
    Last edited by feltdizz; 10-04-2012 at 09:38 AM.

  4. #64
    Administrator steelz09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    3,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    The point is you support animal cruelty with your money. The meat industry tortures and kills animals...how don't you get that analogy? I know my dad grew up rooster fighting. It was culturally accepted. He didn't see it as wrong. While I disagree with what Vick did, I certainly believe he got more time than deserved. So, when people pass judgment on other human beings...throwing stones like they are perfect...I just have to shake my head.
    Was Vick eating the dogs? Killing an animal for food consumption and killing a animal for no reason is a completely different thing.

    Plants are considered living things... should we not cut down plants to eat corn, tomatoes, and other vegetables? That could be too harsh and cruel on the plants, right?

    Comparing what Vick did to basically the food chain just doesn't make sense.

    This just reminds me of when people get upset because someone has to kill a bear, a tiger, a shark, an alligator or whatever because it was harsh to the animal. Or when people have dangerous animals as pets and then they are surprised when they attack one day. This is almost the same mindset your having. Those animals don't like you and they never will... They are instinctive killing machines. They want food, water, a mate, etc and if you interfere, they will kill you. It's like the guy in Alaska. Supposedly, he had a special bond and was "friends" with these Grizzly bears. He was friends alright.... up until the bear got hungry and ate him and his wife. Maybe we should ask that bear to never do that it again... it was too harsh and tortuous to those humans.... being eaten alive.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by steelz09 View Post
    Was Vick eating the dogs? Killing an animal for food consumption and killing a animal for no reason is a completely different thing.

    Plants are considered living things... should we not cut down plants to eat corn, tomatoes, and other vegetables? That could be too harsh and cruel on the plants, right?

    Comparing what Vick did to basically the food chain just doesn't make sense.

    This just reminds me of when people get upset because someone has to kill a bear, a tiger, a shark, an alligator or whatever because it was harsh to the animal. Or when people have dangerous animals as pets and then they are surprised when they attack one day. This is almost the same mindset your having. Those animals don't like you and they never will... They are instinctive killing machines. They want food, water, a mate, etc and if you interfere, they will kill you. It's like the guy in Alaska. Supposedly, he had a special bond and was "friends" with these Grizzly bears. He was friends alright.... up until the bear got hungry and ate him and his wife. Maybe we should ask that bear to never do that it again... it was too harsh and tortuous to those humans.... being eaten alive.
    Not to speak for Shawn, but what I got out of what he said was this:

    Despite the fact that the animals in our meat industry are slaughtered for food, the method of killing the animals is no less cruel than the way that Vick killed those dogs...

    The reason why they are killed isn't important in this case...it's the method used and the treatment of those animals up to the point of the slaughter that is inhumane...

    Does the animal know why it was killed? No...it only knows it was tortured in captivity up to the point of it's (needlessly cruel) death...

    I'm not saying, "Don't eat meat." But, those animals are mistreated as badly as Vick's dogs were...

  6. #66
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Slapstick View Post
    Not to speak for Shawn, but what I got out of what he said was this:

    Despite the fact that the animals in our meat industry are slaughtered for food, the method of killing the animals is no less cruel than the way that Vick killed those dogs...

    The reason why they are killed isn't important in this case...it's the method used and the treatment of those animals up to the point of the slaughter that is inhumane...

    Does the animal know why it was killed? No...it only knows it was tortured in captivity up to the point of it's (needlessly cruel) death...

    I'm not saying, "Don't eat meat." But, those animals are mistreated as badly as Vick's dogs were...
    I agree...

  7. #67
    Administrator steelz09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    3,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Slapstick View Post
    Not to speak for Shawn, but what I got out of what he said was this:

    Despite the fact that the animals in our meat industry are slaughtered for food, the method of killing the animals is no less cruel than the way that Vick killed those dogs...

    The reason why they are killed isn't important in this case...it's the method used and the treatment of those animals up to the point of the slaughter that is inhumane...

    Does the animal know why it was killed? No...it only knows it was tortured in captivity up to the point of it's (needlessly cruel) death...

    I'm not saying, "Don't eat meat." But, those animals are mistreated as badly as Vick's dogs were...
    The reason they were killed is important. That is the fundamental difference. If you don't put that into consideration this isn't even worth discussing. Think of the below analogy....

    1) A "favored" boxer loses a boxing match. Afterwards, the MGM Grand executes the "favored" boxer in the electric chair because the boxer performed poorly and likewise, bets were lost, TV ratings were poor and future attendance will suffer.

    2) A hiker in Alaska was attacked, killed and eaten by a Grizzly bear for no other reason than food.

    Both suffered a very unfortunate, unnecessary and cruel death.

    Basically, what you're saying is (1) is just as acceptable as (2) because they both suffered a cruel death. The fundamental difference is one harsh death is specifically geared around food and the food chain. The other is a senseless act of executing someone or something for not performing well. Vick did that to dogs. He didn't kill for the sake of food. If you can lump those 2 killings in the same category, I think that is messed up but thats your opinion. Are they both cruel killings? Yes. However, they were done for 2 COMPLETELY different reasons and they are not created equal in my mind

  8. #68
    Backup
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by fezziwig View Post
    Typical, when someone can't argue their way out, blame it on racism.
    Sorry racism exists and if you dont think there are racial undertones behind the hatred for Vick then you arent being honest. Dogfighting is HUGE in the South and its ran by WHITE GUYS. How do I know? I live there and everyone in the south will acknowledge this fact. Do you think we could field an all white team and complete with the blacks? I dont, we would get KILLED. If you think we would win then please list the lineups. I guarantee you cant put together a better lineup than they would have. GUARANTEEE

  9. #69
    I can't figure out why the NFL let Vick back in, given their allergy to bad publicity.

    I guess they figured the $$ from ticket sales would outweigh the dollars lost from bad publicity.

    "Follow the money".


    We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!

    HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!

  10. #70
    Backup
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    423
    Does God enter Dogs into Heaven? NOPE. Perspective.

    I GUESS ALL OF YOU KNOW BETTER THAN GOD

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •