Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 162

Thread: Tomlin wanted Vick in Pgh

  1. #141
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    Ok, Eni let's ignore cultural norms and just base right and wrong upon your visceral reactions to things. I believe bull fighting to be cruel, but there must be whole countries of "sociopaths". What purpose does bull fighting serve? What purpose does hunting non excess animals for pure sport serve? Should we call those types of hunters sociopaths? I used to like to shoot at birds and frogs when I was a child with my BB gun...killed a few too...am I a sociopath?

    The general public scares me, and let me tell you why. They allow their emotions to overrules their logic all too often. That can leak out into the justice system. I find Vicks actions repulsive...but I can also think about it logically and consistently. I realize what Vick did was just a degree worse than what some hunters do...and what slaughterhouses do. I don't think it's any worse than bull fighting or rooster fighting that much of my family in WV involved themselves with...and thought it ok. I would have sentenced him with that in mind...instead of thinking about my two dogs who I love dearly. He was over sentenced...no doubt in my mind...and it's because of people who think like you...who expressed emotion when they should be making decisions concerning a mans life...with logic.
    Not only that, but the govt. manipulates us by using our emotions. Obviously, politicians use our emotions to gain votes, or make you not vote for their opponent, which is often the same thing. How did we find ourselves in two wars that most thinking people wanted nothing to do with? Tugging on our emotions. "We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" says those working for people who will prosper from these wars. How many times did W, Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al repeat "9-11, mushroom cloud, WMDs, etc.?" How many times did they use Saddam and al Qaida in the same sentence, even admitting that he had zero to do with 9-11, but mentioning him, constantly, in the same sentence made Americans think there was a relation, when, in fact, there was absolutely none. When asked directly, they would have to admit there was no relation (which barely ever happened, because our media is controlled by the elite) but they would go right back to just including all those words in the same sentence." How more Americans didn't see through this BS is beyond my understanding. I saw what an obvious lie it was ALL ALONG. I never was duped with that cheap tactic. It allowed for the basic murder of 1,000,000 people who had nothing to do with threatening America in any way. Talk about killing? I think we can all agree that the unnecessary killing of human beings is morally corrupt. And, no, just because they have brown skin and are Muslim doesn't give anyone a pass on the mass murder. They are still human beings.

  2. #142
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Steelerphile View Post
    I think I've wanted to add my thoughts on people who make a big distinction between those who kill animals for food and in hunting, and those who have killed animals just to inflict pain. I don't draw a big distinction. I don't think the animal draws a big distinction about whether someone killed them to be served up for dinner or to be hung on a hunters trophy wall, or were killed by a mean-spirited person for another reason. They don't know why they were killed. They did not choose to be killed by any of these, nor is the animal killed in painless humane way, either in a slaughterhouse or by the hunter. The person who kills an animal in the slaughterhouse may, in fact, find a perverse pleasure in doing. Not everyone could do that job. Not everyone likes to shoot animals in the wild, either, and I think there is a certain group of people who look down on those who enjoy this as a sport.

    So, for me to condemn Vick so vociferously for this dog-fighting incident, is somewhat hypocritical. Like the killing of animals in every other way is so benign. Vick felt remorse, used his platform to condemn those activities and did the time. So,I think it should be forgiven.
    There is a big-time distinction between the two. I am sure slaughterhouses are disgusting. I have no problem admitting that I prefer not to see my food killed. Should everyone who eats meat be forced to see the animals killed? Not in my book. And, animals killed in slaughterhouses are not made to suffer for long lengths. When you force dogs to fight, it is far more inhumane. And, even when hunting, if you don't land a kill shot, a deer, for instance, suffers for great lengths as they try to flee for their lives, with a searing bullet in their lungs, trying desperately to breath and get away. No way is that as quick as when they slaughter a cow. And one huge point that no one has made: there is a difference between killing a dim animal vs. killing animals capable of loving you and possessing actual emotions, as dogs do. These are mostly creatures who want to love us, be our companions, and make darn good ones. And for that, we force them to fight to the death, and if they don't die, we kill them by drowning or electrocution? That's the same as slaughtering a cow for meat? Hell no, it ain't.

    And, by the way, society, in general, agrees with me. How do I know? Because there are significant animal cruelty laws in every state. If people didn't agree with me, those laws would not exist. And, also, if Vick didn't fight these charges, he probably wouldn't have served any time. The reason he got hammered was he fought tooth and nail to fight it, when, if fact, he was guilty of the crime he'd been charged for. That's why he got the book thrown at him. And before we throw a pity party for him, he was able to get back a contract worth $100 million. Let's not feel too sorry for him. He was allowed back in his profession and able to make a living none of us will ever see in our life times. I am not begrudging him for it; just saying he was allowed back in the NFL, so, society has, in general, forgiven him for his past atrocities.

  3. #143
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    Lloyd you do realize much of the information on that site is either slanted or bold faced deception right?
    Yea, that's the cry of everyone who doesn't like what something says, no matter how factual. Even if you are right, I can find dozens and dozens of sites that reveal the same information, and you will probably say they are all invalid and "not credible." I don't know you, and if you resemble this remark, but I find it humorous that some ardent Christians will claims sources "are not credible" as if the Bible itself, is beyond reproach when it comes to credibility, in a real way. It's simply not. If anything, it's one of the potential least credible source known to man. And it's chalk full of contradictions.

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecon...m#.UHBpTa5O-So

    I will probably be told that that site isn't "credible." And even if that's true, I can find dozens of other sites that detail the contradictions of the Bible. I am not looking to pee in anyone's Cheerios if they choose to think the Bible is "holy" and beyond reproach. But those same people really shouldn't be quick to make claims that other sources are "not credible" when the thing they think is pure truth was put together by men, 100s of years after Jesus was said to be alive. And it's has been edited a lot since it's inception, by MEN, who had an AGENDA. Of course, someone God it together. And when we ask how credible such a thing can be, formed in the manner it was, we are then told to "have faith" as if someone making that claim is on any kind of solid ground to question credibility. "Blind faith" is the polar opposite of credibility. No one operating on such a flawed logic model should ever accuse sources of lacking credibility.

  4. #144
    Legend hawaiiansteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawaii 5-0
    Posts
    14,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    Lloyd you do realize much of the information on that site is either slanted or bold faced deception right?
    according to who, you?

  5. #145
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by hawaiiansteel View Post
    according to who, you?
    Go over to the general forum for more on this subject.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by lloydroid View Post
    There is a big-time distinction between the two. I am sure slaughterhouses are disgusting. I have no problem admitting that I prefer not to see my food killed. Should everyone who eats meat be forced to see the animals killed? Not in my book. And, animals killed in slaughterhouses are not made to suffer for long lengths. When you force dogs to fight, it is far more inhumane. And, even when hunting, if you don't land a kill shot, a deer, for instance, suffers for great lengths as they try to flee for their lives, with a searing bullet in their lungs, trying desperately to breath and get away. No way is that as quick as when they slaughter a cow. And one huge point that no one has made: there is a difference between killing a dim animal vs. killing animals capable of loving you and possessing actual emotions, as dogs do. These are mostly creatures who want to love us, be our companions, and make darn good ones. And for that, we force them to fight to the death, and if they don't die, we kill them by drowning or electrocution? That's the same as slaughtering a cow for meat? Hell no, it ain't.
    Again, rightly or wrongly, cows are viewed as hamburgers and cowboy boots while dogs are faithful companions...

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by lloydroid View Post
    Yea, that's the cry of everyone who doesn't like what something says, no matter how factual. Even if you are right, I can find dozens and dozens of sites that reveal the same information, and you will probably say they are all invalid and "not credible." I don't know you, and if you resemble this remark, but I find it humorous that some ardent Christians will claims sources "are not credible" as if the Bible itself, is beyond reproach when it comes to credibility, in a real way. It's simply not. If anything, it's one of the potential least credible source known to man. And it's chalk full of contradictions.

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecon...m#.UHBpTa5O-So

    I will probably be told that that site isn't "credible." And even if that's true, I can find dozens of other sites that detail the contradictions of the Bible. I am not looking to pee in anyone's Cheerios if they choose to think the Bible is "holy" and beyond reproach. But those same people really shouldn't be quick to make claims that other sources are "not credible" when the thing they think is pure truth was put together by men, 100s of years after Jesus was said to be alive. And it's has been edited a lot since it's inception, by MEN, who had an AGENDA. Of course, someone God it together. And when we ask how credible such a thing can be, formed in the manner it was, we are then told to "have faith" as if someone making that claim is on any kind of solid ground to question credibility. "Blind faith" is the polar opposite of credibility. No one operating on such a flawed logic model should ever accuse sources of lacking credibility.
    go to the Horus thread. That is another Christian hater site full of misinformation. To save us time...read the link I posted in the Horus thread. As for contradictions...I agree with your assessment of editing. I have studied this for the last three years. It's interesting what happened to the Latin Vulgate...and the KJV...the politics around the translations. It's why I do my own research...make up my own mind about what I believe. I could write a book on the subject. What is nice though is technology allows us to check things in the original languages...see for ourselves.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by hawaiiansteel View Post
    according to who, you?
    Yes according to me and most who have actually done their own research on the subject.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by lloydroid View Post
    There is a big-time distinction between the two. I am sure slaughterhouses are disgusting. I have no problem admitting that I prefer not to see my food killed. Should everyone who eats meat be forced to see the animals killed? Not in my book. And, animals killed in slaughterhouses are not made to suffer for long lengths. When you force dogs to fight, it is far more inhumane. And, even when hunting, if you don't land a kill shot, a deer, for instance, suffers for great lengths as they try to flee for their lives, with a searing bullet in their lungs, trying desperately to breath and get away. No way is that as quick as when they slaughter a cow. And one huge point that no one has made: there is a difference between killing a dim animal vs. killing animals capable of loving you and possessing actual emotions, as dogs do. These are mostly creatures who want to love us, be our companions, and make darn good ones. And for that, we force them to fight to the death, and if they don't die, we kill them by drowning or electrocution? That's the same as slaughtering a cow for meat? Hell no, it ain't.

    And, by the way, society, in general, agrees with me. How do I know? Because there are significant animal cruelty laws in every state. If people didn't agree with me, those laws would not exist. And, also, if Vick didn't fight these charges, he probably wouldn't have served any time. The reason he got hammered was he fought tooth and nail to fight it, when, if fact, he was guilty of the crime he'd been charged for. That's why he got the book thrown at him. And before we throw a pity party for him, he was able to get back a contract worth $100 million. Let's not feel too sorry for him. He was allowed back in his profession and able to make a living none of us will ever see in our life times. I am not begrudging him for it; just saying he was allowed back in the NFL, so, society has, in general, forgiven him for his past atrocities.
    The one thing I would add is from what I understand, a pig is one of the most intelligent beasts on the earth. Some might say they have a higher level of intelligence than a dog and are capable of feeling emotions. I don't think you are qualified to say which animal is capable of feeling love or not. I think cows are capable of this also. Although pigs might not be forced to fight during their short lives, they are often raised and live out their lives in horrendous conditions which are tantamount to torture. This is all overlooked because, people by and large enjoy eating pork chops, bacon ribs or etc.

    To the animal being killed by drowning or electrocution is the same as being struck down in the slaughterhouse for meat, beause their lives were taken, and they loved their lives more than you realize and now they are dead in both cases.

  10. #150
    Hall of Famer fezziwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,800
    Quote Originally Posted by stopplayn View Post
    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
    To tell you the truth, I've never heard of dog fighting before I don't care what color the persons are it's wrong and all involved need to be punished. The black people on this site are the most predjucice or at least more predjudice than the white people on this site in my opinion. I've heard a couple of times from feldezz that Beaver County or north of the burgh is predjudice and how can you say that about an entire county ? What wasn't handed to you that makes all of us racist ?

    BTW, I don't hate Vick because he's black, I hate and not really sure I really hate him but, I don't like the guy because what he did to the dogs. If you want to make me out to be a racist or feel you have to further your cause well, I can't stop you.

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
  •