Clinton Portis defends dog fighting

[Turbodog 0]

Before it dies a cow is well fed, well taken care of and so on. They are not beaten, malnourished, fed a bunch of crap...and so on.

 

As others have said, your comparison is a bit off base.

 

 

So veal should be outlawed?

[Dr. Octopus 0]

You are forcing your morals on someone else, when their actions have no impact on you. It isn't right.

 

 

So if some one has no problem morally with rape, the that's ok? Newsflash this isn't a moral issu, its a LEGAL issue. Vick doesn't have the right to operate a dog fighting ring on his property just like he doesn't have a right to rape some one on his own property.

[famousb 11]

You are forcing your morals on someone else, when their actions have no impact on you. It isn't right.

 

well why do my morals have to prevent me from doing harm to other people then? Humans are just animals too... killing an idiot like you would bring me tons of enjoyment, but society prevents me from doing that...

[MDC 7,484]

Like i said, you could get nutrition from soy and wheat. You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you weren't a complete hypocrit, you would value a cow's life as much as fido's and not want it dying for your enjoyment either.

 

1) You need to eat to survive

2) Man has always eaten meat - it's part of the natural order

3) There are laws against torturing even livestock

4) You are a total focking idiot

 

HTH.

[Jeremy 0]

Since he claims to know where to find a dog fight, I tend to assume he's been to such an event. I just don't understand how anyone finds that kind of thing entertaining. How does a grown adult not find this disgusting?

[Sho Nuff 720]

So veal should be outlawed?

 

So a cow that is killed early is not well fed or well taken care of?

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Since he claims to know where to find a dog fight, I tend to assume he's been to such an event. I just don't understand how anyone finds that kind of thing entertaining. How does a grown adult not find this disgusting?

 

Depends on the culture. Ever go to a bullfight? A real bullfight?

[famousb 11]

Depends on the culture. Ever go to a bullfight? A real bullfight?

 

i have not, but i also am one that loves the clips of when the matador gets gored, or the one when the bull actually jumped into the stands and started stomping people - that was great footage of people getting what they deserve...

i also like watching bull riding strictly for when the rider gets thrown and trampled on... all those poosays had to start wearing protective gear though... where's the bull's protective gear?

[Jeremy 0]

Depends on the culture. Ever go to a bullfight? A real bullfight?

 

Can't say that I have.

 

I just don't understand how someone can be so completely void of empathy. I watched my children at a very young age, show empathy for another child crying. It makes them sad to see another child in pain. I didn't teach them to feel that way. It was just there as part of their makeup. It's something you're born with. For people involved in these activities, I think that part of their brain must be missing or something. Or maybe something in their upbringing caused that part of them to die.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

i have not, but i also am one that loves the clips of when the matador gets gored, or the one when the bull actually jumped into the stands and started stomping people - that was great footage of people getting what they deserve...

 

bullfights suck. every bull dies. the matador has to be crappy to get gored b/c the bull already has 5 or 6 spears in him before there's ever a chance for him to get to the matador. by the time there's ever any real "bull fighting" the bull is sucking for air and has lost most of it's blood. it's pretty pathetic.

[Turbodog 0]

So a cow that is killed early is not well fed or well taken care of?

 

Veal calves are not well fed and not well taken care of. Do some research.

 

And you just don't understand. You can't compare this to rape or murder because another citizens rights are being impeded in those cases. In the case of dog fighting, a person is only damaging their own property. You may think it is obscene, as do I, but they are doing nothing to infringe on my rights or my happiness so they should be able to do as they please.

 

I know its illegal, I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal. Take your emotions out of the equation and think rationally.

[FantasyBowl33 0]

Veal calves are not well fed and not well taken care of. Do some research.

 

And you just don't understand. You can't compare this to rape or murder because another citizens rights are being impeded in those cases. In the case of dog fighting, a person is only damaging their own property. You may think it is obscene, as do I, but they are doing nothing to infringe on my rights or my happiness so they should be able to do as they please.

 

I know its illegal, I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal. Take your emotions out of the equation and think rationally.

So the fact that they are training dogs (their "property") to be dangerous and attack doesn't concern you?

 

I bet I'm not the only one here that hopes you walk by the house of a "Dog fighting" owner who just haphazardly left the dogs gate open, and thus rips your limb off. We'll see if it infringes on your rights or happiness then.

[Turbodog 0]

So the fact that they are training dogs (their "property") to be dangerous and attack doesn't concern you?

 

I bet I'm not the only one here that hopes you walk by the house of a "Dog fighting" owner who just haphazardly left the dogs gate open, and thus rips your limb off.

.

 

People own all kinds of property that can be dangerous if not handled correctly. So i guess if I believe we should all have the right to own guns, you would hope someone haphazardly lets it go off while cleaning it and shoots me in the head.

 

Nice logic.

 

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

[cinciman7 2]

"I know a lot of back roads that got the dog fight if you want to go see it."

[The Next Generation 10]

.

 

People own all kinds of property that can be dangerous if not handled correctly. So i guess if I believe we should all have the right to own guns, you would hope someone haphazardly lets it go off while cleaning it and shoots me in the head.

 

Nice logic.

 

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

 

I think you've infringed on a lot of people's happiness in this thread. Man, are they ever angry at you!

 

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you intellectually, but I still think that it should be a crime. Dogs, even if characterized as property, are much more than that in our society...man's best friend and all...so, maybe they should be reclassified as more than just property?

[FantasyBowl33 0]

.

 

People own all kinds of property that can be dangerous if not handled correctly. So i guess if I believe we should all have the right to own guns, you would hope someone haphazardly lets it go off while cleaning it and shoots me in the head.

 

Nice logic.

 

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

Which of those "properties" have their own mind and have been trained to kill on their own?

[tt1010 0]

.

 

People own all kinds of property that can be dangerous if not handled correctly. So i guess if I believe we should all have the right to own guns, you would hope someone haphazardly lets it go off while cleaning it and shoots me in the head.

 

Nice logic.

 

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

 

A gun is not inherently dangerous. If a gun is left on the table, that gun will remain there. There is no possible way that gun will hop up, ###### back, and put a bullet in the next person who enters the room.

 

There is no law against cruelty to cars. Yet cars are property, so why is that? Because cars can not feel - cars are not born, cars do not die.

 

It is a travesty that pets are considered property and that those with just enough intelligence to be dangerous (read: you, Turbodog) can not detach themselves from the strict interpretation of a non-empathetic law and make the distinction between killing for entertainment and killing for sustenance.

[DrJ 0]

Before it dies a cow is well fed, well taken care of and so on.

 

I'm not saying his comparison is very good, but you don't seriously believe this, do you?

[famousb 11]

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

my happiness entails all dogs being treated in a loving, caring manner, and never having to fight each other for the amusement of someone stupid fock.

therefore, by default of your own statement, dog fighting should be illegal because it infringes upon my happiness.

 

thanks, have a nice day.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I'm not saying his comparison is very good, but you don't seriously believe this, do you?

 

Compared to a dog raised to fight and die...yes, I do believe this...having several family members who have had dairy and beef cattle.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

"Before it dies a cow is well fed, well taken care of and so on."

 

I'm not saying his comparison is very good, but you don't seriously believe this, do you?

 

The cow is give lots of soy and oats to fatten it up.....that's why it tastes so damn good.

[surferskin 30]

guys, guys...hold up. is it possible that he meant "dawg fightin" instead of "dog" (canine) fighting? big difference in the hood.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

.

 

People own all kinds of property that can be dangerous if not handled correctly. So i guess if I believe we should all have the right to own guns, you would hope someone haphazardly lets it go off while cleaning it and shoots me in the head.

 

Nice logic.

 

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

 

 

There is a such thing as a "natural law", making illegal things that are just inherently wrong by their nature. You liken dog fighting to eating steak, if you do not see the diifference between killing for amusement and the natural food chain then I pity you.

 

Also you argue that this dog fighting operation does not infringe on the rights of others and should terefore be legal. Would you like to live next door to a dog fighting operation? Do you think that there may be some danger in this activity to the community at large? Perhaps in addition to having dangerous "wild dogs" possibly stray onto your property the "sport" also attracts a seedy element into a neighborhood. So I guess a crack house would be ok then also in your book, correct?

 

Perhaps the Commonwealth is protecting the right to pursue happiness. The happiness of Vick's neighbors not to mention the happiness of dog lovers, or just decent human beings.

[Turbodog 0]

There is a such thing as a "natural law", making illegal things that are just inherently wrong by their nature. You liken dog fighting to eating steak, if you do not see the diifference between killing for amusement and the natural food chain then I pity you.

 

Also you argue that this dog fighting operation does not infringe on the rights of others and should terefore be legal. Would you like to live next door to a dog fighting operation? Do you think that there may be some danger in this activity to the community at large? Perhaps in addition to having dangerous "wild dogs" possibly stray onto your property the "sport" also attracts a seedy element into a neighborhood. So I guess a crack house would be ok then also in your book, correct?

 

Perhaps the Commonwealth is protecting the right to pursue happiness. The happiness of Vick's neighbors not to mention the happiness of dog lovers, or just decent human beings.

 

It doesn't matter if I want to live next to it. If I dont want to live near someone, I can move. If a group of neighbors want to organize and insure that people dont start these kinds of things in their neighborhood, they can add it to a homeowner's association bylaw. The things is, their may be some people who WOULD like to live near dog fighting. Their is obviously a market for it, because they are doing it.

 

You don't understand that just because you and I find this type of behavior disgusting, that does not mean it should be illegal. An individual's rights to their own happiness must be protected. That is what america is all about. None of your arguments hold water.

[famousb 11]

An individual's rights to their own happiness must be protected. That is what america is all about. None of your arguments hold water.

i'm repeating myself, since you ignored it the first time...

 

to quote you:

This is America, you are supposed to be free to pursue your happiness, whatever that may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others.

 

my happiness entails all dogs being treated in a loving, caring manner, and never having to fight each other for the amusement of someone stupid fock.

therefore, by default of your own statement, dog fighting should be illegal because it infringes upon my happiness.

 

thanks, have a nice day.

[swamp dog 0]

so has pac man come out yet defended the slapping around of strippers?

[famousb 11]

didn't you know, strippers and hookers aren't people... they're the property of their pimps... therefore you can treat them however you like.

[Turbodog 0]

i'm repeating myself, since you ignored it the first time...

 

to quote you:

my happiness entails all dogs being treated in a loving, caring manner, and never having to fight each other for the amusement of someone stupid fock.

therefore, by default of your own statement, dog fighting should be illegal because it infringes upon my happiness.

 

thanks, have a nice day.

 

i ignored you the first time because becuase your argument didn't deserve consideration. but if you insist on repeating that drivel.

 

you conveniently left out the "pursuit" part. if you need well treated animals to be happy. pursue it. treat your animals well. start an organization, raise "awareness" and communication about the issue. whatever you think will help. maybe if you convince everyone, the market will die, and dog fighting will cease. congrats you win!

 

but for your happiness to be absolute you are forcing actions on other people, which you have no right to do.

 

i would say nice try, but it really wasn't a nice try.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

That is what america is all about. None of your arguments hold water.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if I want to live next to it. If I dont want to live near someone, I can move. If a group of neighbors want to organize and insure that people dont start these kinds of things in their neighborhood, they can add it to a homeowner's association bylaw. The things is, their may be some people who WOULD like to live near dog fighting. Their is obviously a market for it, because they are doing it.

 

You don't understand that just because you and I find this type of behavior disgusting, that does not mean it should be illegal. An individual's rights to their own happiness must be protected. That is what america is all about. None of your arguments hold water.

 

So the government doesn't have the right to protect the greater good?

 

People should just move because some one moves next to them and starts a dangerous and abhornet activity. Your logic is incredibly circular. You concern your self with the happiness of the "criminals" but the neighbors can just move if they don't like it. Perhaps there are some people who would like to hold satanic murders, I guess people should just avoid those people if they don't want to be murdered in a ceremony.

 

There is also a market for kiddie porn and nuclear weapons. Laws exist to protect the greater good. Yes people like dog fighting, most see it as barbaric and dangerous. What about crackhouses? Should they be allowed to exist? By your logic the neighbors could move if they don't like it and who are the pushers and junkies really hurting, they deserve the right to be happy.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

you conveniently left out the "pursuit" part. if you need well treated animals to be happy. pursue it. treat your animals well. start an organization, raise "awareness" and communication about the issue. whatever you think will help. maybe if you convince everyone, the market will die, and dog fighting will cease. congrats you win!

 

but for your happiness to be absolute you are forcing actions on other people, which you have no right to do.

 

you sound as if you are a conservative and a capitalist. less government control, let the people decide what's okay and what isn't. i'm not going to say those are poor choices but we don't live in a utopian society and the law against dogfighting was probably created for many good reasons. there must be laws and regulations because otherwise someone will find a way to cheat.

[MDC 7,484]

It doesn't matter if I want to live next to it. If I dont want to live near someone, I can move. If a group of neighbors want to organize and insure that people dont start these kinds of things in their neighborhood, they can add it to a homeowner's association bylaw. The things is, their may be some people who WOULD like to live near dog fighting. Their is obviously a market for it, because they are doing it.

 

You don't understand that just because you and I find this type of behavior disgusting, that does not mean it should be illegal. An individual's rights to their own happiness must be protected. That is what america is all about. None of your arguments hold water.

 

Dear Lord you are focking stupid.

 

Dogfighting is unnecessary, sadistic and cruel. That's why it's illegal, end of story. Your right to happiness ends when it infringes on the rights of an animal and the rights of a society that doesn't condone barbaric behavior. This is no different than any other law. Driving 100 mph on the left side of the road might make me happy but it's outlawed because it endangers other drivers. Likewise, it may be fun for you to watch two defenseless animals kill each other but you are infringing on the rights of those dogs - and even though they may be your property the state puts limits on what you can do with your own pets.

 

Thank God we have laws to protect animals from sick, deranged focks like you.

[IN$TANT REPAY 11]

people fighting > dog fighting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Next Generation 10]

Dear Lord you are focking stupid.

 

Thank God we have laws to protect animals from sick, deranged focks like you.

 

I think you're the one being a little dim, here. This guy is AGREEING with you that dog fighting is sick and deranged. However, he feels that since dogs are categorized as "property" that there shouldn't be any laws preventing you from doing what you want to your own property. NO WHERE has this guy condoned dog fighting.

 

I happen to think it should be illegal regardless of their status as "property". He doesn't. That doesn't make him sick or stupid or deserving of some ill will. He just has a different opinion. That's all it is.

 

Sheesh...chill people...

[Turbodog 0]

Dear Lord you are focking stupid.

 

Dogfighting is unnecessary, sadistic and cruel. That's why it's illegal, end of story. Your right to happiness ends when it infringes on the rights of an animal and the rights of a society that doesn't condone barbaric behavior. This is no different than any other law. Driving 100 mph on the left side of the road might make me happy but it's outlawed because it endangers other drivers. Likewise, it may be fun for you to watch two defenseless animals kill each other but you are infringing on the rights of those dogs - and even though they may be your property the state puts limits on what you can do with your own pets.

 

Thank God we have laws to protect animals from sick, deranged focks like you.

 

i have said many times in this thread, that i would never treat an animal in this way. never even consider it, nor will i raise my children to treat animals in this way. so quit trying to make me out to be some barbarian. you are letting your emotions cloud your thinking.

 

For your specific example, you drive on public property, so you are bound to public regulation. Would you want it to be illegal to drive 100mph if you owned a few hundred acres and built your own track? So no NASCAR then right?

 

There is a reason none of you can rationally argue for the illegalization of dog fighting, other then to push your morals on others. And that's because there isn't one. This country was founded on freedom to do as you wish.

 

Are there no game hunters? No one has a duck mounted on their wall? That could be considered cruel, to kill an animal for sport. Would you like a majority of people be able to tell you that was illegal when it impedes on none of their rights? No you wouldnt. The only reason you want this to be illegal is because it abhors you. As it does me. But it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. Neither is it yours our our governments.

[wiffleball 4,790]

There is a reason none of you can rationally argue for the illegalization of dog fighting, other then to push your morals on others. And that's because there isn't one. This country was founded on freedom to do as you wish.

 

Actually, it wasn't. If it were, the Constitution and the BOR would have been a hell of a lot shorter. This country was based on a system of laws. Laws enacted by democratically elected officials that all members of society are required to abide by regardless of their personal views on a particular law itself.

 

The law was passed by democraticaly elected officials. Vick has to follow the law. He doesn't get to rise above it because he doesn't agree with it. Thinking so is fairly childish.

[EAwer 1]

i wrote an essay on animal rights and ppl shudnt jump to conclusions. many intelligent philosophers argue that dogs do not have a moral standing near that of human beings and therefore humans should be allowed to fight them as property.

[The Next Generation 10]

The law was passed by democraticaly elected officials. Vick has to follow the law. He doesn't get to rise above it because he doesn't agree with it. Thinking so is fairly childish.

 

He's not saying Vick shouldn't have to abide by the law, he's saying it shouldn't be a law to begin with. He's never advocated that breaking the law is OK.

[wiffleball 4,790]

many intelligent philosophers argue that dogs do not have a moral standing near that of human beings and therefore humans should be allowed to fight them as property.

 

Many 'intelligent philosophers' of the day - including most of our Founding Fathers - believed that people like Mike Viick were morally and intellectually inferior and therefore, humans should be allowed to own them as property.

 

[Dr. Octopus 0]

i have said many times in this thread, that i would never treat an animal in this way. never even consider it, nor will i raise my children to treat animals in this way. so quit trying to make me out to be some barbarian. you are letting your emotions cloud your thinking.

 

For your specific example, you drive on public property, so you are bound to public regulation. Would you want it to be illegal to drive 100mph if you owned a few hundred acres and built your own track? So no NASCAR then right?

 

There is a reason none of you can rationally argue for the illegalization of dog fighting, other then to push your morals on others. And that's because there isn't one. This country was founded on freedom to do as you wish.

 

Are there no game hunters? No one has a duck mounted on their wall? That could be considered cruel, to kill an animal for sport. Would you like a majority of people be able to tell you that was illegal when it impedes on none of their rights? No you wouldnt. The only reason you want this to be illegal is because it abhors you. As it does me. But it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. Neither is it yours our our governments.

 

You ignore all the arguments that counter your views and then act as if you're the only one thinking logically. Hunting does not equal dog fighting, for one thing. The animals in question have a chance to escape they are in their natural environmant. Hunting is also regulated by state agencies (they do control things like how many kills, size or age of the kills) and serves the prusose of controlling the animal population. So their are laws associated with hunting.

 

I have argued for the illegalization of dog fighting but you ignore and spout the old old diatribe about "happiness". You are infrigning on other's rights and happiness by allowing dog fighting to take place. Once again, there is danger inolved in both the breeding, training and keeping of dangerous animals on your property (Can you keep a tiger on your property, is that your right?) and the element the activity attracts to a neighbor hood. You answer people can move. So a whole neighborhood should be uprooted and forced move if people want to pusruse their happiness by dodg fighting? The happiness of those people is not improtant to you?

Laws are passed to protect the masses. Here the Commonwealth of Virginia has enacted such a lw prohibiting dog fighting to protect the masses.

 

Also you are failing to relaize that there are animal cruelty laws on the book. There are many reasons why these laws are passed. People don't get tp pick and choose laws because it infinges on their happiness, they live in a society. This country is based on laws despite your incessant insisting that its based on "pursuit of happiness."

[wiffleball 4,790]

He's not saying Vick shouldn't have to abide by the law, he's saying it shouldn't be a law to begin with. He's never advocated that breaking the law is OK.

 

He also said:

 

This country was founded on freedom to do as you wish.

 

...Which as I said, is patently untrue. Any reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights tells us that is untrue. People cherry-pick the 3 word "pursuit of hapiness" bit and ignore that our country was built on rule of law.

 

Every jackass these days knows their "rights", but go flat out mute when quizzed on their "responsibilities".

 

If Vick (or Turbo) felt so strongly, they should've argued against the law. Not just break it because they feel it's 'bad law that never should have been passed in the first place'.