Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This will warm the cockles of your heart

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
    people will soon want to legally marry them [animals].
    Too late - they already do in India, sez Mr. Google (I thought I also remembered some old lady marrying her dog, so it would get her whole estate!)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
      people will soon want to legally marry them [animals].
      Too late - they already do in India, sez Mr. Google (I thought I also remembered some old lady marrying her dog, so it would get her whole estate!)
      I recently saw a BBC America program about one woman who married the Berlin Wall and another the Eiffel Tower. Even more disturbing, the spouse of the Eiffel Tower consummated her marriage with it on camera :shock:

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by jazzcyclist
        Originally posted by SQUACKEE
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by SQUACKEE
        There are hunters who love and respect animals, who hunt them.
        :!: :shock:

        so when they catch them, they pet them and kiss them?

        If we're talking paint-ball, why didn't ya say so? That would be awesome!
        Seriously there are hunters who love and respect animals, if you dont know that you know nothin about hunting. Do you teach your kids to place thier own mis-guided values squarely on every human? That would be very sad.
        I doubt that it makes very much difference to the animal being hunted that the person shooting at them loves and respects them. Dead is dead. This reminds me of the interview with Sammy "The Bull" Gravano. He talked about how he had to do hits on his close friend and his brother-in-law, and both times it tore him apart inside. :?
        Do you eat meat?
        phsstt!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by SQUACKEE
          Hunters are people and just like every large group of people there are good ones and bad ones. Because you dont share their values you have labeled them all bad, which for someone really smart seems really dumb. Hey wait, becuase you are dumb, all teachers are dumb! :P
          I'm not saying that hunters are bad people. I'm saying that I cannot condone killing for fun. If that's dumb, I don't wanna be smart! (to paraphrase one of YOUR favorite lines! )
          I am not asking you to condone it, i am asking you not to judge it.

          Look, i would hate to hunt. I couldnt kill an innocent animal enjoying nature, unless i was starving. Well i could go fishing. Thats different, that animal doesnt have hair so its ok to enjoy killing it. Do you fish Marlow?

          I know that for some hunters taking an animal is like a religious experience. Its so unfair to label it as nothin more than fun. You believe in respecting different points of view, dont you. Now you can say what about the deer, well i know you eat meat so you dont have a turkey leg to stand on.

          The hunters who go to Africa and kill so they can put a head on the wall , i dont understand. But again if the animal is not endangered i guess we should try to understand where they are coming from and not demonize them.
          phsstt!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            Look, i would hate to hunt. I couldnt kill an innocent animal enjoying nature, unless i was starving. Well i could go fishing. Thats different, that animal doesnt have hair so its ok to enjoy killing it.
            When I was a small boy, I used to go fishing with my father. At some point, when I was arund 8 or 9, I found it became repugnant to me. It seemed to me that my fish hook was causing great pain to a living creature. I couldn't stand it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
              Originally posted by jazzcyclist
              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
              There are hunters who love and respect animals, who hunt them.
              :!: :shock:

              so when they catch them, they pet them and kiss them?

              If we're talking paint-ball, why didn't ya say so? That would be awesome!
              Seriously there are hunters who love and respect animals, if you dont know that you know nothin about hunting. Do you teach your kids to place thier own mis-guided values squarely on every human? That would be very sad.
              I doubt that it makes very much difference to the animal being hunted that the person shooting at them loves and respects them. Dead is dead. This reminds me of the interview with Sammy "The Bull" Gravano. He talked about how he had to do hits on his close friend and his brother-in-law, and both times it tore him apart inside. :?
              Do you eat meat?
              Yes, I do.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                1. I am not asking you to condone it, i am asking you not to judge it.
                2. Do you fish Marlow?
                3. I know that for some hunters taking an animal is like a religious experience.
                4. Its so unfair to label it as nothin more than fun.
                5. You believe in respecting different points of view, dont you.
                6. But again if the animal is not endangered i guess we should try to understand where they are coming from and not demonize them.
                1. One and the same to me.
                2. Nope - feel the same as tandfman. I find it exceeding difficult to enjoy something where the object is to kill or harm a living creature (except them dang fire ants! I terminate them with extreme prejudice!).
                3. like Satanism?
                4. no, it's not
                5. yup, but not when it comes to hurting something (caveat - people always want to bring up the 'you eat meat' point, but as I said, I have no problem with hunting for sustenance, but I have a big problem with hunting for sport (pleasure/fun). When I was in the military I would have killed people if I had to, but I sure as heck would not have enjoyed it!
                6. I do not understand at all.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                  1. I am not asking you to condone it, i am asking you not to judge it.
                  2. Do you fish Marlow?
                  3. I know that for some hunters taking an animal is like a religious experience.
                  4. Its so unfair to label it as nothin more than fun.
                  5. You believe in respecting different points of view, dont you.
                  6. But again if the animal is not endangered i guess we should try to understand where they are coming from and not demonize them.
                  1. One and the same to me.
                  2. Nope - feel the same as tandfman. I find it exceeding difficult to enjoy something where the object is to kill or harm a living creature (except them dang fire ants! I terminate them with extreme prejudice!).
                  3. like Satanism?
                  4. no, it's not
                  5. yup, but not when it comes to hurting something (caveat - people always want to bring up the 'you eat meat' point, but as I said, I have no problem with hunting for sustenance, but I have a big problem with hunting for sport (pleasure/fun). When I was in the military I would have killed people if I had to, but I sure as heck would not have enjoyed it!
                  6. I do not understand at all.
                  Yet you eat beef. Sounds kind of hypocritical . . .

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    beef live far more wretched lives and die far more gruesome deaths than a deer shot down in the wild.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      IMO America's one culture is its diversity of them.
                      Absolutely agree... But the sensibilities of America have banned, criminalized, and shunned many "traditions" that are common and endeared by other countries. As soon as someone comes into this country they must abandon any "tradition" that is illegal or reprehensible by American standards... That's the way it is.

                      There was a migrant farm worker in CA who sold his 13 year old daughter for a case of beer and a few dollars a year or so ago... very common in his village in Mexico but he was arrested for it here. (I'm not sure how it ever played out...)

                      As I stated earlier, Vick KNEW he was breaking the law and is therefore accountable for his actions. But is it not a stretch nor is it even unreasonable to suggest that dogfighting occurs more often in a particular vein of the cultural diversity mentioned earlier than it does in others. It is also believable that he underestimated the dominant culture's love of dogs and disdain of dogfighting. Who's ever heard of someome losing 250million dollars for ANY reason let alone dogfighting? Who's ever heard of anyone going to prison for it prior to Vick? Did the one culture that you allege ever give you an indication that the potential for that degree of repercussion/punitive action existed for dogfighting? Particularly in a country where animals are used for sport? Not me.
                      I don't know exactly why, but it bothers me a bit that you keep putting the big money out there as an additional consequence that makes Vick more of a victim in this case. $250mil or $25 lost doesn't make it any more of a shame to me. His actions caused this to happen and the money he lost is completely irrelevant. OJ lost a lot of his fortune, too, even though he was found innocent of beheading his ex-wife... Should we feel inclined to feel sorry for him because of the millions he lost after being found INNOCENT?

                      Many people are charged with animal cruelty in this country and most are probably not serving big jail time. But the size and scope of the operation Vick was bankrolling and actively participating in was extreme. This was not some back-alley, street event. The size of the operation (30 some odd dogs in his kennels alone and millions of dollars, I believe) led to the severity of the punishment.

                      Also because of the intensely high profile of the accused, the public DA and Federal Gov had no choice but to throw the book at him. The public would have crucified the prosecutors had any less punishment been sought or a plea bargain settled. Is Vick a scapegoat? Maybe... but the size and scope of his operation and the fact that he lied on numerous occasions about his involvement (to the NFL, to the DA, and to the Feds) ultimately led to the severity of the sentence. The money he lost in salary and endorsements is completely irrelevant IMO.

                      Good discussion...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by bad hammy
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                        1. I am not asking you to condone it, i am asking you not to judge it.
                        2. Do you fish Marlow?
                        3. I know that for some hunters taking an animal is like a religious experience.
                        4. Its so unfair to label it as nothin more than fun.
                        5. You believe in respecting different points of view, dont you.
                        6. But again if the animal is not endangered i guess we should try to understand where they are coming from and not demonize them.
                        1. One and the same to me.
                        2. Nope - feel the same as tandfman. I find it exceeding difficult to enjoy something where the object is to kill or harm a living creature (except them dang fire ants! I terminate them with extreme prejudice!).
                        3. like Satanism?
                        4. no, it's not
                        5. yup, but not when it comes to hurting something (caveat - people always want to bring up the 'you eat meat' point, but as I said, I have no problem with hunting for sustenance, but I have a big problem with hunting for sport (pleasure/fun). When I was in the military I would have killed people if I had to, but I sure as heck would not have enjoyed it!
                        6. I do not understand at all.
                        Yet you eat beef. Sounds kind of hypocritical . . .
                        The funny thing is i pretty much agree with everything Marlow says except i dont judge hunters so i can enjoy my burger and not feel like a hypocrite. Isn't that convienent?

                        I have really enjoyed this debate, its a really interesting subject.
                        phsstt!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by gh
                          beef live far more wretched lives and die far more gruesome deaths than a deer shot down in the wild.
                          I think i agree, you mean in general?. The only thing i would add is the Cows are hit with a slug to the brain to knock them out and then their throats are cut and all the blood drains out. Correct?

                          If a deer is unlucky it will be wounded, not killed, and may run off and die a slow horrible death. Again, like most things, its complicated. Happy Memorial day everyone. :shock:
                          phsstt!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by bad hammy
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            I have no problem with hunting for sustenance, but I have a big problem with hunting for sport (pleasure/fun).
                            Yet you eat beef. Sounds kind of hypocritical . . .
                            What part of my statement did you NOT understand?

                            As for the wretched lives and deaths of beef, I agree, but my point has always been: I have a huge problem with people killing for sport (fun/pleasure)! I completely understand that man is a natural carnivore and as such, he kills animals to eat. A lion brings down a zebra and eats it. No problem. A man hunts down and kills an animal for his own sporting PLEASURE? I just don't get that.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by balzonia
                              IMO America's one culture is its diversity of them.
                              Absolutely agree... But the sensibilities of America have banned, criminalized, and shunned many "traditions" that are common and endeared by other countries. As soon as someone comes into this country they must abandon any "tradition" that is illegal or reprehensible by American standards... That's the way it is.

                              There was a migrant farm worker in CA who sold his 13 year old daughter for a case of beer and a few dollars a year or so ago... very common in his village in Mexico but he was arrested for it here. (I'm not sure how it ever played out...)

                              [quote:1221u2a7]As I stated earlier, Vick KNEW he was breaking the law and is therefore accountable for his actions. But is it not a stretch nor is it even unreasonable to suggest that dogfighting occurs more often in a particular vein of the cultural diversity mentioned earlier than it does in others. It is also believable that he underestimated the dominant culture's love of dogs and disdain of dogfighting. Who's ever heard of someome losing 250million dollars for ANY reason let alone dogfighting? Who's ever heard of anyone going to prison for it prior to Vick? Did the one culture that you allege ever give you an indication that the potential for that degree of repercussion/punitive action existed for dogfighting? Particularly in a country where animals are used for sport? Not me.
                              I don't know exactly why, but it bothers me a bit that you keep putting the big money out there as an additional consequence that makes Vick more of a victim in this case. $250mil or $25 lost doesn't make it any more of a shame to me. His actions caused this to happen and the money he lost is completely irrelevant. OJ lost a lot of his fortune, too, even though he was found innocent of beheading his ex-wife... Should we feel inclined to feel sorry for him because of the millions he lost after being found INNOCENT?

                              Many people are charged with animal cruelty in this country and most are probably not serving big jail time. But the size and scope of the operation Vick was bankrolling and actively participating in was extreme. This was not some back-alley, street event. The size of the operation (30 some odd dogs in his kennels alone and millions of dollars, I believe) led to the severity of the punishment.

                              Also because of the intensely high profile of the accused, the public DA and Federal Gov had no choice but to throw the book at him. The public would have crucified the prosecutors had any less punishment been sought or a plea bargain settled. Is Vick a scapegoat? Maybe... but the size and scope of his operation and the fact that he lied on numerous occasions about his involvement (to the NFL, to the DA, and to the Feds) ultimately led to the severity of the sentence. The money he lost in salary and endorsements is completely irrelevant IMO.

                              Good discussion...[/quote:1221u2a7]

                              Is it possible the amount of money Vick lost is irrelevant to you because it wasn't yours?

                              And why is that money not important but in the same breath you mention the amount of money that Vick was bankrolling for the dogfighting operation?

                              I mean using your barometer any amount of money would be wrong, no? Even one dollar, no?

                              The amount is important for the same reason the amount he bankrolled is important. The punishment SHOULD fit the crime.

                              And 250 mil doesn't fit the mismanagement of roadkill.

                              I'm not justifying Vick breaking the law. If you look at my first post that you responded to I wrote:

                              "Below is NOT a justification, just an observation:"

                              I don't condone his actions, but my point was that it's hypocritical for those who hunt or approve of hunting for sport to act as though dogfighting is reprehensible when they kill animals for sport too.

                              And yes, we've outlawed certain things from certain cultures-things that have persisted in this country to this day (dogfighting, cockfighting). Those peoples still practice those illegal activities with the understanding that they could face punitive actions for their behavior. But none of that changes the fact that the dominant culture controlled the punishment for the acts and those not of the dominant culture would have managed the same situation with empathy given the degree to which they could relate.

                              I believe had those in the position of judgment in the dominant culture looked at the blood on their own hands, then they wouldn't have been as quick to condemn this man in record fashion for killing the type of dogs that kill more humans than any other, and that most of them wouldn't pet, much less own.

                              Punishing to the full extent of the law (and then some) is okay when the scales of justice aren't tipped for you in the wrong direction, but for someone else.

                              I agree the discussion is a good one.
                              The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Marlow
                                Originally posted by bad hammy
                                Originally posted by Marlow
                                I have no problem with hunting for sustenance, but I have a big problem with hunting for sport (pleasure/fun).
                                Yet you eat beef. Sounds kind of hypocritical . . .
                                What part of my statement did you NOT understand?

                                As for the wretched lives and deaths of beef, I agree, but my point has always been: I have a huge problem with people killing for sport (fun/pleasure)! I completely understand that man is a natural carnivore and as such, he kills animals to eat. A lion brings down a zebra and eats it. No problem. A man hunts down and kills an animal for his own sporting PLEASURE? I just don't get that.
                                I think you do get it, Marlow, because you capped the word pleasure in your response.

                                Its the same reason Vick did what he did.

                                Right or wrong.

                                Legal or illegal.

                                It's all blood thirsty sporting pleasure.
                                The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X