nitetrain8601

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 08:13 PM) Hah, I was thinking as I was writing that post that that would be your response. I am not saying it is ok to kill anyone or anything. Personally, that is for yourself to reconcile. What I am saying is that if you train and breed an animal for thousands of years to be your companion, that is, man's closest non-human companion, yes, there is going to be a large percentage of the population who finds what Michael Vick did to be entirely horrendous. Humans are emotional creatures who develop bonds to those beings that take part in their every day lives. Dogs are one of those beings. For the most part, cows and pigs are not. Thus, the outrage you see. I actually had a pet pig in which I watched my grandparents slaughtered for food when I was eleven. I didn't like it, but didn't think about it past an hour. Hell, they had me skinning the pig and all. Very popular in Mexico actually where there are a ton of farms as in the US. And for the record, I have a dog in which I adore the crap out of and yes, I would be pissed if Mike Vick stole him and fed him to other fighting dogs. I, however, would not want him sentenced or scrutinized longer than a guy who decided to end my father's life by being under two influences and speeding.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) That's a bs response, and you know it. I'm terribly sorry that people die. And by no means am I excusing what Stallworth or any other drunk driver does or has done. But the fact remains that our society celebrates alcohol and the mass consumption of it. We are also a society that revolves around transportation in large, dangerous, fast-moving hunks of steel. As long as we are going to mix the two, bad things are going to happen and people are going to die. It's a compromise we make in order to live as we do. We can all refer to tragedies that have occurred to someone we know, someone in our family, or perhaps, even ourselves. And while I respect the fact that you have lost someone close to you because of a very poor decision someone else made, and an accident that occurred because of that poor decision, that doesn't make the point moot, nor does it change how human beings live. The only thing we can do is seek the best way in which to deal with these things, and punish those who make stupid decisions. However, the end result of a poor decision often does not equal the intent that caused that result to occur. To simply consider the end result, as opposed to the intent, as well as the other circumstances involved, is in my opinion the incorrect manner in which to punish that person or to rectify the situation. People drive vehicles in an unsafe manner all the time. Until we figure out a better way to solve that problem, we'll be dealing with injuries and deaths which occur because of that. It was a stupid decision to have a dog fighting ring knowingly. It was a stupid decision to knowingly drive drunk, high, and speed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 07:20 PM) If you review the definition of domesticated, you'll notice that it states humans adapt animals to life in intimate association with humans and to the advantage of humans. The distinction lies in the purpose the animal has been domesticated. I am not even certain if cows bred to slaughter are considered "domesticated." However, it is quite clear that cows are not trained to obey commands so that they can live amongst humans. They are not invited into their homes. They are not trained to protect their homes or their families. They do not interact with their family members. They are not trained to help the blind. They have not been trained and bred for hundreds of years to be eaten by men, but rather to be a companion to men. The reason people are outraged by what Vick has done is because dogs have been trained and bred to be such an intimate companion of humans. As for this RealGM character, his logic seems extremely flawed to me. First of all, I won't disagree that there is all kinds of crazy s*** that goes on in the rural areas of this country. Because those things do occur does not make what Michael Vick did any more or less horrendous. Secondly, I have already addressed his hunting analogy, so I won't go any further there. As for this argument people make in regards to human rights, I just don't understand it. Why does it seem logical to people that for some reason humans must reach the pinnacle of their existence before they can concern themselves with the rights of some other animal? Why must we live in a utopia before we might expend one ounce of energy on anything other than ourselves? It just doesn't follow logically to me that because we still have problems in human society that we must ignore all else until those problems are eliminated. Senseless argument in my opinion. So if they are not trained to love us and be our slaves, fk them it's okay to kill them?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) Do you not see the difference between a domesticated animal and one that is wild? Humans have worked, over the course of their history, to domesticate certain animals domesticate - to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans Humans have trained and bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to adapt them to life in intimate association with them. As a result, domesticated animals, and dogs in particular, have taken a very revered and particular place in human culture, especially in their relationship with man, that is now ingrained in our social and even moral norms. Dogs are a companion of man, an animal that lives in his home and protects it, interacts with his offspring, is fed and cared for by him, etc. For the majority of human culture, dogs are a very valuable, loved and protected companion in our social hierarchy. And yet Michael Vick chose to consciously and purposefully set up a medieval torture ring of brutality for pure entertainment and monetary gain over the course of a long period of time. Dante Stalllworth made the mistake of socializing with his friends a bit much and making the poor decision to attempt to transport himself home one evening. The situations are just not at all comparable when you consider our social and moral norms. Really? Because there are farmers who we buy our meat from which raise cows and other animals just to kill them for food. And the slaughtering of these pigs, cows, etc are not the prettiest site. And as far as one is for food, Vick did it for sport, I don't know if I could completely buy it. There are people who hunt just so they could put their head on the wall to show what they killed. This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best:

QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:38 PM) How Vick went about killing these dogs is more disgusting than him killing dogs IMO. I probably sound like a hypocrite because I dont care if people hunt or not but I do care if someone kills dogs. But shooting an animal is very different than electrocuting or slamming its body into the ground until it dies. I suppose that's true. The abusiveness that is. I think if you kill an animal, you kill an animal and it's no better or worse than killing another animal. I grew up around chicken fights and I view it on the same level.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:32 PM) And clearly he might not have. No one knows what who did what that night but Lewis gets slammed non stop while someone like Marvin Harrison gets the benefit of the doubt. He did get slammed much more than Marvin. Heck, there barely was a mention when it came to Marvin. As far as the idiot comment thing, I'm not the only one to agree with the analogy as I'm not the one who wasn't smart enough to come up with it. If you're going to resort to saying, "That's stupid, you're an idiot" or suggest that anyone is an idiot, don't bother. Just state your argument and that's it. If you don't have an argument or at least something smart enough to get me to think, then your post is worthless to anyone here reading.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) I dont see the deer hunting connection either. A hunter doesnt want to make the animal suffer for long periods of time, they intend to drop a deer immediately, they try and hit the deer in the heart to put it down immediately. A dog fight is about watching two animals tear themselves apart so you can make money. And most of the time both dogs are alive at the end of the fights, and then they get to be killed by whatever method mentioned in Vicks case. A hunter takes down a deer also to control population, since there are not many natural predators of deer that can effectively control a population, especially in areas like suburban Chicagoland. If you disagree with hunting on principle, then what I am saying wont make any sense and you will disagree with it anyways. If you are an active hunter or at least respect the sport of hunting deer, then you might agree with this. And to clarify my position Nite, I also believe Vick has paid his debt to society and career, and this following him 6 games into the season is pretty ridiculous. However, the guy did far more than just kill dogs, which was my earlier point. He had quite the sleazy operation going on, and the people he hung out with were not quality people to have in his life. I understand what your saying and that's my point in the long run. Stop crucifying the guy already. He did his debt, and now let's see if he could resurrect it the same way we're going to see if Dante is. Let's not give this guy more crap, especially when the other guys who have done worse don't get much pub at all. Now we may disagree on the dogfighting/hunting thing, but I just want people to stop giving Vick so much attention for something that's been said and done, and the sentence is over.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) Go watch a dogfight in person and make the same comparisons. Go watch a human lose his life due to recklessness and make your same opinions. There's a double standard going on in America. Let's kill animals for food. Let's kill animals for sport. Whoa whoa whoa, don't touch the dogs you inhumane bastard! Please.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) If your buddies fight dogs, and you give them money to fight dogs, and provide dogs to them to fight other dogs, are you guilty for financing a dog fighting ring? Well, Michael Vick was. I saw it happen right in front of my eyes. Why do you keep speaking on Vicks behalf like you know who he is and what happened here? You think he didnt know his buddies were dealing dope out of his own house? The same guy who failed a drug test before going to prison didnt know that the tons of cash he was giving these morons wasnt going to drugs? Whatever nite I didn't say he's not guilty of the dogfighting ring. I don't think I've ever implied as much either. And honestly, the guy has several houses, or at least had. You think he'd actually live in the house the whole dogfighting ring was going down in? Hell no. He was living in his own mansion "handling his business". And yeah, there may have been a weed connect for him amongst his friends. I'm pretty sure he didn't know where all his money was going. Not many people making that much money would. I sure as hell wouldn't. So honestly, I don't believe he knew his money was going to drug beyond a recreational, go get me a dimebag, you should have money for it already, type of deal. Now financing the dog ring, he probably did do. My whole thing is this. The guy lost his contract, got suspended without pay from his job, got thrown in jail, did his time there and people still want to crucify him saying he didn't do nearly enough time for entertaining himself with dogfighting. When Dante Stallworth sped down the lanes high and drunk killing a man. If that's the case, let's crucify any hunter out there including our Mark Buehrle and AJ Pierzynski. Wait, they're hunting deer, so it doesn't count, right guys?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) Oh, right...I suppose Vick's actions would be more on par with those of Leonard Little, since you weren't a fan of his when he got drafted... I didn't know Leonard Little's story all that well, so I can't comment on him. If he killed a human, he's the same as Stallworth. If he killed dogs or animals, I hope he did his sentence and let's move on. The Buehrle hunting analogy is probably the best thought of analogy up here.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) So it doesnt matter that he was paying them money and they were financing a drug ring out of his house that he also was running a dog fighting ring out of? He was the kingpin of this operation. Sorry If your mother gives you money, and you use the money to finance drugs so you can re-sell them and you get caught for dealing drugs, is your mom as guilty as you for operating a drug ring if she didn't know about it? And don't say it's unrealistic because it is very realistic. I've seen it happen with my own eyes for a lot of friends.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) The drug ring was the buddies that were busted. Taylor and all of those guys. And all of them were existing on Vicks dime If they had a drug ring, they had a drug ring. Don't say it was Vick's fault. He had too much money to care about drug dealing. The dog fighting had to do moreso with sport and finding something for him to do.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) I think Vick's treatment is some what hypocritical. First of all, im not sure where this "drug" ring idea is coming from. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549 I see no mention of vick and drug ring, and I really doubt that the federal govt would not even charge him with those crimes. But Im not an expert on the subject, so I would be interested to see where its coming from. Secondly in regards to vick "ruthlessly killing animals", should Mark Buehrle be suspended from baseball for "ruthlessly killing" deers and other animals when he hunts? Its hypocritical to value some animals more than other animals, so if we are really outraged by the barbaric acts of killing animals, we should be outraged equally by all those who hunt and kill animals. Why do they hunt? For sport and entertainment purposes. Why did vick have dogs fight? For sport and entertainment purposes. I dont think what vick did is right, but I certainly do not think that killing an animal (regardless of how heinous) could ever rise to the level of killing a human. And for everyone who is saying "Oh Stallworth made a mistake, weve all driven drunk" maybe thats true. but if vick said that "oh everyone I know dog fights, it was just a mistake" would it really matter? The answer is no. Stallworth has millions of dollars and access to a program called safe ride where a NFL player can get a ride at any time. He killed a man because he just didnt care about following the law. THANK YOU! Preach man. And just to add, no we have not all driven drunk. I for one have never driven drunk and if everyone in my circle is drunk, we take the public transportation. So please, do not try to group everyone by saying culture.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:59 AM) Obviously you have not owned too many dogs in your life... What Vick did is despicable. I echo what an earlier poster who claimed what Stallworth did was not nearly as bad. Tens of thousands of people drive intoxicated in this country every night. Our culture practically encourages it. And while I am not in any means condoning what Stallworth did, there are plenty among us who commit the same crime as he, but have been lucky enough to avoid the circumstances that have ruined his life. What he did was probably the result of a few hours of very poor judgment - the same poor judgment that so many others are giuilty of. And yet what Vick did was far more gruesome. Something that required premeditation, an execution of a business plan, etc. I'm not going to claim he hasn't served his time; he obviously has paid an extraordinary price for his crimes. But to claim that because his victims were animals, his actions were somehow far lower on the spectrum of despicable acts than what Stallworth did, because his victim was a human being, simply does not compute to me. I wish him well, despite the fact that I would love hang tbones from every orifice of his body and let a pack of rabid wolves tear him to pieces. I'm sure if your wife was ran over by a drunk and high driver who shouldn't have been driving at all, and was struck and killed, you would not even think twice about Dante's actions being much worse. Your argument that it happens everyday is stupid IMO. Humans die every day, yes. So do dogs die everyday. We kills animals for food. Animals die a lot more than humans on a daily basis. Do we care about animals? Yes, but i'm sure if your dog died, you'd be less hurt about it then your wife. Vick's actions aren't anywhere near that of Dante's and I was a way bigger fan of Stallworth's as I followed him when he got drafted by the Saints.

First off, love the blog. I've been reading almost everything in there since it started. Secondly, I think Wagner would be a great addition to a pen who's only worthwhile pen option is Thornton. The rest of our bullpen, including Jenks, is very Jekyll & Hyde.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 07:32 PM) He also lost games because teams stuffed his running attempts and he was going to depend on that because he was inconsistent as a passer. When teams were able to contain his running ability, the Falcons had no chance. And not many teams stopped his running ability. And again, he did pass the ball and made Alge Crumpler some money. You would think this guy was on the Patriots and failed to take them past 5 wins the way you talk about him.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) I can't wait to boo his a** when they come to Chicago on November 22nd on SNF. I'll cheer him just because I don't like the Bears.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) In the 4 years that Vick was healthy and starting full-time, the Falcons went 35-28-1. That's an average of a 9-7 record. And during those seasons, the defense was pretty damn solid too. Michael Vick was never a franchise QB, just a QB who could run around and throw the ball 70 yards. ... Donte Stallworth suspended the full season. Vick won many games with his feet, and the ability to throw the ball. Was he a Brad Johnson? No, but he could throw the ball 70 yards without setting his feet. And he really never had any receivers and made Alge Crumpler look good. I think he may have have Roddy White for one year before hitting the slammer. The playoff game against the Packers, he won on his own. Hell, he carried that team way farther than they should ever have gone. And Stallworth getting off as easy as he did is a joke. The guy killed a man, and drove drunk. If it were you or me, we'd be locked up and the key close to being thrown away. Instead, he gets 29 days in jail and a one year ban. But yet Mike Vick got much worse for dogs.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) That makes no sense. I don't care where they were . The end of the season is the only thing that matters, 83 wins. It matters a ton. It means they showed the ability to dominate during the course of the season and they just faltered at the end. The Sox have not shown that ability at all.

In it, to win it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 03:36 AM) He is going to HAVE to be a backup QB if he wants to continue playing the position. No team is suddenly going to make a guy who has been out of the game for 2 years who was never a good actual QB to begin with a starter during the 3rd week of training camp. He won his teams at the QB position. His most valuable position is that of a QB. Was he a good fantasy Qb? No, but I think it is definitely overstated when people say he was never actually good.

The thing with this team is, I think we already saw it peak with the Buehrle performance. Our offense and defense and pitching were clicking at once during about a 3-5 week span and we won and some guys, pretty easily. But this whole year, our hitting hasn't gotten in sync with the pitching which is caused by our sometimes poor defense as well. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see this team currently constructed doing anything this year or next.

Wow we got lucky.

We are destined to lose this game.