LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) For all you dog lovers out there, great MLB.com piece on MB & his wife Oh, and this quote has mysteriously disappeared from the article... MLB.com reports: White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle and his wife Jamie, who started a "Sox for Strays" program that hosts local animal rescue groups during the season, recognize that the Eagles' Michael Vick paid for his dogfighting crimes by serving a prison sentence. But that doesn't mean all is forgiven. "He had a great year and a great comeback, but there were times where we watched the game and I know it's bad to say, but there were times where we hope he gets hurt," Mark Buehrle said. "Everything you've done to these dogs, something bad needs to happen to these guys." Edited February 9, 2011 by LittleHurt05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo880 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 05:30 PM) For all you dog lovers out there, great MLB.com piece on MB & his wife Oh, and this quote has mysteriously disappeared from the article... referring to vick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 QUOTE (kevo880 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) referring to vick? yeah, just added the rest of that article mentioning it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 07:30 PM) For all you dog lovers out there, great MLB.com piece on MB & his wife Oh, and this quote has mysteriously disappeared from the article... I don't think I want to see anyone hurt, exactly, but right on! Finally, an athlete who doesn't confuse on-the-field accomplishment with personal redemption! Edited February 10, 2011 by ScottyDo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxrwhite Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Animal lover and avid hunter, hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 06:30 PM) For all you dog lovers out there, great MLB.com piece on MB & his wife Oh, and this quote has mysteriously disappeared from the article... Good for Mark. I completely agree w/ him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (since56 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 07:48 PM) Animal lover and avid hunter, hmmm. Brilliant observation. Given that hunters only hunt because they're angry at the animals they're shooting at, I am also confused by this hypocritical stance of his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Always thought Mark was a classy guy. This comment was far from that. Should've just kept it to himself. Vick paid his debt to society, regardless of what you think of the crime. Does Mark get as mad about a Ray Lewis or a Donte Stallworth, athletes who killed people? I'd bet not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Ron @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) Always thought Mark was a classy guy. This comment was far from that. Should've just kept it to himself. Vick paid his debt to society, regardless of what you think of the crime. Does Mark get as mad about a Ray Lewis or a Donte Stallworth, athletes who killed people? I'd bet not. Animals are (for the most part) defenseless, humans are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 08:19 PM) Animals are (for the most part) defenseless, humans are not. Yep, humans have the ability to defend themselves against bullets and motor vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 10:37 PM) Yep, humans have the ability to defend themselves against bullets and motor vehicles. I was waiting for this. If someone ran over a dog, most people would not think the driver is a monster. But if a person runs over a human, they are going to get a lot of s*** for that. But if you are raising humans in terrible conditions, keeping them locked up, and then force the humans to fight eachother to the death and kill off the weak or injured ones, then I am pretty sure you are going to see just as much, if not MORE hate than the people who do the same things to dogs. Apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Ron @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) Always thought Mark was a classy guy. This comment was far from that. Should've just kept it to himself. Vick paid his debt to society, regardless of what you think of the crime. Does Mark get as mad about a Ray Lewis or a Donte Stallworth, athletes who killed people? I'd bet not. Mark is a class guy, he was probably asked about Vick and he said what was on his mind. If he was asked about Stallworth or Lewis, he might have said the same freakin thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Is this turning into a Filibuster thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Not sure I agree with MB here. While I don't condone what Vick did in the past, he served his time for the crime. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb-319165 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Should probably just have not said anything. Comes off even worse because of his pro-hunting stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 10:36 PM) I was waiting for this. If someone ran over a dog, most people would not think the driver is a monster. But if a person runs over a human, they are going to get a lot of s*** for that. But if you are raising humans in terrible conditions, keeping them locked up, and then force the humans to fight eachother to the death and kill off the weak or injured ones, then I am pretty sure you are going to see just as much, if not MORE hate than the people who do the same things to dogs. Apples and oranges. I agree with you mostly, in terms of the overall idea. Animals are actually quite a bit more intelligent than human beings give them credit for, and are far more capable of defending themselves (or evading danger) than many human beings are, if you think about it. Many people will stand there and take a beating because they are afraid to fight back, or will refuse to arm themselves because they convince themselves that some of the ridiculousness they hear is true, like violence is wrong/bad/uncalled for in "civilized" society, etc. Most animals OTOH can at least play dead to try to confuse prey, or will arm themselves with some kind of unique poison, escape capability, claws/teeth/whipping or breakable tail, etc. The difference - and where dogs come in - is that dogs are animals bred to serve human beings and provide unconditional love generations removed from the wild and existing in breeds that didn't even exist naturally, not wild animals conditioned by the harshness of nature. Dogs trust their abusers and follow the orders of their abusers because their abusers feed them and at least appear to keep them safe. What Vick did, to me, is sick, plain and simple. He took a trusting, intelligent lifeform bred to serve man and he used his higher intellect to deceive the animal into maiming itself for its master, the only benefits being gambling monies, and then when the animal was useless he destroyed it in a fashion that (at least I would hope) makes people want to puke. Most people are going to be naturally anthropocentric in the way they think, and that's what law is based on. The law says what Vick did was wrong, but really not all that wrong, basically akin to selling some coke, vandalising a neighbor's property, stealing some money, etc. According to law, what Vick did is perfectly acceptable in other areas of the world, and at least not all that atrocious here. But you're not supposed to adjust your own concept of what is right based upon what the justice system says. Law isn't the issue here, morality is, which is actually a separate thing, and it boggles my mind when people constantly try to override the moral understanding of others with some remark about Vick "doing his time," or "atoning," or whatever. All that s*** relates to law, not individual morality - even an apology means absolutely nothing in this world. So as a purely moral issue, no, in my eyes Vick doesn't at all deserve to be let off the hook, no matter what the legal system says. The moral punishment for his crimes, which cannot be enforced by any legal system, is that Vick must go through the rest of his life being hated like cancer by a wide swath of humanity for being the scum he is. MB was nice about what he said. Perfectly nice. And he is in no way wrong for saying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 11:18 PM) Should probably just have not said anything. Comes off even worse because of his pro-hunting stance. What is wrong with hunting? What is wrong with taking the life of another animal responsibly after allowing it to live a natural life? What is wrong about buying licenses that fund conservation efforts? What is wrong with attempting to control animal populations which have been allowed to run rampant thanks to deforestation and the culling of natural predators? Do you know the havoc deer can wreak upon an environment? And do you know how factory farms operate? The nutritional deficiencies vegans just beg for? What soy actually is, and what it's milk has done to children? Do you know what life is, and that death is simply a part of it? That death is required for life? Yeah, Mark really comes off as a douche here, caring about dogs and having the sac to appreciate where his meat comes from, rather than just picking it up out of the store all the time and ignoring where it came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gooch Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 11:40 PM) What is wrong with hunting? What is wrong with taking the life of another animal responsibly after allowing it to live a natural life? What is wrong about buying licenses that fund conservation efforts? What is wrong with attempting to control animal populations which have been allowed to run rampant thanks to deforestation and the culling of natural predators? Do you know the havoc deer can wreak upon an environment? And do you know how factory farms operate? The nutritional deficiencies vegans just beg for? What soy actually is, and what it's milk has done to children? Do you know what life is, and that death is simply a part of it? That death is required for life? Yeah, Mark really comes off as a douche here, caring about dogs and having the sac to appreciate where his meat comes from, rather than just picking it up out of the store all the time and ignoring where it came from. Best post of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I know it's almost damn impossible at this point but you guys are about to make this a filibuster thread so be careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 11:52 PM) I know it's almost damn impossible at this point but you guys are about to make this a filibuster thread so be careful. It was a filibuster thread about 5 hours ago, however there's nothing going on in PHT right now so I feel in no way compelled to move it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Take the thread to the filibuster, because that is where it belongs. It has absolutely nothing to do with baseball at this point. Now where did I say hunting is wrong? I never did, in fact I placed no value judgment on either Vick nor Mark, its not my place. But lets cut to the heart of my point, taking a life is taking a life. You can rationalize it all you want, but murder is murder. I understand that in order to live, I murder animals. I am a hypocrite because I value certain animals over others. I can candy coat anything in the world, but the arguments of "culling populations", "eradicating the weak", have been used before. You can draw pretend lines in the sand wherever you want, but there are certainly people who are going to call Mark a hypocrite for killing animals on one hand, and wishing Vick harm for killing animals. I guess the dead deer appreciates that he wasnt forced to fight another deer first before being killed, but I dont get into the minds of deers or animals. I personally would prefer not being hunted by another species that is smarter and has better weaponry, nor would I want to be put in a cage and forced to fight another human to the death. But that is just me, Im sure there are some people out there that think one is some how better than the other. I dont really care, I just think that its foolish and could come across as hypocritical. Edited February 10, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 12:09 AM) Take the thread to the filibuster, because that is where it belongs. It has absolutely nothing to do with baseball at this point. Now where did I say hunting is wrong? I never did, in fact I placed no value judgment on either Vick nor Mark, its not my place. But lets cut to the heart of my point, taking a life is taking a life. You can rationalize it all you want, but murder is murder. I understand that in order to live, I murder animals. I am a hypocrite because I value certain animals over others. I can candy coat anything in the world, but the arguments of "culling populations", "eradicating the weak", have been used before. You can draw pretend lines in the sand wherever you want, but there are certainly people who are going to call Mark a hypocrite for killing animals on one hand, and wishing Vick harm for killing animals. I guess the dead deer appreciates that he wasnt forced to fight another deer first before being killed, but I dont get into the minds of deers or animals. I personally would prefer not being hunted by another species that is smarter and has better weaponry, nor would I want to be put in a cage and forced to fight another human to the death. But that is just me, Im sure there are some people out there that think one is some how better than the other. I dont really care, I just think that its foolish and could come across as hypocritical. Taking a life is taking a life. I agree with that. Once the body is lifeless, it's only matter. Before farmers could use fertilizers mass produced from fossil fuel energies they kept pigeons and fed their crops animal parts. In wiser parts of the world people are starting to get back to that. But plants eat animals, animals eat plants, and people eat both. Then when people die the plants are supposed to be able to eat them, too, except our own fear of death is so hilariously ridiculous that we pack our dead in boxes or incinerate the bodies, and rob the soil of the blood and bodily fluids that are supposed to enrich it. There is nothing wrong with this cycle except our influencing on it, because our influence on it displays our fear and our greed, and that's what destroys s*** and makes people have to kill hundreds of deer in order to save a forest. But there's nothing wrong at all with nature. Nature was doing just fine on her own until we had to f*** it all up. The murder is murder line is just way off though and I'm not sure I should even try to respond to it because I can't think of what I could say that would make you think differently. But if you can't see the difference between torturing and then inhumanely murdering a pet, a non-livestock animal, and then disposing of the body in some dump of rotting garbage, and say, taking the life of an animal quickly, painlessly, after a long life that as free as possible at this moment in time, and then using the body to feed your own body, and to extend your own life - then I just don't know what to say. Look, you talk about "personally preferring" things - that's not how it works. You either live off death or you die yourself. There's no room to "prefer" anything. In the wild - if you were an ape or something - I'm sure you wouldn't prefer death, but something would be after you, and there's a decent chance it would catch you and eat you. The deer, likewise, would probably prefer to run away, but it would also certainly prefer the opportunity to graze over its natural foodstuffs rather than be forced to be more of a scavenger, and I'm sure it would prefer being able to openly graze without crossing roads, or having to starve, or watch developers come in and build empty shells no one wants to live in, etc. There is an enormous difference between partaking in the cycle of life nature has created, and careless destruction borne of despicable cruelty and wastefulness. Huge difference. And there are no hypocrites either. There are no hypocrites in nature. Human beings weren't hypocrites either until we lost all touch with where we came from and began associating nature with dogparks and s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I would just like to point out that Buehrle did save a dog that got shot by an arrow. Also, he's no Luke Scott. He had to be asked a question specifically about Vick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthsideDon48 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 11:32 PM) I agree with you mostly, in terms of the overall idea. Animals are actually quite a bit more intelligent than human beings give them credit for, and are far more capable of defending themselves (or evading danger) than many human beings are, if you think about it. Many people will stand there and take a beating because they are afraid to fight back, or will refuse to arm themselves because they convince themselves that some of the ridiculousness they hear is true, like violence is wrong/bad/uncalled for in "civilized" society, etc. Most animals OTOH can at least play dead to try to confuse prey, or will arm themselves with some kind of unique poison, escape capability, claws/teeth/whipping or breakable tail, etc. The difference - and where dogs come in - is that dogs are animals bred to serve human beings and provide unconditional love generations removed from the wild and existing in breeds that didn't even exist naturally, not wild animals conditioned by the harshness of nature. Dogs trust their abusers and follow the orders of their abusers because their abusers feed them and at least appear to keep them safe. What Vick did, to me, is sick, plain and simple. He took a trusting, intelligent lifeform bred to serve man and he used his higher intellect to deceive the animal into maiming itself for its master, the only benefits being gambling monies, and then when the animal was useless he destroyed it in a fashion that (at least I would hope) makes people want to puke. Most people are going to be naturally anthropocentric in the way they think, and that's what law is based on. The law says what Vick did was wrong, but really not all that wrong, basically akin to selling some coke, vandalising a neighbor's property, stealing some money, etc. According to law, what Vick did is perfectly acceptable in other areas of the world, and at least not all that atrocious here. But you're not supposed to adjust your own concept of what is right based upon what the justice system says. Law isn't the issue here, morality is, which is actually a separate thing, and it boggles my mind when people constantly try to override the moral understanding of others with some remark about Vick "doing his time," or "atoning," or whatever. All that s*** relates to law, not individual morality - even an apology means absolutely nothing in this world. So as a purely moral issue, no, in my eyes Vick doesn't at all deserve to be let off the hook, no matter what the legal system says. The moral punishment for his crimes, which cannot be enforced by any legal system, is that Vick must go through the rest of his life being hated like cancer by a wide swath of humanity for being the scum he is. MB was nice about what he said. Perfectly nice. And he is in no way wrong for saying it. Great post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 12:32 AM) I agree with you mostly, in terms of the overall idea. Animals are actually quite a bit more intelligent than human beings give them credit for, and are far more capable of defending themselves (or evading danger) than many human beings are, if you think about it. Many people will stand there and take a beating because they are afraid to fight back, or will refuse to arm themselves because they convince themselves that some of the ridiculousness they hear is true, like violence is wrong/bad/uncalled for in "civilized" society, etc. Most animals OTOH can at least play dead to try to confuse prey, or will arm themselves with some kind of unique poison, escape capability, claws/teeth/whipping or breakable tail, etc. The difference - and where dogs come in - is that dogs are animals bred to serve human beings and provide unconditional love generations removed from the wild and existing in breeds that didn't even exist naturally, not wild animals conditioned by the harshness of nature. Dogs trust their abusers and follow the orders of their abusers because their abusers feed them and at least appear to keep them safe. What Vick did, to me, is sick, plain and simple. He took a trusting, intelligent lifeform bred to serve man and he used his higher intellect to deceive the animal into maiming itself for its master, the only benefits being gambling monies, and then when the animal was useless he destroyed it in a fashion that (at least I would hope) makes people want to puke. Most people are going to be naturally anthropocentric in the way they think, and that's what law is based on. The law says what Vick did was wrong, but really not all that wrong, basically akin to selling some coke, vandalising a neighbor's property, stealing some money, etc. According to law, what Vick did is perfectly acceptable in other areas of the world, and at least not all that atrocious here. But you're not supposed to adjust your own concept of what is right based upon what the justice system says. Law isn't the issue here, morality is, which is actually a separate thing, and it boggles my mind when people constantly try to override the moral understanding of others with some remark about Vick "doing his time," or "atoning," or whatever. All that s*** relates to law, not individual morality - even an apology means absolutely nothing in this world. So as a purely moral issue, no, in my eyes Vick doesn't at all deserve to be let off the hook, no matter what the legal system says. The moral punishment for his crimes, which cannot be enforced by any legal system, is that Vick must go through the rest of his life being hated like cancer by a wide swath of humanity for being the scum he is. MB was nice about what he said. Perfectly nice. And he is in no way wrong for saying it. The bolded is the key here. Domesticated dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be a natural companion of human beings. We have bred them to see human beings as members of their pack, using their natural tendencies to take a place in the hierarchy of that pack and see the human being as the alpha member of that pack. Therefore, dogs will seek to follow the desires of the alpha member of the pack, even if it may be being ordered to take part in an act which is against its own instinct, because that instinct has been overridden by the command of the alpha pack member. While there may be nothing wrong with that dynamic, from some perspective, as you say, Vick was not putting the dogs to this task for any reasonable or even defendable purpose, but instead, for bloodsport. While this may have been acceptable in some previous time, it no longer is, and he was well aware of this. Hunting, whether something you can stomach when considering the methods undertaken by human predators or not, is part of the natural order of things. Predators target prey for sustenance, and if that is the reason for Mark's hunting, than I find that difficult to be critical of. Hunting for pure sport, whether it is explained away in some attempt to justify it by achieving some ecological or modern logistical objective, is another debate altogether. Simply put, if we are to assume the hunting Mark does is for sustenance purposes, the two situations are clearly distinct and not analogous. Edited February 10, 2011 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.