<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If you blast an animal in the face, you're not an ethical hunter. The kill zone is the heart/lung area and the animal is usually dead within a matter of seconds.</div> But let's say one does shoot another creature in the face, or accidentally misses their "kill swiftly" point, etc., while hunting. I don't think they're going to face felony charges. That's the real point, the random nature of the judicial system.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Nowhere did Marbury say he supported dogfighting. He simply said "From what I hear, it's a sport" - just like cockfighting, which is still legal in Louisiana (it probably will get banned within a year or so, but as of now, it isn't).</div> You misunderstood. I never said Marbury supported it, Vick does. If he didn't, he wouldn't exactly be betting on it. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Similarly to killing dogs, people kill other animals and by eating products such as pork we are supporting the abuse which goes on in that industry. </div> Not all pigs/cows are treated as unfairly as what is almost always depicted in the media. If you're going on about this, then I can say the same thing about vegetarians and people with vegan diets. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets." Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field. Source</div> Are vegans supporters of the 'abuse' that goes on when a rabbit accidently gets caught in a harvester? When their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, or their bones crushed? <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post"> I think the whole hunting within season is a lame excuse for hunters to kill animals for the sport. Really, do people genuinely care about these animals? In many cases the ecosystem's imbalance is a direct result of some human activity (deforestation, wetland destruction, etc.) and now all of a sudden we want to help the situation by killing more animals? Similarly to killing dogs, people kill other animals and by eating products such as pork we are supporting the abuse which goes on in that industry. I think the whole hunting within season is a lame excuse for hunters to kill animals for the sport. Really, do people genuinely care about these animals? In many cases the ecosystem's imbalance is a direct result of some human activity (deforestation, wetland destruction, etc.) and now all of a sudden we want to help the situation by killing more animals? </div> I never agreed with the morality of it in the first place. Hunting as a sport is a pretty iffy subject at best. I see it as useless myself. Regardless, it's used as a cheap population control method for animals. Like I said, if you're looking at it from a moral stand point, would you rather a species starve because it became overpopulated, and exhausted it's food source? Would you rather that animal have it's neck torn out by a predator, for it to bleed to death slowly and painfully? <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">If a herbivore didn't have a predator in a particular environment, you can always get some from another environment (preferably one that is overpopulated) and let them regulate the population of that herbivore. Trust me, there are other alternatives. </div> Lol. That's better? Instead of taking those animals out ourselves, and using them for food, fur, or any other use, we should introduce a predator into their environment to kill them instead? It's essentially the same thing. Them dying by our hands, and a predator's hand is no different. Also randomly introducing a predator into an unknown ecosystem is a very, very bad idea. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">Besides, if a species population is declining, it could very well mean that the particular specie isn't suited to live in its environment and should therefore naturally go extinct. It's just like Charles Darwin's theory suggests: "Survival of the Fittest".</div> As way back as the Ice Age, cavemen, and Lucy, we have been a factor in the food chain. Believe it or not, we are a predator keeping that population in check. It isn't like this type of regulation by humans is something entirely new.
<div class="quote_poster">Legacy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So what's the difference between dog fighting and hunting? </div> Hunting is used as a means to control environmental pests. Dog fighting is used as a form of betting and entertainment, hanging and drowning dogs for not performing is purely inhumane.
<div class="quote_poster">NTC Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hunting is used as a means to control environmental pests. Dog fighting is used as a form of betting and entertainment, hanging and drowning dogs for not performing is purely inhumane.</div> Well NTC, it isn't that simple. There are bastards that do things (the government doesn't care either), and game that suffer. While Vick and co. understand that it is illegal, they probably don't feel that gambling nor killing animals are a big deal due to how nonchalant people seem to be in many animal abuse cases. Dogfight trainers probably feel like they're being picked on if anything. Do we even have to shoot deer/etc. to control their population? I don't know about that.
Hunters control population limits, what is so hard to understand about that? Let's use deer for example since it's probably the most common form of hunting. If deer weren't hunted, there would be more diseases amongst them, more of them would freeze to death because of the lack of shelter, and many of them would starve to death. That is why there is a hunting season for them. I still can't fathom how some people here are using hunting in reference to dog-fighting. They aren't related in any way possible. You don't feed game steroids, you don't forcefully rape them for breeding purposes, you don't make them killing machines, you don't bet money on hunting normally. Hunters are ethical people who hunt in season, Poachers are unethical people who will kill a deer in June. There is nothing wrong with hunting. It's a tradition of many families around the world. I'd much rather be shot to death and starve to death or die of some god aweful disease.
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hunters control population limits, what is so hard to understand about that? Let's use deer for example since it's probably the most common form of hunting. If deer weren't hunted, there would be more diseases amongst them, more of them would freeze to death because of the lack of shelter, and many of them would starve to death. That is why there is a hunting season for them. </div> Hunting is just one example. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I still can't fathom how some people here are using hunting in reference to dog-fighting. They aren't related in any way possible. You don't feed game steroids, you don't forcefully rape them for breeding purposes, you don't make them killing machines, you don't bet money on hunting normally. Hunters are ethical people who hunt in season, Poachers are unethical people who will kill a deer in June. There is nothing wrong with hunting. It's a tradition of many families around the world.</div> Well again, you're only referring to a certain style of hunting. There are other legal fashions to hunt that are unethical imo. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'd much rather be shot to death and starve to death or die of some god aweful disease.</div> I think there are better ways to apply euthanasia. I'd rather be injected with some painless drug rather than being shot. If some loser like Leonard Little can play in the league, I don't see why Vick can not in the future.
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Let's get this back on topic to Marbury's comments, not about Vick or hunting.</div> Marbury's comments were a bit comical. Vick is not necessarily a great person that fell into a bad situation but I do see some of his points though.
Damn Marbury is at it again. He must be high on life (so he claims) again. Michael Vick is widely considered a cruel a-hole for his actions. I largely agree. On the other hand, if the animals being hurt was a lesser species such as rat or squirrel fighting, I doubt anyone would care. Yeah, I bet people would get less pissed because they are still innocent creatures being exploited by humans, but no, it's a dog, and dogs are cool in everyone's books and some dogs in this country get treated better than people. It's probably not the worst thing a human being has done to an animal, but it's definitely not to be expected by somebody who doesn't need to do this sort of thing and does it for the pure fun of gambling and watching violence. Yeah he's one sick mofo and that ain't no sport, it's just plain sick to enjoy that kind of thing. A sport involves athletes, a basic code of sportsmanship and competition. This guy is just exploiting animals for profit and enjoyment and Marbury is being a dumbass for either not explaining his position better or just not knowing what he's saying. Because, yeah, humans in general don't care if we eat things that are killed in an inhumane way, because it's food. It's like with hunting, you only try to shoot once to get the animal you're trying to eat and also mount its head on your wall. However, Michael Vick was involved in a ring that killed dogs for the sheer enjoyment of watching killing and doing gambling. That ain't food. So I think it's different. Now... let's say if Vick involve chickens instead of dogs and they are exploiting the chickens for gambling purposes that is pretty inhumane as well because of the chickens will endure prolonged suffering. But if they eat the loser and make good use of the carcass, maybe that's not so bad because of the food it provides. But that argument sucks because what about veal, foie gras, or some other cruel thing they do to animals to get a certain flavor or texture of meat. I don't got any answers other than sometimes its just easier to look the other way when it comes to food, but not to exploiting animals for sport especially animals we love as pets.
<div class="quote_poster">The One & Only Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The millions of rodents ground up by grain-harvesting machines per year, would disagree with your assessment of the benefits of being a vegetarian. Also, hunting, from my understanding, is a cheap population control method. A herbivore without a predator breeds uncontrolled until it depletes its food source and they all die. Hunting, believe it or not, is a more humane way of putting an animal 'down.' Would you rather let it starve?</div> 1. The death of rodents and other small animals is unavoidable through agricultural harvesting. Simply because of the massive population of humans the earth holds. We need that machinery to effectively feed the people. Therefore, it is completely ethical and cannot be compared to the exponentially more deaths caused by the meat industry. The meat industry is a steroid pumping, conscious slaughter of millions upon millions upon millions of selectively bred animals. 2. The deer won't die out because they deplete all their food resources. The carrying capacity in an ecosystem can only hold a certain amount of deer. If that carrying capacity is exceeded, the population of deer will drop either marginally or substantially, depending on many variables; but they won't completely die out. After this drop off, the deer will then continue to reproduce, until they exceed the carrying capacity and the process repeats itself. 3. Nature does not need a population control. It got on just fine before humans came around and started changing the ecosystem and habitats of practically all land animals. I'd much rather die a natural death then get hunted, shot, and eaten or have my head on a wall. If I took you to the Jurassic era, would you rather die of a natural death, or get hunted and shot by a dinosaur with a shotgun? Even though you yourself are in perfect health. Crude example obviously, but it still applies. Nature is nature, and you cannot use "population control" as an excuse to screw around with it even more. If more animals die of natural causes, let it be. Natural selection will play itself out if we, the human race, stop messing about and dicking around with everything for no good reason. So, this is addressed to The One & Only, morally speaking it would be much better to let them die a natural death. The only problem with that is we've destroyed so much habitat of theirs through urban sprawl, that their blood is still on our hands one way or another. 3. Humans are omnivorous. Obviously. But we've reproduced so much that it's totally thrown the food chain off. Since we have such evolved minds, and are obviously the dominant species. It should really be our responsibility to conserve nature, and not to mess around with it. It would be perfectly economically efficient to become herbivores, even more so than omnivores. Anyway, back on topic: I think Marbury's comments are perfectly acceptable. He's just using freedom of speech, and calling it as he sees it. I personally agree with him. I think though, that a lot of his meaning got lost in translation; so to speak, which is why so many people are hounding him. I think he meant to state how horrible it is that so many people are involved in animal abuse, and that so many people participate in cock fights, dog fights, hell I've even heard of pigeon fights. He's obviously not supporting it. I just think he's come to the realization that there is a lot of animal abuse going on.
The federal government must do a better job of protecting all animals from inhumane treatment. Marbury definitely seemed extremely ignorant in his defense of Michael Vick, but if one positive can come from this it should be that inhumane treatments of all animals should be something that the federal government should outlaw. How do you make the distinction of protecting one animal over another? If Vick were torturing cats or parrots would he be villified or persecuted any worse? I doubt it. I don't understand why animal lovers aren't fighting as vigorously for the prosecution of poachers than they are for the persecution of Michael Vick. No matter what charges Michael Vick pleads guilty of his actions, in my opinion, are no worse than anyone who commits a type one felony against another human being. Dogs should be treated like pets. Hunters are not making the world a better place for animals. They are killing animals for their own benefit. There is a better way of controlling the population than killing them off. Different diseases, in particular sexual transmitted diseases, were created in order to control the human population. Guns and drugs are distributed in order to do the same things. I don't recall any manditory sentences being reduced for any felony convictions. It is much easier to control the population when high risk individuals are being sent to prison at alarming rates. So I don't buy the argument that the killing of animals during hunting season does wonders for the evolution of our society. The strategic population control of humans is evidence that influencing and controlling the population of all mammals really does more harm than good. Things will work themselves out of their own. Michael Vick deserves his punishment. Illegal hunters deserve similar punishments -- with the exception of the gambling charges, unless of course they apply -- and all unregistered weapons and consumption/distribution of narcotics charges or any other felony charges against another human being by celebrities should be covered with the same or more disdain than that of Michael Vick case. The indirect or direct controlling of the human population should always take precedence over actions against the animal population.
<div class="quote_poster">rafy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">1. The death of rodents and other small animals is unavoidable through agricultural harvesting. Simply because of the massive population of humans the earth holds. We need that machinery to effectively feed the people. Therefore, it is completely ethical and cannot be compared to the exponentially more deaths caused by the meat industry. The meat industry is a steroid pumping, conscious slaughter of millions upon millions upon millions of selectively bred animals.</div> What you just said completely contradicted your entire argument. Also, define conscious. Because it is known that plenty of those animals, and rodents die each year. If anything, it would be better from a moral stand point from the meat industry as they selectively breed animals to slaughter to actually use as a food source, not killing random field animals by accident(while they already know this method kills them). Secondly, saying we need that machinery, whatever the cost, is hypocritical in nature if you're going to go on to point a finger at meat industries. A dead animal, is a dead animal. The only way I'd take your argument to heart, would be if you planted and picked your own vegetables, fruits, and other crops. The number of animal deaths is also irrelevant. A murderer who kills 10 people, is no better off than a murderer who kills 20, if the murder is avoidable. Someone named Maddox made an interesting article, with semi-humorous comics about the subject: <div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">Nature is nature, and you cannot use "population control" as an excuse to screw around with it even more. If more animals die of natural causes, let it be. Natural selection will play itself out if we, the human race, stop messing about and dicking around with everything for no good reason. So, this is addressed to The One & Only, morally speaking it would be much better to let them die a natural death. </div> I don't know where you're coming from with this. Legal hunting doesn't allow hunters to just randomly kill any animal they want. There is specific times, if and when the population grows too high, or too uncontrollable for the natural predators to handle. Some overpopulated animals that are considered 'pests' threaten wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops/plantations. The same crops that vegans eat. This would lead to soaring prices, and less food because those animals came onto human owned land looking for food. One thing I will agree with, however, is hunting as a sport being a stupid idea. There is no sport in killing an animal that can't defend itself. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">3. Humans are omnivorous. Obviously. But we've reproduced so much that it's totally thrown the food chain off. Since we have such evolved minds, and are obviously the dominant species. It should really be our responsibility to conserve nature, and not to mess around with it. It would be perfectly economically efficient to become herbivores, even more so than omnivores.</div> Economically efficient, yes, but not healthy. Certain meats are plentiful in a vitamin in particular called B-12, which can't be found elsewhere in that quantity. While you can get b12 from milk, cheese, yoghurt and on it only exists in extremely small amounts in those foodstuffs. Vitamin B-12 is extremely prone to digestion deficiency, so the small intake from those other foodstuff doesn't help it's case. Going back to MrJ's arguement if you drink milk, eat cheese, or wear clothing made from wool, you are equally as guilty of ignorance towards the living conditions of the animal. Dairy cows aren't exactly treated as royalty either btw. Carnivores have small intestines to stop meat rotting, herbivores have huge intestines to get the nutrients they need. We are somewhere in the middle; we have not evolved yet to the point where we can survive solely on vegetables, and its only our technology that allows us to healthily do so by eating supplements. Also, not everyone's digestive system is the same. Certain vitamin supplements can pass right through to your urine, without even extracting the necessary nutrients. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Marbury's comments are perfectly acceptable. He's just using freedom of speech, and calling it as he sees it. I personally agree with him. I think though, that a lot of his meaning got lost in translation; so to speak, which is why so many people are hounding him. I think he meant to state how horrible it is that so many people are involved in animal abuse, and that so many people participate in cock fights, dog fights, hell I've even heard of pigeon fights. He's obviously not supporting it. I just think he's come to the realization that there is a lot of animal abuse going on.</div> What Marbury said isn't very acceptable. He called someone who abuses animals "a good guy in a bad situation." If you look through his words, and listen to his message of "there is a lot of animal abuse going on," yeah I'm sure we can agree. But it's immediately diminished by the fact that he just defended a guy who abused animals. I also agree with Shiek: <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">The federal government must do a better job of protecting all animals from inhumane treatment. Marbury definitely seemed extremely ignorant in his defense of Michael Vick, but if one positive can come from this it should be that inhumane treatments of all animals should be something that the federal government should outlaw. How do you make the distinction of protecting one animal over another? If Vick were torturing cats or parrots would he be villified or persecuted any worse? I doubt it.</div>
Oh my. <div class="quote_poster">The One & Only Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What you just said completely contradicted your entire argument. Also, define conscious. Because it is known that plenty of those animals, and rodents die each year. If anything, it would be better from a moral stand point from the meat industry as they selectively breed animals to slaughter to actually use as a food source, not killing random field animals by accident(while they already know this method kills them). </div> I don't see where I contradicted myself. The death of those small animals and rodents is unavoidable. Society is structured in a way that we rely on the system. People in urban areas have no means to support themselves from their own garden, people in apartment buildings have no land to grow food. So, we rely on mass agriculture. And when I say conscious, I mean that through agriculture, there is no intention to kill animals. It's entirely accidental, and very unfortunate. But since there are so many humans, it's vital. There is no alternative as I can see it, so if you could provide me with one that would save the lives of animals, I'd be thrilled. The loss of those animals is necessary. Breeding animals, for the sole purpose of killing them is not. I don't see how I'm being hypocritical in the slightest. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit more. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Secondly, saying we need that machinery, whatever the cost, is hypocritical in nature if you're going to go on to point a finger at meat industries. A dead animal, is a dead animal. The only way I'd take your argument to heart, would be if you planted and picked your own vegetables, fruits, and other crops. The number of animal deaths is also irrelevant. A murderer who kills 10 people, is no better off than a murderer who kills 20, if the murder is avoidable.</div> Again, there is a total difference between the deaths in agriculture and the deaths in the meat industry. Massive scaled agriculture is necessary, unavoidable, and therefore completely ethical. Humans could theoretically get on just fine without meat. I can't see how you can compare the two. If I was being chased by any sort of predator like a bear, and the only chance of be surviving would be to shoot it. I would feel no remorse in shooting it. It was my life or the bears. It was necessary, therefore completely ethical. Just like murder in self defense is acceptable if your life was being threatened. Since there billions of humans all across the world, and that number is always increasing, modern agriculture is necessary for our survival. Therefore it is completely ethical. Which, you can't say that the meat industry is necessary by any means of the word. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I could argue that plant life is also alive, and we feel better about killing it because what, it doesn't match our definition? It's not similar enough to ourselves to feel guilty about it? Its not like they're picking up a rock, this is a being that grows towards the light, breeds and develops natural defenses to being eaten such as poisons, thorns or smells. Since I feel all life has value, and I must eat to live, I do not give any one group preferential treatment.</div> I'm not sure if this was meant to be taken seriously. But it's the internet and I can't really tell. So, I just won't say anything. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Like I said before, Humans have been a predator since the beginning of their existence, regardless of their position on the food chain. Also, animals can reproduce at a rate faster than they can die out. It's much more humane to kill overpopulation and make use of them, than letting them starve out because of poor living conditions. </div> Yes, they always have been on the food chain. And if you go back, hunting made sense. But in this day and age, where humans could quite easily to destroy the entire world, and practically all the life on it. The rules of nature pretty have much been broken. It's natural selection to a whole different. One species has the entire world in it's palm. It would be impossible to continue justifying our actions towards other species just because we're on the top of the food chain. We're blessed with a far superior "intelligence". We should use to preserve life, not kill it. So, you're saying that it's more human to shoot a deer so it doesn't "suffer" instead of letting it live and naturally die off? I see. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You're basically saying, "oh it's okay to let the deer population drop off marginally/substantially due to starvation because they depleted their food source." In my opinion, that's a more inhumane thing to say than someone actually hunting. </div> Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Letting nature take it's course is drastically more humane than shooting them, and using population control as a pretense. Even if you do believe in that pretense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Also, don't help third world countries, they won't die out. Their numbers will just change "marginally/substatially." </div> ...Again, I can't tell if your serious. Those are two entirely different scenarios. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know where you're coming from with this. Legal hunting doesn't allow hunters to just randomly kill any animal they want. There is specific times, if and when the population grows too high, or too uncontrollable for the natural predators to handle. Some overpopulated animals that are considered 'pests' threaten wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops/plantations. The same crops that vegans eat. This would lead to soaring prices, and less food because those animals came onto human owned land looking for food.</div> What I'm trying to say is that is that letting natural selection is much more humane then killing the animals. Legal hunting, in season hunting or not. It's a matter that requires no meddling in whatsoever, so it should be left alone. An ecosystems carrying capacity will take care of all the population issues among animals. Ecosystem could take care of themselves before humans happened to come along, and they'd much better by themselves if our species became extinct. It doesn't need us to regulate it. I don't agree with pesticide use. Which is what I'm assuming is what you're talking about when you refer to animals threatening crops. The only way to solve that problem is to have more local farmers. Around my area atleast, you can still come across farmers who sell all natural produce. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One thing I will agree with, however, is hunting as a sport being a stupid idea. There is no sport in killing an animal that can't defend itself.</div> So you're saying that it would be ok to hunt humans since they have the means to defend themselves? (Obviously, I'm not being serious.) <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Economically efficient, yes, but not healthy. Certain meats are plentiful in a vitamin in particular called B-12, which can't be found elsewhere in that quantity. While you can get b12 from milk, cheese, yoghurt and on it only exists in extremely small amounts in those foodstuffs. Vitamin B-12 is extremely prone to digestion deficiency, so the small intake from those other foodstuff doesn't help it's case.</div> You can live perfectly, and arguably more, off a vegetarian diet. And B-12 can actually quite easily be acquired. I can't speak for vegans as I never was, nor do I intend to be one. http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/b12.html <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Going back to MrJ's arguement if you drink milk, eat cheese, or wear clothing made from wool, you are equally as guilty of ignorance towards the living conditions of the animal. Dairy cows aren't exactly treated as royalty either btw.</div> I don't wear wool. I don't wear leather. (Atleast, I'm not entirely sure. I am quite ignorant to as whether my shoes are synthetic or actual leather. So, I am guilty of that in my opinion.) I do drink milk, and I do eat cheese. The abuse of animals such as cows and chickens can be completely avoided. It's all up to those who intend to profit off of them. There are some farmers who actually treat their animals fairly, but many don't. Mainly high profile industrial farms. It really should the farmers duty, and that of the government to regulate these things. And if it cost more money to ensure the welfare of those animals, I'd be willing to pay for higher milk, cheese and egg prices. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Carnivores have small intestines to stop meat rotting, herbivores have huge intestines to get the nutrients they need. We are somewhere in the middle; we have not evolved yet to the point where we can survive solely on vegetables, and its only our technology that allows us to healthily do so by eating supplements. Also, not everyone's digestive system is the same. Certain vitamin supplements can pass right through to your urine, without even extracting the necessary nutrients.</div> That's completely false. In your words; <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know where you're coming from with this.</div> We can survive solely off of agriculture, and we do not need supplements. I, myself, take no forms of pills or prescriptions drugs, or nutritional supplements. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What Marbury said isn't very acceptable. He called someone who abuses animals "a good guy in a bad situation." If you look through his words, and listen to his message of "there is a lot of animal abuse going on," yeah I'm sure we can agree. But it's immediately diminished by the fact that he just defended a guy who abused animals. </div> It's acceptable because he said what he felt. That's almost always acceptable. Do I think that Vick is a good person? No. But it's not up to me to decide. However, I do agree with what he was trying to say about dog fighting. However, I can say this. There are many good natured people who have fell pray to bad influences. As far as I know, this may be one of those cases. But I don't understand how someone who could do those kinds of things to a dog. Then again, I can't understand how could people hunt animals for sport, or slaughter animals for meat. So, I'm really in no position to pass judgment.
Hunting has been a tradition of man kind since the begining. Executing animals who can't get you your paper hasn't.
<div class="quote_poster">Butter Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hunting has been a tradition of man kind since the begining. Executing animals who can't get you your paper hasn't.</div> Anthropologically speaking, we have a lot of traditions. That doesn't justify them in any way shape or form just because it's a "tradition". There have been many "traditions" which, in todays society would be considered repulsive, were the norm a few hundred years back.
<div class="quote_poster">rafy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There have been many "traditions" which, in todays society would be considered repulsive, were the norm a few hundred years back.</div> Slavery would be one.
<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Slavery would be one.</div> Adults beating their kids, could be one.
