Thanks to dipshit-McGee here (who is a "CHRISTIAN" LOL ):
And this inspirational YouTube comment (one of very few):
Quote:
So Sarah Palin killing moose is ok, but dog fighting is barbaric! How about killing of Leopard, Cheatah, Lion, Elephant, Giraffe, Zebra, by whites vacationing in Africa who only take away the animal's head as trophy after discarding the carcas? The brutality of the whiteman in the African Savannah game is never considered barbaric, but a pastime sport, yet Vick is riviled. If dog fighting is barbaric, then bull fighting in Spain cheered by whites with bulls pierced and bleeding is barbaric too!
I do not understand what the fuck is wrong with humans. Seems like I meet a lot of people who swear they would rather see a human die than a dog. Is this just verbal diarrhea? Is this hyperbole? Are these people so deranged in their thought process, are they so sheltered from what death is really like that they have no idea what a dying, suffering human looks like?
Not to mention the abuse we put pigs through to get our bacon. Have you guys seen pig farms? Pigs are as smart and domesticated as dogs.
I do not get it. Vick did his time. he is not a wonderful person. But nevertheless, he is entertaining. And the point of prison is to punish people, rehabilitate them, and give them a second chance. I have not figured this one out yet.
Last edited by KillerGremlin : 12-29-2010 at 08:03 PM.
Dogs are a part of our families, so of course many will react somewhat irrationally when it comes to their killing. Killing humans is obviously worse than killing a dog, and I think Carlson comes off more than a little silly in this clip.
That said, hunting Moose is incomparable to fighting and torturing dogs. The goal of an ethical hunter is to cause the least amount of distress to the animal as possible when killing it, and hunting can be argued as a natural process (more natural than breeding them for slaughter, at least). What Vick did had the exact opposite intention.
I voted for killing a dog being worse.
But I was joking.
Anyways, I sort of had this conversation with someone the other week.
The one thing that seems to escape people's minds is that dogs are just animals. That's all. We kill countless animals. Hell, most animals kill other animals anyways. We are no different. The killing of your own species is what is bad, and wrong.
I don't agree with dog fighting because I don't agree with that type of 'entertainment'. Be it cockfighting or some other stupid animal pitted against its stupid animal counterpart.
__________________ Fingerbang:
1.) The sexual act where a finger is inserted into the vagina or anus. Headbang:
1.) To vigorously nod your head up and down.
Herzog doesn't shy away from the messier areas of that moral life. He devotes one section of the book to the underground phenomenon of cockfighting, and comes away with an uncomfortable conclusion: "A McDonald's chicken a suffers a much worse fate" than a gamecock, he tells Raz, "and I suspect you would be with me on this if I described the life of a game rooster and the life of a McDonald's chicken."
A gamecock lives for several years, often in pampered luxury, before it goes to its fate; a chicken destined for the plate lives about seven weeks, often in terrible, painful squalor.
"Now this is in no way to argue that cockfighting should be legal," Herzog says. "I don't think it should be legal. But on the other hand, it is a bit of a paradox that people get so bent out of shape about fighting roosters, and the suffering of chickens is probably the world's greatest animal welfare problem."
Obviously, I do not support dog fighting. I think it is awful and I think people who engage in dog fighting are bad people. At the same time, Vick did his time, so the burden of whether or not he should be entitled to play football falls squarely on the private organization that is the NFL. He paid his debt to society, and as far as I can tell he has been exhibiting good behavior since. In terms of his football career, in my make-believe world of ideology I would like to see his pay take a huge dock due to his crimes, but that is asking a lot. On the other hand, I think most sports players are overpaid.
That said, hunting Moose is incomparable to fighting and torturing dogs. The goal of an ethical hunter is to cause the least amount of distress to the animal as possible when killing it, and hunting can be argued as a natural process (more natural than breeding them for slaughter, at least). What Vick did had the exact opposite intention.
True dat. I agree with you. I am pro-hunting. It was kind of erotic when I tuned into the Palin reality show and saw her killing the moose. That's love right there.
Well, the way McDonald's treats their future 'food' is a whole other can of worms.
There are many reasons why I don't eat fast food anymore - and the shitty way they treat the animals is one of them - despite the fact I am well aware that me not eating them will not save the lives of any (chickens).
__________________ Fingerbang:
1.) The sexual act where a finger is inserted into the vagina or anus. Headbang:
1.) To vigorously nod your head up and down.
Well, the way McDonald's treats their future 'food' is a whole other can of worms.
There are many reasons why I don't eat fast food anymore - and the shitty way they treat the animals is one of them - despite the fact I am well aware that me not eating them will not save the lives of any (chickens).
That's a noble reason to not eat fastfood. Even if you are not directly helping save the animals, it is still an okay cause in my book.
The reason I bring up the chickens is because unless Tucker Carlson is a vegetarian, he consumes animals that likely get worse treatment than many of the dogs used for dog fighting. I cannot say that with absolute certainty of course. But also, it is ironic at some level, because for a guy who so vehemently opposes dog fighting, you would think he would also oppose eating any meat that has gone through the typical chain of command.
Now I do happen to know some hardcore vegetarians/vegans who think a dog is more precious than a human. Those people are hard to reason with. There are ways to stir the pot though.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Would you rather see a human die or a dog?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoid
I voted for killing a dog being worse.
But I was joking.
Ditto. lol
Though, funny enough.. I got that question on a psycological evaluation.
One of the questions asked "If you are driving at 2AM in the morning, and you see a dog lying in the middle of the street appearing to be to be either asleep or injured, you would stop and help."
Then about 30 or so questions later, they ask the same question just with human instead of a dog "If you are driving at 2AM in the morning, and you see a man lying in the middle of the street appearing to be to be either asleep or injured, you would stop and help."
I put strongly agree on both, because if I'm asked about it by the psycologist, the question didn't directly say "how" you would go about helping. If it was a dog I'd honk my horn at it, and if it didn't move I'd try to call someone to help. Same with the man... I'd honk, if he didn't get up I'd call 911. But it took some thinking on my part to come to that conclusion.
My ex GF, on the other hand, when I brought up that question to her... she would have marked strongly agree for the dog and strongly disagree for the human. (First thing that came to mind for her is the guy jumping up and stabbing her when she gets out of the car) Then when I explained my thoughts on it, she changed her mind to strongly agree on both lol.
But those were just 2 in 900 questions... I bet a lot of people get caught by that when rushing through.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Some humans deserve to die. No dog does. In movies you always feel worse when an animal dies than a human. I don't have the real world experience of seeing a random human/dog killed in front of me but I assume I'd be more affected by the human, being the same form as myself.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Would you rather see a human die or a dog?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuthida
Some humans deserve to die. No dog does. In movies you always feel worse when an animal dies than a human. I don't have the real world experience of seeing a random human/dog killed in front of me but I assume I'd be more affected by the human, being the same form as myself.
I disagree with the notion that no dog deserves to die. Though the ones that need to be put down are likely a product of their environment, the same can be said for humans who act out. But if the end result is a Dog blind in one eye attacking every human it sees below 4 feet tall, attacking every dog you put in front of it, and eating it's own puppies... then it deserves to die as much as any human who would do the same.
I don't get sad when animals die in movies too. I remember some of my friends wouldn't even watch the butterfly effect movie because of the part where the kid sets the dog on fire... that part didn't phase me at all. It was messed up, but it would phase me more if he put his little sister in that bag and set her on fire. Then that would be hard for me to watch...
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Yeah, I said that about dogs because I figured those that need to be put down were only like that because of humans. Though humans are products of their environment as well I would like to think they have the power to change and contemplate their actions more than a dog would.
I think the reason I feel more for animals in film is because you know the humans are acting whereas with animals it feels more real.
Would you rather see a human die or a dog?
):
Linear Mode
