RScavone said ...
But
killing cattle, pigs, hunting squirrels, and other HUMANS in other
countries that have done nothing to us is acceptable, right? Animal
right whites make me sick because most often they are the most
hypocritical. They will scream and cry about an animal, but shun a
family standing at an off ramp in 10 degree weather asking for money to
eat...makes me sick to my stomach...
11 comments:
WWJD?
What if Christians said the same thing about Paul and his acts before his conversion?
Of course you can have one, Mr. Vick. Just as soon as we give that twelve-year old girl to Roman Polanski that he's been asking for.
P,
Is the life of a pitbull comparable to the life of a 12 year old girl?
Can people who eat hamburgers not own cows?
Don't be distracted by me DV. I just thought it was a good line.
I admire your "My wife wears whatever the fugg she wants" take. I can't relate to the "I hope the fuggs try to spill blood on her fur" however.
Personally I don't worry myself about being dehumanized, esp. by losing my primacy in the Great Chain of Being because of something PETA said. Shite like that happens.
lol.
Nah P.
Not distracted. (And I always enjoy a good line)
I am genuinely curious.
I do not understand the demonization of Michael Vick. (Not saying that is what you are doing)
But I'm hoping for some intelligent explanation as to why Vick needed to 1) apologize 2) go to jail or 3) redeem himself publicly.
He killed a couple of dogs.
So what?
I don't get it.
How is that a crime?
Americans ate 34 million cows last year.
That's 100,000 cows per day.
Is a dog's life that much more valuable than a cows?
As Ricky Ricardo would say: 'Splain that to me Lucy.'
What do you think, does this work better? “I’d sooner give Roman Polanski a 12-year old girl than Michael Vick another dog.” I’m practicing for my dinner party.
Regarding the collective demonization of MV, DV, I can’t explain it. Maybe it’s racism. Maybe it’s some kind of primal exorcism. Whatever it is I don’t doubt we all got fear in our blood.
MV was legally required to apologize, go to jail and redeem himself publicly, right? That part doesn’t bother me. Amor fati, or at least don’t do the crime. And I don’t see any big movement to repeal the laws he was convicted of. Are you advocating that? If not, how come?
Maybe it’s just the hypocrisy that pisses you off. I don’t know enough to say that the Feds applied a double standard in MV’s case. Of course there are a lot of double standards being applied by the public – that’s easy to see. I expect evidence for the charge against the Feds though. I’ll stipulate to the public being bastards.
You say there were about 34 million cow desaparecidos last year. If you are pointing out that so many of those demonizing Vick are racist self-righteous hypocrites, okay. I don’t disagree.
But whether the public or yt are hypocrites or not, or whether what MV did should be legal given our appetite for meat or not, I think there is still something really disturbing about someone who takes lives, multiple lives, the way MV did – even if they belong only to dogs.
"MV was legally required to apologize, go to jail and redeem himself publicly, right? That part doesn’t bother me. Amor fati, or at least don’t do the crime. And I don’t see any big movement to repeal the laws he was convicted of. Are you advocating that? If not, how come?" phx
Legally required to apologize?
um.
I missed that part of the Constitution P.
Big movement to repeal those Laws?
You mean a movement to repeal those corporate statutes?
Am I advocating that?
No.
Why not?
Not my style.
I'm not an advocate.
"I think there is still something really disturbing about someone who takes lives, multiple lives, the way MV did – even if they belong only to dogs." phx
I would agree with that.
However I wouldn't agree with putting men in prison simply because phx and dv finds them "disturbing".
If we allow cats to be incarcerated because some people find them "disturbing" we will end up with ... we will end up with ... hell, we end up with exactly what we have now.
But now that I think about it.
I don't find a cat who kills a genetically modified cow, grinds its meat up and eats some of it ... anymore disturbing than a man who kills a wounded pitbull that has just lost a fight.
DV you're too good to score by spinning. No one, including me, would have a problem with a man killing a wounded pitbull who has just lost a fight - if the man himself didn't have anything to do with the fight and saw that it was a humane gesture. And then certainly he shot the dog point blank to ensure a speedy voyage to Doggy Heaven, right? No, it probably wasn't like that at all I don't think. But if it was, I would agree with you.
But don't you think the man or woman who thoughtlessly kills for his diet is really a different kind of killer than Michael Vick was? You see some important differences, right?
We can see the complexity of some issues, and be disturbed by more than one aspect. Generally I like to keep them untied from one another - like the hypocrisy of meateaters vs. the scary past of Michael Vick. They deserve to be evaluated on their own terms unless there's a decent argument why they should be tied together.
You're saying you don't want to repeal the laws Vick was convicted under cause that's not your style and you aren't an advocate (although seriously, DV, you are an advocate - that's a key reason I come here).
And I'm saying Vick is really disturbing because he apparently had more of an appetite for killing than eating.
Oh yeah, I was not sure whether the judge made Vick apologize or show contrition - I figured sometimes judges do that kind of thing, but I don't really know and maybe it wasn't a requirement.
Of course, then there's your employers who may also require you to do that, I guess you can be pissed of at NFL Inc for making him apologize, if they did. They probably made no bones at all that they would require that. Maybe expressing remorse was really his own idea? Or maybe it's pressure from those hypocritical bastards, the general public and/or a bunch of racists and/or financial advisors again.
I think you must be arguing that's part of how Michael Vick really got screwed over. But whatever the cause of his apology, how sinister do you really think that it is? I'm open.
"he apparently had more of an appetite for killing than eating."
granted.
And yes. I agree with you. There is a difference between killing to eat and killing to kill.
However, if we evaluate everything on "its own terms" ... we will never get anywhere.
Cuz everythang ... is everythang ...
We are not searching for a simple right or wrong but insight.
Ultimately we are not talking simply about Vick or dogs.
It's a question about morality, authority and punishment.
Which is the problem.
Vick was imprisoned for violating morality.
Moral justice is God's job.
Not the job of the Plantation.
That's the point of this post.
Vick ... like TI .... was put in prison not for the violation of any real Law ... but the violation of a contemporary collective moral whim.
Some bullshit whipped up on the news. When people should have been focused on the economy, the banks, unemployment, and maybe the NeoCons ... they are exorcising their self-righteous demons by convicting a brother about a couple of fucking dogs.
By watching it happen to the Vicks and TI's and other Negros To Be Punished of The Week ... we invite it to happen to ourselves.
The Plantation does not distribute moral punishment equally.
For example.
Douglas Feith created the lie of WMD's.
1 Million dead Iraqis
5,000 dead Americans
0 WMD's
He was given a job at Georgetown.
Vick goes to jail over 2 dead dogs.
Granting any government the power to punish moral sins is the ultimate violation of church and state.
Putting Michael Vick in prison for killing a dog is as bad an idea as putting two homosexuals in jail for sodomy.
Nasty.
But not the governments business.
My brother has the last word on this issue.
Post a Comment