Soxbadger

And for all of those who said Lebron cant play SG, Spoelstra just said that Lebron defends all 5 positions and plays 4 offensive positions during the game. Meaning that currently Lebron plays SG.

Magic have been problematic but hopefully the bulls have Noah and their full compliment of big men to put on Howard. If I had to pick which East teams I wanted to miss it would be 1: Heat, 2: Celtics, 3: Magic.

I think that isnt being said here is that in April with the weather etc, its likely that the Sox are going to have at least 1-2 extra off days which means that a 4 man rotation would be on regular rest for that stretch. If you can use your 4 best starters on regular rest due to scheduling, you do it.

Thats not entirely true. If the Bulls could get the 1 seed and these two teams were 2/3. I just think that the Celtics are a better match up for the Bulls than the Heat. Id just rather not play Lebron.

Today is always the realization that there is no football on tv until the draft. I dont care about the Celtics or Heat, but I think for the Bulls you want the Heat to have as many losses as possible.

And the overrated chant is stupid as well because obviously OSU is one of the best teams in the nation. But they are drunk college students what do you expect.

I would rather not have people rush the court, but it is the only the second time Wisconsin has ever beat a #1 team. People forget that prior to 1999 Wisconsin was pretty horrible at basketball.

ND has been surprising. I was pretty devastated that Wisconsin lost to them early in the season as I couldnt believe it. In retrospect that loss isnt nearly as bad.

I hate Vitale, but should be a good game regardless. It all depends on Wisconsin's shooting. If they shoot 35% + from 3 and 45%+ from the field, Id say Wisconsin walks away with the win.

If you want to get philosophical, most humans have no concept of time at all. There is some crazy thing that if you took the history of Earth and converted into 365 days, human existence would be limited until the final hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic...and_periods.svg). Its almost unimaginable to comprehend what the year 3000 would look like (if compared to human progression from 0-2000), let alone what the year 1million would look like. And that is still such a small scale compared to the universe. Some stars in the sky that we see today, have been gone for millions of years. But I dont think there is anything right or wrong about nature, things just are. The real truth is we all make up fake rationalities and rules that govern our lives that dont really mean anything at the end of the day.

Yeah I am going to argue about the directness. Using fossil fuels which indirectly harms animals is different than buying a product that is directly related to the death of animals. Youre kind of putting me in a bind here because Im not actually arguing my own position, I actually eat meat so I dont really care that much. My rationale is that when I buy something at the store, the animal was already dead. There was nothing I could really do to stop that animal from being killed. Yes I understand that if I stop eating meat I may impact the demand for meat therefore ultimately stopping the killing of animals for food. But inevitably I wont be able to do it, so I do my best to not harm animals directly, and by directly I mean with my own 2 hands. Over the summer I went fishing (first time in a while) and I actually felt uncomfortable about catching and killing/eating the fish, so I convinced my friends to throw it back. The irony was that for dinner I had chicken and steak. I cant attempt to try and answer this question, because I dont have an answer. I know that if we look at this scientifically humans shouldnt care about torture, death or anything. We are a predator, we do what we want. Killer whales torture seals, its a fact. But we arent looking at this scientifically we are looking at it humanly (not humanely). And the definition of humanly depends on who we are as species at that very moment. For the greater part of human history what Vick did would not have even been an issue. But today many humans dont agree with animal torture. Perhaps future generations will not eat meat. As a species we have gone far beyond the natural order of things. And I understand because generally for this argument I have been on the other side of the fence. I just happened to get ambushed into a position in this thread where I was forced to take on some positions to show that killing an animal for sport isnt that far from torture in some peoples minds. And that is why I generally am on the other side of this fence. Whenever a person takes a holier than thou attitude, Im going to do everything in my power to show them for the hypocrites they are. I kind of felt that way when people started lecturing me on how hunting was perfectly okay and acting like me merely questioning whether Mark should have said anything, was an affront to all hunters in the world. When people act like that, I have a tendency to feel the need to point out that no one is holier than thou and that everyone can be made into a hypocrite.

Im not going to fight another person's battles, but Im pretty sure the distinction that was being made was "intentionally". Hurting animals via using the internet, or just being a human (undoubtedly the creation of the hospital where you were born hurt some animal) is not intentional, those would be more like incidental and consequential damages. People can only be responsible for so much, some people choose not to directly buy a product that was made from a killed animal. A lot is out of human control. The point is he tries to minimize animal death as much as possible. You cant attack the position just because its impossible to live and not hurt animals at all. Im sure many vegans if possible would try and live without harming any animals, it just isnt possible. We all draw a line in the sand some where, and at the end of the day all that matters is if in our own mind we are on the right side.

I can agree with the above. Only problem is that I think if you ask 100 people, youll get 100 different answers of what is okay or good. Which is why I try to stay away from this one.

Shack's argument is a fun one when I some times am on the other side of this fence. Thats how I know about the carrots screaming, I usually have to defend against vegans/vegetarians. I was always good at arguing, I just some times get paid to do it.

I would generally agree with that. But this is just one of those issues that people usually have strong opinions about one way or the other. Thus why I said some people may find it hypocritical. There are some people absolutely against animal killing at all, there are some people who believe that animals were created for humans to do whatever with. I dont know which is right or wrong, I just know what my personal opinion is. In a real argument I generally expect that there will be a point where some one may change their position based on evidence and arguments. When I posted my first 2 posts, I never expected to have a real argument because I dont think there is a real answer. There are just different perspectives.

Well Ive consistently called myself a hypocrite, and its not even for killing an animal for fun, it was just for eating animals. Furthermore, my point through this entire thread hasnt been whether hunting is right or wrong, whether torture is the equivalent of murder, my point was that it was probably best for Mark to not say anything. Lets look at my point in the most simple form: From there it went to people arguing that Mark in no way shape or form could be hypocritical, because killing an animal hunting is in no way comparable to what Vick did. I called bulls*** on that and I stand by it. I have consistently said that there would be SOME people who would consider Mark a hypocrite and that he was better served just saying nothing. After that Ive spent 99.9% of my time responding to arguments that in no way shape or form even respond to my argument. No one has given me a good reason why the best course of action was for him to get involved and get all this unnecessary attention. Instead its been post after post by either people who are dog owners/supporters or hunters who are trying to create some monumental difference between killing an animal and killing an animal. No one disputes that torture is wrong, no one is saying that torture shouldnt be punished. The question is whether it is hypocritical to on one hand hunt and kill animals, and on the other look down on some one who is torturing/killing animals. I merely said that he should have kept quiet and that it will come off worse because of his pro-hunting stance. If you look at the numerous articles about this topic, most of them mention his hunting and most of them imply some hypocrisy. My point is supported by the fact that this thread has 9 pages of arguments. Had Mark just kept his opinion to himself, I wouldnt have wasted a day of work. Well considering I never did this, I dont know why I would do it now. Lets look at my second post, that clearly states my point: The rest of the thread Ive just been responding and trying to show that I can make hunting look bad if I want. But as Ive said a few times, I generally dont get into these debates because I myself am hypocritical so I dont really have a good foundation to stand on. /shrugs

You are just talking about different levels at that point. You feel that the line should be drawn at extreme torture, I feel that the killing of any animal could be considered torture. Thats called an opinion. And in many people's opinion Mark is a hypocrite. If you dont think its hypocritical to kill animals for fun and then wish harm on some one else that tortured animals, that is entirely your choice. I think its hypocritical for me to eat meat and to get mad about hunting, or whatever. We all draw our own lines in the sand, but to make it out like there is no possible way to see the hypocrisy is just putting on blinders. Here is an article about Bear baying, which is legal in South Carolina. Because its legal that means its okay, even though its like dog fighting. So yeah hunting bears is a good thing, but dog fighting is bad. Come on. {edit} You dont know what Mark does or didnt do. What we do know is that black bear hunting is usually pretty cruel and Mark has taken part in it. He brags about killing animals. Yet these are all okay, but dog fighting is not. Its the basic definition of hypocrisy. How does killing an animal relate to killing an animal? They are both dead, its not about how they got there, its about the end result. The animals Mark happens to kill just arent cute and cuddly and put on a pedestal by humans.

What does jail have to do with anything? I can be a notorious murderer and not be convicted and be hypocritical when I speak about another convicted murderer.

This whole thread has gone pretty far from my original idea which was, Mark should have stayed out of it because his views could be seen as hypocritical. Regardless of whether you are an avid hunter or a vegan, I think its clear that there is at least an argument to be made for his stance being hypocritical. Some will believe that it is absolute hypocrisy, others may try and find a way to frame it so that its not. But to me, its hypocritical to kill Black Bears for fun on one hand and wish harm on some one else for torturing dogs. I cant get any information about Mark's Black Bear hunt, but most Bear hunting is pretty brutal. Trapping involves a Bear being caught in a trap that basically breaks its leg until the hunter comes and kills it, using dogs involves dogs chasing the bear until it climbs a tree where it can be killed, etc. The argument for deer population control, its understandable. Which is why I make an exception for hunting for ecological preservation, but this is once again limited to professionals, and not to people who are doing it for fun. Hunting to eat, I can live with that, it is natural. But Im just not sure how hunting for sport and having dogs fight for sport, are so extremely different. I certainly dont support either.

Sqwert, A carrot will scream. Damn cant believe some one beat me to that. Ill never forget using that in an animal rights debate in 7th grade. Back then I was pro-hunter, against gun control and all of that jazz. How things change.

Im at work right now so Ill get to a lot of this later, but who are you to say what other people can morally like or dislike? Some people think there is nothing wrong with killing any animal in any fashion. Some people think it is morally wrong to kill any animal in any fashion. Morals are nothing more than a human societal creation. Different societies have different morals. The morals of the 21st century are pretty different than the morals of the 1st century and id guess will be different than the morals of the 30th century. Just because the majority may feel morally one way, does not mean they are right. People have believed things were moral in the past only to think they are abhorrent today. If I was to do an absolute moral equivalency, I would say that torture is worse than plain murder. But I would say that murder is closer to torture, than not murder is.

What does an illegal gambling ring have to do with anything here? Did Mark say that he wanted Vick hurt because he illegally gambled? I mean if Mark hates gamblers, that wouldnt be hypocritical at all. Ive never heard of him illegally gambling.

Your saying that there is no way to compare a murderer who is a torture murderer versus some one who is just a murderer. You can justify murder however you want, I killed that person/animal for food, I killed that person/animal economic gain. Murder in the most simple sense is the killing intentionally with premeditation (I am taking out legal definition of murder because laws are defined by humans and therefore should be irrelevant when discussing animal rights as animals have no representation or say in the laws that are being created.). So its completely comparable, it just is a different way of doing the same action. Furthermore, the actual act of hunting an animal, if done to a human, would be considered the equivalent of mental torture (depending on if you could prove the animal/human knew that it was being hunted). The end result is an animal is killed. I cant speak with dead animals, I cant speak with dead humans, how do I know whether instant death is painless? What if instant death is the most painful experience in the world? What if some how by being tortured endorphins are released to make the moment of death much less painful? We can pretend that there is such thing as a less painful death, but there is no person or animal alive who can tell us what death feels like. We as humans like to believe that we are some how humane if we kill something quickly, but that just may not be true. There are people out there who believe that I as some one who just consumes meat products can be compared to Vick and I dont even actively kill animals. So if you cant see the connection, its just because innocence is bliss.

Well unfortunately if you hunt and kill defenseless animals there is really no good argument for why you shouldnt be compared to Michael Vick. Unless of course you are employed as animal conservationist and are killing animals for conservation purposes only, taking no pleasure in the act. As soon as you enjoy the hunt, you are killing for fun. After that it is up to each individual to come up with their own rationalization for why its okay. I dont hunt, probably never will. When I was younger I really wanted to big game hunt. As I grew older I realized that killing a lion or whatever would do nothing but take away something that I truly felt was special. Since that point in time I have tried to be more judicious with how I interact with animals. I eat meat, and I rationalize that as okay because the animal would have been killed whether I bought the food or not. Horrible reasoning, but how else do I rationalize my complete hypocrisy on the issue.

I think Manny has some of the best lines.