Soxbadger

Actually I would choose the 2nd option where I had a chance to live opposed to the first option of being killed no matter what. To put it in human terms, I am back in the Roman dies with gladiators. I am a heretic and given two options: A) a clean quick death or B ) to fight other humans to the death and get to live. I choose option B, there is a chance I live. Like Ive said, I dont really get that deep into these arguments because I know my stance is hypocritical. On one hand I dont like animals being killed, on the other I ate a chicken burrito for lunch. I consider myself a hypocrite just for eating already killed meat to survive. How could I not consider some one else a hypocrite who actually goes out and kills animals for fun, and then tries to act like another person who killed animals for fun is so much worse. Its ridiculous and beyond comprehension.

Quoted for the truth. Like I said before, if Im given the choice between being tortured to death or being shot to death, Im going to take the none of the above option. The entire idea of humane killing is nothing more than a human invention to try and make us feel better about the simple fact that murder is murder, death is death. I have no problem with a killer whale killing to survive, but then again Im pretty sure that killer whales need to kill to survive. Lion is a horrible comparison as they are a strict carnivore which means that they need meat to survive (if we really want to get all biological.) I also have no problem with a human trying to kill an animal with its bare hands. Even if you want to go out in a group of 5 and try and run down a bear Id consider that even. But to compare using technology to an animal in the wild is absurd. So to you there is nothing wrong with hunting, but to many others there is. I think there are situations where Id be fine with hunting, but none of them involve the public at large being able to kill with a license. They would all involve trained sharpshooters being accompanied by wildlife specialists to make sure that the weakest/diseased are being killed before the strongest/best looking. Because if we are doing this for environmental concerns, than we should really put the environment first, not how many points there are on the buck. Ive unfortunately watched a few of those hunter shows on tv, not once have I ever heard them say "Oh that deer is sickly we should kill it to improve herd strength." I have seen them brag about hunting the biggest/strongest deer for 3 years and finally getting it to mount on their wall. Between dog fighting and hunting, which is more sadistic and cruel? Im not going to judge, but Im sure there are people who would say both.

The most dangerous game!

Here is the statement by TCU: http://www.thebuckeyebattlecry.com/?p=10429 In his defense he did say Buckeyes, so maybe the offer is only for OSU and not for Wisconsin. I do not believe Wisconsin had an open date at that point (this game was originally against UNLV). But its still hilarious that TCU claims theyd play anyone, but wont even play a team that they just beat.

Wisconsin doesnt claim that they will play anyone/anywhere. TCU on the other hand has been screaming about how if a big time program would offer a game, theyd play them anytime, anywhere. That is without qualification. Wisconsin happened to have an open game this season, they offered to play TCU. TCU refused. I agree that TCU is probably smart to not accept the game, but it completely destroys their whole "No one will play us" and "We will play anyone anytime" argument.

Wisconsin should have beat TCU. Would have been a great game, but TCU wont play anyone, anytime, anywhere. If they would theyd have been glad to take on Wisconsin. I understand completely not wanting to play on the road at Wisconsin, just dont claim that youll play anyone then.

I didnt want to get into speciesism because that would undoubtedly bring us to goodwin's law. I thought I did a good job of implying the issue when I said: Nonetheless my point has consistently been that Mark should have just stayed out of it. I guess Kenny Hates Prospects is arguing that Mark should have gotten involved. Im not sure what was to be gained by his statement, and so far I have yet to see any argument about the benefits of Mark opening his mouth and getting involved in something that he has no direct relation with.

Okay I was trying to not respond until this was moved to the filibuster, but that does not seem to be happening any time soon. The first paragraph is mostly irrelevant, I dont care how great animals are at defending themselves in the wild against other animals, they were never built to defend themselves against 20th century technology. If you want to prove that you can kill an animal with your bare hands, knife or non-compound bow I can see that it is a challenge, But if you are going out there with a high powered rifle or a compound bow, its the proverbial fish in a barrel. Moving on to the dog breeding comment, then I assume you are against eating pigs, cows, etc as they were all domesticated thousands of years ago. So using your logic it should not be okay to put pigs or cows in pens to be killed, because they naturally trust their human oppressor. Here is a link that shows all of the animals that have been domesticated like dogs http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm, you will notice that cow and chicken are domesticated animals, yet are given no special treatment. And what humans do every day is wrong then. They take trusting, intelligent lifeform that was bred to serve man and used his higher intelligence to deceive the animal into stuffing itself until it became fat and then killed it for profit. Is dog fighting arguably less humane? Of course it is, but now we are just talking about degrees. As for the entire last paragraph, each person is entitled to their own opinion. I dont care about morality in terms of arguing the law, because morals are dependent on what side of the fence you sit. Many people from india would think that its far more wrong to kill a cow than a dog, people in the US think its worse to kill a dog than a cow. I am not going to be so bold as to say that my moral compass is better than theirs. I instead will admit to the hypocritical nature of humans, and try not to think to hard about the issue because I know that I am as hypocritical as anyone when it comes to this. But that is the exact reason why I dont go around making a big deal about it. Because I know that its a weak argument. I may love dogs and cats, but until Im willing to treat all animals (and even if you want to change that to all intelligent animals) the same way, Im a hypocrite. Furthermore the entire US law is hypocritical. Im sure that you are aware but under the law, dogs are property. If you kill my dog, your only civil liability to me is the value of the dog. There is no special exception for a dog being mans best friend or like a human, they are property. Yet the difference in how a dog as property is treated and a cow as property is treated, are completely divergent. No one disputes that I can kill my cow for food, its just whether I did it humanely. Im sure that many people would be up in arms if I had a dog farm where I killed dogs for food, regardless of how humanely. This is where the law clearly goes from being objective to subjective, and why I dont really care to argue about the legality of what Vick did. I dont like what he did, I dont agree with the practices, but Im not 100% sure that there is a good reason why we have created rules that govern how people can treat property, except for the fact that we are trying to pretend we are "humane." Because at the end of the day, how we treat most animals is anything but humane. And if hunters were only hunting for food and not for sport, I would agree with this standpoint. The problem is that I do not believe Mark is hunting to feed his family because he cant afford to buy food. He is hunting because he enjoys hunting. http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2007/09/24/mark-bu...ear-with-a-bow/ Here is a story about Mark bear hunting. Im sure that he hunted that Bear because the bear had a considerable amount of flesh to feed his starving family. So we can assume that Mark only hunts for food, or we can actually look at the facts and realize that Mark hunts for fun. While I personally feel what Vick did is worse than what Mark does, I actually think that Vick has stopped doing it. Conversely, Mark will continue to hunt and kill animals for the rest of his life. I get that we are White Sox fans so we are going to defend Mark, but he really is being a hypocrite here.

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.

Should probably just have not said anything. Comes off even worse because of his pro-hunting stance.

Wow what the hell. Anyways get the out of Iowa and never return is my best advice. Guess we can face OSU now but not sure what Wisconsin's mental state is now.

OT is a great outcome.

That call was horrible, for has bad as Wisconsin as played Iowa did not deserve the travel call they got on Leur. Should be a tie game with Wisconsin having the ball.

No but they did lose to MSU when they were up by 9 with less than 2 minutes left. Its just hard to imagine that a team can be so much different on the road when it comes to shooting.

Wisconsin is going to lose to Iowa. Unbelievable but they just wont get it done. Not going to change anything in terms of the season, just will make the game against OSU not as important because who cares if you beat OSU if you cant beat Iowa. This team can be so frustrating.

So a lot of people have the Bears selecting Wisconsin players. Id love to get Carimi or Moffitt.

Its just wide open shots not going in. Leur, Nankivil and Taylor are 3-24. Youd think that some of those guys can shoot that well with 1 hand. (edit) I guess im saying that I wish it was that they seemed unfocused and was something that could be easily fixed. Just watching how bad they shot im hoping for the law of averages.

Has to be the worst shooting half in the history of basketball. Wisconsin was 2-19 at one point and had more offensive rebounds than points. Even with a 3 pointer being waived off and horrific shooting, Wisconsin is barely down at Iowa. Hopefully Wisconsin shoots 30% the second half and comes out with a victory.

White has had no issues since being at ISU. But he clearly has had issues as far back as HS, when Bo Ryan stopped his recruitment. Korie Lucious is another player Bo Ryan did not even offer. Say what you will, but there was a reason why an instate team didnt offer Lucious.

I have a feeling Melo would be willing to go to LA, NY or Chicago. Its about money/media presence, etc. The Nuggets see the writing on the wall and realize he is gone and they may get nothing for him. If I was the Bulls Id be calling the Nuggets every hour to see what other players they would want from a third team. The best chance the Bulls have is that they find another team who wants to horde draft picks and then move that player to the Nuggets with Deng/Taj or whatever makes it work. I think the deadline is the 24th, so that means there will be panic by next week.

I wish the Bulls had something that makes sense for Melo, but unless Denver wants Deng + Taj and as many picks as we can legally send, it appears that the Bulls just cant get a deal done. Noah isnt going to be moved, so itll be interesting to see how this goes. From the last week Im starting to feel that Nuggets are going to trade Melo before the deadline, they just are trying to figure out which city that Melo will agree to will pay the most.

Well at least something came of it.

I agree with the above but after last night I started to feel like they are just going to try and smooth over those problems.

I dont know necessarily what the game plan was, but it couldnt be for Rose/Boozer to both cover Miller and leave Aldridge open. If the Bulls cant figure out how to play the pick & roll they are going to have some tough games.

Glad to get Tubby out of Minnesota, should help Bo land some more Minnesota recruits.