Buehrle vs. Vick

[Texsox]

300 posts. Probably more than the original Vick thread.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

300 posts. Probably more than the original Vick thread.

Looks like 333

 

 

[whitesoxfan99]

Of course torturing dogs isnt a sport though.

 

Neither is hunting animals with modern weapons.

[RockRaines]

Neither is hunting animals with modern weapons.

Sure it is, shooting with modern weapons is a sport in its own right.

 

I'd venture to guess there are more people on here that could hit a homerun than could hit a moving target at 100 yards.

[Balta1701]

Sure it is, shooting with modern weapons is a sport in its own right.

 

I'd venture to guess there are more people on here that could hit a homerun than could hit a moving target at 100 yards.

Terminology question...is that a skill or a sport?

 

Many people couldn't say, compete in a trivia competition against a machine, but I doubt most people consider Jeopardy a sport. Rapid trivia responses is a skill you can teach yourself and get better at with practice; doesn't make it a sport.

[Balta1701]

M-56 was asked about this again today.

Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle said he has no regrets about saying he at times wished Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick had gotten hurt this past season as retribution for his involvement in dogfighting.

 

"No, I said it," Buehrle said Thursday about his recent comment to MLB.com. "It's an old story. Again, we are not bringing drama inside and past history stuff. So, I said it, meant it. It's over, and we'll move on."

 

Buehrle and his wife Jamie are huge advocates for animal rights, particularly with dogs. An avid hunter, Buehrle was asked the difference between dogfighting and the activity he enjoys.

 

"Hunting is a sport," he said. "There are hunting stores out there. If that's illegal, shame on my dad and my grandpa and his grandpa. It's kind of been brought up throughout the history of America. The last time I knew dogfighting was a sport was never. Again, that's all we need to comment on that. We'll concentrate on baseball."

[iamshack]

M-56 was asked about this again today.

Slacker.

[RockRaines]

Terminology question...is that a skill or a sport?

 

Many people couldn't say, compete in a trivia competition against a machine, but I doubt most people consider Jeopardy a sport. Rapid trivia responses is a skill you can teach yourself and get better at with practice; doesn't make it a sport.

Then you get into what is a sport and what is not. If a machine is doing all the work, does that still count as a sport? i.e. racing. How about if an animal does most of the work?

 

I considering shooting a sport, especially ones that incorporate other things like the biathlon. Those f***ers have to ski until they are exhausted and then shoot targets, damn.

[Rowand44]

Once again, Mark's awesome.

[chetkincaid]

I'll be glad when he takes his ass back to Missouri. Go pitch for the Cardinals.

 

FMB.

[Soxbadger]

Well biathlon combines something that is definitely sport, cross-country skiing.

 

Whether shooting is a sport or skill depends on how you define it. I used to teach Archery and (in my opinion) I could teach anyone to hit reasonable targets as long as they did not have some sort of disability. Using a compound bow (or rifle) imo takes the sport out of it. If youre going to use a non-compound recurve bow, where you actually need to produce the force necessary to pull the arrow back and then hold it, yeah that is a challenge. But if your only challenge is to hold the bow still and point, thats no harder then playing duck hunt in my basement, which is definitely not a sport.

 

As for what Mark said, its once again nonsensical.

 

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/...g-fighting.aspx

 

The development of modern dogfighting as practiced in Europe, North America and South America can be clearly traced to 1835, when bull-baiting was banned in England.

 

Dog fighting can be even further traced back to Roman times, which I assume was before Grandpa Buerhle was born.

 

I guess what Mark just doesnt understand is that one culture may look at dog fighting the same way as he looks at hunting.

 

This is just a subject that most people argue based on where they sit.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

I'll be glad when he takes his ass back to Missouri. Go pitch for the Cardinals.

 

FMB.

Not me, one of the best White Sox of all time.

[iamshack]

Well biathlon combines something that is definitely sport, cross-country skiing.

 

Whether shooting is a sport or skill depends on how you define it. I used to teach Archery and (in my opinion) I could teach anyone to hit reasonable targets as long as they did not have some sort of disability. Using a compound bow (or rifle) imo takes the sport out of it. If youre going to use a non-compound recurve bow, where you actually need to produce the force necessary to pull the arrow back and then hold it, yeah that is a challenge. But if your only challenge is to hold the bow still and point, thats no harder then playing duck hunt in my basement, which is definitely not a sport.

 

As for what Mark said, its once again nonsensical.

 

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/...g-fighting.aspx

 

 

 

Dog fighting can be even further traced back to Roman times, which I assume was before Grandpa Buerhle was born.

 

I guess what Mark just doesnt understand is that one culture may look at dog fighting the same way as he looks at hunting.

 

This is just a subject that most people argue based on where they sit.

I agree his reasoning isn't articulated very well, but I think everyone pretty much understands what he is trying to say.

[Soxbadger]

Hes trying to say that because his family thinks "hunting is a sport" its okay to kill animals.

 

Whereas because his family thinks dogs deserve special treatment he thinks "sports that kill dogs" are wrong.

 

Its horrific reasoning, unless we just get to the simplest answer, "We believe one thing and I dont care if its hypocritical because thats my belief".

 

If he said that, Ive got no argument. We are all entitled to be as hypocritical and nonsensical as we want on any given topic. Just dont demean my intelligence by trying to say that killing an animal with modern weapon is so honorable.

 

Dog fighting (or animal fighting because isnt that really just the same thing) and hunting for sport trace their roots to the same historical time periods. Animal fighting and animal sport hunting have been going on hand and hand before the year O. So to insult my intelligence and act like dog fighting has never been as accepted as sport hunting is annoying.

 

Once again, he should just man up and say that its his opinion and hes entitled to it. Instead of making absurd arguments.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Rowand44]

I'll be glad when he takes his ass back to Missouri. Go pitch for the Cardinals.

 

FMB.

Laughable.

 

Once again, he should just man up and say that its his opinion and his entitled to it.

Not sure how you want him to "man up" anymore. The guy has stuck by his opinion throughout even when there's been a bit of backlash by some people.

[iamshack]

Hes trying to say that because his family thinks "hunting is a sport" its okay to kill animals.

 

Whereas because his family thinks dogs deserve special treatment he thinks "sports that kill dogs" are wrong.

 

Its horrific reasoning, unless we just get to the simplest answer, "We believe one thing and I dont care if its hypocritical because thats my belief".

 

If he said that, Ive got no argument. We are all entitled to be as hypocritical and nonsensical as we want on any given topic. Just dont demean my intelligence by trying to say that killing an animal with modern weapon is so honorable.

 

Dog fighting (or animal fighting because isnt that really just the same thing) and hunting for sport trace their roots to the same historical time periods. Animal fighting and animal sport hunting have been going on hand and hand before the year O. So to insult my intelligence and act like dog fighting has never been as accepted as sport hunting is annoying.

 

Once again, he should just man up and say that its his opinion and hes entitled to it. Instead of making absurd arguments.

 

I'm all for analysis and what not, but come on. There is clearly much reverence in this culture towards domesticated dogs, and a vast, vast majority of Americans find the abuse of dogs majorly offputting.

 

There's not really anything else to say about it.

[Soxbadger]

Because hes trying to justify his opinion on nonsense.

 

"Hunting is a sport," he said. "There are hunting stores out there. If that's illegal, shame on my dad and my grandpa and his grandpa. It's kind of been brought up throughout the history of America. The last time I knew dogfighting was a sport was never.

 

This is a flat out miss statement of fact.

 

If you want to be a man, dont justify your actions on nonsensical reasoning. I guess i dont consider some one manning up when they just make a litany of excuses why their behavior is okay, instead of accepting that maybe other people have a point.

[knightni]

Not me, one of the best White Sox of all time.

One of only a handful of (like 10-12) active players with 10 or more seasons with the franchise that they were drafted by.

[Soxbadger]

iamshack,

 

There is clearly much reverence in this culture towards domesticated dogs, and a vast, vast majority of Americans find the abuse of dogs majorly offputting.

 

And that is fine, and all he has to do is admit that he is acting subjectively. But he is trying to imply that he is right objectively, which is just not true.

 

An animal is an animal is an animal. I have 2 cats, they are like my children. If anyone did anything to them, I would want to murder them. That does not mean that law should protect my cats any greater than it should protect a cow, dog or other animal. Under the eyes of the law all animals are property, including dogs.

 

The law is clear,a dog is nothing more than property and recovery is limited to the value of the animal. Just like property.

 

So if we want to have a subjective argument, sure cats/dogs are the beloved companions of humans and get better protection than a deer.

 

If we want to have an objective argument, cats/dogs are animals, so if murdering a cat/dog deserves jail time, than murdering a deer/animal deserves jail time.

 

Im looking at this objectively, and objectively I dont see much difference in killing one animal versus killing another. I dont care if the law says its okay, I wouldnt care if the law said that a person from Illinois could kill some one from Indiana.

 

Once again, we can all be as hypocritical as we want, he has a right to his opinion. I just would have preferred he kept it to himself as its an amazingly simplistic view of the world.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

iamshack,

 

 

 

And that is fine, and all he has to do is admit that he is acting subjectively. But he is trying to imply that he is right objectively, which is just not true.

 

An animal is an animal is an animal. I have 2 cats, they are like my children. If anyone did anything to them, I would want to murder them. That does not mean that law should protect my cats any greater than it should protect a cow, dog or other animal. Under the eyes of the law all animals are property, including dogs.

 

I have dealt with dog abuse lawsuits. I have successfully settled cases with Comed for one of their meter men abusing a dog. But the law is clear, that dog was nothing more than property and recovery was limited to the value of the animal. Just like property.

 

So if we want to have a subjective argument, sure cats/dogs are the beloved companions of humans and get better protection than a deer.

 

If we want to have an objective argument, cats/dogs are animals, so if murdering a cat/dog deserves jail time, than murdering a deer/animal deserves jail time.

 

Im looking at this objectively, and objectively I dont see much difference in killing one animal versus killing another. I dont care if the law says its okay, I wouldnt care if the law said that a person from Illinois could kill some one from Indiana.

 

Once again, we can all be as hypocritical as we want, he has a right to his opinion. I just would have preferred he kept it to himself as its an amazingly simplistic view of the world.

I follow your line of thinking...I think you're just asking a bit much of him...he's a baseball player, and you're an attorney. That's a pretty basic indicator of the difference in the level of analysis taking place by each of you.

[RockRaines]

Hunting animals with a legit license is legal in the US

 

Dog fighting is illegal.

 

 

all the rest of your post is legal pandering from a defense lawyer.

[Soxbadger]

Which is why he should just stop talking about the issue, instead of trying to defend himself further. No matter what he says it will just be digging a bigger hole at this point. Any way he tries to defend himself, will just give people easier ways to attack him for hypocrisy.

 

Thus he should just let it go. Some people think hes a hero some people think hes a dick. That wont change, so why not just let it go?

 

And none of this is even touching on the fact that a professional athlete should probably never wish injury on another professional athlete. That just seems tacky in and of itself. Even if Mark was a vegan who never had killed an animal, I still wouldnt want him getting involved in this situation.

 

It just serves no purpose. If Mark is so pissed about what happened, donate money to save dogs from dog fighting. That will do more than any amount of interviews knocking Vick ever will. (And yes I know he has a shelter, but Im just saying instead of wishing harm on Vick, maybe he should just go about his life.)

 

It makes some one who I always thought of as a good guy, come off as a douche. So maybe the reason Im bent out of shape is because I hate thinking that Mark's image is going to be tarnished over something stupid like this.

 

Hunting animals with a legit license is legal in the US

 

Dog fighting is illegal.

 

 

all the rest of your post is legal pandering from a defense lawyer.

 

Where have I for one second argued legal versus illegal under the eyes of the law?

 

Its legal to bear bay in South Carolina, but I sure as hell wont support the practice. Whether something is legal or illegal only matters in a courtroom. It doesnt change whether your a hypocrite or not. It was once legal in the US to own slaves, that doesnt mean that a slave owner who only beat his slaves wasnt a hypocrite when he called out another owner for killing his slaves, and it doesnt mean that either of them was right just because the law allowed it.

 

The law is nothing more than the opinion's of people, it can be wrong, just like a person.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

Which is why he should just stop talking about the issue, instead of trying to defend himself further. No matter what he says it will just be digging a bigger hole at this point. Any way he tries to defend himself, will just give people easier ways to attack him for hypocrisy.

 

Thus he should just let it go. Some people think hes a hero some people think hes a dick. That wont change, so why not just let it go?

 

And none of this is even touching on the fact that a professional athlete should probably never wish injury on another professional athlete. That just seems tacky in and of itself. Even if Mark was a vegan who never had killed an animal, I still wouldnt want him getting involved in this situation.

 

It just serves no purpose. If Mark is so pissed about what happened, donate money to save dogs from dog fighting. That will do more than any amount of interviews knocking Vick ever will. (And yes I know he has a shelter, but Im just saying instead of wishing harm on Vick, maybe he should just go about his life.)

 

It makes some one who I always thought of as a good guy, come off as a douche. So maybe the reason Im bent out of shape is because I hate thinking that Mark's image is going to be tarnished over something stupid like this.

I think he's trying to let it go, thus the reason for his comments.

I also think he's not going to shy away from his statements like people have done in the past, such as Maurice Jones-Drew did in the whole Cutler fiasco.

[Soxbadger]

I guess if he really wanted to let it go his statement would have been something like:

 

"My wife and I love dogs, some times our love may cloud our judgment. Regardless of our personal feelings about the subject, we would never wish injury on another person."

 

I think most people would accept that he let his feelings cloud his judgment. But just admit to it.

[chetkincaid]

Yep, hunting other animals and hanging their heads on your wall is so much more noble.

 

I hope this is his last year in a White Sox uniform.

 

FMB.

 

I guess if he really wanted to let it go his statement would have been something like:

 

"My wife and I love dogs, some times our love may cloud our judgment. Regardless of our personal feelings about the subject, we would never wish injury on another person."

 

I think most people would accept that he let his feelings cloud his judgment. But just admit to it.

 

I'd be cool if he said something like this. But he's coming out matter-of-factly saying that he wishes Vick gets hurt... and he can get injured himself anytime he takes the field.

 

FMB.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Chet Kincaid