Buehrle vs. Vick

[Soxbadger]

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.

[RockRaines]

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.

 

How is attaching a car battery to a dog with jumper cables to torture it and watch it die part of a sport? You seem to gloss over the torture for laughs every time you try and compare hunting to what he did. I would suggest reading the book about these dogs and what he put them through before you assume that it's even remotely close to hunting like Mark does. Nothing that they said was hypocritical whatsoever.

 

[RockRaines]

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.

You are really reaching there.

 

Vick bred dogs in captivity for the purpose of killing them still in captivity and at times torturing them for laughs and money. This included dismemberment and electrocution as well as hanging.

 

Tell me how anything the Buehrles have done equates to those actions. If they committed similar atrocities, then yes they could be called hypocritical.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

http://news.change.org/stories/bear-baying...-palmetto-state

 

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.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Soxbadger

[ScottyDo]

A few points -- and I'm sorry if any of these are rehashes:

 

A) Hunting, even black bear hunting, is not comparable to dog fighting because of the sheer volume of suffering induced by dog fighting, even outside the fights themselves. Pit bulls are not naturally aggressive creatures; they have a propensity toward maintaining aggression after it's been instigated, but in order to instill the personality required for dog fights, you have to mistreat a dog over a period of months or years. Additionally, dog fights require "bait dogs" whose "job" is to get the pit bulls pissed off before the fight by being an easy target. These dogs lead excruciating lives and are often chosen for their submissive nature, so there is no chance they will defend themselves. There are many other violent and reprehensible side chains to dog fighting. The amount of cruelty required is unfathomable. At the risk of being glib, I don't think Buehrle's hunts require something called a "rape stand" used for systematic torture. Now, if he was bear-baiting middle ages style, that would be another story.

 

B) There is a somewhat compelling argument that Buehrle is being hypocritical. I may even agree with it, as I don't hunt for the same reasons I find dog fights so disgusting. But so what if he is? Everyone is hypocritical in some respect. Attempts at pointing put the cruelties of hunting do not undo anything at issue. For instance, it could be considered cruel that I'm eating chicken nachos right now (Don Taco, you are amazing!); does that invalidate my above point about dog fighting? Clearly not. All it does is point out that perhaps I should reconsider the poultry industry. Who gives a crap if he's a hypocrite as long as he's right?

 

C) I forgot my other point. But babies are delicious.

[sircaffey]

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.

To be fair to hunters, that's a very uncommon form of hunting, and not the form of hunting that people think about when they hear the word. I am sure A LOT of hunters are against such forms of the act.

[RockRaines]

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.

 

Actually yes it is different. Because torturing and killing animals the way Vick did is sick and twisted. You are trying to support your point but being as broad as possible but there is a line there. If we adhered to your ruling on this matter we would all be hypocrites because you too have killed an animal for fun in your lifetime. Fishing, driving even walking kills living things everyday. Luckily the normal people on here aren't f***ing sick enough to breed an animal in a 2x2 crate for the sole purpose of torture and death for laughs. We don't dismember said animals and hang them because it's fun, because that's sick as f***. You can go ahead and lump everyone on this board and in the world in with Vick since we are all animal murders, but i prefer to take the rational path and separate myself for someone who would put forth so much effort such as securing a property, facilities, breeding animals, and a crowd for the sole purpose of torturing and murdering dogs.

 

 

But maybe I'm wrong, and next time I'm out on lake Michigan trolling for steelhead, ill remember that there is no difference between me and Michael Vick.

 

[ScottyDo]

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.

I don't see why discussion of degrees is off limits. Is premeditated murder worse than manslaughter? Probably. It's a matter of degrees, even though they both end with a dead body.

[ScottyDo]

Oh I remember my third point! It's encouraging to me how much more rational the arguments on this board are than the crap you see in the news story's Comments section. Soxtalk rules!

[Balta1701]

Oh I remember my third point! It's encouraging to me how much more rational the arguments on this board are than the crap you see in the news story's Comments section. Soxtalk rules!

You're Hitler.

[ScottyDo]

You're Hitler.

Busteeeeed...

[BigSqwert]

And since I am learning new things today, I will no longer eat trees for fear that they have feelings and emotions.

[ScottyDo]

And since I am learning new things today, I will no longer eat trees for fear that they have feelings and emotions.

You were eating trees before today? I'd just stick to veggies, they're a lot easier to digest, even WITH the emotions.

 

I think this might be the only morally safe option though:

 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2669

[BigSqwert]

Why is the presence of a central nervous system some signpost at which we stand and say, "enough is enough"?

Because we have central nervous systems and know what it's like to have pain inflicted in us. That is why I, and many others like me, do not wish to inflict pain an animals. These are creatures that feel pain. They attempt to flee when you hurt them. They squeal in pain when injured. When you accidentally step on you're dog's foot and he yelps loudly it's because it hurts them and you feel bad. That feeling of compassion in that instance is the same feeling I have for any animal because we all share very basic things like pain receptors and the need to survive.

[BigSqwert]

You were eating trees before today?

No, but for some reason KHP thought it was relevant to discuss some unusual theories about trees to prove some point as if people actually ate them.

[knightni]

Fine. A cow and a carrot are the same exact thing. You've convinced me.

 

From now on I'll only eat sand and plastic.

Sand and plastic are made from microorganisms and dessicated plant and animal material.

[BigSqwert]

Sand and plastic are made from microorganisms and dessicated plant and animal material.

Alright then...lava.

[knightni]

What no

abortion

comparison arguments yet?

 

/ducks

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

No, but for some reason KHP thought it was relevant to discuss some unusual theories about trees to prove some point as if people actually ate them.

More like observations, and I used them to try to show that plants can actually be considered intelligent organisms. They move at a speed and level that isn't easily noticeable by the naked eye, but experiments have been done to show they're a lot smarter than westerners seem to think.

 

Also, people eat fruits, nuts, sap, leaves, and flowers from trees, and they make teas and medicines out of bark and roots, and use trees to collect water from (standing, via transpiration, cuttings, etc.) and in tropical parts of the world, even the trunk itself is eaten. Heart of palm is a staple for many people. So every part of a tree gets eaten by man somewhere, and the rest is inevitably eaten by other organisms. So even if we don't eat the trunk of an oak tree, we may eat the mushrooms grown from it.

[Soxbadger]

You are trying to support your point but being as broad as possible but there is a line there. If we adhered to your ruling on this matter we would all be hypocrites because you too have killed an animal for fun in your lifetime

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

Fishing, driving even walking kills living things everyday. Luckily the normal people on here aren't f***ing sick enough to breed an animal in a 2x2 crate for the sole purpose of torture and death for laughs. We don't dismember said animals and hang them because it's fun, because that's sick as f***. You can go ahead and lump everyone on this board and in the world in with Vick since we are all animal murders, but i prefer to take the rational path and separate myself for someone who would put forth so much effort such as securing a property, facilities, breeding animals, and a crowd for the sole purpose of torturing and murdering dogs.

 

 

But maybe I'm wrong, and next time I'm out on lake Michigan trolling for steelhead, ill remember that there is no difference between me and Michael Vick.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

[iamshack]

Badge, don't you think one needs to form a stance on the issues before one can come to a conclusion on whether or not what Mark said is hypocritical? I thought all the ensuing arguments were simply trying to hash those issues out so we could then reach that conclusion...

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Milkman delivers]

Actually yes it is different. Because torturing and killing animals the way Vick did is sick and twisted. You are trying to support your point but being as broad as possible but there is a line there. If we adhered to your ruling on this matter we would all be hypocrites because you too have killed an animal for fun in your lifetime. Fishing, driving even walking kills living things everyday. Luckily the normal people on here aren't f***ing sick enough to breed an animal in a 2x2 crate for the sole purpose of torture and death for laughs. We don't dismember said animals and hang them because it's fun, because that's sick as f***. You can go ahead and lump everyone on this board and in the world in with Vick since we are all animal murders, but i prefer to take the rational path and separate myself for someone who would put forth so much effort such as securing a property, facilities, breeding animals, and a crowd for the sole purpose of torturing and murdering dogs.

 

 

But maybe I'm wrong, and next time I'm out on lake Michigan trolling for steelhead, ill remember that there is no difference between me and Michael Vick.

 

He's a lawyer. That's his job.

 

I don't mean that as an insult, either. A lawyer's job is often to sway the opinion of a few people (usually the dumber ones). He's obviously very good at it.

[iamshack]

Because we have central nervous systems and know what it's like to have pain inflicted in us. That is why I, and many others like me, do not wish to inflict pain an animals. These are creatures that feel pain. They attempt to flee when you hurt them. They squeal in pain when injured. When you accidentally step on you're dog's foot and he yelps loudly it's because it hurts them and you feel bad. That feeling of compassion in that instance is the same feeling I have for any animal because we all share very basic things like pain receptors and the need to survive.

Yeah, I understand that, and I can understand how others would dial-in on that distinction as some sort of line to try and avoid crossing. But I just don't think that line is really relevant for the very large judgment you are making.

 

In the grand scheme of what is the ecosystem and the natural order of things on this planet, I have a hard time identifying the ability to communicate pain or fear in a way in whch we can recognize as the key distinction for what is morally right or wrong. As KHP has pointed out, other organisms react or change the course of their behavior based on how we interact with them, but they do so in a manner which is less evident or recognizable to humans. So what you're ultimately saying seems even more hypocritical to me than what many others are saying, in that your viewpoint depends simply on your perception of their suffering, rather than on whether suffering is actually occuring. So if you can perceive it, it somehow holds more weight and value to you, however, if you are ignorant of it, it is morally acceptable to overlook that suffering.

 

One more critical point here. The reactions of sentient beings are those evolved into their genetics as a tool for survival. They developed the instinct to flee or let out cries of suffering as a tool to help them evade death. The reason those reactions manifest themselves in a manner in which we can recognize is to accomplish their purpose. Behaviors and instincts don't evolve if they are ultimately ineffective or accomplish nothing. In fact, they do precisely the opposite. So the very reason we can recognize the pain and the desire to flee expressed by sentient beings is the very reason for their presence. On the other hand, plant life has evolved to react in ways that are more relevant to their ability to survive, whether that be moving in and out of sunlight, or secreting a substance which attracts insects to fertilize them, etc. These actions, while not necessarily recognized by humans, are just as important to that organism's survival. It just so happens that that organism's survival does not so much depend on it's ability to interact with humans or other predators, but instead, some other source of danger or necessary life-giving source.

 

So what this entire notion of the suffering of sentient beings is based entirely upon our ability to recognize an organism's survival instincts, and the emotions those instincts evoke in us as humans and our ability to feel compassion and empathy. I think such a distinction is short-sighted and incorrectly arrived at. It's based on an even more hypocritical belief that the only survival instincts worth feeling emotion or compassion for are those which we can readily recognize and relate to. That those survival instincts somehow carry more weight and value because we can identify with their suffering more, since it is believed to be similar to our own. I just see that as an incredibly flawed premise.

[Milkman delivers]

I agree with ScottyDo. This discussion really shows the level of intelligence and rationality on Soxtalk.