RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Troy Newell -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 8:07:38 PM)

[quote="Duane Sampson"]Trained fighting dogs can't be "placed."[/quote] Probably not, but the "bait" dog sure can.



Toby Stumbo -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 8:12:46 PM)

Weren't some puppies?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 9:28:59 PM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"]John getting into racial profiling of dogs. Who'd a thunk it. Anyone else read the good news that not all the dogs in this case are destined for the needle? Each dog will be looked at to see if it can be placed. Best news I've read on this case yet.[/quote] When has racial profiling ended? Or perhaps you can point out the race of humans bred for fighting?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 9:29:27 PM)

Tony Dungy had a great interview on the radio yesterday. He was strongly against a lifetime ban for Michael Vick. He felt Vick could do some great things after he served his time traveling to educate young men about not only the evils of dogfighting and what it cost him but on how they must walk the straight and narrow in general. Good interview



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 11:09:13 PM)

[quote="Duane Sampson"]Trained fighting dogs can't be "placed."[/quote] Said Donna Reynolds, BAD RAP executive director, “We’ve seen time and time again that by pooling resources, we can get more accomplished for animals. We’re honored to be a part of the ASPCA’s team effort and look forward to giving our best to the dogs. After all they’ve been through, they certainly deserve a fair trial.” The ASPCA-led evaluation team will conduct several tests on these dogs, including their response to humans and other dogs, as well as their general reactivity and comfort with being handled. No further details on the specifics of these tests can be released at this time. Once the evaluations are completed, the ASPCA will provide a final report to the USDA, which will contain the team’s collective recommendations to the USDA on the disposition of the dogs. Other than possible re-homing into appropriate foster homes, recommendation options may include rehabilitation as law enforcement dogs, placement in sanctuaries (which will need to meet USDA facility standards), or euthanasia. However, euthanasia is not the only recommendation or option that will be considered, as has been reported in some media accounts—the results of the evaluations will determine what those recommendations are. No dogs will be placed in private homes at this time. All placements will be made with, and through, experienced rescue, foster and sanctuary groups. http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_082807_4



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 11:14:39 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]Tony Dungy had a great interview on the radio yesterday. He was strongly against a lifetime ban for Michael Vick. He felt Vick could do some great things after he served his time traveling to educate young men about not only the evils of dogfighting and what it cost him but on how they must walk the straight and narrow in general. Good interview[/quote] While I don't disagree with the premise of Vick going around educating young men about the evils of dog fighting I don't see why he has to be allowed to play football to do so. He came into hundreds of millions of dollars because he could run fast and do things on a football field that few others could. That in and of itself is a problem IMO. He took that money and made horrible decisions with it. Why does he deserve the opportunity to make more millions with so many people struggling?



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/7/2007 11:20:12 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Todd Mallett"]John getting into racial profiling of dogs. Who'd a thunk it. [/quote] When has racial profiling ended? Or perhaps you can point out the race of humans bred for fighting?[/quote] I came up with the phrase racial profiling of dogs when I was going through issues with being allowed to keep my Pit Bull mix breed. Is it really that hard for you to keep things within the context of the animals we're talking about? I just thought perhaps you might be a little more sensitive to the judging of an entire race/breed based on the actions of the few.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 4:29:02 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]Tony Dungy had a great interview on the radio yesterday. He was strongly against a lifetime ban for Michael Vick. He felt Vick could do some great things after he served his time traveling to educate young men about not only the evils of dogfighting and what it cost him but on how they must walk the straight and narrow in general. Good interview[/quote] Does anyone actually think he would do it if he didn't feel like it would be what was needed to get his ticket punched back into the NFL?



Tim Cady -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 6:26:49 AM)

He did a crime. He will do his time. Then I would set up on possible reinstatement time table. I believe in forgiveness. Maybe it won't be warranted, no way I can say now.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 2:32:52 PM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"][quote="John Childress"]Tony Dungy had a great interview on the radio yesterday. He was strongly against a lifetime ban for Michael Vick. He felt Vick could do some great things after he served his time traveling to educate young men about not only the evils of dogfighting and what it cost him but on how they must walk the straight and narrow in general. Good interview[/quote] While I don't disagree with the premise of Vick going around educating young men about the evils of dog fighting I don't see why he has to be allowed to play football to do so. He came into hundreds of millions of dollars because he could run fast and do things on a football field that few others could. That in and of itself is a problem IMO. He took that money and made horrible decisions with it. Why does he deserve the opportunity to make more millions with so many people struggling?[/quote] It is called the American system of justice. You pay your "debt to society" and then you are free. Plus, his message would carry a lot more weight to young men if he was back in the NFL. Lastly, what message does that send to the young men who men who do their time? You can never become a productive citizen again? I think that a lot of people who don't want him back in the NFL after he does his time are the same people that are jealous of young men making so much money in the first place. "He was making millions and did this while I am stuggling."



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 2:36:15 PM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Todd Mallett"]John getting into racial profiling of dogs. Who'd a thunk it. [/quote] When has racial profiling ended? Or perhaps you can point out the race of humans bred for fighting?[/quote] I came up with the phrase racial profiling of dogs when I was going through issues with being allowed to keep my Pit Bull mix breed. Is it really that hard for you to keep things within the context of the animals we're talking about? I just thought perhaps you might be a little more sensitive to the judging of an entire race/breed based on the actions of the few.[/quote] You really made some terrible ASSumptions. 1. Don't ever think that you can estimate MY opinion on something 2. It is INSULTING of you to equate the treatment of Blacks in this country to dogs. You probably have no freakin' clue how insulting your statements are. If we were in person we probably would be scrapping right now. Don't compare the civilr rights struggle of Blacks to animals, gays, or anything else. I honestly think you should just drop this whole angle immediately if we are to ever move forward with dialogue. That was a post worthy of Richard Strong.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 3:45:34 PM)

[quote="Tim Cady"]He did a crime. He will do his time. Then I would set up on possible reinstatement time table. I believe in forgiveness. Maybe it won't be warranted, no way I can say now.[/quote] He will do his time. I'm convinced any remorse he might have is due strictly to the $100M+ he threw away, and that any actions he takes will be in the interests of getting another payday.



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/8/2007 11:06:52 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Todd Mallett"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Todd Mallett"]John getting into racial profiling of dogs. Who'd a thunk it. When has racial profiling ended? Or perhaps you can point out the race of humans bred for fighting? I came up with the phrase racial profiling of dogs when I was going through issues with being allowed to keep my Pit Bull mix breed. Is it really that hard for you to keep things within the context of the animals we're talking about? I just thought perhaps you might be a little more sensitive to the judging of an entire race/breed based on the actions of the few. You really made some terrible ASSumptions. 1. Don't ever think that you can estimate MY opinion on something 2. It is INSULTING of you to equate the treatment of Blacks in this country to dogs. You probably have no freakin' clue how insulting your statements are. If we were in person we probably would be scrapping right now. Don't compare the civilr rights struggle of Blacks to animals, gays, or anything else. I honestly think you should just drop this whole angle immediately if we are to ever move forward with dialogue. That was a post worthy of Richard Strong. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering. Gain some respect, lose some respect. Hard to figure things out here. You said in response to "“People will say that pit bulls are dangerous because they’re so powerful,” Ferguson said. “But there are a lot of powerful dogs. Look at the Rottweiler. It’s just as strong. "
quote:

And I would get rid of both breeds
Now, try to follow along, I'm not black, I don't really even "know" any black people and I'm not even talking about black people it is you who brings in your own agenda. Having a Pit Bull mix and being familiar with the reactions to owning the dog is what I'm going by. Your calling for the destruction of 2 entire breeds is, in my opinion and as it relates to things I'm familiar with akin to racial profiling although obviously breed profiling would be more acceptable because things happened and black people have been repressed, sorry to open up a fresh wound. I must have mentioned that phrase to a couple dozen people as I went through the issues with my dog and not one person reacted as if what I said was taboo. Race for humans, breeds for dogs, I get the distinction. It doesn't mean I have to accept an ignorant comment like yours calling for the destruction of the breeds. If we're up to someone like you I would have to have destroyed my beautiful dog. So here I am in the Mike Vick thread talking about Mike Vick and animal cruelty and things that RELATE. I don't wish to discuss the war, race, drunk driving and what have you HERE. You’re now the second person who has said they would throw down with me if we were in person. Like anyone can read my thoughts for over a year and come up with anything other than I am a kind, caring person who is sensitive to suffering regardless of the topic. I did not deserve that comment from either you or Dan and things like that really make me feel that I've been wasting my time here.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 12:15:23 AM)

quote:

I just thought perhaps you might be a little more sensitive to the judging of an entire race/breed based on the actions of the few.
I am through with you. You are so ignorant that I can't help you



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 4:46:20 AM)

Pit Bulls are a good breed. I have an brother in law that takes in bulls, and while they are noisy, they are good dogs. Raised correctly, I believe there is no finer breed than a Rottweiler. They are complete sweethearts, providing they are raised correctly. I have seen a Rotty be bossed around by a rabbit, a chicken, and a bunch of kittens. Depending on which list you go by, they are anywhere from the 2nd to 6th smartest breed of dog. I have seen them ridden like horses by young kids, etc. If a Rottie is properly trained, it will accept any member into it's pack, and baby them like no one's business. The problem is that they are so popular because of their good traits, and they are so powerful that when raised poorly or neglected, they can cause damage. But, this is not much different that other large breeds, from Malamutes, Danes, Chows, etc. If these breeds were as popular, there would be as many incidents with them. I do not think the answer is to eliminate all large dog breeds. I think people who abuse and neglect animals should face much harsher penalties, as should those who cannot control their animals.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 4:51:31 AM)

[quote="Tim Cady"]He did a crime. He will do his time. Then I would set up on possible reinstatement time table. I believe in forgiveness. Maybe it won't be warranted, no way I can say now.[/quote] I know bringing up parallels can be frustrating, but if the NFL does not allow Vick back in... And does nothing to Lance Briggs..... And continues to not only employ Leonard Little, but tout him as one of the best defensive players in the league... Something is seriously wrong. If Vick serves whatever punishment the justice system metes out, and the NFL applies an equitable penalty of it's own, he should be allowed back after that. If they want to make a statement by throwing someone out of the league, please do it with the murderous, remorseless, continuting to drink and drive Little.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 10:15:46 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"]You’re now the second person who has said they would throw down with me if we were in person. Like anyone can read my thoughts for over a year and come up with anything other than I am a kind, caring person who is sensitive to suffering regardless of the topic. I did not deserve that comment from either you or Dan and things like that really make me feel that I've been wasting my time here.[/quote] Okay, you want to drag my name into this and whine that you are being "picked upon"...... Don't take this the wrong way, Mr. Sensitivity, but: Do you think, perhaps, your ill thought out, mindless insults, such as calling someone a homo erotic fantasy fan or equating dog breed behavior as "equivalent" to 'racial profiling' HAS JUST A WEE BIT TO DO WITH IT? YOU THOUGHTLESSLY AND CARELESSLY INSULT PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S "ALL IN FUN" OR "NO BIG DEAL" UNTIL SOMEONE TAKES OFFENSE AT YOUR "off the cuff" ?smart? insights into topics you, at best, should not touch. Mock me, to my face, and call me a "fan of homo-erotic fantasy", TO MY FACE, as in, in person, and YES we will "throw down". I don't know who, where or how you were raised, but certain things are not done or said to other people unless you are ready to accept the consequences. Do you walk up to Jews and "sieg heil" them? Do you walk up to a Hispanic person and "innocently" ask them if they have a wet back? Would you use the term "nappy headed ho's" in reference to female basketball players to thier face? Are you so blind or lacking in social understanding, that you do not see the arrogance and insult you so flippantly dish out? The fact that you have had 2 people tell you the same thing on two entirely different subjects, suggests to ME, that you are either deliberately "pushing buttons" to get a reaction, so you can play the "innocent offended" or, you really have no clue as to when your "going too far". I used to have some respect for you and your opinions on subjects, but lately, you are sounding more and more like a person who has let the private opinions of a certain poster, whom you seem to 'worship', influence your style and attitude. It is no co-incidence that this certain other poster, who has had many a bone and grudge to pick with JC, seems to influence you. It is no co-incidence that this very same other poster, who thinks he can ridicule and insult and mock ME, with his self proclaimed intelligence, because he thinks myself and/or others are "too stupid" or 'beneath' him to "get" his mockery and insults, smirks at his own "wit", but then cries foul when his mockery and "subtle sarcasm" is returned in full and double measure, exposing him for the fool he is. I now see a reflection of him/his ego, in you. Such a pity. You need to quit throwing crap at the fan for fun and then bitching when you get shit in your grill because of it. dy



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 1:36:50 PM)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/pit-bull-050124.html Ontario's proposed pit-bull ban slammed as 'genocide' Ontario's proposed ban on pit bulls amounts to "canine genocide," a critic told a public hearing into the potential legislation. Cathy Prothro, president of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, told a legislative committee that the proposed law unfairly blames pit bulls for attacks against humans by all breeds of dogs. "For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing," she told the committee on its first day of hearings. CATHY M. ROSENTHAL Humane Education and Writing on Animal Matters Breed-bans equivalent to racial profiling... http://www.petpundit.com/articles/02052006.htm "The very nature of a pit bull is that it's very willing and anxious to do anything that you ask of it. It wants to make its owner happy. Now, if the owner sends it in the wrong direction and teaches it bad things to do, it's going to try and make its owner happy in that vein," Threlfall said. Dowd added: "That does not mean the majority is that way. It's the same thing with racial profiling -- just because one person does it and they happen to be of a particular race doesn't mean that the whole group is that way." http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_280173037.html Diane prefers to work with WSP because of the caliber of the trainers and troopers. "These guys are at the top of the law enforcement pyramid. You know how totally refreshing it is to work with an agency that has no "racial profiling" mentality? Not even with the dogs they select for training! I understand that officers are often afraid of pit bulls because they have to interact with horrible dog owners who encourage their dogs to be aggressive toward strangers, but it is so refreshing to see officers who don’t use prejudice as a way of thinking. They treat each dog as an individual. I can’t help but feel that bodes well for how these troopers treat each person they interact with, as well." http://www.lawdogsusa.org/SecretWeapon.html I guess I didn't coin the phrase. But shit on me none the less.[[img]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j166/AmiCare/RacialProfilingIsWrong.jpg[/img]



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 6:55:39 PM)

Todd: First rule of holes: when you find yourself in one , quit digging. Your "quoted expert" is nothing more than a newspaper journalist for a newspaper in San Antonio. http://www.petpundit.com/about.htm Cathy Rosenthal has more than 25 years experience in public relations and writing for both the public and private sectors. She has written for several newspapers, magazines, and nonprofit organizations, focusing on animal issues and people/pet relationships. Cathy has been the pet columnist for the San Antonio Express-News since 2003. Her entertaining and informative weekly advice column (with an occasional essay on popular current animal issues) provides readers with insights into animal behavior. Cathy Prothro is a president of a dog club for pit bulls. Wow! There's a shocker, she, in her brilliant, unbiased :roll: , OPINION, equates banning pitbulls with "racial Profiling". So you get no credit for originality, but these "experts" are not exactly 'Top Shelf'. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States. Most victims were children. Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through 1992. 1979– 1981–1983– 1985– 1987– 1989– 1991– 1993– 1995– 1997– Breed 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 -----------------------------------------Total Pit bull-type 2 5 10 9 11* 8 6 5 4* 6 66 Rottweiler 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 10 10 10 39 German Shepherd Dog 2 1 4* 1 1 4* 2 0 2 0 17 Husky-type 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 15 Malamute 2 0 3 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 12 Doberman Pinscher 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 9 Chow Chow 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 8 Great Dane 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 Saint Bernard 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 Crossbred Wolf-dog hybrid 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 0 14 Mixed-breed 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 12 German Shepherd Dog 0 2 0 2 2 2† 0 1 2 0 10† Pit bull-type 0 1 0 3 2† 3 1 1 0 0 10† Husky-type 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 Rottweiler 0 0 0 0 1† 1 0 1 1 2 5† Alaskan Malamute 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Chow Chow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 Doberman Pinscher 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Saint Bernard 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Great Dane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1† 0† No. deaths for which breed was know. 10 20 26* 24 22 34* 24 25 26* 27 238 in summary: pitbulls and pit bull mixes:76 DEATHS ALL other Types: 176 Percentage of pit bulls and pitbull mixes kills in total: 31.9% Ratio of pit bulls and pit bull mixes kills to ALL other BREEDS: 2.3 to 1 Thats the FACT, jack. But cheer up, The CDC and JAVMA gives you this "point": Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. 840 Vet Med Today: Special Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 fyi: JAVMA Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association IOW, real, educated authorities, not journalists and dog club presidents. :lol: dy



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/9/2007 11:45:47 PM)

Dan You hit the nail on the head. If someone would ever tell me that I should understand the plight of a dog because I am Black either he would be carried out on a stretcher or I would be from trying. Now the proper response should have been "I had no idea that I offended you. I apologize but I want you to understand ....." Full and complete apology or we have nothing to talk about.



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/12/2007 4:09:23 AM)

Boys, you have huge johnsons and the world is your oyster. Does that help? Pissing match over? Lets get back to the issue and not "virtual fight" over this. I'd kick you ass if this wasn't the internet....... :lol:



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/12/2007 5:10:51 AM)

[quote="Jeff Jesser"]Boys, you have huge johnsons and the world is your oyster. Does that help? Pissing match over? Lets get back to the issue and not "virtual fight" over this. I'd kick you ass if this wasn't the internet....... :lol:[/quote] This is no Internet pissing match nor is it a joke. Let someone compare your race to dogs and see how much you laugh. Nothing virtual here



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/12/2007 3:58:40 PM)

Perhaps. I guess I just read it (being on the outside) as a little bit different. Maybe using the term "race" in this discussion was a bad idea. I just took it to mean "race of dog" and not the truest meaning of the word (human). In fact, I just skimmed over it assuming that's what he meant. I've never had beef with Todd in any way so I never took any of this maliciously. I just got back and was catching up on the posts. I got surprised to see that level of intensity. I should have stayed out because it wasn't my fight either way. I was just making a joke to try and restore peace. By all means, carry on.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/12/2007 9:09:13 PM)

Jeff You have to go back to the original statement. He said that I, presumably because I am Black, should feel sympathetic to the dogs because of racial profiling. What in anyone's right mind would make them think that I, because I am Black, should have more empathy for a dog? Do you realize how insulting that is? "Oh, I feel for those dogs because that is just like what us Blacks got in the 60s" INSANE!



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/12/2007 10:34:11 PM)

I reread everything and didn't get that interpretation. It could easily be that I am glossing over it because I don't have those same feelings. It wouldn't be the first time I guess. I think it's easier to take things with a grain of salt when you are reading them as an outsider. It doesn't hit home per se.



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode