ESPN runs controversial picture of a white Michael Vick

Wallace108 wrote:

True. But we're accomplices because we consume them. If we didn't, there wouldn't be a market for it, and slaughterhouses would go out of business.

You could also try to make the case that people that buy dogs, unknowingly, from a place that is considered a "puppy mill" are accomplices to the poor treatment they receive and that just isn't true. I have no idea where most of my store bought meat is coming from or the conditions that the livestock are subjected to. It could just as easily have come from a reputable, humane (as silly as this sounds) slaughterhouse. I can't be an accomplice to a crime I am unaware of.

If my buddy robs a bank, unbeknownst to me, and decides to come crash at my house for the weekend to lay low, that doesn't make me an accessory to armed robbery does it?

Wallace108 wrote:

Correct. And there was also a time when the majority of our society felt that blacks weren't equal to whites. Just because the majority felt that way, did that make it right?

No, but these are the moral and societal standards by which we have agreed to currently live by as a majority. History may look back on this time in the future as a dark period when humans were barbaric animal flesh eaters, but that time isn't now nor is it assured that it will ever be unacceptable to a majority. I tend to think that it won't happen... at least until the "meat pill" is invented.

Wallace108 wrote:

But what happens in slaughterhouses IS inhumane. And you do advocate it by continuing to consume their products.

I absolutely DO NOT advocate inhumane treatment of livestock. I feel they should be made as reasonably comfortable as possible and slaughtered in the most humane way possible. Present me with a petition and I'll be the first to sign it.

I can't control the unethical behavior of corporate slaughterhouses that cut corners to make an extra dime anymore than I can control a construction company that cuts corners and builds unsafe, shoddy toll bridges that i have to pay for to get to where I'm going. Just because I pay to use the bridge doesn't mean I support the construction company putting our lives in danger through greed.

Wallace108 wrote:

I don't disagree. But that's our view. And other people have other views.

Frankly, that can be said for damn near anything imaginable.

Buddha Bus wrote:

You could also try to make the case that people that buy dogs, unknowingly, from a place that is considered a "puppy mill" are accomplices to the poor treatment they receive and that just isn't true.

But if they knowingly get puppies from a mill, then they're wrong ... because they're supporting an unethical operation.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I have no idea where most of my store bought meat is coming from or the conditions that the livestock are subjected to.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I can't be an accomplice to a crime I am unaware of. If my buddy robs a bank, unbeknownst to me, and decides to come crash at my house for the weekend to lay low, that doesn't make me an accessory to armed robbery does it?

No, it does not. But if you DO know about the robbery, then you're aiding a criminal. So if you know what's happening in slaughterhouses, you're aiding the activity by purchasing their products.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I tend to think that it won't happen... at least until the "meat pill" is invented.

Mmmmmm, meat pill. Will that be covered under Obamacare?

Buddha Bus wrote:

I absolutely DO NOT advocate inhumane treatment of livestock. I feel they should be made as reasonably comfortable as possible and slaughtered in the most humane way possible.

That's like saying I don't advocate violent rape. I feel rape victims should be made as reasonably comfortable as possible and raped in the most gentle way possible.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I can't control the unethical behavior of corporate slaughterhouses that cut corners to make an extra dime anymore than I can control a construction company that cuts corners and builds unsafe, shoddy toll bridges that i have to pay for to get to where I'm going. Just because I pay to use the bridge doesn't mean I support the construction company putting our lives in danger through greed.

But you do have control. You can choose not to eat meat processed in slaughterhouses.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Frankly, that can be said for damn near anything imaginable.

Correct. And that's why we have debates.

Wallace108 wrote:

That's me, my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl.

Wallace108 wrote:

Mmmmmm, meat pill. Will that be covered under Obamacare?

No. I believe it's part of Herman Cain's political/pizza platform. He has crafted a plan to feed the homeless through his "Soylent Green Initiative".

Wallace108 wrote:

That's like saying I don't advocate violent rape. I feel rape victims should be made as reasonably comfortable as possible and raped in the most gentle way possible.

One question..... are you vegan?

Wallace108 wrote:

But you do have control. You can choose not to eat meat processed in slaughterhouses.

I'll tell you the same thing I told a vegan friend of mine awhile back. "I'd probably be a vegan too if meat didn't taste so good."

I could forsake meat, but I like it and we live in a society of natural carnivores. I can't help it if I can't control my yearnings for steak and chicken! It's yummy! I think I have a disease much like alcoholism..... meatism?

I won't be making the switch to tofu anytime soon, my friend. All I can do is demand or expect that my supper is treated decently before it makes it to my plate.

Question number 2: Do you shop at Wal-Mart?

Wallace108 wrote:

Correct. And that's why we have debates.

I thought it was to get pissed off at each other?

Buddha Bus wrote:

One question..... are you vegan?

Hell no ... why do you ask?

Buddha Bus wrote:

Question number 2: Do you shop at Wal-Mart?

Yes, and I HATE it. I hate Wal-Mart probably as much as you hate Vick. Unfortunately, I've been forced to shop there because of their low prices and my declining income. Although in recent years, their prices have gone up considerably. You can still get deals, but their prices are now comparable to smaller stores. So that's helped me break away from Wal-Mart and go there only when I can't get what I need in any of my small local stores.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I thought it was to get pissed off at each other?

Getting pissed at each other is just an added benefit.


Our culture has given dogs, as well as cats, a protected status that most other animals don't have, an almost human-like status. You can't kill a dog, even for food. But what about Bambi? Well, fuck Bambi!! We'll kill her, eat her, and cut off her head and have it mounted on a wall in our den to show other people how good we are at killing things. But don't even THINK about killing a dog ... because that would make you a monster. I don't think an animal cares whether it's being killed for sport or for food. All the animal knows is that it's being killed, and it's better to be alive.

What Vick did was wrong, and he deserved to be punished. But I don't think he should be labeled a monster and have to carry that label around with him for the rest of his life.

Wallace108 wrote:

Hell no ... why do you ask?

I just wanted to prove you were a hypocrite.

Wallace108 wrote:

Yes, and I HATE it. I hate Wal-Mart probably as much as you hate Vick. Unfortunately, I've been forced to shop there because of their low prices and my declining income. Although in recent years, their prices have gone up considerably. You can still get deals, but their prices are now comparable to smaller stores. So that's helped me break away from Wal-Mart and go there only when I can't get what I need in any of my small local stores.

You know you condone inhumane child labor and slavery, don't you? Buying from Wal-Mart gives them the OK to continue manufacturing/buying goods from sweat shops in countries with Draconian labor laws. You may as well be over there whipping them yourself!

(See what I did there? )

Wallace108 wrote:

Getting pissed at each other is just an added benefit.

Just PLEASE don't call us "friends with benefits". :paranoid:

Wallace108 wrote:

Our culture has given dogs, as well as cats, a protected status that most other animals don't have, an almost human-like status. You can't kill a dog, even for food. But what about Bambi? Well, fuck Bambi!! We'll kill her, eat her, and cut off her head and have it mounted on a wall in our den to show other people how good we are at killing things. But don't even THINK about killing a dog ... because that would make you a monster. I don't think an animal cares whether it's being killed for sport or for food. All the animal knows is that it's being killed, and it's better to be alive.

What Vick did was wrong, and he deserved to be punished. But I don't think he should be labeled a monster and have to carry that label around with him for the rest of his life.

I am going to withdraw from the debate now so as to not further derail this thread. It's clear I won anyway.

















P.S.- Michael Vick is STILL a horrible monster.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I just wanted to prove you were a hypocrite.

Wait, why am I a hypocrite?

Buddha Bus wrote:

You know you condone inhumane child labor and slavery, don't you? Buying from Wal-Mart gives them the OK to continue manufacturing/buying goods from sweat shops in countries with Draconian labor laws. You may as well be over there whipping them yourself!

(See what I did there? )

The problem is that it isn't just Wal-Mart. Go to just about any store in your city ... pick up a product and look and see where it was made. Even stuff that says Made in America isn't necessarily made in America. It may have been assembled here, but the parts likely came from other countries. Our manufacturing base has been decimated. So when I go to a store, it's rather difficult to find products that are made in America. But when you go to the grocery store, the meat department represents just a fraction of the total food you can choose from.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I am going to withdraw from the debate now so as to not further derail this thread. It's clear I won anyway.

Quitter.

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

I just wanted to prove you were a hypocrite.

Wait, why am I a hypocrite?

Buddha, since you won't answer my question, I'll answer it for you ... I'm not a hypocrite.
Nowhere in this thread did I say I was against eating meat or against slaughterhouses. I was using the slaughterhouse argument against you since you have such strong feelings against the torture of animals that you can't forgive Vick and give him a second chance. If your feelings against the torture of animals are that strong, then you should think twice before taking a bite out of your next hamburger.

I don't put animals on the same level as humans. And as such, I don't have a problem forgiving Vick and giving him a second chance. I do have a problem with the needless torture of animals, and that's why I feel what Vick did was wrong. But he was punished for it, and he deserves a second chance to make amends and make better decisions.

Wallace108 wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

I just wanted to prove you were a hypocrite.

Wait, why am I a hypocrite?

Buddha, since you won't answer my question, I'll answer it for you ... I'm not a hypocrite.
Nowhere in this thread did I say I was against eating meat or against slaughterhouses. I was using the slaughterhouse argument against you since you have such strong feelings against the torture of animals that you can't forgive Vick and give him a second chance. If your feelings against the torture of animals are that strong, then you should think twice before taking a bite out of your next hamburger.

I don't put animals on the same level as humans. And as such, I don't have a problem forgiving Vick and giving him a second chance. I do have a problem with the needless torture of animals, and that's why I feel what Vick did was wrong. But he was punished for it, and he deserves a second chance to make amends and make better decisions.

I never said I was against eating meat or against slaughterhouses either. You brought up the slaughterhouse argument, not me. I still believe that livestock should be treated humanely even if they are going to end up as hamburgers eventually. No need to subject them to horrible conditions or torture on top of it. Even so, they aren't killed in some of the aforementioned ways that Vick chose to dispose of his dogs. It was downright criminal and psychopathic.

I do feel like dogs and cats and other house pets are on a different level, however. They have a special emotional bond with their owners than a cow or a chicken does. They can, and are, like members of the family. My dog is like my child, as is my cat and bird. I don't have the same emotional attachment to a random cow or pig that I have never seen that will be slaughtered for my food. That's a real fact. I also don't have the same emotional attachment to a human that I have never met in my life that is killed as I do a close personal friend.

Dogs are not intended, nor allowed, to be what Mike Vick made them. Vicious killing machines put into a "sport" against their will to kill each other for human amusement or financial gain. They are loyal and feeling animals that are on a different level of intelligence and domestication than livestock. Livestock is intended for human consumption. Dogs, cats and the like are not. They are different. That doesn't mean it should be OK to torture or inhumanely house livestock before slaughter. They are still living, breathing, feeling animals regardless of their purpose.

You and I will not agree on this issue in regards to how Vick should be viewed. I still remain steadfast in my view of him as an unfeeling monster. He can still have his second chance to redeem himself in society if he chooses, but he doesn't deserve the "right" to make millions of dollars and be rich and famous in the process. In my opinion, he forfeited that right when he did what he did to those dogs. Let him do charity work on his off days from The Sizzler steak house for his redemption. I, for one, will not forgive his transgressions and that is my right to do so.

I've had fun with this debate. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's fine. It gives me something to do. You know what happens when I get bored.

I'll address your last post if you want to continue the debate. But if you're done with it, then that's cool too.

Wallace108 wrote:

I've had fun with this debate. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's fine. It gives me something to do. You know what happens when I get bored.

I'll address your last post if you want to continue the debate. But if you're done with it, then that's cool too.

I think we've derailed the original topic quite enough. We'll just agree that you're wrong and leave it at that.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I've had fun with this debate. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's fine. It gives me something to do. You know what happens when I get bored.

I'll address your last post if you want to continue the debate. But if you're done with it, then that's cool too.

I think we've derailed the original topic quite enough. We'll just agree that you're wrong and leave it at that.

Fine ... I'll split the debate into another thread, then you won't have an excuse to run and hide.

I'll address your post later. You can either respond or go crawl up in the fetal position.

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I've had fun with this debate. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's fine. It gives me something to do. You know what happens when I get bored.

I'll address your last post if you want to continue the debate. But if you're done with it, then that's cool too.

I think we've derailed the original topic quite enough. We'll just agree that you're wrong and leave it at that.

Fine ... I'll split the debate into another thread, then you won't have an excuse to run and hide.

I'll address your post later. You can either respond or go crawl up in the fetal position.

I'm just not sure what else there is to say on my position. I think I've stated it clearly and addressed all of your arguments. We don't agree. I have no desire to continually rehash the same debate just for debate's sake. You've stated your position clearly and I've stated mine clearly. We don't see it the same and I don't think we will. I'm not one to butt heads over and over just to have something to argue about.

Fire away if you need to have the last word. I tried giving it to you once, but you called me out again. That's the only reason I responded this time.

Oh... and

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I've had fun with this debate. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's fine. It gives me something to do. You know what happens when I get bored.

I'll address your last post if you want to continue the debate. But if you're done with it, then that's cool too.

I think we've derailed the original topic quite enough. We'll just agree that you're wrong and leave it at that.

Fine ... I'll split the debate into another thread, then you won't have an excuse to run and hide.

I'll address your post later. You can either respond or go crawl up in the fetal position.

I'm just not sure what else there is to say on my position. I think I've stated it clearly and addressed all of your arguments. We don't agree. I have no desire to continually rehash the same debate just for debate's sake. You've stated your position clearly and I've stated mine clearly. We don't see it the same and I don't think we will. I'm not one to butt heads over and over just to have something to argue about.

Fire away if you need to have the last word. I tried giving it to you once, but you called me out again. That's the only reason I responded this time.

Oh... and

You didn't give me the last word. You said you were done with the debate, which would have given me the last word. But in the same post you called me a hypocrite. Did you honestly think I wouldn't respond to that?

Game on!

Wallace108 wrote:

You didn't give me the last word. You said you were done with the debate, which would have given me the last word. But in the same post you called me a hypocrite. Did you honestly think I wouldn't respond to that?

Game on!

You made another post after mine giving you.... the last word.

Also, notice the laughing emoticon after the hypocrite statement. Just a joking jab, but you are arguing the inhumane treatment of animals being slaughtered in slaughterhouses and the condoning of that treatment by consuming those products whilst admitting being a meat eater that consumes said slaughtered animals.

Hypocrite might be a strong word. I truly feel you're just playing Devil's advocate for the sake of banter.

Buddha Bus wrote:

You made another post after mine giving you.... the last word.

Yeah ... I made a post asking why you called me a hyprocrite.

Buddha Bus wrote:

but you are arguing the inhumane treatment of animals being slaughtered in slaughterhouses and the condoning of that treatment by consuming those products whilst admitting being a meat eater that consumes said slaughtered animals.

You're missing the point of my argument.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I truly feel you're just playing Devil's advocate for the sake of banter.

I would never do such a thing.
Actually, I would ... but I'm not here.

Buddha Bus wrote:

See ... you ARE in favor of abusing animals. You're no better than Vick, you monster.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I never said I was against eating meat or against slaughterhouses either. You brought up the slaughterhouse argument, not me.

Yes, I know. You hate Vick for torturing animals, yet you have no problem with slaughterhouses, which torture animals. Then you called ME the hypocrite.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I still believe that livestock should be treated humanely even if they are going to end up as hamburgers eventually. No need to subject them to horrible conditions or torture on top of it.

I guess it depends on your definition of "humanely." Take a look at what goes on in slaughterhouses.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Even so, they aren't killed in some of the aforementioned ways that Vick chose to dispose of his dogs. It was downright criminal and psychopathic.

There are a lot of people who believe that what goes on in slaughterhouses is "downright criminal and psychopathic."

Buddha Bus wrote:

I do feel like dogs and cats and other house pets are on a different level, however. They have a special emotional bond with their owners than a cow or a chicken does.

You're such an animal bigot.
I have a friend who has had pet pigs. For whatever reason, this guy LOVES pigs. I assure you ... whatever emotional bond you feel with your dog or cat, he feels the same with his pigs. Yet you have absolutely no problem having some bacon with your eggs in the morning. Or how about having a ham sandwich? So ... how do you feel about having a poodle burger? Or how about a pitbull steak?

The reason you feel that dogs, cats, and other "house pets" are on a different level is because that's what our culture has dictated. Different cultures value different animals. We view dogs and cats as on a different level than other animals, but Asian countries view them as food. Hindus believe cows are holy animals that shouldn't be harmed, but we torture and slaughter them so we can have a good hamburger.

Buddha Bus wrote:

They can, and are, like members of the family. My dog is like my child, as is my cat and bird. I don't have the same emotional attachment to a random cow or pig that I have never seen that will be slaughtered for my food. That's a real fact.

I'm willing to bet that if you had a pet pig, you'd have the same emotional attachment to it that you do with your dog, cat, and bird.

Buddha Bus wrote:

They are loyal and feeling animals that are on a different level of intelligence and domestication than livestock.

Oh, I don't know about that. Are you saying that pigs, rabbits, and deer (for example) don't have intelligence and can't be domesticated? Do me a favor ... take a few minutes out of your day and watch every single one of these videos.













I spent about 10 minutes compiling that group of videos. There are a LOT more out there if you want to search for them. The reason dogs and cats have a higher status in our culture is because we gave them a higher status. That's good if you're a cat or dog. Kinda sucks if you're any other animal.

Wallace108 wrote:

Yes, I know. You hate Vick for torturing animals, yet you have no problem with slaughterhouses, which torture animals. Then you called ME the hypocrite.

For the last time, I do NOT have "no problem with, slaughterhouses, which torture animals". Show me the proof that ALL slaughterhouses torture animals. I'm certain that some do, but I have no idea if the meat I buy comes from one. I also have no idea if goods I purchase from somewhere go to fund terrorist organizations overseas. That doesn't mean if I do that I support terrorism.

Wallace108 wrote:

I guess it depends on your definition of "humanely." Take a look at what goes on in slaughterhouses.

I didn't say that the actual killing of them is completely humane, just that they should be slaughtered "as humanely as possible". Everyone will have a different definition or tolerance for that statement. As quickly and painlessly as possible is what I mean while housing them in reasonable conditions beforehand.

Wallace108 wrote:

There are a lot of people who believe that what goes on in slaughterhouses is "downright criminal and psychopathic."

And that's their right to feel that way much as it's my right to feel the way I do.

Wallace108 wrote:

You're such an animal bigot.
I have a friend who has had pet pigs. For whatever reason, this guy LOVES pigs. I assure you ... whatever emotional bond you feel with your dog or cat, he feels the same with his pigs. Yet you have absolutely no problem having some bacon with your eggs in the morning. Or how about having a ham sandwich? So ... how do you feel about having a poodle burger? Or how about a pitbull steak?

The reason you feel that dogs, cats, and other "house pets" are on a different level is because that's what our culture has dictated. Different cultures value different animals. We view dogs and cats as on a different level than other animals, but Asian countries view them as food. Hindus believe cows are holy animals that shouldn't be harmed, but we torture and slaughter them so we can have a good hamburger.

I'm sure your buddy does love his pigs. Fine by me HE can fight for their right to live if he chooses. This debate isn't really about what animals should live or die, Wally. You keep expanding and changing the debate to keep it going. The original debate was about a controversial photo of Vick being white. It has now evolved into a debate over Vick's crime, cruelty to dogs, conditions in slaughterhouses of animals completely unrelated to the original post and now a discussion of what animals should live or die. I'm not going to continue expanding the argument.

You keep coming at me like I'm defending some of the poor treatment of animals in slaughterhouses even though I've clearly stated several times that I do not condone that treatment. You get upset about the joking use of the word hypocrite, yet find it OK to seriously accuse people of the same thing by saying they support torture and killing of livestock.

You mention that different cultures view a variety of animals in differing ways and that our culture has dictated that cats and dogs are on a different level which is one of the points I made early on in this debate. Our society has determined as a majority that dog fighting is illegal and the abuse and torture of animals is wrong and also illegal. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Wallace108 wrote:

I'm willing to bet that if you had a pet pig, you'd have the same emotional attachment to it that you do with your dog, cat, and bird.

And if my mother had a penis she'd be my father.

I'm sure I may, but I don't have a pet pig. Once again, now we're starting to argue which animals should live or die. Society has deemed that certain animals are acceptable to utilize as food. That is one of them. If somebody else wants to take up that fight they are more than welcome to. It won't be me.

Wallace108 wrote:

Oh, I don't know about that. Are you saying that pigs, rabbits, and deer (for example) don't have intelligence and can't be domesticated? Do me a favor ... take a few minutes out of your day and watch every single one of these videos.

I'm sure they can to some extent. I still don't view them as on the same level as dogs and cats. Sorry.

Wallace108 wrote:

That's good if you're a cat or dog. Kinda sucks if you're any other animal.

I'll leave you with a piece of advice I tend to get a lot: "Life isn't fair... quit your bitching."

Buddha Bus wrote:

The original debate was about a controversial photo of Vick being white. It has now evolved into a debate over Vick's crime, cruelty to dogs, conditions in slaughterhouses of animals completely unrelated to the original post and now a discussion of what animals should live or die. I'm not going to continue expanding the argument.

There never was any debate about the photo. If it wasn't for our debate, this thread would have been dead after one day.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I'll leave you with a piece of advice I tend to get a lot: "Life isn't fair... quit your bitching."

Likewise, I'll leave you with a piece of advice: Accept the fact that I won.

Wallace108 wrote:

Likewise, I'll leave you with a piece of advice: Accept the fact that I won.

NEVAH!!!!!