[STARBURY] Marbury Defends Vick, Calls Dogfighting a Sport

If you shoot something that is thousands of yards away, that is just blind luck in most circumstances. For comparison, the longest confirmed sniper kill is 2340 meters (2657.33 yards). Shooting something at that range means the bullet is going to drop 100+ feet during flight. Nobody is shooting past 300-400 yards or so with a regular hunting rifle, and that is with very special long range weapons, not your typical .30-30. Ranges in the 1000 yard plus ballpark are generally reserved for your more indirect fire weapons (at least as far as man-portable unguided weapons are concerned).

 

just leave animals alone. they dont eat or fight us, why should eat and fight them?

 

Because they taste good...

 

You can defend dog-fighting relative to hunting. Or attack hunting by equating it to illegal dog-fighting.

But none of this is the point. Marbury is defending Vick. Vick's position is so indefensible, he's not even defending it anymore. He plead guilty.

It's illegal. He knew it was illegal. He set up a multi-state dog-fighting ring, anyway. He financed it. He participated at fights. He paid off winners. He participated in executing dogs by drowning, electrocution and slamming them on the ground.

Indefensible. Keep trying. The lawyer's aren't anymore...I wonder what Marbury's hourly rate is.

 

The NBA needs to have PR guys hired to speak for these players, and make it part of their rules, like the new dress code. Many of them are very unclutured and don't realize how much impact their casual comments have.

 

Well, if you're really concerned about the animals just use the stationary deer and turkey targets they sell at Wal-Mart, Target, or sporting goods stores. I mean, you made it sound like hunting is just a pain-free task for the animal when a lot of times it is not.

I just put thousands because they are capable of that range. I know hunters rarely shoot at such great distances. The longest, successful hunting shot I have ever seen was just over 500 yards.

My point about fighting the animal was that the hunter always has the unfair advantage. Better weaponry, chemicals and solutions to mask your scent, clothes to hide your appearance, tree stands to hide you above ground, feeding grounds to locate your prey and I could keep going on and on. It's not as fair as you made it sound.

I have been hunting since I was young myself (5-6 years old) and even at 80-90% animals still suffer. My point was that nobody who hunts instantly kills everything they have hunted, if they say they have they're lying.

Like I said above, the hunter has most of the advantages. I don't really see how you can argue that?

No problem, I'll quit discussing it too unless you respond.

Like I said I am a hunter but it is not all pain-free as many would like you to think. But, most hunters do try to kill they're prey as quickly as possible in order and don't torture them on purpose and there are many differences between hunting and dogfighting but in both cases animals usually suffer.

 

I just put that to show what kind of range these weapons can have. They can be deadly from these distances. The longest, successful shot that I have seen is just over 500 yards but hunters usually wait to maximize their chances for a kill and a better shot.

 

That's the dumbest post I have ever read on this board. Hands down.

 

Everyone that is against Vick on the basis of what he did to higher, "more evolved" animals should stop eating pork, as pigs have been proven to be very intelligent as well.

Of course, if dog meat tasted as good as bacon, none of this would have been a big deal.

 

touche.

 

You can't excuse conducting an illegal activity by comparing it to a legal one. That's like trying to say that you shouldn't get in trouble if you snort cocaine because it's legal to drink alcohol. Society has said that one is acceptable and the other is not - if you don't like the law go ahead and try to change it.

I guarantee that the majority of Americans are sickened and disgusted by dogfighting in general, and Vick's actions in particular. Of course it is a sport, like Marbury said, but it's a sport that society and our legal system have condemned, so let's get over it. And yes Marbury is an idiot.

 

Have you ever been in contact with animals? Of course they eat and fight us. Have you never heard of someone killed by a shark, mountain lion or bear? What did you think the animal was doing to those people, kissing them? They also eat and fight each other. Humans have evolved as omnivores, we do not have the teeth or stomachs of pure herbivores like cows.

 

Same for politicians, particularly Republicans in our Arizona Legislature I don't think many of them got past the 9th grade, I'll take your average pro athlete spouting off anyday

Dogs are consumed plenty of places.

We outlaw rooster fighting. If pigs were raised to be as aggressive as possible, and had special blade gloves on their feet for watching them fight long gruelling battles to the death, we would make that illegal too.

It is not like nature is all that kind. Being caught and eating like most higher and lower animals ultimately face can't be very pleasant, and I am sure ya'll have seen mama cats prolong the death of some prey to teach their kittens what to do. You can't tell be that is more pleasant than being raises on a big farm (granted most are not), eating a nice diet, maybe breeding, and having no idea and a quick end when it comes.

So IMO it comes down to the overall treatment, particularly of higher animals. (I am not to worried about scrimp farming conditions except how that may impact the environment and keeping those places clean). Dog fighting is not treating a fairly sentient animal well, and it is just a blood thirsty form of entertainment to watch them die slowly with no other purpose than that. And of course in Vick's case it was illegal--all these things together mean no sympathy for me for what he has coming.

 

I think you can make distinctions between what is immoral/unethical and what is illegal. They are not always the same.

In this case I think Vick was both. But someone who refused to fight in the Vietnam war or smokes mar1juana in my book is not acting immoral, though they have broken laws. I'd have more sympathy for an athlete receiving jail and/or sactions against playing for these offenses than ones where they broke the law by hurting other people or were cruel to animals.

 

The difference is you are not forcing a cow to suffer through hours of torture fighting another cow and getting his face bitten off before eating it. Say what you want about how animals are slaughtered for food, but it does not compare to what dogs go through in dogfights.

Simple analogy is if you had to be killed, would you rather be shot and die quickly, or rather someone painfully beat you to death over a period of a few hours. Either way you are dead right?

 

This thread is getting me very excited for the new Coen Brothers movie: No Country for Old Men

 

You said it right there. Society has said that one is acceptable and the other is not. I wil add that "American" society is sickened and disgusted by the Michael Vick saga". The rest of the world watches on and collectively scratches their head in amazement. The French eat horses. China eats dogs. Radical Islamist could give a rats patoutie about this...they are too busy blowing up people to care about animals.

It's about American Mores and Values. Again, Vick didn't kill anyone. He killed animals which are designated property in the USA. When Lewis and Clark tried to find passage to the Pacific Ocean, it was well documented that they stopped at an Indian village and paid for the dogs because they hadn't eaten meat in a long time. There was plenty of fish and vegtables but they had to have meat. So they killed those dogs and ate them. So why in this day and age are we making such a big fuss about it?

I'm not saying it was right...I"m just saying that the punishment for Vick is more about our society than one man who financed a dog fighting scheme.

 

Obviously you have never been to a slaughterhouse or a place cattle, poultry, etc. are raised for slaughter or even watched a video about the subject and no I am not talking about one from PETA or the like. Instead if of suffering for hours they pretty much suffer their entire lives until they are killed which can be years and years.

No I am not a vegetarian but I realize that these animals do suffer a great amount. I also realize that these animals are not held to high a regard as dogs and cats also, at least not in this country.

 

Excellent points have been made about the manner of death and treatment being important to most people. Not a legal issue, and ethical issue. Vick wasn't raising dogs and killing them quickly for consumption--if he did I think it is still illegal and I am sure their would still be lots of distate, but not near the same level of distain for his actions.

Also, some cultures/individuals don't believe in killing and eating any animals (I am not there personally, but I perfectly understand their ethical/intellectual consistency). In Lewis and Clark's time we had slaves and purposely introduced diseases to Indians, so I guess it is OK to do what we did then?

 

Yeah, that is what I thought actually, how silly of me to think that those animals were trying to kiss the humans. I live in the fantasy world of Disney.