Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTLA Los Angeles)   Michael Vick is working doggedly to restore voting rights to felons in Florida   (ktla.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Felony, Michael Bloomberg, former NFL quarterback Michael Vick, Elections, Democracy, voting rights restoration process, Conviction, Voting  
•       •       •

1765 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 27 Sep 2020 at 9:53 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-27 11:44:50 PM  
To add to the above, as it pertains to whether michael Vick can learn from his mistakes and grow as a person, the fact that it isn't indicative of a mental disorder makes it much more likely that he can.

Humans who grow up in societies that promote animal fighting don't see it the way you or I do, and to declare them to be fundamentally broken and inferior humans is a mistake. A borderline racist one at that, if we apply his accusation beyond the individual michael vick.
 
2020-09-27 11:47:35 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)


Sport aside, I always find the latter odd.

Deer, waterfowl, fish... All live better lives and suffer less to fill my freezer than almost any animal I buy from the store. And because it is local, the practice encourages protecting the environment to some extent too. Talk to a fisherman about farm runoff from pork or mercury from a coal plant.
 
2020-09-27 11:48:34 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: NM Volunteer: EdgeRunner: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.

He did his time.

Deliberate cruelty to animals is a sign of dangerous and deep-seated psychological issues. For as long as he engaged in it and the extremes he took it to, I highly doubt he's all better now just because he "served his time". Jail time is a punishment, not a cure-all for mental illness.

True, for the Jeffrey Dahmer types.  But what is the difference between getting animals to fight each other, and shooting wild animals and watching them bleed out and die in the forests?   How are dog fighting and cock fighting and bull fighting and bear baiting any different from hunting and sport fishing and feed lots and chicken farms?  Americans seem to vilify one and glorify the other because one is considered an ethnic activity and the other is considered a good white hobby and industry.  When in reality it is all bad.

To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)

I'd argue that there is still a substantial difference between the mindset required to shoot an animal that was otherwise unaware and the mindset required to ignore the conditions of animals while working in industrial agriculture / willfully torture animals.

I don't mean a moral difference, I mean psychological. Lacking the clarity to realize hunting is a sort of murder doesn't mean you're the type of person that would torture an animal. Hunters shoot for an instant kill (yes, they're just making sure they don't have to walk much, but they're not tryingto be cruel)

You can't raise chickens whose beaks you have to remove to keep them from killing each other and not realize that the animals are suffering.


Is there a difference in mindset?  Shooting a deer in the chest with an arrow, and watching it slowly die while full of fear and pain?  Shoving a fish into a bucket of ice so that it suffocates to death?  Making dogs or cocks kill each other for entertainment?  It all involves using and killing animals.  It is all the same mindset of "I'm the human, these animals are here for my entertainment until it is time for me to kill them".  They treat animals, even their own animals (like the hunters who have their dogs ride in the bed of pickups going down highways, or the ones who abuse and leave their dogs behind), as biomechanical tools and equipment and not as living creatures.
 
2020-09-27 11:48:37 PM  

EdgeRunner: Natalie Portmanteau: EdgeRunner: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.

He did his time.

Deliberate cruelty to animals is a sign of dangerous and deep-seated psychological issues. For as long as he engaged in it and the extremes he took it to, I highly doubt he's all better now just because he "served his time". Jail time is a punishment, not a cure-all for mental illness.

jail time ought to be reformative.  It ought to primarily support education and psychological health. We're supposed to have a justice system, not a punishment system.

Now, I agree that you have to be completely farked in the head to torture an animal (including man), and have a special love if dogs.  And I agree he should have been the recipient of total seizure of assets and a very long prison sentence. But that's not how the system is set up (which we should reform, but that's a whole other thing).

So maybe focus your anger on totally unrepentant assholes, and not people who can use their (admittedly undeserved) wealth and influence to do some good, regardless of their motivation.

Or not, I'm just some guy. YMMV

All I'm saying is that the system you rightfully believe we should have is nothing like the one we've got, and Vick's behavior proved him to be someone that only a fool would ever trust again. I find it incredibly naive when people airly say "Oh, he served his time" as if that made everything right. Unless he served all that time in a psychiatrist's office, where some incredible breakthrough uncovered all his personal demons and repaired his damaged soul, I doubt we've heard the last of Vick doing something atrocious.

I'm not burning with hate for the man. I just don't believe he's actually changed.


Sounds like we agree. I don't think he should be forgiven because he gave the humane society some money. But I don't see why we shouldn't let him keep giving them money.
 
2020-09-27 11:52:32 PM  

Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: winedrinkingman: Just include a clause that you don't pay the fines of anyone involved in Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, and the Republicans won't benefit at all from this activity.

You're so cool.

Why, do you want Neo Nazis and white supremacists to benefit from acts of charity?

I just believe in this crazy thing called rights and want them upheld for everyone, regardless if I agree with them or not.  I believe people can change for the better.  I know, that's a crazy Idea too, especially here on fark.  I could just go along with the cool kids and deny things to people I don't agree with, but what fun is that?

The important thing is that you support Neo Nazis and white supremacists.

And drug dealers, con men, murderers, rapists, gangs... I'm sure I missed a few scary people you don't like, so feel free to add to the list.


You could have used fewer words and just said Republicans.
 
2020-09-27 11:53:57 PM  

iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: winedrinkingman: Just include a clause that you don't pay the fines of anyone involved in Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, and the Republicans won't benefit at all from this activity.

You're so cool.

Why, do you want Neo Nazis and white supremacists to benefit from acts of charity?

I just believe in this crazy thing called rights and want them upheld for everyone, regardless if I agree with them or not.  I believe people can change for the better.  I know, that's a crazy Idea too, especially here on fark.  I could just go along with the cool kids and deny things to people I don't agree with, but what fun is that?

The important thing is that you support Neo Nazis and white supremacists.

And drug dealers, con men, murderers, rapists, gangs... I'm sure I missed a few scary people you don't like, so feel free to add to the list.

You could have used fewer words and just said Republicans.


That reminds me.  I left off Illinois politicians.
 
2020-09-27 11:54:11 PM  

Jeebus Saves: The only thing I support is that once someone served their time, their rights should be restored.  Do you really have a problem with that?


And I could be wrong on this, but Trump's nominee for SCOTUS is in favour of gun rights for felons but against voting rights for felons, is she not?
 
2020-09-27 11:55:01 PM  

Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: winedrinkingman: Just include a clause that you don't pay the fines of anyone involved in Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, and the Republicans won't benefit at all from this activity.

You're so cool.

Why, do you want Neo Nazis and white supremacists to benefit from acts of charity?

I just believe in this crazy thing called rights and want them upheld for everyone, regardless if I agree with them or not.  I believe people can change for the better.  I know, that's a crazy Idea too, especially here on fark.  I could just go along with the cool kids and deny things to people I don't agree with, but what fun is that?

The important thing is that you support Neo Nazis and white supremacists.

And drug dealers, con men, murderers, rapists, gangs... I'm sure I missed a few scary people you don't like, so feel free to add to the list.

You could have used fewer words and just said Republicans.

That reminds me.  I left off Illinois politicians.


Seems that New York politicians are the most corrupt, these days.
 
2020-09-27 11:58:00 PM  

Smackledorfer: Natalie Portmanteau: To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)

Sport aside, I always find the latter odd.

Deer, waterfowl, fish... All live better lives and suffer less to fill my freezer than almost any animal I buy from the store. And because it is local, the practice encourages protecting the environment to some extent too. Talk to a fisherman about farm runoff from pork or mercury from a coal plant.


Sure, at this moment, the bird you blew out of the sky had been free to live his best bird life til then, far more so than the mutant debeaked chicken that lived in a 8'x10' with 3500 friends and relatives. 100% true. I don't give people shiat for hunting if they eat it. I just don't support it. Sport hunting? Get bent.

Rather than do any of that though, I'd say we could devote a few F-35's worth of funding to synthetic meats, see where that takes us. But, one step at a time. Fake meat first, then ditch industrial agriculture, then no more hunting.

And there are a fair few issues we should tackle first, they all kind of build on each other.
 
2020-09-27 11:58:47 PM  

NM Volunteer: Natalie Portmanteau: NM Volunteer: EdgeRunner: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.

He did his time.

Deliberate cruelty to animals is a sign of dangerous and deep-seated psychological issues. For as long as he engaged in it and the extremes he took it to, I highly doubt he's all better now just because he "served his time". Jail time is a punishment, not a cure-all for mental illness.

True, for the Jeffrey Dahmer types.  But what is the difference between getting animals to fight each other, and shooting wild animals and watching them bleed out and die in the forests?   How are dog fighting and cock fighting and bull fighting and bear baiting any different from hunting and sport fishing and feed lots and chicken farms?  Americans seem to vilify one and glorify the other because one is considered an ethnic activity and the other is considered a good white hobby and industry.  When in reality it is all bad.

To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)

I'd argue that there is still a substantial difference between the mindset required to shoot an animal that was otherwise unaware and the mindset required to ignore the conditions of animals while working in industrial agriculture / willfully torture animals.

I don't mean a moral difference, I mean psychological. Lacking the clarity to realize hunting is a sort of murder doesn't mean you're the type of person that would torture an animal. Hunters shoot for an instant kill (yes, they're just making sure they don't have to walk much, but they're not tryingto be cruel)

You can't raise chickens whose beaks you have to remove to keep them from killing each other and not realize that the animals are suffering.

Is there a difference in mindset?  Shooting a deer in the chest with an arrow, and watc ...


Good, your ass is here too.  Notice a trend?  I'm pretty consistent in my stance of forgiveness, thinking people can change, and that locking up people isn't a solution to every problem.  You on the other hand, don't see a difference between hunting and letting animals kill each other for sport.
 
2020-09-27 11:58:54 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Smackledorfer: Natalie Portmanteau: To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)

Sport aside, I always find the latter odd.

Deer, waterfowl, fish... All live better lives and suffer less to fill my freezer than almost any animal I buy from the store. And because it is local, the practice encourages protecting the environment to some extent too. Talk to a fisherman about farm runoff from pork or mercury from a coal plant.

Sure, at this moment, the bird you blew out of the sky had been free to live his best bird life til then, far more so than the mutant debeaked chicken that lived in a 8'x10' with 3500 friends and relatives. 100% true. I don't give people shiat for hunting if they eat it. I just don't support it. Sport hunting? Get bent.

Rather than do any of that though, I'd say we could devote a few F-35's worth of funding to synthetic meats, see where that takes us. But, one step at a time. Fake meat first, then ditch industrial agriculture, then no more hunting.

And there are a fair few issues we should tackle first, they all kind of build on each other.


I hear ya.
 
2020-09-28 12:02:48 AM  

iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: winedrinkingman: Just include a clause that you don't pay the fines of anyone involved in Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, and the Republicans won't benefit at all from this activity.

You're so cool.

Why, do you want Neo Nazis and white supremacists to benefit from acts of charity?

I just believe in this crazy thing called rights and want them upheld for everyone, regardless if I agree with them or not.  I believe people can change for the better.  I know, that's a crazy Idea too, especially here on fark.  I could just go along with the cool kids and deny things to people I don't agree with, but what fun is that?

The important thing is that you support Neo Nazis and white supremacists.

And drug dealers, con men, murderers, rapists, gangs... I'm sure I missed a few scary people you don't like, so feel free to add to the list.

You could have used fewer words and just said Republicans.

That reminds me.  I left off Illinois politicians.

Seems that New York politicians are the most corrupt, these days.


The local ones around here in the little towns bordering Chicago are getting scooped up weekly it seems like.  I kind of had a front row seat for it all and probably should have made some bets as to who was going down next.
 
2020-09-28 12:04:12 AM  

Smackledorfer: Humans who grow up in societies that promote animal fighting don't see it the way you or I do, and to declare them to be fundamentally broken and inferior humans is a mistake. A borderline racist one at that, if we apply his accusation beyond the individual michael vick.


We're only discussing Michael Vick here. Who was born and raised in Virginia, where dogfighting is not promoted and is in fact very illegal and frowned upon. What he did was not considered normal or typical within the culture he was raised, which is why he served time for it.

And again, he didn't just run a dogfighting ring. He tortured and executed (really consider that word, because executed means something different than simply killed) some of the dogs who lost fights. No matter how hard you try to justify it, that's abberant behavior, and it demonstrates the type of cruelty that typically leads to abusing people. You may think a pathological lack of empathy for the suffering of other creatures is just part of the human condition, and you may have a point. But it's the part that leads to all the worst things that humans have done, both to animals and to each other.
 
2020-09-28 12:05:13 AM  

iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: The only thing I support is that once someone served their time, their rights should be restored.  Do you really have a problem with that?

And I could be wrong on this, but Trump's nominee for SCOTUS is in favour of gun rights for felons but against voting rights for felons, is she not?


Kryst. Dunno, but that sounds like SOP for someone meeting their criteria for SCOTUS.
 
2020-09-28 12:07:39 AM  

Jeebus Saves: The local ones around here in the little towns bordering Chicago are getting scooped up weekly it seems like.  I kind of had a front row seat for it all and probably should have made some bets as to who was going down next.


You can't figure out who the most corrupt politician from New York is?
 
2020-09-28 12:11:57 AM  

NM Volunteer: Natalie Portmanteau: NM Volunteer: EdgeRunner: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.

He did his time.

Deliberate cruelty to animals is a sign of dangerous and deep-seated psychological issues. For as long as he engaged in it and the extremes he took it to, I highly doubt he's all better now just because he "served his time". Jail time is a punishment, not a cure-all for mental illness.

True, for the Jeffrey Dahmer types.  But what is the difference between getting animals to fight each other, and shooting wild animals and watching them bleed out and die in the forests?   How are dog fighting and cock fighting and bull fighting and bear baiting any different from hunting and sport fishing and feed lots and chicken farms?  Americans seem to vilify one and glorify the other because one is considered an ethnic activity and the other is considered a good white hobby and industry.  When in reality it is all bad.

To start, I oppose hunting for sport. (And for food if you live in a place where you don't have to)

I'd argue that there is still a substantial difference between the mindset required to shoot an animal that was otherwise unaware and the mindset required to ignore the conditions of animals while working in industrial agriculture / willfully torture animals.

I don't mean a moral difference, I mean psychological. Lacking the clarity to realize hunting is a sort of murder doesn't mean you're the type of person that would torture an animal. Hunters shoot for an instant kill (yes, they're just making sure they don't have to walk much, but they're not tryingto be cruel)

You can't raise chickens whose beaks you have to remove to keep them from killing each other and not realize that the animals are suffering.

Is there a difference in mindset?  Shooting a deer in the chest with an arrow, and watching it slowly die while full of fear and pain?  Shoving a fish into a bucket of ice so that it suffocates to death?  Making dogs or cocks kill each other for entertainment?  It all involves using and killing animals.  It is all the same mindset of "I'm the human, these animals are here for my entertainment until it is time for me to kill them".  They treat animals, even their own animals (like the hunters who have their dogs ride in the bed of pickups going down highways, or the ones who abuse and leave their dogs behind), as biomechanical tools and equipment and not as living creatures.


yes. Because again, (and I'm not saying I'm this makes it right) they don't want the animal to suffer.  It's the opposite. Admittedly that's because the fear hormones dumped by said critters system spoils the flavor of the meat. (It's one reason cows are bred to be so utterly docile)
And if they're intending to eat it, they're still operating within the scope of the food chain (albeit with caveats). A person being intellectually wrong about the moral status of animals via ignorance doesn't make them cruel.

Sport hunting, you're indifferent to the suffering, because you only care about the trophy. Sport hunting is cruel.

Animal fighting is sadistic. You're enjoying the suffering (instead of trying to avoid it, even selfishly, or just not caring about it)

So, if I had to put it on a 1-5 scale from least cruel (though morally equivocal) to absolute sadistic monster it would be
Eating meat 1*
Pastoral farming/herding 1-2
Hunting 1.5 - 2
Sport hunting 3.5
Industrial agriculture 4
Animal fighting 5

Obviously the overall morality of eating meat depends on responsible sourcing of products from pastoral farms and such, but we're talking America right now
 
2020-09-28 12:16:17 AM  
I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.
 
2020-09-28 12:23:36 AM  

Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: iron de havilland: Jeebus Saves: winedrinkingman: Just include a clause that you don't pay the fines of anyone involved in Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, and the Republicans won't benefit at all from this activity.

You're so cool.

Why, do you want Neo Nazis and white supremacists to benefit from acts of charity?

I just believe in this crazy thing called rights and want them upheld for everyone, regardless if I agree with them or not.  I believe people can change for the better.  I know, that's a crazy Idea too, especially here on fark.  I could just go along with the cool kids and deny things to people I don't agree with, but what fun is that?

The important thing is that you support Neo Nazis and white supremacists.

And drug dealers, con men, murderers, rapists, gangs... I'm sure I missed a few scary people you don't like, so feel free to add to the list.  The only thing I support is that once someone served their time, their rights should be restored.  Do you really have a problem with that?


Point of order: second amendment rights should be lost for violent bodily crimes. If we can reform our system to where it is rehabilitative, we can revisit.

/or, just dump the second, but, you know... muh gunz!
 
2020-09-28 12:28:04 AM  

Smackledorfer: I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.


Around these parts, it's illegal to have an unrestrained animal in the back of your truck. It has to be tethered in - for the animal's safety and for the public's.

Or, like me, you can pop a camper shell on top and leave them untethered.

I'd say it's also kinda selfish to have your dogs in the back of your pickup or your kids unrestrained in your car/golf cart or, if you're djt, your caddy clinging to the back of your juiced-up golf cart on the greens. You're saying, "what I want is important. What's right is immaterial."
 
2020-09-28 12:29:12 AM  

2chinz: Smackledorfer: I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.

Around these parts, it's illegal to have an unrestrained animal in the back of your truck. It has to be tethered in - for the animal's safety and for the public's.

Or, like me, you can pop a camper shell on top and leave them untethered.

I'd say it's also kinda selfish to have your dogs in the back of your pickup or your kids unrestrained in your car/golf cart or, if you're djt, your caddy clinging to the back of your juiced-up golf cart on the greens. You're saying, "what I want is important. What's right is immaterial."


Ime they are simply in denial of the risk. It won't happen to them, in their minds.
 
2020-09-28 12:32:57 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: yes. Because again, (and I'm not saying I'm this makes it right) they don't want the animal to suffer. It's the opposite. Admittedly that's because the fear hormones dumped by said critters system spoils the flavor of the meat. (It's one reason cows are bred to be so utterly docile)


That's still treating and considering wild animals as tools and commodities, not as living creatures.  A quick kill to avoid fear hormones or unappetizing bruises, and to prevent the animal from escaping.  Why not a headshot?  Why shoot it in the chest, which will not kill it right away?  Or why not just let it live, and buy some meat from the grocery store, or at a farmers market from a local farmer who raises free-range animals with no cages or torture?  Treating animals like they are just items is the predominant mindset, and it doesn't make any bit of difference if it is a poor person dogfighting or cockfighting for cash or a wealthy person shooting a giraffe or an elk for the sake of trophies or unusual meat.
 
2020-09-28 12:33:49 AM  
I believe that there are actual saints walking among us, but there aren't a whole lot of them. I and most people have done some wrongs even big-deal major wrongs. I like to see efforts at restitution. I know that restitution fails in many cases, but I believe in trying multiple times. People with better souls than me believe in forgiveness, and I try to emulate them.
 
2020-09-28 12:34:20 AM  

Smackledorfer: 2chinz: Smackledorfer: I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.

Around these parts, it's illegal to have an unrestrained animal in the back of your truck. It has to be tethered in - for the animal's safety and for the public's.

Or, like me, you can pop a camper shell on top and leave them untethered.

I'd say it's also kinda selfish to have your dogs in the back of your pickup or your kids unrestrained in your car/golf cart or, if you're djt, your caddy clinging to the back of your juiced-up golf cart on the greens. You're saying, "what I want is important. What's right is immaterial."

Ime they are simply in denial of the risk. It won't happen to them, in their minds.


Just like the people who leave kids in hot cars during the summer, or people who do not lock up guns, or people who think they can drive after a few beers.  It's all about them, not anybody else.
 
2020-09-28 12:41:48 AM  
FTA:

...his elusive ability

That's an ugly description.
 
2020-09-28 12:45:03 AM  
You can donate here. There's still time to help people pay off fines so they can register to vote.

https://connect.clickandpledge.com/Or​g​anization/frcceducationfund/campaign/a​mendment4fund/Donation/
 
2020-09-28 12:46:52 AM  

NM Volunteer: A quick kill to avoid fear hormones or unappetizing bruises, and to prevent the animal from escaping.  Why not a headshot?  Why shoot it in the chest, which will not kill it right away?  Or why not just let it live, and buy some meat from the grocery store, or at a farmers market from a local farmer who raises free-range animals with no cages or torture?


A chest shot is the more humane choice than the headshot, unless you pretend both are equally effective at getting a kill, which is only true when the Fark sharpshooter brigade is talking.

A headshot off by a little is anything but a clean kill. And a deer with a maimed mouth is going to get away and slowly starve to death. The head is the least likely part of the deer to remain still as you shoot.

Ethically raised meat is available but not in sufficient quantities, nor is it cost effective for most. And that raises a second ethical dilemma: if you could skip that ethical meat and feed two people instead of one, which you absolutely can with vegetarian options, the ethical choice is never meat at all.

Aside from your hunting ignorance, your argument quickly boils down to "meat is for rich people, and the poors are immoral for trying to eat as "well" for lack of a better way to put it."  Sure, in a perfect world whatever ethical meat is available would be evenly distributed among rich and poor alike, but you know that'll never, ever, happen. Those who can afford ethical meat will still eat all they want, and everyone else would get none. Surely that isn't your suggested solution?
 
2020-09-28 12:51:07 AM  

NM Volunteer: Smackledorfer: 2chinz: Smackledorfer: I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.

Around these parts, it's illegal to have an unrestrained animal in the back of your truck. It has to be tethered in - for the animal's safety and for the public's.

Or, like me, you can pop a camper shell on top and leave them untethered.

I'd say it's also kinda selfish to have your dogs in the back of your pickup or your kids unrestrained in your car/golf cart or, if you're djt, your caddy clinging to the back of your juiced-up golf cart on the greens. You're saying, "what I want is important. What's right is immaterial."

Ime they are simply in denial of the risk. It won't happen to them, in their minds.

Just like the people who leave kids in hot cars during the summer, or people who do not lock up guns, or people who think they can drive after a few beers.  It's all about them, not anybody else.


If you insist on pretending the whole of stupidly is at its core merely a lack of ethics, I don't know what to say. A lot of people are stupid and make poor decisions because they don't fully understand the consequences, not because they properly understand them and are pieces of shiat.

Very few drunk drivers honestly believe they are harming others and don't care. Some are alcoholics and that's its own mess. Others really believe they drive fine with a buzz.
 
2020-09-28 12:54:54 AM  

NM Volunteer: Natalie Portmanteau: yes. Because again, (and I'm not saying I'm this makes it right) they don't want the animal to suffer. It's the opposite. Admittedly that's because the fear hormones dumped by said critters system spoils the flavor of the meat. (It's one reason cows are bred to be so utterly docile)

That's still treating and considering wild animals as tools and commodities, not as living creatures.  A quick kill to avoid fear hormones or unappetizing bruises, and to prevent the animal from escaping.  Why not a headshot?  Why shoot it in the chest, which will not kill it right away?  Or why not just let it live, and buy some meat from the grocery store, or at a farmers market from a local farmer who raises free-range animals with no cages or torture?  Treating animals like they are just items is the predominant mindset, and it doesn't make any bit of difference if it is a poor person dogfighting or cockfighting for cash or a wealthy person shooting a giraffe or an elk for the sake of trophies or unusual meat.


I disagree that its that black and white, but not enough to continue arguing that hunting to eat is a lesser evil.
 
2020-09-28 1:02:20 AM  

Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.


I'm an animal lover and can't stand what he did to those poor animals. My current dog is a rescue from a fight op, a 145 lb French Mastiff who's absolutely my best friend. Having said that, what Vick is doing now is noble. It appears he is trying to make up for his past and I applaud that. Unless you are doing more than he is for the cause I suggest you fark off. Again, he's still a dick for what he did in the past but I absolutely believe in redemption. I'm fairly sure my pup would agree.
 
2020-09-28 1:08:11 AM  

Smackledorfer: If you insist on pretending the whole of stupidly is at its core merely a lack of ethics, I don't know what to say. A lot of people are stupid and make poor decisions because they don't fully understand the consequences, not because they properly understand them and are pieces of shiat.


It doesn't make a difference either way, because it all boils down to self-centeredness and selfishness.  There is no ethical difference between [being too stupid to remember how hot the car gets every time he leaves it parked in a parking lot] and [sick of having a kid so he leaves the kid in the car in hopes of plausible deniability].

Or how about this: [spraying a tanker full of PCBs along side of the road because he does not understand the health and environmental hazards and laws] and [spraying a tanker full of PCBs along side of the road because he is lazy and does not care about anybody other than himself].

It is all rooted in [I only care about myself and not about others].  All four scenarios and mindsets and motives are based on that.  That child in the hot car is just a thing to them.  The people who live alongside that road are just things to them.  And with dogfighting and hunting and debeaked chickens, it is all treating animals as commodities to be used and enjoyed, if enjoyment means eating them or abusing them.
 
2020-09-28 1:09:37 AM  

Smackledorfer: A headshot off by a little is anything but a clean kill.


Then maybe the hunter should actually practice, and not drink before/during hunting.  They are freaking deer grazing in the forest, not soldiers hiding behind debris or running through trenches.
 
2020-09-28 1:12:25 AM  

austin_millbarge: I don't care if Vick cures cancer... fark him.


Come on. He totally said he was sorry. What more do you want from the guy?
 
2020-09-28 1:16:05 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: I disagree that its that black and white, but not enough to continue arguing that hunting to eat is a lesser evil.


I still don't get this.  The majority of hunting kills are more humane than the natural deaths of animals, so the only argument you can really make is that shortening of lifespan against nature is itself unethical.  And you are welcome to make this argument.

But that "goes against nature" argument is every bit as applicable for the most farm-raised and ethically slaughtered animals.  And that concept of ethical slaughter is kind of a pipe-dream in and of itself. Most ways of killing animals on a farm are every bit as nasty as a shot to the heart.  There is no real enforcement of any ethical slaughter laws, and even if there were, the laws themselves are hardly successful at achieving what we might imagine to be an ethical slaughter.  Finally, there is no method by which food is labeled as "extra-ethical" vs "normal ethical" vs "least ethical manner legally possible" vs "totally skirting the laws and getting away with it".  Even in controlled environments there is no shortage of stories of it not going as planned. 

Any attempt to purchase meat that is extra ethical in its slaughter is a crapshoot at best that would rely on trust and a PR campaign, unless you are visiting the farm on the day of slaughter to make sure it met your needs.

I know you put a very huge asterisk next to farm-raised animals as a food source in your list that put it at the bottom, but I think that asterisk is even bigger than you thought it was. Frankly I'd say that the best case scenario of ethical slaughtering is pretty much identical to hunting deaths for animals. And again, the hunting deaths should be compared to likely death conditions in the wild. Deer will get sick, wander around, get hauled to the ground by coyotes, or pass out and get eaten by bugs and other scavengers, or get caught by a predator in the prime of one's life, etc. I fail to see how any of those outcomes could be called preferable to a gunshot (save for theoretical lifespan). Fish and waterfowl get an even worse death in the wild as far as I can tell. The smaller the animal the greater the odds of natural predation.  If you offered to feed me to carnivores or shoot me, I'll take that gunshot, thank you very much.

And, if we place any premiums on nature vs. evil mankind being non-natural, then surely we must view any farm conditions as particularly harsh for the duration of life even if and when it is a very kind and friendly farmer brown setup.

Now, to lifespan: whitetail deer live about 6 years in the wild. Cows live about 20 without disease or predation.  If I kill a 6 year old deer I deprive it of 4 years, or 2/3 of its life.  You slaughter a cow at around 3 years usually, as best I can google up.  That's 17 lost years and 85% of its life.  So maybe we shouldn't focus on lifespan taken away from animals.

I'm not saying you have to immediately give up your prior thoughts and fall in line with mine, but I do think the above are valid things to consider in your rankings.
 
2020-09-28 1:20:45 AM  

NM Volunteer: Smackledorfer: A headshot off by a little is anything but a clean kill.

Then maybe the hunter should actually practice, and not drink before/during hunting.  They are freaking deer grazing in the forest, not soldiers hiding behind debris or running through trenches.


Oh, we have a member of the fark sharpshooter brigade on our hands. That's cute.  If you take offense at this, I intended it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are choosing willful ignorance because it suits your narrative.

NM Volunteer: It doesn't make a difference either way, because it all boils down to self-centeredness and selfishness.


And there is that willful ignorance rearing its head again.

NM Volunteer: There is no ethical difference between [being too stupid to remember how hot the car gets every time he leaves it parked in a parking lot] and [sick of having a kid so he leaves the kid in the car in hopes of plausible deniability].


I'll farkie you as "intent is irrelevant if you cause a death", and I do hope to see you argue manslaughter, murder 1, and murder 2 should all be given identical penalties whenever such a discussion pops up in the future.

Intent matters. For the purposes of ethical discussions, intent and belief of the actors involved is literally the number one thing that determines whether someone is unethical or not.
 
2020-09-28 1:20:52 AM  

MythDragon: austin_millbarge: I don't care if Vick cures cancer... fark him.

Come on. He totally said he was sorry. What more do you want from the guy?


Probably a bj
 
2020-09-28 1:28:18 AM  
All American citizens ages 18 and older should have the right to vote, full stop. If prison towns are going to milk their populations for cash in the census, they should face the consequences of a prison polling place getting 100% turnout every time. They might be the only precincts in the country with an informed electorate when it comes to judicial retention and sheriffs' races.
 
2020-09-28 1:30:54 AM  

NM Volunteer: Natalie Portmanteau: yes. Because again, (and I'm not saying I'm this makes it right) they don't want the animal to suffer. It's the opposite. Admittedly that's because the fear hormones dumped by said critters system spoils the flavor of the meat. (It's one reason cows are bred to be so utterly docile)

That's still treating and considering wild animals as tools and commodities, not as living creatures.  A quick kill to avoid fear hormones or unappetizing bruises, and to prevent the animal from escaping.  Why not a headshot?  Why shoot it in the chest, which will not kill it right away?  Or why not just let it live, and buy some meat from the grocery store, or at a farmers market from a local farmer who raises free-range animals with no cages or torture?  Treating animals like they are just items is the predominant mindset, and it doesn't make any bit of difference if it is a poor person dogfighting or cockfighting for cash or a wealthy person shooting a giraffe or an elk for the sake of trophies or unusual meat.


Why is hunting something as humanely as reasonably possible somehow worse than buying meat from the grocery store? It's not something I'd personally prefer to do (for many reasons), but I don't see how you can justify it as morally inferior. Especially considering how most of the animals that end up in a grocery store lived, it's probably a thousand times crueler to buy meat from a store.
 
2020-09-28 1:33:01 AM  

Smackledorfer: A great many thoughtful words....


Yeah, thats pretty much what I'm saying. I actually said earlier that the most morally defensible position regarding hunting is that you're just taking the place of a predator on the food chain. And I also said its "better" than eating food from industrial agriculture.

I'm simply making the distinction between an immoral act due to ignorance of the moral imperative to treat all life equally, and an immoral act due to malice or  callousness.

I also think that while this is an important issue that merits discussion, at this exact moment in time there are simply issues we ought to address first, to aid in creating a more ethical society which will allow us to put past discussions into actions.

We create a society that values all life not by forcing people to value all life but by educating our future generations that all life has value. Slow process. Im all for it, but we need to fundamentally overhaul the way education works first.
 
2020-09-28 1:36:11 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Ragin' Asian: No, Vick. farking go away. This is a noble cause and we don't need your craven animal cruelty taint on it. Die in an alley and get eaten by feral cats.

He did his time.

I fully support ex-felons who've done their time and have taken sincere steps toward rehabilitation to regain their right to vote. He may have done the former but he has certainly not done the latter. I completely admit I tolerate cruelty towards dogs less than I do against crimes against people.[Fark user image 425x548]

Cora on the left was two years old when I adopted her. She had just had a litter and was found wandering the streets. This was in Pittsburgh, which is why I have a particular Ire for Vick.


I'm right there with you. Adopted my goodest boy Sirius from the shelter, he was rescued from a fight op as a bait dog. This is how he looked at time of adoption.
Fark user imageView Full Size


Broke my heart because the vet told me I couldn't even give him a full bowl of food as he was so starved. Had to slowly ramp him up to health. He's doing much better now. Loves everyone and anything living, including his cat buddies.
Fark user imageView Full Size

He'll even share his water bowl when a foster kitten climbs into his food dish.
Fark user imageView Full Size

Also hasn't met a human he didn't like, especially kids.
Fark user imageView Full Size

If he can give humans and animals another chance with his background I think Vick deserves a shot at redemption. Fairly sure my pup would agree.
 
2020-09-28 1:40:13 AM  
Smackledorfer:

All I was saying is that I don't feel strongly enough about my belief that hunting IS "better" than dogfighting to defend killing animals, because i think if we focused on things like actual ethics, we wouldn't be killing animals in the first place.

Is that coming across? I know its late, so my bad if its not.

Oh, and, you could say some culls are certainly good, for the animal population of an area long term, it could be considered acceptable. (But that brings us to a sticky quandary involving human populations, given we ought to value all life equally.... and I simply don't have time for that tonight.)
 
2020-09-28 1:41:34 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Smackledorfer:

All I was saying is that I don't feel strongly enough about my belief that hunting IS "better" than dogfighting to defend killing animals, because i think if we focused on things like actual ethics, we wouldn't be killing animals in the first place.

Is that coming across? I know its late, so my bad if its not.

Oh, and, you could say some culls are certainly good, for the animal population of an area long term, it could be considered acceptable. (But that brings us to a sticky quandary involving human populations, given we ought to value all life equally.... and I simply don't have time for that tonight.)


It's all good :)
 
2020-09-28 1:48:27 AM  

2chinz: Smackledorfer: I also want to take issue with a dog in a truck bed. Those people still love their dogs, they are just idiots. I still see kids in the back of trucks or on golf carts on the road. Their parents love them, they are just stupid.

Stupidity and morality often share outcomes, but shouldn't be confused for one another.

Around these parts, it's illegal to have an unrestrained animal in the back of your truck. It has to be tethered in - for the animal's safety and for the public's.

Or, like me, you can pop a camper shell on top and leave them untethered.

I'd say it's also kinda selfish to have your dogs in the back of your pickup or your kids unrestrained in your car/golf cart or, if you're djt, your caddy clinging to the back of your juiced-up golf cart on the greens. You're saying, "what I want is important. What's right is immaterial."


Thats a deep seated evolutionary holdover. We get past that by teaching children the framework to establish what's right and wrong given a broader set of rules (sort of a do no harm) with goal of creating a society that wants to do right becauseit's right, and knowing that being just is the best way for everyone to have the best shot at getting what they want.

And we should start immediately. But this will take generations to really work, and that's a hard sell to people who have to deal with current public's opinions on things.
 
2020-09-28 1:49:23 AM  
LOL.

It's interesting.
Vic is no 👼.
But in a world where people are okay with Trump as POTUS, it's funny.
If only people could focus their anger.
Dogs are great. But their not the United States of America. Which is kinda of a big deal.
And at this point Vic would make a better POTUS.
But you all keep up the good fight up and run Vic out of America.
I guess it's a good consolation prize since you're not going to stop Trump from being president for another term.
You're too busy canceling everyone else except him.
 
2020-09-28 1:54:54 AM  

Smackledorfer: Oh, we have a member of the fark sharpshooter brigade on our hands.


Because when hobbies involve killing other living creatures, we should tolerate sloppiness.


Smackledorfer: I'll farkie you as "intent is irrelevant if you cause a death", and I do hope to see you argue manslaughter, murder 1, and murder 2 should all be given identical penalties whenever such a discussion pops up in the future.


Legality and ethics are not the same thing.  Legality says it is okay for cops to shoot unarmed Black people.  Ethics says it is not okay.  Legality divides crimes into degrees and variations.  Ethics has right and wrong.  It is legal for museums to possess looted archaeological items from foreign countries if they were taken before certain years.  Ethics says looting is wrong and those items should be returned.  Do you see the difference?  I am not arguing legal matters.  I am simply pointing out that when everything is distilled down, it distills down to humans being selfish and self-centered, while treating other humans and treating animals as if they are all things and commodities and not living creatures.
 
2020-09-28 2:08:09 AM  

NM Volunteer: Smackledorfer: Oh, we have a member of the fark sharpshooter brigade on our hands.

Because when hobbies involve killing other living creatures, we should tolerate sloppiness.


Smackledorfer: I'll farkie you as "intent is irrelevant if you cause a death", and I do hope to see you argue manslaughter, murder 1, and murder 2 should all be given identical penalties whenever such a discussion pops up in the future.

Legality and ethics are not the same thing.  Legality says it is okay for cops to shoot unarmed Black people.  Ethics says it is not okay.  Legality divides crimes into degrees and variations.  Ethics has right and wrong.  It is legal for museums to possess looted archaeological items from foreign countries if they were taken before certain years.  Ethics says looting is wrong and those items should be returned.  Do you see the difference?  I am not arguing legal matters.  I am simply pointing out that when everything is distilled down, it distills down to humans being selfish and self-centered, while treating other humans and treating animals as if they are all things and commodities and not living creatures.


You don't understand the biology of the things being killed. You don't understand how guns work. You don't understand how shooting anything works.

And you choose not to learn. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to educate you, but you rejected the option to learn.

And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on your fundamental belief that intent is irrelevant to the ethics of an action. Frankly, imo that makes you a damn fool. I suppose you likely feel the same about me there. I cannot for the life of me how anyone could take your viewpoint, and I don't think I've ever encountered it my life.
 
2020-09-28 2:12:30 AM  
And one more thing: you are elitist as fark here, which I really wouldn't have pegged you as.

Your arguments here are only the 1%ers should eat meat (as I explained earlier) and only the best snipers in the world should hunt.

Moreover, applying your level of perfection you require of hunters to the slaughtering if farmed animals your actual position is zero farmed animals: all slaughter methods involve significant error rates.

/And don't get me started on kosher and halal slaughter methods. I guess you're against that religious freedom too
 
2020-09-28 2:14:06 AM  

Smackledorfer: NM Volunteer: Smackledorfer: Oh, we have a member of the fark sharpshooter brigade on our hands.

Because when hobbies involve killing other living creatures, we should tolerate sloppiness.


Smackledorfer: I'll farkie you as "intent is irrelevant if you cause a death", and I do hope to see you argue manslaughter, murder 1, and murder 2 should all be given identical penalties whenever such a discussion pops up in the future.

Legality and ethics are not the same thing.  Legality says it is okay for cops to shoot unarmed Black people.  Ethics says it is not okay.  Legality divides crimes into degrees and variations.  Ethics has right and wrong.  It is legal for museums to possess looted archaeological items from foreign countries if they were taken before certain years.  Ethics says looting is wrong and those items should be returned.  Do you see the difference?  I am not arguing legal matters.  I am simply pointing out that when everything is distilled down, it distills down to humans being selfish and self-centered, while treating other humans and treating animals as if they are all things and commodities and not living creatures.

You don't understand the biology of the things being killed. You don't understand how guns work. You don't understand how shooting anything works.

And you choose not to learn. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to educate you, but you rejected the option to learn.

And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on your fundamental belief that intent is irrelevant to the ethics of an action. Frankly, imo that makes you a damn fool. I suppose you likely feel the same about me there. I cannot for the life of me how anyone could take your viewpoint, and I don't think I've ever encountered it my life.


I am an American.  Of course I know how guns work.  Of course I own a few rifles.  I just won't buy into the bullshiat narrative of the noble white hunter.
 
2020-09-28 2:16:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: And one more thing: you are elitist as fark here, which I really wouldn't have pegged you as.

Your arguments here are only the 1%ers should eat meat (as I explained earlier) and only the best snipers in the world should hunt.

Moreover, applying your level of perfection you require of hunters to the slaughtering if farmed animals your actual position is zero farmed animals: all slaughter methods involve significant error rates.

/And don't get me started on kosher and halal slaughter methods. I guess you're against that religious freedom too


You did not even read what I said.  That is the exact opposite of my posts, wherein I argued that there is no ethical difference between sports/hobby hunting and dogfighting.  Both are unethical and bad, because they kill and cause suffering for the pleasure of humans.  And I reject the claims that shooting a deer in the chest and watching it bleed to death is somehow "humane".
 
2020-09-28 2:21:29 AM  

NM Volunteer: I am an American.  Of course I know how guns work.  Of course I own a few rifles.  I just won't buy into the bullshiat narrative of the noble white hunter.


Then I don't know how you are being disingenuous, but you ARE being disingenuous.

Either you are lying about owning and shooting rifles, or you are lying in your claims that headshots would be more ethical than chest shots on deer.  Your claim that you know guns makes me think less of you than when I gave you the benefit of mere ignorance.

I don't care for liars. I don't always agree with you, but I thought you were better than this.
 
2020-09-28 2:25:52 AM  

NM Volunteer: Smackledorfer: And one more thing: you are elitist as fark here, which I really wouldn't have pegged you as.

Your arguments here are only the 1%ers should eat meat (as I explained earlier) and only the best snipers in the world should hunt.

Moreover, applying your level of perfection you require of hunters to the slaughtering if farmed animals your actual position is zero farmed animals: all slaughter methods involve significant error rates.

/And don't get me started on kosher and halal slaughter methods. I guess you're against that religious freedom too

You did not even read what I said.  That is the exact opposite of my posts, wherein I argued that there is no ethical difference between sports/hobby hunting and dogfighting.  Both are unethical and bad, because they kill and cause suffering for the pleasure of humans.  And I reject the claims that shooting a deer in the chest and watching it bleed to death is somehow "humane".


You argued if people can't get perfect headshots on deer they should just buy the magical pixie dreamland version of farmed animals that counts as humane.

I already explained to you that this alternative means only the wealthy could ever eat meat. You replied to that post. I assumed you read it.

I guess you did not. I've gone into great detail forming my arguments here. You've planted your head in the sand like a warner bros ostrich and just spewed whatever verbal diarrhea suits your narrative.

The hilarious part of all this is you could VERY easily just say "I'm a vegetarian and it's wrong to kill animals for food" and I'd agree with you. But I'm guessing you aren't a vegetarian, so your poor logic and double think stem from an inability to accept your own behaviors. That's pathetic.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.