A Black Hole of Happiness

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think he should plead out as soon as possible, pay a huge fine, agree to an extended probation period and be forced to do community service and voluntarily set up a foundation that educates about the evils of the dog-fighting and has facilities that help dogs abused in such a way. Then he could play.

If he waits and drags it out and mulls over options and tries to fight it, I don't think he'll have a choice. He'll be forced to take a loa.

TM

There are 2 issues here. One is public relations and fellow player reaction. I suspect that, much like a child molester amongst inmates, Vick would be better off not playing this season, and the Falcons and NFL would be better off not having him play.

The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Alice wants his nuts chopped off. She prefers dogs to humans by a huge margin. Humans are shit. Dogs pretty much kick ass.


I am posting quite a bit about Alice today.

I went to the dog show over lunch. The dogs at that place were infinitely cooler than their humans. It was sort of hard because every rescue organization in town had at least two dogs there for adoption. I could have easily come home with half a dozen.

I'm sort of glad the Displaced Dog doesn't play well with others, becaues that keeps my inclination to get more dogs at bay.

My version involved a Pomeranian and maybe a Shitzu gnawing off his nuts, to add some humiliation to the mix.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by LessinSF
The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

You're being ridiculous. What does a North Carolina jury have to do with it?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by LessinSF
The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

Take it to the asshole board, please.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by LessinSF
There are 2 issues here. One is public relations and fellow player reaction. I suspect that, much like a child molester amongst inmates, Vick would be better off not playing this season, and the Falcons and NFL would be better off not having him play.

Nah. I doubt it was that big a secret amongst players in the league. And I guarantee you the other players will think that this is just another case of the "haters" trying to tear someone down. And when there are no reporters around, almost all of them will tell him as much.

TM

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by LessinSF
There are 2 issues here. One is public relations and fellow player reaction. I suspect that, much like a child molester amongst inmates, Vick would be better off not playing this season, and the Falcons and NFL would be better off not having him play.

The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

Ah buh-leeve it is Vuhgineeuh, not North Carolina.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by LessinSF
The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

Wow.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Wow.

I'm just glad those marriage law thingies have changed.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Take it to the asshole board, please.

Just becuase he got Virginia confused with North Carolina does not make him an asshole.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by LessinSF
The second is the legal case. The law is ridiculous. Animals don't have rights. If I own one, I should be free to do whatever I want to it, whether starving and killing it, or force feeding and eating its delicious liver. In this, I have faith that a North Carolina jury will be smarter than Congress, Bush, the U.S. attorneys, and every media/internet commentator.

Bullshit. Aside from the valid humanitarian view, there's a sound public policy reason for not wanting dogs that are bred to attack other animals or people. Dead lesbians in San Francisco, mauled children in Texas, breed specific bans in Colorado all result from breeding agressive characteristics into dogs that otherwise would be fit for human company. Those characteristics are bred for dog fighting, and it's dangerous not only to the other dogs but all people who come into proximity of those dogs.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Ah buh-leeve it is Vuhgineeuh, not North Carolina.

Same result. Property rights prevail.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Just becuase he got Virginia confused with North Carolina does not make him an asshole.

No, but it betrays a lack of mental discipline necessary to pull off effective pro-animal cruelty posts.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Same result. Property rights prevail.

He needs to be careful making that argument in Virginia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Bullshit. Aside from the valid humanitarian view, there's a sound public policy reason for not wanting dogs that are bred to attack other animals or people. Dead lesbians in San Francisco, mauled children in Texas, breed specific bans in Colorado all result from breeding agressive characteristics into dogs that otherwise would be fit for human company. Those characteristics are bred for dog fighting, and it's dangerous not only to the other dogs but all people who come into proximity of those dogs.

In all fairness to Less's point of view, I can only recall one lesbian killed by a fighting dog in San Francisco.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Bullshit. Aside from the valid humanitarian view, there's a sound public policy reason for not wanting dogs that are bred to attack other animals or people. Dead lesbians in San Francisco, mauled children in Texas, breed specific bans in Colorado all result from breeding agressive characteristics into dogs that otherwise would be fit for human company. Those characteristics are bred for dog fighting, and it's dangerous not only to the other dogs but all people who come into proximity of those dogs.

The only valid HUMANitarian view is that humans have rights granted to them in the Constitution and dogs don't.

As for your other point, I have no problem with charging someone who creates an unsafe situation, but that is not the case here. They were caged in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, and killed. Also, by your analogy, creating violent video games could be banned/criminalized because of Columbine.