It is currently Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92085
Location: To the left of my post
Darkside wrote:
MMA losers aren't electricuted or otherwise murdered. At least, not that I've seen.
The whole point, which Don Tiny seems to have ignored, is that if you take the hardline stance that no matter what else, "Human > Animal" then dog fighting should either be legal or human fighting should be illegal. He's speaking in absolutes.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 23844
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Douchebag wrote:
Darkside wrote:
MMA losers aren't electricuted or otherwise murdered. At least, not that I've seen.

Interesting gimmick for a match. Let's make it happen.

Sounds like a TNA PPV.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43572
KDdidit wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Darkside wrote:
MMA losers aren't electricuted or otherwise murdered. At least, not that I've seen.

Interesting gimmick for a match. Let's make it happen.

Sounds like a TNA PPV.

If it's Hogan Vs. Nash, I would definitely buy that PPV.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 29260
Location: Parts Unknown
pizza_Place: Frozen
Image

_________________
This is my signature...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13259
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Don Tiny wrote:
With enough authentic frontier gibberish, one could eventually state that a wine enema is the only responsible way to get tanked.
There may be other ways...
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news ... to-imbibe/

College students have long done crazy things, from swallowing gold fish to jamming themselves into telephone booths. Not all things they try are dangerous, but some are.
Two new cases in point: consumption of controversial alcoholic energy drinks likely to be banned today; and a bizarre method of trying to get plastered by absorbing alcohol through the eyeball.
The eyeball shots don’t succeed and definitely fall in the category of risky behaviors, experts say.
“This is an activity that has no upside to it,” says David Granet, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of San Diego.
The theory among the students seems to be that alcohol can be absorbed through mucous membranes, and the eyeball and inner side of the eyelids are covered in mucous membrane, so, voila!— vodka eyeball shots. There are more than 30 homemade videos of young men doing this on YouTube.
Not only does it fail to get someone drunk, “it hurts and it will cause permanent damage to the surface of the eye,” Granet says.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Darkside wrote:
MMA losers aren't electricuted or otherwise murdered. At least, not that I've seen.
The whole point, which Don Tiny seems to have ignored, is that if you take the hardline stance that no matter what else, "Human > Animal" then dog fighting should either be legal or human fighting should be illegal. He's speaking in absolutes.


No, I haven't missed anything.

A situation involving a human death is in no way comparable to an animal death. That's what you are missing.

Go learn what a Venn diagram is, and then draw two circles that don't overlap; label one "human slaughter" and the other "animal slaughter" - then you can quite literally see my point - unless you are interested in obfuscating my very obvious, very simple posit, in which case you might as well draw a snowman humping a basketball as that would more accurately depict your interest in / attentiveness to what I'm saying.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92085
Location: To the left of my post
Don Tiny wrote:
A situation involving a human death is in no way comparable to an animal death. That's what you are missing.
So you are saying that there is no situation in which we can consider a person who is involved in the death of a human to be worse than someone who is involved in the death of an animal?

Take this example instead:
1) Two men are walking down the stairs. One of them slips, accidentally kicks the other person who then falls down the stairs and dies of his injuries.
2) A man is out in his yard and grows tired of hearing the neighbors dog bark. He grabs his shotgun and shoots the dog dead.

Which do you think is worse? Would you punish the man in #1 as severely as you would punish the man in #2? Would you punish the man in #1 at all?

In my opinion, while the loss of the man in #1 is more tragic, the actions of the man in #2 is worse.

Don Tiny wrote:
Go learn what a Venn diagram is, and then draw two circles that don't overlap; label one "human slaughter" and the other "animal slaughter" - then you can quite literally see my point - unless you are interested in obfuscating my very obvious, very simple posit, in which case you might as well draw a snowman humping a basketball as that would more accurately depict your interest in / attentiveness to what I'm saying.
If all things are completely equal you are exactly right. However, there is a grey area when you add in the concept of a "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" act.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 29260
Location: Parts Unknown
pizza_Place: Frozen
This could have ended a while ago...

_________________
This is my signature...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38358
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Don Tiny wrote:

Anyone that thinks killing 1 dog or 1,000 dogs is worse than killing 1 person is someone I would vehemently disagree with and perhaps even wonder what the heck is wrong with them.

Inspired parody song aside, I seriously have no frigging idea why this is actually being debated, let alone why the introduction of completely arbitrary criteria by one or another is assumed to have anything to do with anything.



Ending after this post would have been appropriate.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm
Posts: 1678
Yet, I will continue on (if this goes long enough I might actually get to 1,000)


Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
24_Guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Do you think a person who is "pants-on-head drunk" should be held responsible for his or her actions while in such a state?


Yes. Being responsible for your actions, vs. being morally reprehensible, can be two different things.


That being the case, why is it often considered rape when some assholes film themselves gangbanging a woman who is clearly "pants-on-head drunk" and appears to be a willing participant? Aren't we suggesting that she wasn't responsible for her actions? And yet, after all that nastiness is over we expect her to have the faculty to know she shouldn't get behind the wheel. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that seems illogical and inconsistent to me.


Joe, come on, you are totally changing lanes. You have a responsibility to not kill someone. If getting drunk might end up with you killing someone, don't get drunk, or hand over your keys before you do, whatever. That does not, in any way, equate to someone being fair game to be violated because they drank too much. I don't see a comparison at all, here. You are responsible for YOUR actions when you're drunk; that's not the same as being fair game for anything anyone else wants to do to you...? :?:


BR, your example is a good one, and it can be further exemplified this way: I'm sure everyone here sometime in their lives has done something that, under unfortunate circumstances, could have ended up in a fatality. I bet no one here has mercilessly brutalized and killed dogs. That right there kind of proves the point.


Actually Rick, here's one for you: Say Kyle Orton throws a football as hard as he can, at close range, at a poor defenseless puppy. But he figured that with his puss-arm, there's no way the dog could get hurt. But the dog actually is killed. Is that better, or worse, than Jay Cutler throwing another red zone interception?


Last edited by 24_Guy on Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
24_Guy wrote:
I'm sure everyone here sometime in their lives has done something that, under unfortunate circumstances, could have ended up in a fatality. I bet no one here has mercilessly brutalized and killed dogs. That right there kind of proves the point.


If I commit a crime that results in the death of one human life, I am a bigger piece of shit scumbag monster than someone who responsible for a thousand dog deaths. The
Slobodan Milošević of the canine world would be a better person than me.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm
Posts: 1678
Terry's Peeps wrote:
24_Guy wrote:
I'm sure everyone here sometime in their lives has done something that, under unfortunate circumstances, could have ended up in a fatality. I bet no one here has mercilessly brutalized and killed dogs. That right there kind of proves the point.


If I commit a crime that results in the death of one human life, I am a bigger piece of shit scumbag monster than someone who responsible for a thousand dog deaths. The
Slobodan Milošević of the canine world would be a better person than me.


MIB you are correct, I don't like the Stallworth example, except that it's somewhat mitigated in that the guy jumped out into traffic and it's possible the inebriation wasn't the reason for the death. I don't want to get into that debate since I am the last person to defend drunk driving (just days ago I called to draw-and-quarter that guy in Bolingbrook :shock: ). My argument is more general in that if the death of the person is out of line with the intent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Ok. I'm just trying to do my part in the "March to 1000".



:D

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm
Posts: 1678
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Ok. I'm just trying to do my part in the "March to 1000".



:D


Thanks! (936)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92085
Location: To the left of my post
24_Guy wrote:
Actually Rick, here's one for you: Say Kyle Orton throws a football as hard as he can, at close range, at a poor defenseless puppy. But he figured that with his puss-arm, there's no way the dog could get hurt. But the dog actually is killed. Is that better, or worse, than Jay Cutler throwing another red zone interception?
:lol: I'm not the best one to answer this question.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79563
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
24_Guy wrote:
Joe, come on, you are totally changing lanes. You have a responsibility to not kill someone. If getting drunk might end up with you killing someone, don't get drunk, or hand over your keys before you do, whatever. That does not, in any way, equate to someone being fair game to be violated because they drank too much. I don't see a comparison at all, here. You are responsible for YOUR actions when you're drunk; that's not the same as being fair game for anything anyone else wants to do to you...? :?:


Yeah, it was a bit of a lane change, but it is a related conversation. I was just pointing out that in certain situations we as a society don't hold particular people responsible for what they do when they are "pants-on-head" drunk.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 11/16 Mac and Goff
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group