Marbury proving he is one of the stupidest people alive

obviously it was too hard for you to read 3/4 of an inch down the page.

i knew what you were asking, but it didnt matter. their doesnt have to be a victim for that douche to go to jail.

 

right, this is where i see the hypocrisy. i might think hunting for sport is barbaric, but that shouldnt give me the right to stop you from doing it. i am aware i can assemble people and we can petition the government until we get our way, and we can control you. but just because i could do that doesnt mean i should.

right, i understand that. where i disagree is about how often we should enforce your or my morality on each other.

in england there is a similar controversy over foxhunting. people are saying that it is inhumane to let your hounds overtake and shred a fox. i agree, that seems kinda mean. but it also seems fun to get on a horse and go on a hunt with a bunch of hounds. so i can see it from the perspective of the one needlessly killing the animal. and with michael vick, i think the situation is the same, i just think because of the way our culture happens to work, we have a hard time seeing his side. i dont think we should bring our judgement into it, because it does not affect us, and people should be left to their own subjective morality, until it hurts other people.

i know the hunters here do not need the meat the kill to eat. they do it for fun, and eat it as a bonus. their isnt much difference between them and vick, in my book. but my book shouldnt matter, and neither should yours.


when the argument is made "thats the way vick was raised", it sounds ludicrous, but i actually agree with that.

futhermore, tirk and i deserve major awards for taking such a wildly mean-sounding and distasteful stance.

 

Wrong. In a democratic society, the majority rules, and if the majority of people feel that hunting should be outlawed then it will be. Until then there is a distinction between hunting and dogfighting that is quite significant. You are arguing from a standpoint of absolute personal freedom, but that only applies to the island Utopia, which you have yet to discover. America works a bit differently. Change it or move.

Mine matters because it is part of a majority. Yours does not, because it is part of a fringe. Convince more people to start dogfighting clubs and your book will matter.

It's not ludicrous, and Vick undoubtedly learned his values through his own "community". However, the community he lives in(America) supersedes this. If he wants to do anything he desires, then he should move to Utopia with you.

I am a firm believer that one should not blindly follow the crowd, and that standing up for your beliefs is a good thing. However, standing apart from the crowd does not mean you are always in front. Sometimes, as in this case, it means you are far behind.

 

are you unable to separate the will of the majoriy from right and wrong?

if enough people vote for it, we can make cheesburgers illegal. when i stated my opposition, would you just keep pointing at the results of a poll?

dont see the point of repeating over and over that the majority rules. that is beside the point. we are not discussing if it illegal or not to fight dogs. i know it is, and i know why it is. i am asking if we have made the right decision as a collective or if we should even be making these sort of decisions.

your argument is unbearably stupid.

 

Here's a novel idea, try actually reading his posts, and comprehending what he is arguing.
He is not debating what is and isn't legal. That has already been clearly defined. Multiple times. He is debating the morality of it.

We know dogfighting is illegal. He wants to know why is it ok to kill some animals, but not others. Why is it ok to lure a mouse to some sticky paper with cheese, and then if you so choose, toss said mouse into the air and hit it with a baseball bat several times, then light the bastis on fire to finish him off. Why is it legal to torture mice but not dogs. And Dude, because it's the law is not a good enough answer this time. Tell us why.

And for the record, I am sternly against torturing dogs.

 

i appreciate that nutriaitch, i was starting to think i had lost my ability to convey meaning with words.

 

You answer your own question without realizing it.

And so do the majority of people in this country. They find it at issue with their moral standards and understand the right of Americans to impose their beliefs on others if they are the majority. There are far more reasons than whether or not cute dogs are killed, though martin would love to simplify the issue in order to fit his personal philosophy.

If you bothered to read all of my posts you would have this answer. You obviously have not, and I see no need to repeat myself. I have gone far past, "it is illegal". But I will state again, that laws are the expression of a communities morals. If you feel that hunting and dogfighting are morally similar, than fight to change the law. I do not see them as the same, and have explained why at great length. Try your own advice, read all my posts, and then try some comprehension.

 

I have done far more than rely upon the majority. Your argument is that nobody should have the right to dictate morals to you, nor should you have the right. I get that you believe this, but it doesn't change reality. You really should just look for Utopia.

 

Sorry, I should have added I am also opposed to abusing mice by sticky pad, baseball bat, then fire.

Christians outnumber other religions in this country. Is it our American right to impose our beleifs on other religions? Also, the majority of this country is right handed, can we just outlaw using your left hand?

Ok, after having read your posts, the reason is....because everybody says so. Wonderful answer, I'm so glad we got that cleared up.

Yet you continue doing it?

I haven't even mentioned hunting. Nor have I ever stated they were morally equal. In fact, until this string of sentences, the word hunting was never typed by me in this thread. At least you're consistent with the not reading of people's posts.

Please give me one reason why it is morally wrong to torture a dog, but it is not morally wrong to torture a mouse, a snake, armadillos, possums, etc. etc. etc.

 

edit: i was wrong

but the way some of the people think in this thread scare me.