Re: Michael Vick Hysteria - Page 4

I mentioned organic meat because it's healthier, not because I myself eat it. I haven't touched the stuff in, as I said, 1 and a half years. That's now (count) two times you have taken a quote out of context to be used against me. Your "position" lacks substance and is crude. Try saying what you actually believe, instead of unsuccessfully trying to point out improper fallacies of what others say. Pathetic.

I'm sorry. It's difficult to believe you. Your post from 01-25-2007:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...1&postcount=47

I was a poster in the thread above as well. A year and half? What's pathetic?

Sure, the statement below is hypocritical:
How is a hunter who eats his kill different that an organic meat eater?

I'm not entirely sure what I meant by saying I eat "strictly organic" meat. I could have possibly meant to say that I only find that kind of meat acceptable in the health sense. Regardless, I'm being completely honest when I say that meat has not been a part of my diet since my sophomore year of college.

This, on an aside, is a bit of a ridiculous question. A hunter kills animals rarely for food anymore. Trophy hunting is the overwhelmingly most popular type of hunting around in the United States. In countries too impoverished to have an abundance of food, I can understand, like anybody should, the necessity of hunting. However, hunting in the United States means killing innocent and unsuspecting animals for the "sport" of it. They take pleasure in shooting moving, living targets.

Regardless, I have already denounced my previous conditions of being a processed meat-eater (my eating organic was just about as bad, but I ceased both actions at the same time). There's nothing hypocritical in my statements because I participate in none of the things I condemn. And I still don't understand the necessity of this. Unless you're some avid hunter who feels the need to own automatic weapons and sniper rifles (like others on this forum, as we've seen in the lovely "Gun-Fi" thread) and enjoys the "sport" of killing innocent animals, I don't understand the point behind these attacks. While I am against gun control as it is a right in our Constitution, I still believe on a personal level that we as people have little use for such objects or actions anymore. I know you're from the south, but you're not one of those kinds of southerners, are you? Otherwise, I see little use for this nonsense.

Can you verify this?

Of course. A slip of the keyboard perhaps?


I'd like to see those stats. I know many hunters, not one is a trophy hunter. This is local. Admittedly, I have no idea what the nation wide numbers are.
No matter, trophy hunting is not what I'm asking you about. I thought that was clear in the previous post. It's a ridiculous question because you can't answer it without hypocrisy.

I live in an area where hunting is very common. On opening day of deer season, half the plant is gone. None of the hunters I know are trophy hunters, and all of them use the meat from the animals they kill. If a guy is lucky, he gets a trophy buck. The meat goes in the freezer, and the head goes to the taxidermist. I even know one guy who tans the hides himself. He wastes none of the animal. I respect that, and don't consider it to be at all cruel.

You may not like hunting, but it serves a purpose. Permits are issued in numbers that allow the deer population to be carefully controlled. The alternative is deer overpopulation, illness, and starvation. Not pretty.

As many have said, comparing dog fighting to hunting is almost close in that it is humans killing animals, but with a few key differences. In dog fighting, the dogs are taught how to act unnatural, to want to kill others, and to be merciless in doing so. Deer, they just act like deer. They also run all over the place, run into cars, and other dangerous things as they are a kind of pest in a sense (because of humans and their actions against their habitats). I myself could never hunt, killing such a beautiful thing would be hard for me, but I understand the importance of it.

Some how this item seems very fitting considering it is being endorsed by Michael Vick! M. V. D. Bag.

Is dogfighting bad? Yes, but not to the extent the media is making it sound like. The sport has been around for hundreds of years, its not like Michael Vick is the only person in the world whose been involved in it. In reality, he's one of the more responsible dog-fighters. He killed the dogs, unlike some other people who dump them on the curb and the dog ends up attacking a kid or another dog.

Should Michael Vick get this much media attention for doing something like this? No. Its been blown way out of proportion just because if it involves a cute/domesticated animal, everyone turns into a PETA member.

that's quite true Atol,
I'd also add race may of had something to do with such outrage.
note, I said "may" because that's something we will never know.

It just goes on and on, doesn't it? And I'm an animal lover.