Page 5 of 11
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:15 pm
by Fios
ESPN has the Portis thing as there SECOND story ... no, I will not provide a link. I'm sure this is the second-most important thing in sports today. Bias, folks, in action. Don't give them the traffic to confirm that either, take me at my word.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:16 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
LOL, now players need to be suspended for knowledge?
How many people here have a family member that smokes mary jane?
Who have parents that did it at one point?
Who here has ever stolen anything?
Who has every sprayed the neighbors dog with a hose?
You all need to turn yourselves in to local authorities immediately. I will spend the rest of my afternoon scouring the boards for admittance of knowledge of wrongs doing and will turn you in immediately.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:21 pm
by SkinsFreak
Chris Luva Luva wrote:LOL, now players need to be suspended for knowledge?
How many people here have a family member that smokes mary jane?
Who have parents that did it at one point?
Who here has ever stolen anything?
Who has every sprayed the neighbors dog with a hose?
You all need to turn yourselves in to local authorities immediately. I will spend the rest of my afternoon scouring the boards for admittance of knowledge of wrongs doing and will turn you in immediately.
Exactly! When I go into a bar at night, I KNOW some of the patrons will drive home after a night of drinking. Do I now have to go to jail for having that knowledge?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:32 pm
by Irn-Bru
patjam77 wrote:Look... no offense but you may be looking at the quote through burgandy and gold colored glasses.
If that's the case, then you'll be able to point out why this is so. (I.e., you'll have to show me why a Redskins bias informed my opinion on the matter). Otherwise it's an
ad hominem (not the 'against the board rules' kind, just to be clear. Just the logical fallacy).
Every one reporting and everyone I have talked to took it as condoning it.
OK, so maybe we are talking about different meanings. I take condone to mean something along the lines of "Yay dogfighting!" or "Dogfighting isn't wrong!", not just "it's not my business."
"If he wants to do it, then he should do it" is simply the logical implication for Portis believing Vick's dogfighting isn't Portis' business. I would agree with you in the sense that he's not condemning dogfighting -- so if that's sufficient for "condoning" then we agree. I just don't think people should read into his words to the point where they think he's saying "yay dogfighting!" or "I've got no problems with dogfighting!"
If I'm wrong, then why did the Skins' PR department put out the damage control statement? "if that's what he wants to do, do it" is condoning it! Sorry bud, you and I are on the furthest sides of the fence on this.
The reason the PR department starting spinning right away should be obvious: they are all about
perception, making sure that the players say the
right (i.e., popular) kinds of things. If perception didn't matter, PR firms wouldn't exist.
When a high-profile person doesn't actively condemn something, especially when questioned about it directly, it is taken to be a sign that he or she condones it -- however logically flawed that thinking is. I'm not debating that this is the common public perception, and it's not as if the Skins PR department doesn't realize that.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:33 pm
by PulpExposure
The whole "the animal wouldn't exist without purpose X" falls apart as an argument.
What if I said I like to raise puppies, tie them down, and then slice pieces off of them until they bleed out or die. Or remove whole organs while they're alive, without anesthesia, just to see them function for a few seconds until they die. Is that wrong?
Or I have 2 children. We had them expressely so once they turn 3, every day I get to beat them with a belt. Or I'm raising them so that I will have my own organ farm; if I get into an accident, I can take out one of their whole body organs for transplantation, knowing that their HLA typing will be similar to mine. They wouldn't exist without this function. Is that wrong?
In either example, they wouldn't have existed without my express intent to execute said actions.
It's a weak argument, and fails under stricter scrutiny than just a passover glance.
Animals in the law are (somewhat) considered similar to children. They cannot effectively consent to any behavior, so adults that serve as their guardians are held to a higher standard.
Portis' statement is incorrect because he's treating a dog like inanimate property, where legally, it has been well-established that a dog is NOT.
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Someone mentioned the running of the bulls....
If we had a player that grew up with that as a part of his life and made the same statement would this be as big of an issue? Abuse is abuse right?
Yeah it would be the same issue, because while in his society animal cruelty may not be illegal, it IS in ours.
You agree to live by the laws of the jurisdiction you live in.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:38 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
PulpExposure wrote:Yeah it would be the same issue, because while in his society animal cruelty may not be illegal, it IS in ours.
You agree to live by the laws of the jurisdiction you live in.
I doubt that 200%, totally. Look at how the media potrays it now. It's shown as wild and exhilarating... If a player once participated in that he'd be portrayed as brave and they'd link his dodging the bulls to his on the field skills some how.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:39 pm
by PulpExposure
Chris Luva Luva wrote:PulpExposure wrote:Yeah it would be the same issue, because while in his society animal cruelty may not be illegal, it IS in ours.
You agree to live by the laws of the jurisdiction you live in.
I doubt that 200%, totally. Look at how the media potrays it now. It's shown as wild and exhilarating... If a player once participated in that he'd be portrayed as brave and they'd link his dodging the bulls to his on the field skills some how.
I think we're talking about 2 different things, CLL....
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:41 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
PulpExposure wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:PulpExposure wrote:Yeah it would be the same issue, because while in his society animal cruelty may not be illegal, it IS in ours.
You agree to live by the laws of the jurisdiction you live in.
I doubt that 200%, totally. Look at how the media potrays it now. It's shown as wild and exhilarating... If a player once participated in that he'd be portrayed as brave and they'd link his dodging the bulls to his on the field skills some how.
I think we're talking about 2 different things, CLL....
I'm just saying that I think that there's a double standard in how some things are acceptable while others aren't. If people want to stand against animal abuse, stand against all of it. This doesn't apply to anyone here specifically but in general. People pick their fights and that makes me a little less weary to back them up because they aren't completely for it. I think some people just need something to do and aren't really worried about the animals.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:45 pm
by Gnome
I think the sportscaster made a valid point. The NFL isn't a court of law. It's a marketing machine. Being suspended for conduct detrimental to the League isn't about the law, it's about public perception, TV ratings, and the NFL's place as 'America's Game'.
Goodall's job is about protecting brand and increasing the NFL's hold on the American sporting public as America's Game. Goodall has already told Vick that not knowing what was taking place at his property was not an excuse, setting the stage for action by the League Office. And if they supsend Vick for something he didn't know about, don't they have have to give Portis a slap on the wrist too, since he's admitted to knowing the whereabouts of dog fights and condoning the activity even though it's illegal? Why do you think the Skins PR department rushed a 'clarification' into the media? They realize Portis just jumped into the ring with Vick like a tag-team partner ready to take on the League Office. Again, not very bright on Portis' part - and he best be prepared to defend his position.
Pacman lost a full year without a conviction. He's 100% innocent by legal standards. But he's out of the NFL. Vick is headed that way. Portis just turned it from an isolated incident into something bigger, perception wise 'NFL Players defend dog fighting'. Now, Goodall has to get involved.
Again. Gross all the way around.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:49 pm
by Irn-Bru
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm just saying that I think that there's a double standard in how some things are acceptable while others aren't. If people want to stand against animal abuse, stand against all of it. This doesn't apply to anyone here specifically but in general. People pick their fights and that makes me a little less weary to back them up because they aren't completely for it. I think some people just need something to do and aren't really worried about the animals.
I agree on the inconsistency in this thread.
No one here seems to be saying much about the difference between cows and chickens dying needlessly by the millions versus the dogs that are fighting and suffering (and the other examples that you bring up). It just makes people feel good to stand up against particularly vicious examples of prolonged pain and suffering on the part of an animal. Clinton Portis hasn't actively condemned it like most people are quick to, and he gets crucified.
The idea posed earlier that animals are like children when it comes to rights would require too much writing to deal with here. . .I guess I need to leave this topic be outside of what Portis actually said, since it will quickly get mired in concepts of rights and persons, the very kinds of subjects that I've found to be pretty fruitless when discussing on a Redskins message board.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:54 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
SkinsFreak wrote:I didn't say that other areas of the world were "much more cultured" by engaging in these activities, and I didn't say it was ok to do those things, I merely pointed to the FACT that these things are prevalent in other parts of the world. Did you not comprehend that?
Thanks for the response. After re-reading your post, I did see that you condemned the animal cruelty in dogfighting and your defense of the laws that govern it.
The part over which I took an issue was the following:
...these are accepted activities in some cultures and we as a nation, are diverse with a wide range of morals, values, opinions and cultures.
I read it as a "flip-flop" on the issue, since, on the one hand, you take a hard-line stance, and you follow it up with a line that could be interpreted (by me, of course
) as though their can be a gray area for accepting it. Although they ARE facts, they don't necessarily support your stance on why they should be outlawed. Rather, it almost sounds it would be an acceptable justification for someone doing it here (kinda like a free pass, in the event that they get caught).
Can you see my point, or am I further putting my foot in my mouth?
As for Portis, I agree, he did not break any laws with his statement, but, as the title of this thread indicates, Portis should have kept his mouth shut. Not only did he look bad (whether YOU agree or not), but he made the organization look bad, and that can't be good for business. Add in the fact that Samuels was implicated in the interview, and it adds to the negative press.
FACT: Speaking on Vick's private matters was a douuble-dumb decision on Clinton Portis' part, and now he must face the consequences, whatever they may be.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:55 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
Irn-Bru wrote:The idea posed earlier that animals are like children when it comes to rights would require too much writing to deal with here. . .
LOL, who said that? Children are now ranked as low as roaches? Roaches are animals too? Or don't they rank as high as puppies? That's
bigotry!!!
Uh oh, I've killed tons of insects in my life. I guess the PC Police betta come lock my behind up.
Question, do the pro dog folk here use insecticides? Or eat foods treated with pesticides to keep the cute bumble bees away?
YOU'RE ALL KILLERS TURN YOURSELVES IN!!!
Who here enjoys a nice NY strip? While you were eating it did you picture the axe coming down on that bulls head as his children silent scream in the background and wept tears of sorrow...the universe cried that day...
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:59 pm
by Irn-Bru
Chris Luva Luva wrote:LOL, who said that? Children are now ranked as low as roaches?
Well, he didn't put it that way. PulpExposure was talking about how the law deals with entities such as animals and people:
PulpExposure wrote:Animals in the law are (somewhat) considered similar to children. They cannot effectively consent to any behavior, so adults that serve as their guardians are held to a higher standard.
By the way, CLL, this thread appears to be the most entertainment you've had on the board in weeks. . .
I guess the offseason is slow.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
Irn-Bru wrote:No one here seems to be saying much about the difference between cows and chickens dying needlessly by the millions versus the dogs that are fighting and suffering (and the other examples that you bring up).
I thought that was expressed, like two pages ago, wasn't it?
It just makes people feel good to stand up against particularly vicious examples of prolonged pain and suffering on the part of an animal.
How 'bout looking at it this way: it makes people feel bad to know that one of the star players on their favorite team is guilty by association, something that could have been avoided entirely just by saying "no comment"?
After all, what makes Clinton the authority on Vick's private matters anyway? CP wants the media to "mind their business" on Vick's alledged love for dogfighting, yet he feels he can speak on it? Isn't THAT a double standard?
Again, a dumb decision on Portis' part. Hopefully, he won't get further dragged through the mud with this issue.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:06 pm
by REDEEMEDSKIN
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Who here enjoys a nice NY strip? While you were eating it did you picture the axe coming down on that bulls head as his children silent scream in the background and wept tears of sorrow...the universe cried that day...
No, all I could think about was how thankful I was that that bull produced lovely offspring that made it possible to also enjoy the delicious veal entrée.
You've GOT to be a cat lover, right, Chris? That's probably why you don't understand.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:08 pm
by Irn-Bru
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:How 'bout looking at it this way: it makes people feel bad to know that one of the star players on their favorite team is guilty by association, something that could have been avoided entirely just by saying "no comment"?
There is no guilt outside of what people are quick to ascribe to him. What if Portis thinks that it's not their business (or his)? "No comment" doesn't tell them that.
After all, what makes Clinton the authority on Vick's private matters anyway? CP wants the media to "mind their business" on Vick's alledged love for dogfighting, yet he feels he can speak on it? Isn't THAT a double standard?
The media asked Porits about Vick; he didn't call a press conference to make a statement about it. His answer was a way of telling them that it was dumb to ask about it: 'If its Vick's property; it's Vick's concern. He can do what he wants, and if you're really surprised that this even happens then you should take a tour of my hometown.'
Hopefully, he won't get further dragged through the mud with this issue.
I agree. . .
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:12 pm
by PulpExposure
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm just saying that I think that there's a double standard in how some things are acceptable while others aren't. If people want to stand against animal abuse, stand against all of it. This doesn't apply to anyone here specifically but in general. People pick their fights and that makes me a little less weary to back them up because they aren't completely for it. I think some people just need something to do and aren't really worried about the animals.
There are double standards everywhere, and speaking as a lawyer, it makes things easier (as a function of my job) but far more ethically and morally difficult.
What I thought you meant is in essence:
Player A grew up in place X. In place X, doing B to animals is legal.
Player A then moves to place Y. In place Y, doing B to animals is illegal.
Player A has to abide by Place Y's laws as long as he lives there.
But I see you were making a separate point. Once in which I tend to agree with completely.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:12 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
Irn-Bru wrote:By the way, CLL, this thread appears to be the most entertainment you've had on the board in weeks. . .
I guess the offseason is slow.
Yeah it's slow, just in here having fun at other peoples expense.
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:No, all I could think about was how thankful I was that that bull produced lovely offspring that made it possible to also enjoy the delicious veal entrée.
You've GOT to be a cat lover, right, Chris? That's probably why you don't understand.
No, I love dogs. Remember the show Wishbone? I want a dog like that, so we can solve mysteries and stuff.
I'm throwing in a mix of heavy sarcasm mixed with truth today.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:15 pm
by Fios
FYI I moved this as it stopped being about the Redskins a few pages back
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:30 pm
by Cappster
Is it not sufficient for man to absorb the useful labors and lives of the inferior creation, without superadding excessive anguish, want and misery?
— Julius Ames, The Spirit of Humanity
Portis defends Vick
Michael Vick hosting dog fights at his home doesn't bother Clinton Portis, who says, "if that's what he wants to do, then do it."
If somebody is too stupid to understand the fundamental immorality of dog fighting, you're never going to be able to explain it to him.
So don't waste your breath on Clinton Portis.
You could show him scripture, wherein man's dominion over animals comes with an insistence on "holiness and justice."
You could photocopy Gandhi's essay on animal rights for him.
Heck, you could even give him a copy of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man in the hopes that he might see a parallel in the inhumanity between Ellison's battle royal — a brutal free-for-all fought by black men for the entertainment of whites — and a bunch of men standing around and cheering as two dogs tear each other apart.
But none of it would take. So this isn't a column with an educational purpose. This is a more retributive exercise with the aim of adding just a sliver of anguish and misery to the otherwise great life of multi-millionaire jackass Clinton Portis, written on behalf of my dog Sam.
In what could have been a completely inconsequential off-season interview, the idiot Portis, for no apparent reason, decided to weigh in on behalf of Michael Vick and in favor of dog fighting.
When I saw the headline I thought it must have been one ill-conceived comment — perhaps blown out of proportion or taken the wrong way — but, oh no, Portis went out of his way to reiterate again and again in different ways that he has no problems with dog owners fighting their dogs.
If you thought Ted Koppel tried to throw Al Campanis a lifeline, check out how many times the interviewer gives Portis opportunities to backtrack.
On the topic of Vick facing possible charges for dog fighting, Portis opened with, "I think people should mind their business, you know. I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, his dog, if that's what he wants to do, do it."
When apprised by the startled interviewer that dog fighting is a felony, Portis was fairly incredulous. It seems to be the first he's heard of that development within our justice system. But he's ready with a rebuttal.
"It can't be too bad of a crime. There's a lot of stuff that's crimes, you know. It's killers on the loose over here and you want to hunt down Michael Vick over fighting some dogs."
Well said, Clint. Well said. But he was just getting started.
"I think behind closed doors the same people who do all the judging are probably some of the harshest people around. They're Internet predators and everything else."
Smart. Use the Karl Rove strategy, go on the attack. The people — law enforcement officers, district attorneys, judges — condemning others for dog fighting are Internet predators. Nice.
Come to think of it, we've got to get Chris Hansen and his crew to surprise the gang at one of these dog fights. Those would be some choice interviews. Smart crowd, the dog fighting fan base.
Apparently Portis was no stranger to these Mensa meetings when he was growing up.
"I'm from Laurel, Mississippi, so I know a lot of backroads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it." Perhaps the FBI can take up Clinton on this offer.
After suggesting that he suspected cops and judges were staging dogfights too, Portis was asked what he would think if Vick is charged and convicted.
Still unclear on the illegal nature of the activity, Portis asks, "How could you convict somebody on a dog fight?"
Okay, knucklehead, hypothetically, what if Vick were convicted?
"Then I think he got cheated. You take a positive role model...and put him behind bars for no reason, over a dog fight."
Positive role model? Wow, this interview just gets nuttier and nuttier. Was it his airport antics, flipping off the fans, or throwing coaches under the bus that made Vick a positive role model? I forget.
Portis seems genuinely confused at why we can't do whatever we want to our animals in the privacy of our massive compounds. He seems to be asking, if you own the animals and you keep it on your property, who's to say you can't torture them? Civil society, Clinton, that's who.
Your employers seem to agree, by the way.
The Redskins eventually corralled their wayward star late Monday, helping him issue a statement which read, "In the recent interview I gave concerning dog fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in any manner."
But by then, the damage was already done.
The sad part is I had always liked Clinton Portis. I thought the costumes were great and his sound bites consistently funny. But he's lost me now.
When I think about pro athletes siccing dogs on one another it makes me consider rooting for catastrophic knee injuries.
But I guess I'm not that cruel. If, however, Portis missed another batch of games in '07 with his chronic shoulder problems, well, maybe it would be karma.
Anyone who flippantly condones animal cruelty deserves no better.
Kevin Hench is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:44 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
Ask Julis Ames if he owns a fly swatter, if so, he can shove it. lololol
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:05 pm
by xhadow
I just read the story and I fail to see how saying that he didn't know it was a crime or see it as a crime makes him guilty of animal crulety. As it has been said multiple times in this thread no one thinks of animal crulety when they are having their morning breakfast or when they watch the Kentucky Derby (which kills many horses WAYYY before there time).
Its these same reporters that jump off the deep end whenever a child gets mauled by a pit bull and they say all pit bulls are dangerous and should be outlawed. At the same time its people like Vick that make an extremly tame anmial like a pit bull into a viscious mauling machine. I have owned 3 pits in my life time and have never had one of them attack myself or my kids.
I dislike this story because people should mind there own business and I dislike people like Vick for giving good dogs a bad name.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:34 pm
by UK Skins Fan
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Someone mentioned the running of the bulls....
If we had a player that grew up with that as a part of his life and made the same statement would this be as big of an issue? Abuse is abuse right?
1) Probably not
2) Yes
The thing is, I'm struggling to see why this has become a moral debate about animal welfare. Seems to me that there are few who would argue against the notion that dog-fighting is a pretty sickening activity, and the arguments around that point seem off the mark to me.
The simple fact is that Portis opens his mouth an awful lot, but for somebody who must surely have had a lot of lessons in media management, he seems to have messed up here. What he said really isn't a huge deal, or it shouldn't be, but his error was in what he didn't say. A simple denunciation of dog-fighting might have been appropriate, although not as good as a simple "it's none of my business really".
It's just a media relations cock-up, but I don't think we need to condemn him for it. Neither should he be given a free pass though.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:55 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
UK Skins Fan wrote:
It's just a media relations cock-up, but I don't think we need to condemn him for it. Neither should he be given a free pass though.
Now that I can agree on.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:31 pm
by Gibbs' Hog
Ok, well, I grew tired of reading after 10 or 11 pages, so I apologize if I am repeating someone else's sentiments here but this is how I feel:
Portis shouldn't have said what he did.
Was it a joke on his and Samuels' parts? Who knows.
However, Portis has the freedom of speech, and (as far as we know) has never been convicted of organizing and/or participating in a dog fight.
Does anyone else feel that this is another case of media-baiting?
Think about it - the media is
fully aware that Portis never comes short when it comes to "interesting" comments and interviews. Isn't it possible that the media targeted Portis with this question; with the understanding (or expectance even) that something controversial might come out of his mouth?
Finally, some people believe in capital punishment, and others don't (myself included). If you took that issue into your own hands (essentially, murdering someone because they have wronged you in some way), you would be doing something illegal. But is it a crime to have your
opinions be pro-capital punishment?
Yes, it's a completely different issue. But my point is this: Portis could be accepting of dog fighting. And I think we'd all agree that the majority of people consider it a heinous act. But Portis is still entitled to his opinion, even if we don't agree. Even if the law doesn't agree. And, as long as Portis
himself is not involved in dog fighting (as
we are not invloved personally in conducting our own acts of capital punishment), he can say whatever is on his mind.
Agree or disagree, love or hate Portis because of his remarks; ultimately it doesn't matter because he has not done anything wrong.
(at least that we know of...
)