The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Countertrey wrote:It's simply a fact. Dog fighting and Drug dealing are analogous

A crime with a clear victim is analogous to a "victimless crime?" If you were to argue drug dealing to children then I'd agree. But to make the general statement that a crime harming living beings is equivalent to one where an adult makes a consious choice is just nonsense.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:It's simply a fact. Dog fighting and Drug dealing are analogous

A crime with a clear victim is analogous to a "victimless crime?" If you were to argue drug dealing to children then I'd agree. But to make the general statement that a crime harming living beings is equivalent to one where an adult makes a consious choice is just nonsense.

That dog fighting is victimless is an opinion... and one that I don't happen to agree with. It is absolutely an analogue of drug trafficking... absolutely. If you are arguing that drug trafficking is victimless, I'd dispute that, as well, despite my libertarian beliefs... while the principals are making free choices, the money involved is as often as not, ill-begotten, and just as likely to be bloody. It is the single major root of the incredible violence in our cities... Victimless, indeed.

We are getting off topic.

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Dog fighting is an analog of the drug culture. Where you find dog fighting, you find drug dealers, and often vice versa.

This part of your argument escapes me. I don't see how you're making the drug/dog fighting connection.

It's simply a fact. Dog fighting and Drug dealing are analogous. Where there is dog fighting, there are almost always drug dealers... they often fund the kennels that provide and train the dogs. The cash that changes hands during events helps to launder their drug profits... Ask any law enforcement officer. That is a significant reason that law enforcement is willing to invest energy in the enforcement of dog fighting laws.

There is probably a cop here who will validate... I'm sure if JH shows up, he would as well.


Animal Legal and Historical Center report
From that article:

Dog fighters are violent criminals that engage in a whole host of peripheral criminal activities. Many are heavily involved in organized crime, racketeering, drug distribution, or gangs, and they arrange and attend the fights as a forum for gambling and drug trafficking. Within the last decade, enlightened law enforcement agencies and government officials have become cognizant of the clandestine culture of dog-fighting and its nexus with other crimes and community violence. Many individuals continue to deny the existence or scope of dogfighting in America, or they maintain that it is merely an isolated animal welfare issue

This is from a report by the Lafayette, Indiana Police Department:

Dog fighting typically is associated with other crimes such as drug trafficking, firearms possession, gang involvement, and gambling are just a few of the peripheral crimes tied to the fighting of pit bull dogs.

http://westlafayettepd.us/downloads/DOG ... %20LAW.doc
The photos are fairly graphic...

That's fine. I understood the connection going in that direction. I'm sure there are a lot of superfluous crimes that go on at all illegal events. It was when you said "and often vice versa" that threw me. You were saying that drug dealing often attracts dog fighting, which is patently false. It's as if a dog fight breaks out on every street corner where someone is selling crack. Drugs are an independent issue. Yes organized crime, uses drug money to finance other criminal enterprises and to launder money, but every drug dealer is not in the mob, and not everyone deals drugs to finance dog fighting or any other particular crime.

Countertrey wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:It's simply a fact. Dog fighting and Drug dealing are analogous

A crime with a clear victim is analogous to a "victimless crime?" If you were to argue drug dealing to children then I'd agree. But to make the general statement that a crime harming living beings is equivalent to one where an adult makes a consious choice is just nonsense.

That dog fighting is victimless is an opinion... and one that I don't happen to agree with. It is absolutely an analogue of drug trafficking... absolutely. If you are arguing that drug trafficking is victimless, I'd dispute that, as well, despite my libertarian beliefs... while the principals are making free choices, the money involved is as often as not, ill-begotten, and just as likely to be bloody. It is the single major root of the incredible violence in our cities... Victimless, indeed.

We are getting off topic.

Dog fighting is victimless? My point was that it's NOT victimless. OK, the first sentence doesn't specify which I am saying is victimless, but the second does.

On drug trafficing, you use the classic moralistic Republican logic on the issue. We have made drugs illegal, so only criminals sell them, so using them is a crime with a victim because society made your choice for you and by not accepting that the victims created by society are YOUR FAULT. All the victims you cite were created by the ACT of making drugs ILLEGAL. NOT by the use of the drugs.

I don't do drugs and they are stupid, but so is making peoples choices for them, which is what drug laws are. While I don't choose to do drugs, I reject the premise that government has the right to make that or other moral choices for me and it's the fault of the government for engaging in that folly and GOVERNMENT created the victims you cite.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Not because he's a sick SOB but because of what he did to living, feeling, intelligent creatures. Those animals lived a nightmare of a life and by the time death came it was a blessing.

Let me give the too-short assertion up front: Dogs aren't moral agents, so we can't predicate that they have rights and protection under the law. If we want to discuss why I think this or consider alternative positions, then we'll have to do it in a thread in the Lounge (or, for those who can't handle that [not a swipe at you, Kaz], Smack).

I'm at a loss as to how you can write this off as a comparison to slitting an animals throat. And BTW, I'm a vegitarian so I'm not defending slitting Daisy the Cow's throat.

I'm not saying that Vick was merely slitting dog throats. How many times to I have to state that I am not making a moral defense for Vick.

Here's the part of my post you are disputing phrased differently: "True or false: If I obtain dogs as pets and routinely slit their throats, and the local authorities find out, can I go to prison for it?"

Producing, transporting, and selling alcohol was a "victimless" crime in the same way you are arguing, Trey. If we lived in a world where it was presently illegal, and we were seeing the same kind of thug activities and culture surrounding alcohol, would you be in favor of decriminalizing it?

Irn-Bru wrote:Producing, transporting, and selling alcohol was a "victimless" crime in the same way you are arguing, Trey. If we lived in a world where it was presently illegal, and we were seeing the same kind of thug activities and culture surrounding alcohol, would you be in favor of decriminalizing it?

I am a libertarian. I view the current legal status of recreational drugs to be a violation of the Constitution, and of our rights as American citizens. Why would I believe, then, that prohibition was right?

Yet, I recognize that it is still the law of the land, whether I like it or not. I recognize that the current system for marketing and distributing recreational drugs encourages many to victimize others. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY THEY ARE DOING IT (eg drugs are illegal, and they must go underground and resort to crime to finance habits)... THE FACT IS, THEY ARE DOING IT!

People who have no relationship in the drug culture are robbed, murdered, beaten and terrorized. Shoplifting rings have flourished as a means of financing access to drugs... and on and on.

Crime around drugs would decrease... but sociopathy exists with or without drugs. These people will still find ways to victimize others.

It was when you said "and often vice versa" that threw me. You were saying that drug dealing often attracts dog fighting, which is patently false.

Twist. Contort. What I said was:

Where you find dog fighting, you find drug dealers, and often vice versa

The latter is true. In busts of homes owned by drug dealers and traffickers, dog fighting rings and equipment are sometimes found. Basement rings are often saturated with dog blood. The busts usually occured because of drugs... the dog fighting is usually discovered on entry. What I stated is a simple fact. Where there are drug dealers, there is often dog fighting. Where there is dog fighting, there are almost always drug dealers. The fact is, dog fighting is a favored recreational pastime for drug traffickers. Why wouldn't they set up the occasional tourney themselves????

Please don't twist my words to try to make a point. You are plenty intelligent to make your argument without resorting to that.

Countertrey wrote:

It was when you said "and often vice versa" that threw me. You were saying that drug dealing often attracts dog fighting, which is patently false.

Twist. Contort. What I said was:

Where you find dog fighting, you find drug dealers, and often vice versa

The latter is true. In busts of homes owned by drug dealers and traffickers, dog fighting rings and equipment are sometimes found. Basement rings are often saturated with dog blood. The busts usually occured because of drugs... the dog fighting is usually discovered on entry. What I stated is a simple fact. Where there are drug dealers, there is often dog fighting. Where there is dog fighting, there are almost always drug dealers. The fact is, dog fighting is a favored recreational pastime for drug traffickers. Why wouldn't they set up the occasional tourney themselves????

Please don't twist my words to try to make a point. You are plenty intelligent to make your argument without resorting to that.

Sometimes and often are very different things. I quoted you accurately, and did not twist or contort your words. I simply do not agree with the statements highlighted in blue.

ChocolateMilk wrote:his sentence was more of a statement than an actual fair punishment IMO... i just think its bull that people get more worked up and angry about some one killing dogs than they do about some one killing a person..

any one here remember that whole thing with ray lewis? some one died and he got away with no punishment at all. i mean even if he didnt kill the guy, im sure he knows who did..

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that that this piece of filth should wash expensive cars for a living......the kind he WOULD HAVE BEEN driving if he wasn't a soul-less, worthless waste of human flesh.

There are only two schools of thought here.....those that think this creep deserves forgiveness, and those that recognize this degenerate for what he is.

The atrocities and heartless behavior this creep and his partners in crime did to those poor animals is not just inhumane, it was in-human behavior, especially considering the very nature of dogs and their undying loyalty to their owners.....the ultimate betrayal showing he has no soul, and no right to be allowed back into the NFL under any circumstances.

Are you even slightly aware of any of the details? Electrocution? Drowning? Torture? These guys inflicted tremendous pain and misery on these animals for "enjoyment" and "entertainment"?

It's sickening....and if it doesn't make you sick to the stomach.....if you don't find it disgraceful and unforgivable, SAD ON YOU.

If I had my way, I'd have Vick dressed in a suit of pork chops, and turned over to a pack of hungry wolves the moment he hit the street.

And any team that would employ this creep deserves to be boycotted.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It'll be interesting to see what happens when he gets released, I still feel like he got shafted a bit. Not defending what he did because it was wrong but I just felt that it kinda got malicious after a while.

Not nearly as malicious as Vick's actions were. And I think he got off easy.

How in the world anyone could feel Vick was "shafted" is beyond comprehension. There isn't a "shaft" long enough or thick enough for Michael Vick and his degenerate scum accomplices.

Ill say I agree with CLL.


Vick was wrong. But you know he didn't have the time to plan and run the entire operation.

The guys that killed the vast majority of the dogs and spent the time running everything, are the guys that tuned on Vick and got off free with no charges.

Yeah, Vick got shafted. Vick might have been the money but he wasn't the brains or the main killers. Those guys, have probably already started another fighting ring and going on about business. Vick fronted the money for them to get started, but now they have the money for their own show. Going on about their business like nothing ever happened.

Yeah, Vick got shafted.

Oh, poor Mike.

Countertrey wrote:

Yeah, Vick got shafted.

Oh, poor Mike.

Well, your argument is "Poor Dogs".

But whats sad, is that they can just breed more, and no one is saying "poor dogs". To the new group of dogs, now that Mike or now that "justice is served".

BnGhog wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Yeah, Vick got shafted.

Oh, poor Mike.

Well, your argument is "Poor Dogs".

But whats sad, is that they can just breed more, and no one is saying "poor dogs". To the new group of dogs, now that Mike or now that "justice is served".

You actually haven't seen that argument (so, I have no idea what your point might be)... though I agree with the sentiment.

One sadist at a time... one at a time.

Countertrey wrote:Oh, poor Mike.

Exactly. Boo hoo for Mr. Vick. (rhymes with ?)...

RayNAustin wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It'll be interesting to see what happens when he gets released, I still feel like he got shafted a bit. Not defending what he did because it was wrong but I just felt that it kinda got malicious after a while.

Not nearly as malicious as Vick's actions were. And I think he got off easy.

How in the world anyone could feel Vick was "shafted" is beyond comprehension. There isn't a "shaft" long enough or thick enough for Michael Vick and his degenerate scum accomplices.

Yea Ray, we forget that you know them all personally to call them scum