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

Countertrey wrote:

patjam77


Location: Philadelphia

Says all I need to know. Must be the water there.

haha... yeah the Skukyll will kill you!

I just think that he should have taken his own advice and "Mind his own business." I would have said that I don't condone dog fighting. I also do not label people as guilty or not until they have been given a fair trial.

frankcal20 wrote:I just think that he should have taken his own advice and "Mind his own business." I would have said that I don't condone dog fighting. I also do not label people as guilty or not until they have been given a fair trial.

Let them hire you as a PR consultant. Sometimes the best answers are the ones that make the best sense. That simple.

Naaah, I just try to keep it real and stay out of issues that I don't belong. He's guilty by association.

man with all of these panties in a bunch, i will forever refer to clinton portis as the 'Dog Fighter'.

new nickname for sheriff dogs fight ya, err i mean sheriff gonna get cha.

patjam77 wrote:This a quote from what Portis said right? ----> "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Sounds to me like he's condoning it... "if that's what he wants to do, do it" so he does deserve scorn and if karma or whatever else other-worldly beliefs people believe in decides to punish him, I won't be upset.

I don't know how I'm going to convince you that saying something "isn't my business, and it's not yours either" is NOT the same as condoning it -- i.e., saying "Yeah, I like that and think that it's good!" Nowhere in Portis' comments am I seeing the latter.

"I don't know if he's robbing banks or not, but it's his gun, and his stick-up note, if that's what he wants to do then do it"

Does that condone robbing a Bank?
Does it say the police should track the robber down and lock him up?

If he's got a gun and a note and wants to rob a bank I doubt he's worried about who condones it and who doesn't. Like CP said if that's what he wants to do then that's what he'll do.

What Portis said may not have been the smartiest thing to say but he had every right to say it and it will get the attention it deserves (IMO; CP might not want this one to go too long)

In the end the bank robber and Vick could be standing in front of the same Judge, and everyone envolved will be minding thier own business inside a criminal court. Just like CP said they should all be doing.

I agree that CP probably doesn't want this thing to baloon on him (maybe he does, though. . .but it doesn't seem likely).

Let me put it this way, 1nik. I don't think it's right to do crack, heroine, etc. I also don't think it's right to sell your body for sex. These are moral issues, meaning all parties that are capable of consenting are consenting. Morally repugnant, not legally enforceable.

Now, I also think it's wrong to beat your children. I think it's wrong to rob banks. But these go beyond mere immoral actions and cross over into the realm of violence against other human beings. I have no problems with legal enforcement over those legal (and moral) issues. Not all parties capable of consenting are consenting in these cases -- and so we have violence against other people's property.

Portis' statement that "it's his property" makes it clear (to me) that he views what's going on as synonymous with ANY immoral activity that isn't committing violence against another person.

Dogfighting, to me, falls into the first category, not into the second. (Or I guess we could all stop eating beef and chicken, too. . .it's hard to think that they are consenting to that, even IF the killing was done in a "humane" way ). That's the reason why I'm finding patjam's argument inconsistent, unless he grieves over every worm that is squashed underfoot. The dogfighting is a particularly vicious way of causing animals harm, but it's not different in kind from beef factories, hunting, or killing a spider for your wife.

I'm extremely disappointed in Portis and Samuels. The bottom line is that Portis and Samuels said dog fighting is no big deal. Your dogs. Do what you want with them. Yeah. Love them, beat them, kill them, whatever. Your property. I'm not a liberal. I support sportsman and the right to hunt. And I think PETA is an awful org that is irresponsible in its methods and propaganda. BUT it's a slippery slope saying it's okay to torture and abuse animals because they're property. Think that's hyperbole? It's not. Animal abuse is a sign of a sick mentality that can and will evolve into other, more drastic abuses. Most criminal profilers point to animal abuse as a sign that a person has no respect for life, and is an early warning sign. Allowing and condoning the abuse of animals is a slippery slope. Don't forget, it was only a hundred years ago in our country that people were considered property and what you did with your property was your business, and only a seventy years ago that a nation deemed people expendable because they were no more valuable than 'dogs' . . . it's a slippery slope and the best way to stop those kinds of attitudes is when they are seemingly small and harmless . . . like breeding dogs to torture and kill them. Sorry for the lecture. But this subject really stirs deep feelings.

Gnome wrote:Sorry for the lecture. But this subject really stirs deep feelings.

I agree -- this topic really touches on some difficult and (emotionally / politically / value) charged beliefs.

Gnome wrote:I'm extremely disappointed in Portis and Samuels. The bottom line is that Portis and Samuels said dog fighting is no big deal. Your dogs. Do what you want with them. Yeah. Love them, beat them, kill them, whatever. Your property. I'm not a liberal. I support sportsman and the right to hunt. And I think PETA is an awful org that is irresponsible in its methods and propaganda. BUT it's a slippery slope saying it's okay to torture and abuse animals because they're property. Think that's hyperbole? It's not. Animal abuse is a sign of a sick mentality that can and will evolve into other, more drastic abuses. Most criminal profilers point to animal abuse as a sign that a person has no respect for life, and is an early warning sign. Allowing and condoning the abuse of animals is a slippery slope. Don't forget, it was only a hundred years ago in our country that people were considered property and what you did with your property was your business, and only a seventy years ago that a nation deemed people expendable because they were no more valuable than 'dogs' . . . it's a slippery slope and the best way to stop those kinds of attitudes is when they are seemingly small and harmless . . . like breeding dogs to torture and kill them. Sorry for the lecture. But this subject really stirs deep feelings.

so what you're really saying is, dogs should be citizens? well maybe in seventy years, anyway.

i'm cool with that.

hailskins666 wrote:so what you're really saying is, dogs should be citizens? well maybe in seventy years, anyway.

i'm cool with that.

Will the atomic dog be republican or democrat?

I don't agree with dog fighting and I'm most certainly against cruelty to animals. Dog fighting is a felony in this country, so I respect the laws. But Portis hasn't broken any laws and his opinions on moral issues are irrelevant to me. But this type of stuff is very common in other countries and cultures.

A few examples:

1. Dog fighting
2. Cock fighting
3. Bull fighting
4. Running with the bulls

I'm sure there are a dozen other examples of this in cultures around the world. Heck, they even eat dogs in certain Asian countries. But the point is that 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 absolutely do not agree with it, and fully support our laws regarding it, but the fact remains that some folks do like this type of sport and continue to engage in it. It is my opinion that we should pursue and prosecute those who break the law, and it's even illegal to own pit bulls in several counties here in Florida.

Humans also engage in these types of brutal competitive activities as well, and we pay big bucks to the guys who engage in it. A few examples:

1. Boxing
2. Ultimate fighting
3. Numerous forms of karate
4. The days of gladiators
5. Tribal stick fighting

Why? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. But for some reason, humans have always had the desire to witness these types of events, and history clearly offers evidence in that regard. And yes, I know that humans choose to engage in this and animals don't, but the practice still happens in this day and age.

But this thread is about Portis and I think he's made it absolutly clear that he does not condone this type of behavior in ay manner.

SkinsFreak wrote:Why? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. But for some reason, humans have always had the desire to witness these types of events, and history clearly offers evidence in that regard. And yes, I know that humans choose to engage in this and animals don't, but the practice still happens in this day and age.

SkinsFreak wrote:...this type of stuff is very common in other countries and cultures.

A few examples:

1. Dog fighting
2. Cock fighting
3. Bull fighting
4. Running with the bulls

I'm sure there are a dozen other examples of this in cultures around the world. Heck, they even eat dogs in certain Asian countries. But the point is that 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 absolutely do not agree with it, and fully support our laws regarding it, but the fact remains that some folks do like this type of sport and continue to engage in it...

I hear there's a new hot trend in "cultures around the world", jumping off a rooftops with no chute, safety net, or protective gear. SkinsFreak, will you do the honors of showing us how much more "cultured" the rest of the world is by showing us how this is done?

But this thread is about Portis and I think he's made it absolutly clear that he does not condone this type of behavior in ay manner.

I'm sorry, but the only thing he's made clear is his disregard for the lives of dogs and his inability to put together a coherent 'statement' denouncing the practice of dogfighting:

"In the recent interview I gave concerning dogfighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dogfighting or condone dogfighting in any manner."

I'm no English teacher, but that sounds like he wants to make it clear that he doesn't condone it nor does he practice it in an interview that: a) already happened and b) Clearly states the opposite.

Okay, now I'm making circles in my own head, and I have Clinton to blame for it.

BTW - This is no way is a condemnation of what the guy does on the field (he's a stud), but is just my humble opinion on an issue that may linger well into training camp. So far, his PR people are doing an awful job of cleaning up his mess.

gibbs4president wrote:

mastdark81 wrote:

patjam77 wrote:Wow... Sellers is my favorite Redskin followed by Portis a close second. No more. What scum Portis is for saying this. Anyone that thinks dog fighing or any kind of animal cruelty should be left to that person's business is a truly sad example of a human being. I own several rescue dogs from abuse cases and it is not a pretty sight to see a boxer puppy being used as pit bull fighting bait.
Clinton Portis, if he truly thinks that it's ok for people to fight dogs, should be thought less of by every redskin fan out there. Can't wait for him to get hurt and get carted off so I can cheer it like he's probably cheered on a dog being bitten to death. UGH.

Answer this question. Have you ever ate meat before? If so then you were part of a process of killing an animal. When the farmer viciously slaughtered a cow or cut the head off of a pig, hung em up with its blood dripping, sold em off commercially you finalized the deal and digested this same mammal. If you do not eat meat then good for you but best believe you are not without sin. Let the man above judge the man.

There's no question that animals are killed in an extremely cruel manner for the consumption of humans. While there's no debating that, the food is still eaten and serves a purpose. Exactly what purpose does dog fighting serve? Do people eat the dead dogs afterwards? I don't really understand your point here.

Yes there's a purpose: entertainment and money for the people who watch these things. If there wasn't a purpose these people wouldn't dog fight would they? Just cause you get your stomach full doesn't mean that its okay does it? There's plenty food to eat don't have to be an animal. Point is don't point no fingers or judge no one cause most likely the average human being have done something just as bad.

So if they cook the dogs after the fight and feed people, does it make it right then? It's serving a purpose!

I'm not really serious and I'll have an agent make a comment later. Haterade, please don't drop me from your commercials.

It was my understanding that the statement released about not condoning dog fighting was released by the Redskins, not Portis.

Irn-Bru wrote:

patjam77 wrote:This a quote from what Portis said right? ----> "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Sounds to me like he's condoning it... "if that's what he wants to do, do it" so he does deserve scorn and if karma or whatever else other-worldly beliefs people believe in decides to punish him, I won't be upset.

I don't know how I'm going to convince you that saying something "isn't my business, and it's not yours either" is NOT the same as condoning it -- i.e., saying "Yeah, I like that and think that it's good!" Nowhere in Portis' comments am I seeing the latter.

Look... no offense but you may be looking at the quote through burgandy and gold colored glasses. Every one reporting and everyone I have talked to took it as condoning it. 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.

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?

Just to follow up with my previous post. You feel one way... I feel the other. Someone mentioned that this stirs deep feelings in a lot of people and this strikes my nerve. How often do you see me post? Not much really and certainly not this much in 1 thread. I just feel this strongly about someone who I really admired and really rooted hard for. So combine him and something like dogfighting and I'm extremely dissppoionted. CP did NOTHING WRONG. he won't be going to jail over his statements and I'll concede that I truly don't know his real feeling on this matter. I'll leave it all at that.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:...this type of stuff is very common in other countries and cultures.

A few examples:

1. Dog fighting
2. Cock fighting
3. Bull fighting
4. Running with the bulls

I'm sure there are a dozen other examples of this in cultures around the world. Heck, they even eat dogs in certain Asian countries. But the point is that 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 absolutely do not agree with it, and fully support our laws regarding it, but the fact remains that some folks do like this type of sport and continue to engage in it...

I hear there's a new hot trend in "cultures around the world", jumping off a rooftops with no chute, safety net, or protective gear. SkinsFreak, will you do the honors of showing us how much more "cultured" the rest of the world is by showing us how this is done?

No, but I'll do the honors of showing you that your reading comprehension needs help.

What's your point, Mr. Redeemed? That this type of stuff doesn't happen anywhere in the world?

But maybe since you're "redeemed", you feel it's ok to throw out a ridicules response like that.

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?

First, Redeemed, offering examples of something is much different than condoning it.

Folks, as a general reminder, please keep this civil.

By the way, I live in Atlanta, and sports radio down here has been having a field day with Vick - both for and against him in the dog fighting scandal - and this morning they were having a big time with the Portis soundbites.

AND one sportscaster made this very interesting point - Portis has admitted on tape to knowing where to find dog fights and condoning them. Something that Vick HAS NOT DONE. In fact, Vick is trying to distance himself from the issue, refussing to comment on it other than to say that people support him and he had no idea that dog fighting was taking place on his property (no one believes him by the way).

BUT - if Vick is eventually suspended for his involvement, even unknowing involvement by having owned the property on which a crime took place with his pets, does Portis get suspended as well for admitting to knowledge of and condoning dog fighting, as a message that dog fighting and cruelty to animals will not be tolerated? Probably not. But Portis has inserted himself in this mess and actually, temporarily, taken the bulls-eye off of Vick's chest and put it on his own chest.

Pretty foolish on all accounts. And really, really dissapointing.

Thank you, Fios. I wasn't condoning it in any way, shape or form. I thought I was pretty clear in that. I don't think ANYONE in this thread has condoned dog fighting, or cruelty to animals for that matter, and neither has Portis. His statement, btw, was made by him and subsequently released by the Redskins.