Mitchell Report?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Again, there's a difference between understanding and not giving a sh*t.

I have long advocated that we combine the words "empathetic" and "apathetic" to form "emapathetic", meaning, "I know how you feel, but I don't give a sh!t."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And I said I've lived around the country, including a stint in Illinois. Totally irrelevant to the conversation.

I think where you live are very much an issue. I crew up in rural Illinois where there were corn fields and farming all over the place. I now live in a suburb of Chicago and the people and their values are very different from where I grew up. People around here do not hunt; they even mock other parts of the state because they feel the people in other parts are not as sophisticated as they are because they are "in the city." People around here act like they go into another world if it is outside of the Chicago area. So yes, it is very relevant to where you are and the type of values (and yes a value of how you treat animals is included).

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Are you really as obtuse as you sound here? My God man, you assume a great deal. I have been a dog owner since I was born. Over the years I have had many dogs, including a Pit Bull/Lab mix (black and white) named Brutus who I loved dearly. I just found it ironic that you lost the dog while dog sitting. That's funny. (I'm LMAO).

It is obvious you did not grow up in the same area I did, it was common to have dogs running around where I grew up and not on a leash when people walked their dogs. It was also common to have the neighbors dogs running in and out of my yard and that we would know all the dogs and who they belonged to. Dogs in the community got away all the time because they were allowed to be outside and when I first got my dog back in 1991, she got away several times because she liked being outside and she would run away even if you opened the door trying to keep her inside. It was not the first time that happened it just took place in a different town. She loves running around and chasing rabbits or any other animal she gets around. She just does not move as fast now.

Also since you mentioned you had a Pit Bull, that breed was considered to be banned in Cook County after several attacks by those dogs on children and adults which resulted in death. The remedy for the outlawing of these dogs was killing them if people did not find a place for them. So it was OK to kill an entire breed because they would have been illegal, but Dog fighting is so inhumane? Then again that would probably be OK with you. I see killing as killing, I do not care how you do it. If one is OK, the other should be OK.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

To say that I don't understand other people's values is a ridiculous statement. I just don't agree with yours. I don't really give a rat's a$$ about you or your values, but I do understand other people's values. Again, there's a difference between understanding and not giving a sh*t.

I have always owned dogs, and currently have two. Since I have been married (16+ years this time), I have had 5 including the two current dogs. I have an 11 year old Husky/St. Bernard mix who unfortunately has had a skin condition since she was about a year old. I love her more than life itself. I have a black Golden Retriever who is 8 years old. She is my baby. I love my dogs like they were actual children (I also have a 29 year old daughter). They are our children. I don't put my dogs outside. I would sooner put a child outside. My dogs are much better behaved than most children. My dogs go outside to go to the park, the beach, or to the bathroom. The rest of the time they are inside where they belong, as part of the family.

The reason I say this is because you act like everyone is outraged about this as you are. They are not. And I have said that I do not see dog fighting as a major deal and in many cultures dogs are not held in such high regard. My parents are from the south and I could not have a dog anytime before I left HS because they did not value animals the way many do. And my grandmother that had a dog would not let that dog in her house and she lived in Florida.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

My dogs are not accessories, and this ain't Beverly Hills. I live in a fairly rural area, complete with pickup trucks, gun racks, and Hell's Angels. I'm sure that there is dog fighting within 5 miles of my house.

I can't believe you think the way you do. Dogs as accessories, puleeeeze.

Of course you do not. Because I have seen people take dogs and put them in little bags and carry them around in the Chicago area. And one of the people that made that practice popular is someone seen on TV and they live in California. And if some of those same people were asked to help human beings in other parts of the country or world they would rather carry a dog around then give a dollar to someone that is homeless. There was a woman who left millions of dollars to her dog, not to a charity or to another human being that could have used the money or added to her legacy. I find that action a little out of whack. Sorry you think it is normal.

Peace

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

And you never smoked pot, taken acid, speed, downers, beans, hoppers, bangers, or overdosed on simple aspirin or cold medicine (something that 80% of the population does)? You never spoke out against a political faction or person in your life? Cut the crap, Steve! You may not like the man because of your political beliefs and that is fine. He is an avid sports fan just as the rest of us and is entitled to his opinion like everyone else!

You can place me in with the 20% group. As for my political beliefs, the media has slanted their views to favor figureheads such as Reagan, and both of the Bush presidents. Clinton and Gore bashing follow as they tend to take anything they can and try to build it into a travesty. This is the norm because these outlets generally play to a certain audience. They might even benefit profit wise with the changing of laws proposed by the politicians they supported.

Rush Limbaugh is what's wrong with reporting in America today. He is just plain bias. He's a real sports fan alright. I'm sure everyone still remembers his short stint on the ESPN Sunday morning pregame football show. You know, the one where he called out the media for being too soft on black quarterbacks and they were getting a free pass on criticism for their game performance because they were black. Just your typical right wing conservative Christian wave the flag moron.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I saw the apology live and he seemed pretty remorseful to me. Then again I was not outraged with the act of dog fighting and he did not have to apologize to me.

Peace

There's a difference between showing contrition for a wrongful act and showing the same for being caught for committing that wrongful act. I don't believe Vick is remorseful in the least for committing the crime. He's a POS who had millions of dollars in his coffers, and chose to exploit and torture innocent animals for profit and entertainment.


Tim.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's not what Bob Dole said. Sounds more like Rush Limbaugh. Consider the source.

Mitchell quipped that it was easier to resolve the issues in Ireland than to bring the owners and players of MLB together concerning this problem.

It must be nice to have a life where you can listen Rush Limbaugh. I don't get the chance to, so please don't assume something you don't know about.

Thanks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

It must be nice to have a life where you can listen Rush Limbaugh. I don't get the chance to, so please don't assume something you don't know about.

Thanks.

I didn't assume anything. I wrote that your statement sounds like Rush Limbaugh. It does, whether or not you listen to him. I made no claims about you personally, or your life; thanks returning the favor.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Ethics courses are a joke. The definition of right and wrong varies from society to society and time period to time period.

So you are a relativist then?

The point of an ethics course isn't to force feed the pupils one school of thought.

This has been one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a long time. I think it even relates to baseball somewhere.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There's a difference between showing contrition for a wrongful act and showing the same for being caught for committing that wrongful act. I don't believe Vick is remorseful in the least for committing the crime. He's a POS who had millions of dollars in his coffers, and chose to exploit and torture innocent animals for profit and entertainment.


Tim.

Whether he did show remorse or not is not the issue and who really cares. He got the sentence he got, he will be out in a certain time in good behavior and when he comes out I will be interested in watching his games. Guess what, the dogs are still dead and dogs are not human beings and this is why many people on the day of his sentence wore his jersey and gave him support. Not everyone cares about dogs above the actions human beings do to other human beings.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



Peace

[Mike L]

Yet another example of a coddled individual allowed to skate by on all sorts of behavior due to athletic prowess finally stepping over the line. Vick committed a crime, admitted to it, and is now serving his sentence. Why anyone would make excuses for him or expect he should be let off, yet again, is completely beyond me. But that's one of the things that makes this country great. Anyone can say any completely stupid thing they want and think it makes sense.

[Mike L]

Regarding the Mitchell report. Why does it seem everyone keeps trying to place these actions under the criminal system of beyond a reasonable doubt? This is nothing more than an employee/employer situation (admittedly magnified because of the public nature of the business). Any actions taken by one or the other that is not criminal will be settled in the civil court. And there, it is the proof of what is most likely, not what is beyond a reasonable doubt.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by Welpe

So you are a relativist then?

The point of an ethics course isn't to force feed the pupils one school of thought.

This has been one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a long time. I think it even relates to baseball somewhere.

I'm somewhere in between realist and relativist. There is an objective reality, but we all interpret it in a different way, creating subjective reality. We will never see things the way they objectively are, but so long as our subjective interpretations are consistent we will be fine. If my angle behind the plate causes me to see a certain pitch knick the outside corner, and I see it from this angle all game, nobody can argue.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Regarding the Mitchell report. Why does it seem everyone keeps trying to place these actions under the criminal system of beyond a reasonable doubt? This is nothing more than an employee/employer situation (admittedly magnified because of the public nature of the business). Any actions taken by one or the other that is not criminal will be settled in the civil court. And there, it is the proof of what is most likely, not what is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me give you an example of why I have a problem with this report. David Justice was accused of using steroids because he had a conversation with someone associated with a club he was on. No paper trail, no eyewitness reports, just a conversation that he had years ago about the drug which even did not suggest that Justice claimed he was using or used the drugs previously.

I keep bring it back to officiating. Would it be fair if you worked a conferences and someone took a conversation you had years ago and assumed that you helped throw a game all based on a conversation? Then as a result you are known as a cheater by everyone because your name was put in a report with people they actually proved or admitted to throwing games? I put this on the same plane as NBA Officials being mentioned in a report about throwing games with Tim Donaghy based only on information that they had a conversation with Donaghy or were accused by Donaghy without any cooperation and then the accused official also loses their job or their reputation.

Would that be fair?

Peace

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Whether he did show remorse or not is not the issue and who really cares. He got the sentence he got, he will be out in a certain time in good behavior and when he comes out I will be interested in watching his games. Guess what, the dogs are still dead and dogs are not human beings and this is why many people on the day of his sentence wore his jersey and gave him support. Not everyone cares about dogs above the actions human beings do to other human beings.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



Peace

So, in your mind it's acceptable to torture domestic animals. Wow......


Tim.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me give you an example of why I have a problem with this report. David Justice was accused of using steroids because he had a conversation with someone associated with a club he was on. No paper trail, no eyewitness reports, just a conversation that he had years ago about the drug which even did not suggest that Justice claimed he was using or used the drugs previously.

I keep bring it back to officiating. Would it be fair if you worked a conferences and someone took a conversation you had years ago and assumed that you helped throw a game all based on a conversation? Then as a result you are known as a cheater by everyone because your name was put in a report with people they actually proved or admitted to throwing games? I put this on the same plane as NBA Officials being mentioned in a report about throwing games with Tim Donaghy based only on information that they had a conversation with Donaghy or were accused by Donaghy without any cooperation and then the accused official also loses their job or their reputation.

Would that be fair?

Peace

Are you trying to say the Mitchell report has accused Justice of being a steroid user on the "evidence" of only having a conversation with someone that did not involve the use of steroids? Really!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

So, in your mind it's acceptable to torture domestic animals. Wow......


Tim.

Yeah that is what I said. Do not let reading get in the way of a good story.

Then again, people actually read what people say here?

Peace