Ted Kirkpatrick / Tourniquet - THE SLAVE RING - featuring Mattie Montgomery, Chris Poland, and Nick Villars

Sentient 6....

It is more than just letting dogs fight..

Michael Vick condoned and partook in systematicly torturing and killing dogs in various sick ways...

Drowning...

Throwing the dog down into the ground repeatedly..

Electrocuting them...

I could go on and on...some very sick stuff. All documented

And what abortionists and those who have/aid in them do to babies is somehow less sick?

NoOneIsHere wrote:Sentient 6....

It is more than just letting dogs fight..

Michael Vick condoned and partook in systematicly torturing and killing dogs in various sick ways...

Drowning...

Throwing the dog down into the ground repeatedly..

Electrocuting them...

I could go on and on...some very sick stuff. All documented

Yeah, thats evil.

Candlemass wrote:And what abortionists and those who have/aid in them do to babies is somehow less sick?

One is evil for one reason, and the other is evil for waay more reasons. I don't like it when we start to rationalize why one sin is worse than another. But some sins have more severe consequences than others. Destroying and murdering creatures made in Gods image is a severe evil, and carries with it severe ramifications. Simply, you cannot murder a animal because they are not sentient, God-image bearers. But you can profane Gods other creations by how we treat them while in our care.

I would agree in part, yet I have no problem w/one sin being greater than another, and I do not consider it to be "rationalization."

Candlemass, I really don't know why you have a hard time with this.

Unless you are just trolling...which you do a lot.

I never said how I felt about one sin versus another.

We are in a thread that was started with a song about dog fighting, I made a comment about my feelings toward a local athlete who was busted for dog fighting and the terrible things he did.

Has nothing to do with how I feel about another sin or other people...

So stop trying to put words in my mouth, stop trying to tell me how I view stuff, and stop trying to make what I said more than it is.

Got it?

No, I don't get it, nor were all my remarks towards you. I am not "trolling", nor do I often do that. I was simply pointing out the obvious outrage towards animal cruelty that often trumps abortion. This is because abortion has been sterilized, a "medical procedure", "health care", a fetus and not a person...much in the same way the Nazis de-humanized the Jews. As horrific as the crimes of Vick were, he indeed seems to have repented of that behavior, I see no reason to boycott him in amy way...

sentient 6 wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:IMO...The mental deficiency that would allow you to torture, maim, and murder dogs in the manner that he did isn't something that is changed just because you do some jail time.

We are talking about allowing dogs to fight..right ?

No, we are not talking about "allowing" dogs to fight, we are talking about using cruelty and torture to cultivate an aggressive, violent, feral nature in otherwise domesticated animals just so a bunch of people can get their jollies and make a few bucks.  To say dog fighters are "allowing" dogs to fight sounds like you are saying domesticated dogs put in close proximity to each other would naturally fight until one of them was seriously wounded or dead and what these people are doing is just allowing nature to take its course. 

Candlemass wrote:
And what abortionists and those who have/aid in them do to babies is somehow less sick?

Why does everything have to be measured against abortion and who said it was less vile and sick than dog fighting?  I guess we should have flooded Michael Sweet's threads about his anti-suicide song with calls for him to write songs opposing abortion, because that's what real Christian musicians do.

Candlemass wrote:No, I don't get it, nor were all my remarks towards you. I am not "trolling", nor do I often do that. I was simply pointing out the obvious outrage towards animal cruelty that often trumps abortion. This is because abortion has been sterilized, a "medical procedure", "health care", a fetus and not a person...much in the same way the Nazis de-humanized the Jews. As horrific as the crimes of Vick were, he indeed seems to have repented of that behavior, I see no reason to boycott him in amy way...

A) Talking about animal abuse doesn't have anything to do with abortion. Two separate issues. Yet, God forbid if anyone talks about animal rights instead of abortion....ridiculous.

B) "I see no reason to boycott him in any way"  -- just because someone got caught and now has handlers supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble doesn't mean he has changed. Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being...that isn't something that goes away just because they get caught. Regardless, your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion. Since the Eagles are not your favorite / hometown NFL team, our opinions will vary greatly on that matter. I could care less if he plays for another team or not (although I don't like him making millions now), I just never wanted him on MY favorite team. I don't want to root for a team that would have him on it, and I didn't.

NoOneIsHere wrote:B) "I see no reason to boycott him in any way"  -- just because someone got caught and now has handlers supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble doesn't mean he has changed. Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being...that isn't something that goes away just because they get caught. Regardless, your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion. Since the Eagles are not your favorite / hometown NFL team, our opinions will vary greatly on that matter. I could care less if he plays for another team or not (although I don't like him making millions now), I just never wanted him on MY favorite team. I don't want to root for a team that would have him on it, and I didn't.

Man, I tried to bring a little levity to the thread...

I can totally understand not wanting to root for your team with a guy like that on it, especially if you think he really hasn't changed. What if he really did change, could you accept him playing for your team then?

d@v!d wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:B) "I see no reason to boycott him in any way"  -- just because someone got caught and now has handlers supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble doesn't mean he has changed. Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being...that isn't something that goes away just because they get caught. Regardless, your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion. Since the Eagles are not your favorite / hometown NFL team, our opinions will vary greatly on that matter. I could care less if he plays for another team or not (although I don't like him making millions now), I just never wanted him on MY favorite team. I don't want to root for a team that would have him on it, and I didn't.

Man, I tried to bring a little levity to the thread...

I can totally understand not wanting to root for your team with a guy like that on it, especially if you think he really hasn't changed. What if he really did change, could you accept him playing for your team then?

Good question....very good question...

If I really believed he changed, then yes, I could probably accept him being on a team I rooted for.

I don't have a problem forgiving someone, but like I said in the last post, I am very skeptical that someone can honestly change when they have that type of mindset.

Changes brought about from being caught are not usually heartfelt changes, and usually tend to be temporary. Once the person is no longer in trouble, they usually start to drift back to who they were before.

It should be noted too, that in the Philly area it was common knowledge that he had handlers with him 24/7 supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble..lol

NoOneIsHere wrote: Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being..

 There also has to be something wrong w/someone who sacrifices children at the alter of pleasure...

I love animals, and what he did is abhorrent, yet that and worse is in us as well...

NoOneIsHere wrote:

d@v!d wrote:What if he really did change, could you accept him playing for your team then?

Good question....very good question...

If I really believed he changed, then yes, I could probably accept him being on a team I rooted for.

I don't have a problem forgiving someone, but like I said in the last post, I am very skeptical that someone can honestly change when they have that type of mindset.

Changes brought about from being caught are not usually heartfelt changes, and usually tend to be temporary. Once the person is no longer in trouble, they usually start to drift back to who they were before.

That's good. I agree that people don't change easily. I don't follow football, so I don't know much about him. I just remember him in the news some time ago about the dog fights. I'd expect if he were 180 then he'd be writing songs like the above by now.

Candlemass wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote: Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being..

 There also has to be something wrong w/someone who sacrifices children at the alter of pleasure...

I love animals, and what he did is abhorrent, yet that and worse is in us as well...

I agree that abortion is wrong....
But that doesn't mean that every conversation has to be about it.


Every person has a different cause that they feel led to support. There are some called to go against abortion, there are some called to go against human trafficking, there are some that are called to go against animal abuse, etc etc.

Workers are needed in all of the causes, but one person can't go full throttle into every cause. It is impossible.

Just because someone supports one cause more fervently than another doesn't mean that the person doesn't value the other causes, it just means he is taking up the cause that is nearest to his heart and that he feels led to support.

I would like to point out though...

A scared teenager's mindset on having an abortion because she knows she can't possibly take care of a baby or because she knows the baby will be put into harm's way is a heck of a lot different than the mindset of someone who viciously tortures and murders animals on a regular basis just to make some extra money.

All sin is equal. A lie is just as much of a sin as murder.

But...

my point has always been about the individual's mindset. Not which sin is "greater" or which act is worse.

I feel pretty confident saying that the individual who does the torturing and slaughtering of innocent animals for sport is depraved. I don't automatically think a person who has an abortion is depraved. Misled? Yes. Making the wrong decision? Yes. But depraved? I don't think so.

NoOneIsHere wrote:I would like to point out though...

A scared teenager's mindset on having an abortion because she knows she can't possibly take care of a baby or because she knows the baby will be put into harm's way is a heck of a lot different than the mindset of someone who viciously tortures and murders animals on a regular basis just to make some extra money.

All sin is equal. A lie is just as much of a sin as murder.

But...

my point has always been about the individual's mindset. Not which sin is "greater" or which act is worse.

I feel pretty confident saying that the individual who does the torturing and slaughtering of innocent animals for sport is depraved. I don't automatically think a person who has an abortion is depraved. Misled? Yes. Making the wrong decision? Yes. But depraved? I don't think so.

Yes, it's the so called 'doctors' who are so depraved, the Gosnells, etc.

Too bad there weren't a hybrid sport of pitting abortion doctors against pit-bulls...

On second thought, it would be cruelty for the dogs to have to be the same space with those so called humans.

d@v!d wrote:

Too bad there weren't a hybrid sport of pitting abortion doctors against pit-bulls...

Hmmm...how about abortion doctors against the people who run dog fights...in steel cage...no holds barred...to the death...

NoOneIsHere wrote:

d@v!d wrote:

Too bad there weren't a hybrid sport of pitting abortion doctors against pit-bulls...

Hmmm...how about abortion doctors against the people who run dog fights...in steel cage...no holds barred...to the death...

That might work...

NoOneIsHere wrote:

B) "I see no reason to boycott him in any way"  -- just because someone got caught and now has handlers supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble doesn't mean he has changed. Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being...that isn't something that goes away just because they get caught. Regardless, your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion. Since the Eagles are not your favorite / hometown NFL team, our opinions will vary greatly on that matter. I could care less if he plays for another team or not (although I don't like him making millions now), I just never wanted him on MY favorite team. I don't want to root for a team that would have him on it, and I didn't.

Since we seem to be comparing the evils of animal cruelty and abortion, I got a fair question for you in light of the discusion. What would your attitude be towards any NFL player who coerced their mistress/girlfriend/wife into killing their unborn baby ? Should that type of news come out...of course. Really, in todays society, most people wouldn't think much about it or think that it was wrong. The " coercion " part sure, but not the abortion. Or even, that they both mutually decided that abortion was the " right " choice for them at the moment.

My point would be that I believe society in general are desensitized to abortion ( even christians ), but not to animal cruelty.

sentient 6 wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:

B) "I see no reason to boycott him in any way"  -- just because someone got caught and now has handlers supplied by the team to keep him out of trouble doesn't mean he has changed. Again, there has to be something wrong with someone to take pleasure in killing and torturing another living being...that isn't something that goes away just because they get caught. Regardless, your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion. Since the Eagles are not your favorite / hometown NFL team, our opinions will vary greatly on that matter. I could care less if he plays for another team or not (although I don't like him making millions now), I just never wanted him on MY favorite team. I don't want to root for a team that would have him on it, and I didn't.

Since we seem to be comparing the evils of animal cruelty and abortion, I got a fair question for you in light of the discusion. What would your attitude be towards any NFL player who coerced their mistress/girlfriend/wife into killing their unborn baby ? Should that type of news come out...of course. Really, in todays society, most people wouldn't think much about it or think that it was wrong. The " coercion " part sure, but not the abortion. Or even, that they both mutually decided that abortion was the " right " choice for them at the moment.

My point would be that I believe society in general are desensitized to abortion ( even christians ), but not to animal cruelty.

I agree with some of what you are saying...definitely.

But again, I wasn't comparing the animal cruelty to abortion as much as I was comparing the person who does the act. Am I desensitized to abortion? Maybe....   But I still think the acts of animal cruelty (to the extent done by Vick) are a sign of a mentally unbalanced person where I think a woman who has an abortion could just be scared.

For the record....

I believe Adrian Petersen, Greg Hardy, Ray Rice, etc etc should all be locked up and never allowed to play football again. I consider those actions to be even worse than abortion, personally, because of the violence behind them.

messiaen77 wrote:

No, we are not talking about "allowing" dogs to fight, we are talking about using cruelty and torture to cultivate an aggressive, violent, feral nature in otherwise domesticated animals just so a bunch of people can get their jollies and make a few bucks.  To say dog fighters are "allowing" dogs to fight sounds like you are saying domesticated dogs put in close proximity to each other would naturally fight until one of them was seriously wounded or dead and what these people are doing is just allowing nature to take its course. 

Well, you are absolutely right. That was kind of a knee-jerk/quick post that I wrote without thinking about what I was really saying. I guess I fired one off because I was thinking no one seems to rant about ripped up baby limbs or depacitated heads in the " PETA " world view. At least, not until pressed or not that i've read or heard.

S6...

There are tons...literally tons...of forums / pages / groups that rant and rant about "baby limbs and decapitated heads"...  there really are...

You just aren't in the circles where that is prevalent ..but it is out there.

NoOneIsHere wrote:

..where I think a woman who has an abortion could just be scared.

I think you are kind of making my point of why abortion is the more important and pressing issue of our day. The secular has convinced the world ( and some christians ) that abortion is not what the orthodox christian world says it is.

NoOneIsHere wrote:S6...

There are tons...literally tons...of forums / pages / groups that rant and rant about "baby limbs and decapitated heads"...  there really are...

You just aren't in the circles where that is prevalent ..but it is out there.

Among " peta " minded people ?