To be fair there was a shitload of legit Moss talk last week, as it was brought up that the offense had struggled since he left. I think he WAS beating a dead horse til then. I think with the performance of both the Pats and Moss this week it will hopefully be done with. But I had no problems with him taking (another) bow today.
I think this was it for a while.
<BR><BR><BR>I would like to agree and disagree at the same time. I agree with the premise, but I disagree that this is a Felger point. It's almost commonplace when playing these two teams. You know exactly what the Steelers are going to do. They are what they are. It's why the Colts always win 12-14 games, Manning is just so much better at exploiting weaknesses than any other quarterback that he, and he alone, changes the offense.
I'm sure he did. I haven't listened to the show in a couple days but he's made many comments in the past about how he hates pit bulls and doesn't consider them real pets. This stuff infuriates me. I realize that they aren't for everybody but I do have a pit bull (he's a mix) and he's the best dog I've ever had. Some people can be overzealous in defending animals (PETA people) but guys like Felger are just as bad or even worse. I lose total respect for the him whenever I hear one of his pit bull tangents. They're ignorant, mean and inaccurate.
Not that I don't agree with you but we do live in a society that makes it perfectly legal within a few limits to kill other animals for sport. Yes, I fully realize the difference between hunting and dog fighting and find the "they're just dogs" rationale to be borderline disgusting, not that anyone should be expecting more from the likes of these talk radio clowns. But, personally, I find myself much more outraged towards Ben Roethlisberger than I've ever been towards Vick.
I've made this exact same argument countless times and people think I'm a gigantic asshole but I don't care. I do think a human life is worth more than a dog (for the most part) but legally and morally a person should also be judged on malice. Stallworth was a fool and did a horrible thing but there was zero malice in his actions. As for Vick, I don't think most people even realized just how heinous his crimes were. He did more than "just run a dog fighting ring" or "kill some dogs". Part of the reason he admitted guilt was to publicly limit the findings/accusations of his specific actions. Bad Newz Kennels tortured countless animals to death. Dogs were starved, drowned, strangled (by being hung by wires), sprayed with water and electrocuted, and beaten to death. One report that didn't make it into the grand jury said someone (could have been Vick) took the back end of a claw hammer and repeatedly smashed the skull and brains of a pit bull that didn't want to fight.
When I was listening (maybe 4:30?) they were talking about Vick and went through the "if you have a problem with VIck then you don't believe in rehabilitation in jail" argument. Tony piped in and said, i agree with you can be rehabilitated but it doesn't mean I have to completely forgive you and root for you like a hero. At some point Felger said "it was pitbulls, its not like they were poodles or anything" (paraphrasing). It kind of caught me off guard and I'm surprised there's not blowup over it.
You guys are just playing devil's advocate, right? Stallworth blew a .126. He was drunk. You think killing a dog is more immorral than killing someone while intentionally driving drunk? You think there's "zero malice" in drunk driving?
I think you're missing the definition of malice here. Unless you think his intention was to go out and hit someone while driving drunk, then they're right. It wasn't malicious. Reckless, absolutely. Malicious, no. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Thanks, that was my point exactly. If I had to choose who was a morally better person and all I knew was Person A killed somebody in a drunk driving accident (and it was their only DUI offense) and Person B purposely tortured dozens of dogs to death, I'd go with the drunk driver. I'm not saying the result of their actions was equal but I can't imagine how somebody could intentionally do what Vick did. And unfortunately I can imagine driving drunk - I did it plenty of times in my youth and I think most adults have at some point. Stallworth was absolutely wrong but intended no harm, whereas Vick only intended harm, dogs or not.
1. Stallworth might not have had any intention, but the guy is dead, he was over the legal limit and he did pay a ton of $ to keep himself out of jail. I've had a friend killed by a drunk driver - can't excuse it, ever. Your mileage may vary.
Agreed on Stallworth. What he did is terrible, but the guy he hit was jaywalking across a highway (for all intents and purposes), at night, in a rush to catch a bus. And it was the fact that Stallworth was accountable for his actions that makes him different from the Leonard Littles, Mike Vicks, and Rayenthal Lewises of the world. Now, if he gets busted for another DUI...
However a large, LARGE reason for this is the fact that people BREED them as guard and attack dogs, because the physical makeup does lend itself well to it. You don't see Goldens or St. Bernards guarding junkyards, you see Rotties, Pit Bulls, and German Shepards. So, unfortunately, we can point all we want at statistics, but it's always going to be skewed to an extent that, at the very least, I can't account for or get a read on. What I do know is that I have friends with pit bulls that are nothing but overgrown puppies whose first reaction to an unknown person coming at them is to roll on to their back and ask for a belly rub, and I have friends with beagles that will still nip at me the 30th time I come in the house. No dog is predisposed to be good or evil any more than any person is. It'd be like saying you can go ahead and kill Americans because they're not real people, after all, the American Army is responsible for more deaths on foreign soil than the standard citizens of, say, Sweden.
Not that I'm sticking up for Vick, but I forgot how many times I read about previously tame Goldens or Labs attacking someone and ripping their face off out of nowhere. In fact the only breed you ever hear that about is pit bulls, not Rotties or German Shepherds. That's why people don't like them and don't care as much that Vick was killing pit bulls and why Felger can get away with saying that.
Someone in this thread said they were posting and were sure they would get murdered for their views........I'm gonna post my thoughts on this with a similar bent.........here it goes:
You piece of shit.
I can understand where people are coming from when they say that dogfighting is no worse than, say, hunting animals for sport (I don't really agree, but I absolutely understand the logic), but what Vick actually did was far worse than dogfighting:
Sorry, I was more responding to the general premise. In that statement, I was responding to the below:
I simply disagree with you guys' general premise that there isn't inherent malice in driving drunk, whether you hit someone or not. /me shrugs. Happens.
Sorry, I'm not going to shoot you.
I'm driving to class every Wednesday so i've caught all the Perrillo spots during football season. I really look forward to them, and I was really bummed yesterday when Felger said Peep hadn't called in yet. Luckily, he called in a minute later. He should at least be a third man in the studio for one day a week during football season.
Wouldn't go that far, since Vick took a plea bargain. Which in itself means he essentially plead guilty to certain charges in order to AVOID being punished to the full extent.
Why bother? This is Mazz's crutch. No reasoning from anyone - let alone a caller that Mazz seems to genuinely dislike - will change his mind. His mind has been made.
I came here to post this, unfreaking real, as if Mazz doesnt know enough about baseball to realize how awful Seattle is and that should obviously be held against Felix. This is like saying Adrian Gonzalez hasnt been that great becauase his team really just isnt that good. I honestly wonder if he is just trying to say something convtroversial to get ratings, he cant really be this dumb can he?
Day 2 of listening to the IPod on THE ride home, thanks for listening so I don't have to.
Welch beat out Clemens due to more wins, so we have to vote that way all the time! 20 years later!
I turned it on actually hoping they'd be talking Bruins or Pats. Maybe they'll switch later.
