- Jun 1, 2004
I guess my point is that some people think that the two are comparable and some don't. You are the one that said that we can't condemn people for having a connection to a sport that was legal for hundreds of years. I said that the fact that it once was legal never made it right. Comparing dogfighting or slavery to oral sex is patently ridiculous and a transparent attempt to obfuscate.
Have we reached the point where discussions her are as pointless as those in the Pit or the War Zone? But like I said you Are the one that thinks that he long time legal status of dogfighting is somehow important but the illegality of other things is not. I pointesd out taht the fact that it ince was legal is irrelevant and your posts seem to confirm that. So why did you make the point to begin with?
Goes to show you that are only seeing in my post what you want to see. Vurbano stated that "there must be something morally wrong with Vick". I asked if everyone in the past, seeing that rooster fighting and dog fighting was legal for hundreds of years...was there something morally wrong with them.
My point is.....maybe he grew up in an environment that dog fighting was prevelent....an everyday thing that is no different than walking your dog....
Did you know that in many Caribbean islands, rooster or cock fights are still VERY legal....INCLUDING the gambling for it?? In some countries, they have auditoriums for cock fighting......