Michael Vick to the Jets

[jvan1973]

Then I believe that your lifestyle is morally unacceptable.

Out of interest, do you agree that eating meat is not morally unacceptable, or do you believe that it is morally unacceptable but choose to ignore that? If it's the former, what assertions would you make to justify or support that belief?

No, i don't believe eating animals is morally unacceptable.

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

Humans wouldn't be here today as we know it without meat.  The human race and where we come from and how we developed primal instincts, survival skills and hunting skills was greatly developed from eating meat.  If * sapiens and neanderthals never consumed meat and just relied on berries and grass we wouldn't have developed the strength, muscle or size we have today.  Also, humans have K9 teeth which is designed and meant for tearing and shredding into meat.

 

Of course, that's all true (except we have canine teeth, K9 was Doctor Who's dog) but I don't see what value that information holds today. You can't compare the moral standards of our society with that of our earliest ancestors. 

 

Also, if you refer to my earlier posts, I explain that I am of the opinion that necessity dictates morality. It was necessary for our ancestors to eat meat to survive. The same cannot be said for us.

 

No, i don't believe eating animals is morally unacceptable.

 

Why are you unable to answer more than one question at a time?

 

I'd like to know why you believe the things that you believe. Of course, you're not obliged to share your opinions with me, but I was under the impression that we were having a philosophical discussion, and I don't really know why you're replying if you don't want to debate the topic.

[jvan1973]

Of course, that's all true (except we have canine teeth, K9 was Doctor Who's dog) but I don't see what value that information holds today. You can't compare the moral standards of our society with that of our earliest ancestors.

Also, if you refer to my earlier posts, I explain that I am of the opinion that necessity dictates morality. It was necessary for our ancestors to eat meat to survive. The same cannot be said for us.

Why are you unable to answer more than one question at a time?

I'd like to know why you believe the things that you believe. Of course, you're not obliged to share your opinions with me, but I was under the impression that we were having a philosophical discussion, and I don't really know why you're replying if you don't want to debate the topic.

Because we aren't allowed to talk about religion here. But i believe animals are here to fulfill our needs. Whether that be as working animals or food

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

Because we aren't allowed to talk about religion here. But i believe animals are here to fulfill our needs. Whether that be as working animals or food

 

Since when? I wasn't aware that there were any rules that restricted us from having a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion. Isn't that what the forum is for?

 

So are you a Christian? Do you believe that God made animals to provide for us?

[NFLfan]

I dont have an issue. It was an observation of the laws we created.

Having said that, there are some countries where people eat dogs too. Again, it goes back to the laws we as humans created for our convenience. That applies to drugs too. I am sure you heard about Amsterdam. Again, laws created by humans for their convenience.

Your observation is a valid one. In addition to hunting for sport, horse racing comes to mind. It involves animal abuse and gambling, which is not too different from dog fighting. While there clearly is animal cruelty (horses are whipped to run faster), it is "legal". I believe it is legal because there is a lot of money to be made from horse racing which is not true of dog fighting.

As you wrote, Shane, this is just an observation of a double standard. It does NOT condone dog fighting which is horrific.

[amfootball]

Your observation is a valid one. In addition to hunting for sport, horse racing comes to mind. It involves animal abuse and gambling, which is not too different from dog fighting. While there clearly is animal cruelty (horses are whipped to run faster), it is "legal". I believe it is legal because there is a lot of money to be made from horse racing which is not true of dog fighting.

As you wrote, Shane, this is just an observation of a double standard. It does NOT condone dog fighting which is horrific.

Just recently here in MA they outlawed dog racing because of the abuse of the dogs. Horse racing may not be far behind ...

[NFLfan]

Because we aren't allowed to talk about religion here. But i believe animals are here to fulfill our needs. Whether that be as working animals or food

So, are you against bird hunting and horse racing? To be clear, I am referring to the birds that are killed for the "fun" of it, not the birds people eat.

[NFLfan]

Just recently here in MA they outlawed dog racing because of the abuse of the dogs. Horse racing may not be far behind ...

I don't believe horse racing will ever be outlawed unless horses become endangered. There is just too much money involved. There are also too many rich, powerful people who support the sport.

[southwest1]

Because we aren't allowed to talk about religion here. But i believe animals are here to fulfill our needs. Whether that be as working animals or food

 

 

Since when? I wasn't aware that there were any rules that restricted us from having a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion. Isn't that what the forum is for?

 

So are you a Christian? Do you believe that God made animals to provide for us?

Jvan is exactly right. We as Colts Forum members are not permitted to discuss religion or political beliefs in any great or elaborate detail. Broad brush strokes perhaps, but nothing in elaborate detail. Contact Nadine the chief moderator on here if you don't believe me. 

 

It makes perfect sense actually. You don't want any heated arguments to take place that diminish 1 person's beliefs over another. So, when a topic like Michael Vick starting for the Jets at QB evolves into hunting & eating meat it takes the neutral discussion & turns it into a morality question of right & wrong which makes it a political hot bed & moderators might be forced to lock the topic down preventing any new commentary on that topic inside that post. 

 

I review movies a lot in another topic & I am always quick to deviate from my own personal beliefs. I only highlight the director's perspective or the central character's motivations. Sure, my beliefs can be ascertained in how I write, what I give credence to, & what I take offense to. Sarcasm is my main tool to voice my displeasure with usually. 

 

I eat meat myself & I see no problem with it. Naturally, I can appreciate those individuals who take offense to consuming meat, but at the end of the day people who eat meat will eat meat & those that don't won't. Is Vick a despicable person for his dog fighting ring? That's not my place to condemn a man who already paid his debt to society. Enough said. I do not endorse cruelty to animals or people unless my life is in jeopardy or someone I care about then all bets are off. 

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

Jvan is exactly right. We as Colts Forum members are not permitted to discuss religion or political beliefs in any great or elaborate detail. Broad brush strokes perhaps, but nothing in elaborate detail. Contact Nadine the chief moderator on here if you don't believe me. 

 

It makes perfect sense actually. You don't want any heated arguments to take place that diminish 1 person's beliefs over another. So, when a topic like Michael Vick starting for the Jets at QB evolves into hunting & eating meat it takes the neutral discussion & turns it into a morality question of right & wrong which makes it a political hot bed & moderators might be forced to lock the topic down preventing any new commentary on that topic inside that post. 

 

I review movies a lot in another topic & I am always quick to deviate from my own personal beliefs. I only highlight the director's perspective or the central character's motivations. Sure, my beliefs can be ascertained in how I write, what I give credence to, & what I take offense to. Sarcasm is my main tool to voice my displeasure with usually. 

 

I eat meat myself & I see no problem with it. Naturally, I can appreciate those individuals who take offense to consuming meat, but at the end of the day people who eat meat will eat meat & those that don't won't. Is Vick a despicable person for his dog fighting ring? That's not my place to condemn a man who already paid his debt to society. Enough said. I do not endorse cruelty to animals or people unless my life is in jeopardy or someone I care about then all bets are off. 

 

If this forum genuinely discourages an open, honest and respectful discussion about any subject (political, religious, or otherwise), then I'm not sure that I want to be a part of it anymore. 

[Shane Bond]

Looks like DJax might go to Jets.

 

Michael Vick throwing to Decker and DJax.

 

Damn, Jets could be on to something.

[amfootball]

Looks like DJax might go to Jets.

 

Michael Vick throwing to Decker and DJax.

 

Damn, Jets could be on to something.

You have far more confidence in Vick than I do.

[jvan1973]

So, are you against bird hunting and horse racing? To be clear, I am referring to the birds that are killed for the "fun" of it, not the birds people eat.

what bird hunt is for fun? I've never heard of such a thing. I wouldn't kill anything for fun alone

[jvan1973]

Since when? I wasn't aware that there were any rules that restricted us from having a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion. Isn't that what the forum is for?

So are you a Christian? Do you believe that God made animals to provide for us?

Yes i am, and yes i do

[Shane Bond]

You have far more confidence in Vick than I do.

Looks like it

[Jules]

Sorry to sidetrack from the topic but i always wondered the rules we humans have formed for our own convenience.

 

Abusing a dog is a cardinal sin but we can kill, hunt and butcher deers, cows, goats etc. Thats totally normal.

 

In America and some countries.....dogs and cats are pretty much our best buddies. Especially dogs to a man.

 

I did a lot of traveling as a kid/teenager and learned at a young age that was not necessarily the case in some other countries out there, especially in Asia. Google it sometime. They eat dogs and cats, particularly dog meat starting at a young age. They currently still have dog meat markets and it is a business that many try to sometimes stop-animal rights activists especially but have issues with. Sometimes they do free dogs/cats though and put them in shelters or transport them. And it's something many of those locals have no issues with since it is what they were brought up with. And they are much poorer then America has been too so they do what they can to eat.

 

Do I agree with it personally? No, I love dogs and cats. But, is it my business? Not really, I can't tell another society how to live their lives.

 

I have no idea if I am getting totally off topic here either so whatever. Some places where Americans get meat treat the animals cruely until death and some treat them humanely.  And yes studies show that even mice feel pain and you should never use those sticky glue trap things to kill them-get traps that kill them asap. Not even in this country do we treat the animals we slaughter for food humanely and yes they DO feel pain.......till the last second.

 

And in Russia they pretty much executed tons and tons of dogs before the Olympics.

 

It's a dark world out there....not only are humans killed and starved everyday but animals too and sometimes for food and fun.

 

 

I am not telling anyone to not eat meat though, again that is a personal choice to make. And it's a personal choice to be a hunter etc. But, I am more partial towards those that kill to eat rather then kill just for fun.

 

I am not a Michael Vick fan personally nor do I approve of what he did but before the entire country continues to act like he is the son of Satan they need to look into the mirror too since there is corruption/hypocrisy everywhere in America that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged.

[southwest1]

If this forum genuinely discourages an open, honest and respectful discussion about any subject (political, religious, or otherwise), then I'm not sure that I want to be a part of it anymore. 

That is certainly your prerogative Insert Colts Pun Here, but all team NFL related websites are going to have some kind of rules in place to dictate conduct among fellow fans, writers, & football enthusiasts in general. If you think you can post whatever you want with no IT supervision of some kind on an official website, you are sadly mistaken unless that is you create your own personal website that is.  

 

I would urge you to reconsider leaving this site permanently however ICPH because there are a lot of intelligent, witty, & insightful fans on here & I am very fortunate to say that many of them are my friends almost like a 2nd family in fact. Just give yourself some time to get your feet wet because the moderators who regulate this site are really nice people who are very helpful & insightful discussions can be easily had on here once you get the hang of it. 

 

Have a nice day ICPH. Thanks for listening. 

[southwest1]

In America and some countries.....dogs and cats are pretty much our best buddies. Especially dogs to a man.

 

I did a lot of traveling as a kid/teenager and learned at a young age that was not necessarily the case in some other countries out there, especially in Asia. Google it sometime. They eat dogs and cats, particularly dog meat starting at a young age. They currently still have dog meat markets and it is a business that many try to sometimes stop-animal rights activists especially but have issues with. Sometimes they do free dogs/cats though and put them in shelters or transport them. And it's something many of those locals have no issues with since it is what they were brought up with. And they are much poorer then America has been too so they do what they can to eat.

 

Do I agree with it personally? No, I love dogs and cats. But, is it my business? Not really, I can't tell another society how to live their lives.

 

I have no idea if I am getting totally off topic here either so whatever. Some places where Americans get meat treat the animals cruely until death and some treat them humanely.  And yes studies show that even mice feel pain and you should never use those sticky glue trap things to kill them-get traps that kill them asap. Not even in this country do we treat the animals we slaughter for food humanely and yes they DO feel pain.......till the last second.

 

And in Russia they pretty much executed tons and tons of dogs before the Olympics.

 

It's a dark world out there....not only are humans killed and starved everyday but animals too and sometimes for food and fun.

 

 

I am not telling anyone to not eat meat though, again that is a personal choice to make. And it's a personal choice to be a hunter etc. But, I am more partial towards those that kill to eat rather then kill just for fun.

 

I am not a Michael Vick fan personally nor do I approve of what he did but before the entire country continues to act like he is the son of Satan they need to look into the mirror too since there is corruption/hypocrisy everywhere in America that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged.

Nice to see a post from you again Jules.    You are always a must read in my book. 1 question though: If I prefer cats to dogs as a pet, does that mean SW1's masculinity card has now been revoked. 

 

Just messing with you Jules.   I like a pet that doesn't require me to take it for long walks outside. 

[Shane Bond]

Nice to see a post from you again Jules. You are always a must read in my book. 1 question though: If I prefer cats to dogs as a pet, does that mean SW1's masculinity card has now been revoked.

Just messing with you Jules. I like a pet that doesn't require me to take it for long walks outside.

SW1 - There is only one animal that fits your masculinity. It's the Lion .

[Jules]

Nice to see a post from you again Jules.    You are always a must read in my book. 1 question though: If I prefer cats to dogs as a pet, does that mean SW1's masculinity card has now been revoked. 

 

Just messing with you Jules.   I like a pet that doesn't require me to take it for long walks outside. 

 

lol not at all, I prefer cats too. They are cool, slinky, independent and have those "eyes". In fact I would someday love to have a cat and name her Bette Davis.

 

I am currently pet-less but I love animals!

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

That is certainly your prerogative Insert Colts Pun Here, but all team NFL related websites are going to have some kind of rules in place to dictate conduct among fellow fans, writers, & football enthusiasts in general. If you think you can post whatever you want with no IT supervision of some kind on an official website, you are sadly mistaken unless that is you create your own personal website that is.  

 

I would urge you to reconsider leaving this site permanently however ICPH because there are a lot of intelligent, witty, & insightful fans on here & I am very fortunate to say that many of them are my friends almost like a 2nd family in fact. Just give yourself some time to get your feet wet because the moderators who regulate this site are really nice people who are very helpful & insightful discussions can be easily had on here once you get the hang of it. 

 

Have a nice day ICPH. Thanks for listening. 

 

Let's be honest, I'm not leaving.

 

And I'm all for supervision. We should absolutely have moderators to ensure that everyone plays nice and everyone is free to share their views and opinions. I don't feel like we should have moderators to shut down any conversation that pertains to religion or philosophy, however.

 

What harm is there in discussing religion? As long as everyone remains courteous, respectful and open-minded, which everyone has in this thread so far, I'd argue that there is no harm whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I ask questions to learn. If somebody has an opinion that contrasts mine, I want to find out why they hold such an opinion. It fascinates me and, more often than not, it offers me a new perspective and teaches me something.

 

Again, if a thread were to degenerate into something sinister, then I'd be all for the moderators stepping in. Until that happens, however, I don't see why any topic should off-limits. 

 

I'd be interested to hear directly from a moderator regarding this matter.

 

With regards to the highlighted portion of your post, I resent that somewhat. I'm quite capable of taking part in an "insightful discussion", I'd just rather not be told what I can and can't have an insightful conversation about. 

 

Finally, with regards to the actual topic of this thread, I love the Vick signing! 

[buccolts]

Of course, that's all true (except we have canine teeth, K9 was Doctor Who's dog) but I don't see what value that information holds today. You can't compare the moral standards of our society with that of our earliest ancestors. 

 

Also, if you refer to my earlier posts, I explain that I am of the opinion that necessity dictates morality. It was necessary for our ancestors to eat meat to survive. The same cannot be said for us.

 

 

Why are you unable to answer more than one question at a time?

 

I'd like to know why you believe the things that you believe. Of course, you're not obliged to share your opinions with me, but I was under the impression that we were having a philosophical discussion, and I don't really know why you're replying if you don't want to debate the topic.

 

O.K., but, if necessity is the only criteria for morality, we're all immoral, simply by having this discussion, our our computers, on a message board, about our favorite football team.

 

Seems we should all be out in the fields planting for this years crop.

 

Oh, and I like the Vick signing also. As long as he's not a Colt, I'm fine.

[southwest1]

Let's be honest, I'm not leaving.

 

And I'm all for supervision. We should absolutely have moderators to ensure that everyone plays nice and everyone is free to share their views and opinions. I don't feel like we should have moderators to shut down any conversation that pertains to religion or philosophy, however.

 

What harm is there in discussing religion? As long as everyone remains courteous, respectful and open-minded, which everyone has in this thread so far, I'd argue that there is no harm whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I ask questions to learn. If somebody has an opinion that contrasts mine, I want to find out why they hold such an opinion. It fascinates me and, more often than not, it offers me a new perspective and teaches me something.

 

Again, if a thread were to degenerate into something sinister, then I'd be all for the moderators stepping in. Until that happens, however, I don't see why any topic should off-limits. 

 

I'd be interested to hear directly from a moderator regarding this matter.

 

With regards to the highlighted portion of your post, I resent that somewhat. I'm quite capable of taking part in an "insightful discussion", I'd just rather not be told what I can and can't have an insightful conversation about. 

 

Finally, with regards to the actual topic of this thread, I love the Vick signing! 

Glad to hear that you are not going anywhere ICPH.

 

Regarding religion, that's a personal matter that means different things to different people & what 1 person deems provocative another person might interpret as "sinister" or mocking their own individual beliefs without even realizing it. I wasn't trying to imply that your discussion of eating meat or not eating meat was not insightful at all sir. Just that animal cruelty indiscretions in the past will have no bearing on Michael Vick's success as a franchise QB in NY that's all. I was not attacking you intellect or reasoning ICPH. I apologize if I falsely conveyed that impression. 

 

It's like the speed limit of 65 MPH on the interstate highway some cops will let you go with the flow of traffic at 75 MPH while other cops are gonna bust you at 68 & give you a ticket. "He [or she] who has the gold makes the rules." My point is this: We all must follow the rules even though we didn't create them or draft them directly. If political & religious in depth discussions are frowned upon & not permitted overall they just are & no amount of arguing over that is gonna change reality. It is what it is. 

 

I myself had a status update locked down election related in WI that was classified as too political, but once that happened I learned the rules & adapted & now everything is fine with my understanding on that front. Just click on the blue forums tab, go to the bottom of the page, click on moderating team, & figure out who is on duty to answer any questions or concerns you may have. I hope this helps ICPH.

[BOTT]

Your 99% number is way off. I come from a long line of hunters. Just about everyone i know hunts or fishes. We all eat our kills. Deer meat is one of the healthiest sources of protein their is. Also deer hunting helps control the deer population. They are also delicious

Let's be honest, a lot of guys hunt for fun and to put that rack up on the wall. Lots of old frozen venison gets tossed after sitting in the freezer for a few years.

[BOTT]

Delete

[southwest1]

lol not at all, I prefer cats too. They are cool, slinky, independent and have those "eyes". In fact I would someday love to have a cat and name her Bette Davis.

 

I am currently pet-less but I love animals!

I like cats for their independence. When they want you, they find you. Otherwise, they get lost & do their own thing. I like that. Good luck finding a cat with Betty Davis eyes Jules. 

[BOTT]

What's the difference between hunting for sport and making dogs fight each other for sport?

Now exactly does one make a dog fight?

[jvan1973]

Let's be honest, a lot of guys hunt for fun and to put that rack up on the wall. Lots of old frozen venison gets tossed after sitting in the freezer for a few years.

i never have enough to get through the winter and i limit out every year

[BOTT]

i never have enough to get through the winter and i limit out every year

I wasn't questioning you, but not all hunters are like that. Not that I care....if people wanna hunt, fine by me.

[Gramz]

This thread is turning me into a vegetarian  

[southwest1]

SW1 - There is only one animal that fits your masculinity. It's the Lion .

LOL! Thanks Shane. It's all about perception right?  ;)

 

[BOTT]

This thread is turning me into a vegetarian  

Gross

[shecolt]

Let's be honest, I'm not leaving.

 

And I'm all for supervision. We should absolutely have moderators to ensure that everyone plays nice and everyone is free to share their views and opinions. I don't feel like we should have moderators to shut down any conversation that pertains to religion or philosophy, however.

 

What harm is there in discussing religion? As long as everyone remains courteous, respectful and open-minded, which everyone has in this thread so far, I'd argue that there is no harm whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I ask questions to learn. If somebody has an opinion that contrasts mine, I want to find out why they hold such an opinion. It fascinates me and, more often than not, it offers me a new perspective and teaches me something.

 

Again, if a thread were to degenerate into something sinister, then I'd be all for the moderators stepping in. Until that happens, however, I don't see why any topic should off-limits. 

 

I'd be interested to hear directly from a moderator regarding this matter.

 

With regards to the highlighted portion of your post, I resent that somewhat. I'm quite capable of taking part in an "insightful discussion", I'd just rather not be told what I can and can't have an insightful conversation about. 

 

Finally, with regards to the actual topic of this thread, I love the Vick signing! 

 

What I have bolded in your response is the "key" in that discussions of religion and politics rarely remain curteous, respectful, and open-minded. 

 

So, it is best to avoid them as what may not offend one; may offend another.

 

For example, I am extremely offended when someone on the forums uses the name of Jesus as an expletive.  However, I am probably alone in my thoughts and doing so is not a violation of board rules so I have never said anything to any posters who have done that as I don't want to get into a religious discussion.

 

Now, as far as Michael Vick; I wish him and the Jets only the best . . . just as long as their best isn't better than Andrew Luck and the Colts.

[buccolts]

What I have bolded in your response is the "key" in that discussions of religion and politics rarely remain curteous, respectful, and open-minded. 

 

So, it is best to avoid them as what may not offend one; may offend another.

 

For example, I am extremely offended when someone on the forums uses the name of Jesus as an expletive.  However, I am probably alone in my thoughts and doing so is not a violation of board rules so I have never said anything to any posters who have done that as I don't want to get into a religious discussion.

 

Now, as far as Michael Vick; I wish him and the Jets only the best . . . just as long as their best isn't better than Andrew Luck and the Colts.

 

Exactly. Too many extremes on either side of the fence. No matter your position, and no matter how open minded you portray yourself, someone's going to take issue with it. One man's open-mind, is another man's closed-min. Inevitably, someone ends up being a troll (unintentionally), and that's against forum rules.

 

'The name of Jesus'. Please accept my apologies, for any part I may play in that. I know I use 'Geez' fairly often, and I know exactly what I'm skirting. My wife has the same sensitivities. Perhaps 'sheesh' would be more acceptable.

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

 

Glad to hear that you are not going anywhere ICPH.

 

Regarding religion, that's a personal matter that means different things to different people & what 1 person deems provocative another person might interpret as "sinister" or mocking their own individual beliefs without even realizing it.

 

It's like the speed limit of 65 MPH on the interstate highway some cops will let you go with the flow of traffic at 75 MPH while other cops are gonna bust you at 68 & give you a ticket. "He [or she] who has the gold makes the rules." My point is this: We all must follow the rules even though we didn't create them or draft them directly. If political & religious in depth discussions are frowned upon & not permitted overall they just are & no amount of arguing over that is gonna change reality. It is what it is. 

 

What I have bolded in your response is the "key" in that discussions of religion and politics rarely remain curteous, respectful, and open-minded. 

 

So, it is best to avoid them as what may not offend one; may offend another.

 

With all due respect, I could not disagree more with your sentiments. This apathetic attitude is far more dangerous than any discussion could ever be imo.

 

Something that causes division will do so forever if it is swept under the rug and never addressed.

 

With regards to shecolt's phrase that I highlighted in bold, that's not the fault of the nature of the discussion, but the people engaging in that discussion. As I have already mentioned, today's discussion has been curteous, respectful and open-minded and we've touched upon any number of religious and philosophical topics. If two people argue about whether baked beans or spaghetti hoops are best, would you ban all discussion of canned foods, or would you tell those two people to grow the **** up? 

 

And with regards to the portion of SW1's post that I highlighted, this probably troubles me the most. It suggests that you should never strive for change, but simply conform to the rules and restrictions that are imposed upon you by those with (pseudo)authority. That's far more offensive to me than anything you could possibly say in an honest and sincere religious or philosophical debate.

 

Just out of interest... Your logic dictates that talking about religion will inevitably offend someone, so we just shouldn't talk about it. As I highlighted above, I'm offended when people don't talk about religion, so doesn't that mean you should all talk about it to avoid offending me?

 

Now exactly does one make a dog fight?

 

It seems like you're suggesting that the dogs choose to fight. 

 

Please tell me you're not...

[-JJ-]

Let's be honest, I'm not leaving.

 

And I'm all for supervision. We should absolutely have moderators to ensure that everyone plays nice and everyone is free to share their views and opinions. I don't feel like we should have moderators to shut down any conversation that pertains to religion or philosophy, however.

 

What harm is there in discussing religion? As long as everyone remains courteous, respectful and open-minded, which everyone has in this thread so far, I'd argue that there is no harm whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I ask questions to learn. If somebody has an opinion that contrasts mine, I want to find out why they hold such an opinion. It fascinates me and, more often than not, it offers me a new perspective and teaches me something.

 

Again, if a thread were to degenerate into something sinister, then I'd be all for the moderators stepping in. Until that happens, however, I don't see why any topic should off-limits. 

 

I'd be interested to hear directly from a moderator regarding this matter.

 

With regards to the highlighted portion of your post, I resent that somewhat. I'm quite capable of taking part in an "insightful discussion", I'd just rather not be told what I can and can't have an insightful conversation about. 

 

Finally, with regards to the actual topic of this thread, I love the Vick signing! 

that's because that behavior I bolded never happens in politics and religion. Heck it's not even a good idea at the family table let alone behind a keyboard

Anyway its not open to discussion but I thought I'd give you a short answer

[Gramz]

 

 

 

 

With all due respect, I could not disagree more with your sentiments. This apathetic attitude is far more dangerous than any discussion could ever be imo.

 

Something that causes division will do so forever if it is swept under the rug and never addressed.

 

With regards to shecolt's phrase that I highlighted in bold, that's not the fault of the nature of the discussion, but the people engaging in that discussion. As I have already mentioned, today's discussion has been curteous, respectful and open-minded and we've touched upon any number of religious and philosophical topics. If two people argue about whether baked beans or spaghetti hoops are best, would you ban all discussion of canned foods, or would you tell those two people to grow the **** up? 

 

And with regards to the portion of SW1's post that I highlighted, this probably troubles me the most. It suggests that you should never strive for change, but simply conform to the rules and restrictions that are imposed upon you by those with (pseudo)authority. That's far more offensive to me than anything you could possibly say in an honest and sincere religious or philosophical debate.

 

Just out of interest... Your logic dictates that talking about religion will inevitably offend someone, so we just shouldn't talk about it. As I highlighted above, I'm offended when people don't talk about religion, so doesn't that mean you should all talk about it to avoid offending me?

 

 

 

Religion and Politics are topics that are against the rules of this forum.

 

Even discussing the fact that they are against the rules is taboo.

 

Anyone joining the forum, and reading the rules knows that. And in the nicest way I know to say this ~   I wouldn't push it.

[southwest1]

 

 

For example, I am extremely offended when someone on the forums uses the name of Jesus as an expletive.  However, I am probably alone in my thoughts and doing so is not a violation of board rules so I have never said anything to any posters who have done that as I don't want to get into a religious discussion.

 

 

Never been my stance to offend anyone, but I do swear a lot in the privacy of my own home which may include taking the a deity's name in vain from time to time. My bad. There is always room for improvement I guess. 

 

 

 

'The name of Jesus'. Please accept my apologies, for any part I may play in that. I know I use 'Geez' fairly often, and I know exactly what I'm skirting. My wife has the same sensitivities. Perhaps 'sheesh' would be more acceptable.

Been there done that myself. Don't beat yourself up too much buccolts. After all, we're only human with shortcomings, flaws, warts, & all. 

[chad72]

Please close this thread.

The discussion is rarely about Vick as a Jet. There's a miscellaneous discussions section for the other stuff. Just my two cents.

[shecolt]

Exactly. Too many extremes on either side of the fence. No matter your position, and no matter how open minded you portray yourself, someone's going to take issue with it. One man's open-mind, is another man's closed-min. Inevitably, someone ends up being a troll (unintentionally), and that's against forum rules.

 

'The name of Jesus'. Please accept my apologies, for any part I may play in that. I know I use 'Geez' fairly often, and I know exactly what I'm skirting. My wife has the same sensitivities. Perhaps 'sheesh' would be more acceptable.

 

Using the word, "Geez" doesn't bother me in the least.  But, I do thank you for your understanding.