EMAIL us your comments, insights or whatever

  • NOISportsblog@gmail.com

Monday, July 23, 2007

PETA: Racist Protest?

Last week the soldiers of PETA's protest army waged a demonstration in front of the downtown offices of the NFL. Holding signs and chanting, hoping to sway the leadership of the NFL to suspend Michael Vick because of the accusations against him.

We certainly respect and support PETA's desire to ensure the humane and decent treatment of animals.

And the protest got us thinking: Are there other NFL players out there killing defenseless animals in controlled environments?

In this clip of an interview with NFL players Kyle Brady and Chris Combs, Combs reveals something that he finds more pleasurable than a QB sack.

We suppose if you are a white player in a suit, rather than a Negro QB with corn rows, PETA is not interested in trying to interfere with your career. And not interested in making an issue out of your treatment of animals.

44 comments:

JB said...

For the sake of argument, hunting pheasant IS a legal activity in Minnesota. I don't think PETA would have much ground for support for this situation.

NOIS, do you think PETA should have gone after Mr. Combs for this?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"NOIS, do you think PETA should have gone after Mr. Combs for this? "

Sir, hunting is legal. Certainly.

But is taking delight and blood lust in the pleasure of killing animals that are essentially groomed for killing not objectionable?

The fact that our corrupt legal system allows the legalization of the inhumane killing that seems to be enjoyed by white men in suits, but illegalizes a sport that is enjoyed primarily by those of an opposite background is of little consquence.

It seems that the outrage inspired by the accusations against Vick isn't simply that it is against the law. Many of the comments we've read across the net seem more pointedly to address a perceived lack of moral fiber and humanity by Mr. Vick.

If the cruxt of the outrage is the inhumane treatment and moral shortcoming in treating living creatures lives as having no value, then....YES...we think PETA should protest a man that says he takes more delight in killing helpless fowl than in playing football.

censored said...

The fact that our corrupt legal system allows the legalization of the inhumane killing that seems to be enjoyed by white men in suits, but illegalizes a sport that is enjoyed primarily by those of an opposite background is of little consquence.

The lengths you will go to cry racism are absolutely hysterical...keep it up. Hunting does not treat living creatures as if they have no value...their value is as FOOD. But it wouldnt surprise me if you were a sissy vegetarian or someone who partakes in eating dog meat.

JB said...

I agree that killing purely for the pleasure of killing is immoral, and the way the player presented his statement that he enjoyed the actual event of killing the pheasant was a poor choice of comparison to playing football.


"But is taking delight and blood lust in the pleasure of killing animals that are essentially groomed for killing not objectionable?"

Are you pointing towards wild game animals here? I would like to hear the argument that wild game animals groomed for killing. I contest that they are allowed to be killed legally, but it's not like people are releasing domesticated animals into a field to be shot.

The morality issues regarding dog fighting revolve around the fact these animals are raised up in abusive conditions, put in to fight essentially against their will, and left to either die, or suffer with their wounds until they can fight again. The culture behind dogfighting is unethical from start to finish. It's not just the killing itself, but making these animals live that life.

This is purely hypothetical, but what if Chris Combs was to say instead of "shooting a bird" what if he said "pulling in a Prize fish"? Would you still be making the same argument that PETA should be protesting?

If Michael Vick was allegedly a Bird hunting enthusiast, instead of into dog fighting, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

Public perception of the situation is swayed by the fact that dogs are a domesticated creature, are not considered to be comestible,(at least not in America)and are used primarily as pets or working class animals.

ben said...

I love the site and your perspective (one that should be heard, even when many disagree with your points), but this is ridiculous and juvenile.

Like it or not, hunting isn't anywhere near as brutal/morally repugnant as dog fighting. If I have to explain why this is so to you, then you're much dumber than you've let on before this post.

Be provocative, not petty.

peace.

Oops Pow Surprise said...

Mr. Combs did not say he enjoyed hunting pheasant. His exact words were that the only thing he enjoys more than sacking a quarterback is "killing a pheasant." There is no more sport in murder than there is in armed robbery, domestic assault, or rape. Mr. Combs clearly fits every known personality criterion for a future psychopath.

If Mr. Goodell had half a brain he'd "sack" Mr. Combs for at least as many games as young Mr. Jones.

JB said...

censored, you missed the point that NOIS was making. That point was not the issue at hand.

Burnsy said...

Stupid pheasants have been pissing me off anyways.

rstiles said...

Why has this become a thing of race???

This is disgraceful what Vick is being accussed of and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin...

It doesn't matter if you are white, black, or whatever, Michael Vick should be condemned...instead this is turning into a race issue

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Hunting does not treat living creatures as if they have no value...their value is as FOOD"

Sir, then take it step further...the dog fights were put on to make money....to buy FOOD.

So, then it's all good to go, yes?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Be provocative, not petty."

Sir, after reading your comment.

We were left with the same sentiment.

ben said...

"Mr. Combs clearly fits every known personality criterion for a future psychopath."

If that's true, then so do tens of millions of sober, rational people across the globe; regardless of their culture... unless you're really sticking with the idea that he didn't obviously mean 'hunting a pheasant' by saying 'killing a pheasant'.

I'll grant you that if he is raising the pheasants in captivity, then torturing and ritualistically killing them slowly for pleasure then yes, he's nuts.

But you and I both know that's not what he meant.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Are you pointing towards wild game animals here?"

Sir, wasn't our vice president involved in a bit of fiasco during a hunting trip after "wild game" animals?

Birds kept in certain areas and raised for the expressed intent of being hunted. Hunted by old white men that pay large sums of money to the people that ensure that these parcels of land are well stocked with plenty of targets, so that when the old white men avoid hitting each other in the face, they hit birds?

We aren't talking about a game in hunt in Africa. Or hunting big horn sheep in the rockies.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"'killing a pheasant'"

Sir, his word choice gave away his psychosis.

He made it clear, that it wasn't the opportunty to engage in the obvious challenge of tracking down an ellusive flock of pheasants...He made it clear that it wasn't providing the sustanance for his family that an NFL contract clearly can't provide.

He made it clear what he enjoys about hunting.

The KILL.

He is Michael Vick. But in denial.

JB said...

Sir, valid point, in that he did say "kill"

In this forum, there is no argument against the 20 second clip we saw of him saying "killing" a pheasant.

"Public perception of the situation is swayed by the fact that dogs are a domesticated creature, are not considered to be comestible,(at least not in America)and are used primarily as pets or working class animals."

Now another question... If you are to assume that combs was at a pheasant farm, I shall assume Combs eats his fallen fowl. How is this different than butchering and eating a farm raised chicken, besides the method of killing?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"How is this different than butchering and eating a farm raised chicken, besides the method of killing? "

Sir, we see what you are suggesting. But your suggestion takes us down a street yet another block away from our starting point.

ben said...

"Hunted by old white men that pay large sums..."

The VAST majority of pheasant hunting involves completely wild game on regular farms, not pay-for-kill game fields. There is a little skill involved... and sometimes coffee.

Dog fighting, in contrast, involves dogs... an animal that has been breed over thousands of years to obey humans. They are even more predisposed to obeying people than I, as a white man, am predisposed to liking mayonnaise.

Bird hunting isn't my bag (as a youngster, I did hunt dove with my father, but no longer do that), but it certainly isn't on par with rape or murder.

ben said...

... or dog fighting

ultrasound tech said...

"... or dog fighting "

yea, well...i asked the birds..and they said they felt like they were treated pretty bad too.

madd hatter said...

Combs' comments were disgusting.

"Killing" anything should never, even jokingly be considered an enjoyable endeavor.

I almost threw up watching his eyes light up when he mentioned it.

ben said...

touché, sound man

ultrasound tech said...

"touché"


calling me names now???!!

Oops Pow Surprise said...

yea, well...i asked the birds..and they said they felt like they were treated pretty bad too.

We all know better than to trust someone who claims to talk to birds.

Nathan said...

I agree with NOISB on this one. There is no difference between wild pheasant and dogs. They're both animals. And there is no difference between killing a wild animal and training two dogs to kill each other. Quite frankly and clearly, no animals should be allowed to be killed; or all animals should be allowed to be killed. Why all this gray area, lawmakers?

In Asia, they can even eat dogs. Clearly, this is some nitpicking crap.

JB said...

"In Asia, they can even eat dogs. Clearly, this is some nitpicking crap."

It was the reasoning behind the killings and the treatment of the dogs prior to this that makes the killings immoral and wrong. I am not against the killing of animals for consumption. Do you think these dogs were killed in hopes of cooking up some dog steaks?

Pacifist Viking said...

PETA's modus operandi is to be as relentless and public as possible. PETA is going to take a very publicized instance of alleged animal cruelty and pound the protest hard.

If you follow PETA beyond this one issue, you will see that the organization frequently chooses very public occasions to try and promote animal welfare and protest animal cruelty. If Vick were a white QB accused of the very same thing, and the media were blowing it up just as much, PETA would be protesting just as vehemently. You will also see that PETA is relentlessly active on issues that have little to do with race (the organization has many programs and campaigns on all sorts of issues, and is very active on all of them).

The organization is also shamelessly self-promotional. They're not piling on Vick because Vick is black; they're piling on Vick because everybody is paying attention.

Pacifist Viking said...

I have found on this issue a lot of people aren't terribly familiar with the language, ideology, or methodology of the animal rights movement.

Regarding your last paragraph, I assure you, if you've paid attention to PETA more closely over the years, you'd find that they are very interested in interfering with anybody's lifestyle if that lifestyle involves cruelty to animals (which is one reason a lot of people dislike them).

Pacifist Viking said...

If you are interested, here is PETA's factsheet on hunting; you will see that they are very opposed to hunting.

http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=53

At the bottom you will see their suggestions for what people can do to protest/prevent hunting.

They're very public on the dog fighting issue (in some ways I don't agree with--I don't think they should press for a suspension before a conviction) because it is public, and it will get attention.

MRubio52 said...

NEW YORK (AP)_Michael Vick has been told by commissioner Roger Goodell to stay out of training camp while the NFL reviews dogfighting charges against him.

Mr.Blackman said...

Looks like PETA is gonna have to PACK up and Hit it!

LOL!!!

Don't they eat dogs is other countries?

Tripod said...

" Do you think these dogs were killed in hopes of cooking up some dog steaks? "

naw...but they were used to make money...to go out and buy stuff..consumption

Tripod said...

"If Vick were a white QB accused of the very same thing, and the media were blowing it up just as much, PETA would be protesting just as vehemently."

the key statement there is if the MEDIA were blowing it up as much....

Pacifist Viking said...

Tripod, that's a reasonable point: I would hope the media would give it as much attention, but I don't know.

I'm simply offering an alternative theory as to why PETA is protesting Vick and not those other players (they want publicity). I hope in the spirit of this blog's subtitle, that's a theory that can at least stand next to the NOIS theory.

I also think if anybody is going to assume PETA is being racist here, he/she should first do some research on PETA. Flip through some issues of "Animal Times," check out their website beyond the articles on Vick, read some mainstream news articles about PETA protests, etc. I receive letters from PETA about various campaigns/boycotts against corporations and businesses; I know PETA is very active on all sorts of issues. PETA is a very extreme organization (that I generally support) that makes all sorts of public protests, and seizes any opportunity to grab media attention.

censored said...

" Do you think these dogs were killed in hopes of cooking up some dog steaks? "

naw...but they were used to make money...to go out and buy stuff..consumption

Nice job rehashing NOIS' stupid logic. The purpose of dogfighting is to have these animals inflict as much pain and damage to each other as possible. You are so blinded by racial issues that you are willing to defend this. From your previous posts it was apparent that you were a person of low moral fiber but this brings it to a new level. We all know that in all likelihood the money made from the dogfights was used to buy fancy car rims and not food. It is a sad day when you value spinning rims more than man's best friend.

u'ontno me said...

"From your previous posts it was apparent that you were a person of low moral fiber but this brings it to a new level. We all know that in all likelihood the money made from the dogfights was used to buy fancy car rims and not food. It is a sad day when you value spinning rims more than man's best friend."

too funny.

i mean, the part about you saying this isn't about race, but use a racial stereotype to assume what the money is used for...

your ways don't change. you are still a pathetic internet tough guy spitting your racist hate message.

i'd love the chance to beat your scrawny white ass and then show your woman what a REAL man is...i'm sure she must wonder.

you racist bitch.

ben said...

So seriously, you folks don't see any moral difference between hunting and dog fighting? None at all?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"So seriously, you folks don't see any moral difference between hunting and dog fighting? None at all? "

Sir, seriously...it is the intent that is the difference.

If the hunter talks about the need to harvest the ecosystem in an effort to maintain balance. If the hunter talks about how he is providing his own food without relying on corporate America...sure, we see a difference.

If the hunter says, "killing animals is even more fun than playing football"...then NO, there is no difference. The purpose of that hunt is the joy of taking the life.

censored said...

difference between hunting and dog fighting? None at all? "

Sir, seriously...it is the intent that is the difference.

The bottom line is that hunting is legal and dogfighting is illegal...the fact that you are inventing scenarios to somehow defend the dogfighting culture is just proof that the most important thing to you is your racist agenda.


your ways don't change. you are still a pathetic internet tough guy spitting your racist hate message.

i'd love the chance to beat your scrawny white ass and then show your woman what a REAL man is...i'm sure she must wonder.


As for you...I am very impressed with your ability to recite Mr. T's lines from Rocky 3...you are showing signs well above your third grade level of education. You call me an internet tough guy but i have made no threats..i leave that to you and your apparent thug culture...again NOIS nice job bringing all of these righteous souls to light.

Oops Pow said...

If the only distinction you see is from a legal standpoint, then clearly the system itself is broken; putting bigots in charge of the system only compounds Mr. Vick's plight.

Thank you for putting Vick's struggles in clear focus, censored. I hope you never have to have the cards stacked against you in such a frightening manner.

ben said...

"it is the intent that is the difference."
But that intent makes a helluva difference, legally and morally...

Vick isn't looking at felony charges for killing a dog; he's facing felony charges for being involved in dog fighting that involves the systematic and long-term torture, maiming and brutal treatment (including starvation and beatings for 'motivation') of dogs in his care.

I'm not just saying that JUST because it's in the indictment; it's standard practice within the dog fighting culture across the world and is a major reason its so hated.

You might have a better argument with bull riding or walking horses. Both of those activities involve unusually cruel treatment (systematic stabbing, electric shocks and the general use of intense physical pain as motivation) and should be outlawed accordingly.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"..i leave that to you and your apparent thug culture...again NOIS nice job bringing all of these righteous souls to light."

Sir, and how are you better than they?

You meet this individual's less than diplomatic comment with a matching sentiment.

And, again, you bring what has become your signature to the table.

Your underhanded racist comments. "Thug" culture?

You mention "racist agendas", yet you take every opportunity to essentially call people "niggers".

You have no guts. Instead of your "rims", "thug culture", "Mr. T" and all the other comments...say what you mean.

Call a spade a spade.

Be true to yourself.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"You might have a better argument "

Sir, so the fact that those involved in the dog fighting culture accept the dogs as objects that fight, and not as living beings due humane treatment...is worse than a guy that states he takes great joy of killing birds for the fun of it?

I'm sorry, but to me the intent is actually worse for the guy that just enjoys killing.

The folks in dog culture are swept up in the culture and (wrongly) justify it by convincing themselves that the dogs were born to fight...

The guy that likes killing birds more than playing football justifies it doing it......because it's fun to kill.

Brother T said...

I'd like to propose censuring censored.

While NOIS continues to post thought provoking and righteous material...censored continues to make the same comments...over and over...offering no new insights or ideas. Continually, missing the points or reading half the posts and then filling in the other half with a complete lack of understanding of what is being discussed.

He hasn't grasped ONE point since he has dulled us with his presence...and he doesn't even address the points NOIS makes...I don't even know what he addresses, but it isn't NOIS point of view that he is arguing with....he clearly doesn't understand NOIS's view...

I'd like to urge everyone to just stop responding to him.

The guy takes away from anything positive here and all he does, as nois said, is spew racist hate and thinly veiled insults against blacks.

lets just put him to rest.

he offers nothing.

Peter said...

I have to jump in and say PETA IS racist. Their stated position is in opposition to any killing of animals - whether it is legal or not. While hunting may be legal - PETA is on record as being opposed to the activity. So whther the activity is legal or not is irrelevant. If PETA were true to their words they would protest legal hunting by white men as vociferously as they are Michael Vick.