As for the pitbull arguement having been around a lot they worst thing I can say is the males clearly have a dog aggressive tendancy. As for the story about the one in Brooklyn I dont know what to say. The problem with defending a breed of dog is your really defending the owners of that breed of dog and I cant really do that. Chances are if you profile pit owners you will come away with a general group of people that probably shouldnt be owning dogs, much less ones as strong willed and powerfull as a pit.

I agree, who is owning these animals is key. Unfortunately, because pits can be so dangerous, they have become status symbols with the wrong kind of young men especially. I can't see any real good reason for someone to own a pit bull in an urban setting, or with children in the house. Pits were bred to fight wolves! That is why they have a tendecy to go after other dogs. In addition, many of the pit bulls we see here in New York City were bred on rooftops and are inbred, then are improperly trained, and then handed to thugs to top it off.

oohah

Posted by oohah:

I have been reading some comparisons of other player's 'bad acts' like sprewell choking PJ, and Kidd hitting his wife.


There is no excuse for either act. However, the big difference is both of those men lost control and acted in anger. An adult who is attacked but not killed can leave or call the police, or get a gun, baseball bat, or a knife and defend themselves.

What is 'control' and who has it? Who has how much control? If there were both conscious and UNconscious mental forces conspiring against Kidd and Sprewell, how can you say the same is not true for Qyntel? Sudden bursts of emotion are not the only situation in which something like 'control' can be lost or compromised.

But the premeditated, ongoing cruelty to an animal is not a 'mistake'. It shows an amorality and callousness that doesn't need us to ask why he did it.

There is more to the human mind than is dreamed of in your folk psychology. It's not nearly so simple as "emotion = loss of control" and otherwise "freewill reigns above all."

If you see a story of someone beating their wife, trust me, it's not a one-time incident. Its the one time something was done about it. There's a disturbing mentality and pattern of behavior behind that.

[Edited by - LBeast on 12-06-2005 08:39 AM]

What is 'control' and who has it? Who has how much control? If there were both conscious and UNconscious mental forces conspiring against Kidd and Sprewell, how can you say the same is not true for Qyntel?

I really don't know what you mean by unconscious forces etc., I never said any such thing. But, there is a big difference between commiting a despicable act in anger and ongoing cruelty. Why don't you see the distinction?

Sudden bursts of emotion are not the only situation in which something like 'control' can be lost or compromised.

I don't think Q Woods 'lost control', nor did he simply make a 'mistake'. A mistake does not go on for months at a time. He simply thinks that it is okay to abuse a dog for his amusement, status, and financial gain.

There is more to the human mind than is dreamed of in your folk psychology. It's not nearly so simple as "emotion = loss of control" and otherwise "freewill reigns above all."

In my folk psychology? Who are you? Are you an expert of some type? If so, come clean and let me know. Otherwise your psychology is not even folk psychology, but simply an attempt to make an excuse for a person who does not understand right from wrong. And I am sorry, but outside of your taking a shot at me, the quoted statement above makes no sense at all. Your quote marks don't lend legitamacy to a convoluted sentence. Rethink and try again. If you want to defend Q Woods barbarity and somehow equate it to Sprewell's obvious anger problems and Kidd's shameful incident try to find a true parallel.

Who knows what environmental and genetic forces have come together to make Qyntel Woods?

Who cares? After a certain point it doesn't matter what produced the person, the person is simply who they are. If you want to tell me Q woods was underprivileged etc. I'll believe you. So were a million other people. It does not add up to an excuse for creating killer dogs.

Obviously he is different in the head than you or I.

I don't know much about him, but it seems you want to get in his head and make excuses for him.

If you never experienced anger, how understandable would someone beating their wife out of anger be to you?

It would be more understandable than beating your wife for months on end, especially with the purpose of making her a killing machine.

Actually, how understandable is beating your wife in the first place?

Nobody said hitting a woman is right. I hate to rain on your parade, but spousal violence is hardly uncommon. However premeditated, ongoing, spousal abuse is far worse than an 'incident'.

I don't see what you are missing: A person who owns a dog(s)for the sole purpose to fight and eventually be killed in a ring is cruel and callous. Period.

oohah

The sad thing is is that dog fighting has become very common and that there are thousands and thousands of people involved. So if we think Qyntel is deeply disturbed there are tons of other people walking around just as bad. Hard to believe so many people could be so sadistic.

First, let me say that there is no comparison to the love between a human and their dog. My dog just died and I cried like a baby.

Qyntel Woods should be ashamed and punished for his actions towards his dogs (more so than just probation). It's quite possible that his friends or entourage were the ones starting a dog fighting business. I doubt Woods had much time to devote to training animals like that (even fighting dogs need to be trained). My guess, is that at the time, he didn't think there was anything wrong with breeding dogs to fight. Many people think of humans as lesser creatures and therefore exploitable. No one thinks that wives or kids are lesser forms of life.

I'm sorry, I just can't get behind people who think that animal cruelty is more reprehensible than hitting your wife or raping someone. Why is animal abuse worse than spousal abuse? The argument that a one-time flash of anger is correctable is bogus to me. Anger is understandable, but manifesting that into physical aggression also shows a fundamental flaw in character.

Not to get to political, but if any of you eat meat that is not organic or free range, you're taking part in animal abuse that is just as bad, if not worse than anything Woods did.

Posted by fishmike:

I have been reading some comparisons of other player's 'bad acts' like sprewell choking PJ, and Kidd hitting his wife.

There is no excuse for either act. However, the big difference is both of those men lost control and acted in anger. An adult who is attacked but not killed can leave or call the police, or get a gun, baseball bat, or a knife and defend themselves.

But the premeditated, ongoing cruelty to an animal is not a 'mistake'. It shows an amorality and callousness that doesn't need us to ask why he did it. It is akin to abusing a child. A child cannot defend him or herself, neither can an animal. Anyone who abuses children or animals is cruel and despicable. This is poison and even the Blazers understand that.

well said. Really hit the nail on the head. None can be justified but the Spree/Kidd incidents can at least be understood. As for the pitbull arguement having been around a lot they worst thing I can say is the males clearly have a dog aggressive tendancy. As for the story about the one in Brooklyn I dont know what to say. The problem with defending a breed of dog is your really defending the owners of that breed of dog and I cant really do that. Chances are if you profile pit owners you will come away with a general group of people that probably shouldnt be owning dogs, much less ones as strong willed and powerfull as a pit.
Your right about the Rot being a guard dog. People are usually impressed by mine. She's playfull but doesnt jump. She doesnt bark She doesnt beg. She does what she's told. She obeys off the lease, and when people think they might want to get one I almost always tell them NO. Like you said, I just dont think most understand the work and responsibility that owning a dog with such an instinct to protect entails. The same goes for German Shepards, Mastiff breeds (bullmastif, bordeux, neopoliton, great dane), Rhodesians, Dobermans, and even Boxers... I'm sure there are others that dont come to mind.

The idea that the Jason Kidd wife-beating (or any spousal abuse) was neither premeditated nor ongoing is simply an *assumption that may or may not be correct*



[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-06-2005 10:09 AM]

Posted by efw:

BS. The purpose behind raising animals for food and raising animals to kill each other is a little different. Not to say both aren't cruel, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion.

Absolutely you're correct. But, today, we don't need to eat the amount of meat that we do. We eat it for pleasure. I don't think McDonald's burgers even qualify as food.

Anyway, that's the last I'll say on the topic. I don't want to go off on a huge tangent.

Agree.

LBeast, lets see what you sound like when one of these things hops a fence and bites your dick off. Hopefully its not your kid walking home from school or mom out for a sunny walk. Its not just about the dogs, its about what they do.

It is funny, when I see pit bulls, I always wonder what type of owner they have? really to me it says a lot about the individual. I mean It almost makes me cry when I hear one of those dogs have attacked a kid, or killed a person, I mean damn, you lose your spouse or kid to a frigging vicious pet? To me that is just not normal, if you care about your family and other people, I don't understand why you would breed and own dogs like that. It says a lot about the person, to me it says they don't value the life and health of other people at all. Noe one ounce...

Well I for one am not opposed to giving qyntel a second chance, but Im not too ready to do so. I find what he did incomprehendible and intolerable. I mean its one thing to snap and have a fit of rage in a heated moment under provokation(sprewell) and another to take on a hitler-like view of life and how it can be treated

but before I call him a scumbag who should never play in the nba again. I at least would want to hear from him why he did it. I hope some reporter asks him about it very soon. based upon my experiences in life people can change but only in certain circumstances. I wont call this a horrible move on the part of the knicks for one reason only. this signing is zekes idea and LB signed off on it. I trust those guy's judgment, for all we know qyntel is genuienly repentant for what he did and has turned over a new leave, but until I discover that that for sure is what happened, Im not very high on this signing, but as long as brown and zeke have discovered evidence that this kid wont be a complete and total locker room cancer and terrible influence on our team and the organization as a whole than I can understand signing him.





[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-06-2005 11:29 AM]