Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (217123)	8/26/2007 5:48:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793912

IF I had any respect for O'Donnell, it vaporized with that column. He evidently isn't smart enough to know the difference between killing for food, and killing for the thrill of it. They are still dogs. I can understand banning dog fighting as cruel, but people are talking about this story as if Vicks was torturing children. He killed underperforming dogs! The horror! As far as I know, a dog is an animal and it's legal to kill a dog. People should keep a sense of proportion. If Vicks ate the dogs he killed, would you feel better about it?

To: KLP who wrote (217123)	8/26/2007 6:27:29 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793912

IF I had any respect for O'Donnell, it vaporized with that column. I had none to begin with for O'Donnell, so am not sure how to express my complete disgust with what he wrote. Was he intentionally being provocative? There is a common fallacy about rape and sex being related, when rape is about power and anger, and has nothing to do with sex, except as a vehicle to assert and express the other two factors. To try to compare dog fighting with hunting or fishing, is as ludicrous as comparing sex and rape imo.