PDA

View Full Version : Rights Issues Race, GC, HR, AR, the media and you.


DougP
09-13-2007, 04:13 AM
Ok aside from my lame thread title I want to introduce a free flowing thread that allows discussions to go off on tangents and to be able to link issues.
I'm offering up a recent article from CNN with some highlighted areas. Feel free to discuss anything and everything within the relm of rights issues that pertain to this article. Also feel free to use pieces from the article to branch off into other brief discussions. Try not to make this a thread completely about race or one that is completely about AR. In other words this is a thread that should not focus on just one issue but many, much like this article has touched upon.

Oh and there is a brief mention of gun related murder here. If you want to discuss it(gun control) its fine by me.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/12/martin/index.html

The article:
(CNN) -- When federal prosecutors in Virginia released details of the dogfighting charges against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, all hell broke loose.

Martin suggests the Vick case revealed the public and media care more about celebrity and animals than people.

Folks were protesting, calling for him to be immediately kicked out of the league, and demanding long jail sentences for Vick and his co-defendants.

Many lawyers went on television and admitted that had Vick beat a girlfriend, shot or even murdered someone, he wouldn't have been slammed as hard as he was for the vicious acts committed against dogs.

I suppose those lawyers are right.

Just look at the case of Megan Williams. The 20-year-old West Virginia woman, Megan Williams, was kidnapped by six sadistic individuals and held in a mobile home.

They raped her, forced her to eat rat and dog feces, made her drink from a toilet, stabbed her multiple times, and called the black woman a "nigger" every time they beat her.

Thank God she lived, and may be released from the hospital in a few days. Watch the alleged victim's mother talk about hearing the news »

But it still raises the question: What causes such outrage and fervor in one case involving dogs and not another?

The same thing was said about the shocking details surrounding the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The two University of Tennessee students were on a date when they were carjacked by several men. They were taken to a house where they were held. Christopher was raped, doused with gasoline, shot and his body dumped on the side of a road.

Channon? She had a household cleaner poured down her throat and was later raped. She, too, was murdered.

Although the two were white and their alleged attackers black, police say race was not an element in this case.

These two cases are heinous and despicable. But why do we respond with speed to one case and not another? Is it celebrity? Or do we not have the same compassion for human beings as we do for dogs? Was the Vick case that more important?

Take, for example, the U.S. Senate floor speech of Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia.

Calling the allegations sadistic, Byrd thundered: "Barbaric! Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, across this broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

He later added: "I am confident the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."

So, Sen. Byrd, where is the floor speech for a woman from your own home state? Where is the outrage when a woman is viciously attacked?

This is when the media gets slammed. We've determined that Vick, Paris Hilton and the shenanigans of Lindsey Lohan are far more important than the viciousness of what took place in West Virginia and Tennessee.

But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

Muku
09-13-2007, 07:14 AM
Doug thanks for sharing this, it is a truly sad commentary about the society in th US that more people dont get outraged at the brutality that people have against each other.

In all honesty, screw the animals all day long, kill all of them if necessary, if it would mean that this kind of hatred and crime against people would stop.

The other problem is the media as well, they censationalize bs issues like the Vick case. It was only because he was a QB, and black, that people got on the bandwagon against him. I think you are right that if it was Brett Farve or Peyton Manning, people outside of AR terrorists, wouldnt have gotten their knickers in a bundle.

Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

It promotes the celebrity and that imo is not only wrong but sick as well, putting animals ahead of humans. Not unlike some of the threads here:rolleyes:

P_chan
09-13-2007, 07:56 AM
Good article DougP.

It's truely sad once people love animals more then their fellow human.

But then again, this is because the media only covers what they think will get them ratings.

I like the little bit about senator byrd.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
09-13-2007, 10:22 AM
Senator Byrd's comment was good. Truly barbaric behavior.

Sadly, the connection between violent crime as adults and animal cruelty as children has been well documented. If this behavior is observed in kids, and is not just a one-off, you can predict with some certainty that they will have some sort of personality disorder, and be more disposed to crime, than other children.

Muku
09-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Senator Byrd's comment was good. Truly barbaric behavior.

Huh....Dont you think that the henious murders were more barbaric than what happened with Vick? Since he got on his soapbox and lambasted Vick for his actions with a quote like this...

He later added: "I am confident the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."


.....where do you think the people that committed these crimes should be sent to?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
09-13-2007, 11:52 AM
Huh....Dont you think that the henious murders were more barbaric than what happened with Vick? Since he got on his soapbox and lambasted Vick for his actions with a quote like this...



.....where do you think the people that committed these crimes should be sent to?
Oops! I shoulda read more carefully!! I thought he was talking about the yokels from his very own state. The ones that probably got their start hurting animals as kids, and worked their way up to this abomination:(

TheNoNamedOne
09-13-2007, 01:12 PM
In all honesty, screw the animals all day long, kill all of them if necessary, if it would mean that this kind of hatred and crime against people would stop.

What an idiotic and rather meaningless thing to say. Hyperbole truely is empty of most reason. Offers nothing of practicality and offers nothing of incite. Just an ejaculation of rage or frustration here. Nothing more.

TheNoNamedOne
09-13-2007, 01:32 PM
But maybe the problem isn't just the media. Maybe the problem is you. The reader. The viewer. Maybe you've decided that you care more about discussing a celebrity than nobodies like Megan Williams, Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom.

Not a bad article, Doug. Though, I do think it is a subtle attempt at misdirecting or watering down the outrage of criminal behaviour that deserves punishment and the spotlight it has rightly earned.

What we have here is people whining that some things they care about didn't or couldn't grab the same degree of publicity that Vick's crimes got. What could be the reasons for that? I don't think it is that people care about animals more. But, I do think it is people care about the most vulnerable more. And as heinous as crimes are that are committed against people, in the end they are still not the most vulnerable. Animals are.

So, some will retort, "so what? It is just an animal," and that is fine they retort with that. But still that is just showing offense and indignance which is NOT an argument or an attempt to understand. Surely THERE MUST BE SOME RATIONAL REASON to explain why the Vick case got so much attention.

It can't be just because of animal protection orgs, because Vick's case was covered by virtually every media form in every market, not only in the U.S., but around the world, too, and all these places did not have PETA picketing all over the countryside.

No, the reasons must be that intuitively something struck a chord with those who came across the Vick story. I think there are several to adequately explain it and why some other human stories do not and did not reach the same heights of outcry:

1. Targeting the most vulnerable
2. The great fall from lofty heights

In addition to these, dogs have wiggled their way into families, and many view them as part of their family. Of course, we have humans in our family, and those human victims can be related, too, but I think that is where and why we know that dogs are even more vulnerable to abuse than people. When abused they are voiceless. Can't even tell their protector they have been abused. Humans (except for infants) can.

I think there is also some outrage fatigue going on in society when abuse of humans occurs. We see and hear it everyday on tv. Animal abuse is not presented to us everyday on tv (though it is on our plates). If there were many celebrity Vick cases over and over, then the novelty would wear off and that, too, would lose its appeal to news editors.

Editors feed the beast -- their readers desire for what is new and different. If society wants the human victim news to dominate as much as what Vick's did, then human society has to change itself to make it so that human violence towards one another becomes a rarity.

However, despite that, if we were to look at the aggregate of animal abuse news coverage and compare that to human victims news coverage, animal abuse coverage would be less than one percent of the grand total. There is no need for fear or outrage at the little time they got in the spotlight. Human victim stories are still dominating. Just that to reach the height in coverage on a single story, as did Vick's did, the atrocities have to become a novelty of coverage. That won't happen because humans are abusing each other all the time and the news is covering that all the time.

Muku
09-13-2007, 02:34 PM
What an idiotic and rather meaningless thing to say. Hyperbole truely is empty of most reason. Offers nothing of practicality and offers nothing of incite. Just an ejaculation of rage or frustration here. Nothing more.


Knowing your love of animals over humans I expected this kind of reply from you, thanks for keeping to form.

Good lord you are so predictable in your responses, good job:rolleyes:

Gotch ya!:D

TheNoNamedOne
09-13-2007, 05:55 PM
Have I said something incorrect? If so, then what? Explain why.

Muku
09-13-2007, 06:19 PM
Explain why.

Sure I will gladly explain for you......I pulled your chain.

Like I said you are rather predictable in your responses.

TheNoNamedOne
09-13-2007, 06:21 PM
Do you have anything you take issue with on my reply to Doug's post?