The How Dumb Is Daniel Thread

[Cappy37 0]

Look man, you never " know for sure" unless you can go to a god cam, or for some reason you shoot someone on television or something. If there were a god cam, I'd be everything I own, could borrow and could steal on the fact that Vick was part of the dogfighting enterprise and bet on dog fights.

I'm rather disappointing in you McGee. That was the first time I've ever posted anything with religious overtones, and you glossed right over it and fired off into the Vick discussion everyone is sick of

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

By definition, he has entered a guilty plea based upon every other guilty party in the matter willing to turn state's evidence on him to save their own hides.He's in a no-win situation if he's innocent. You cannot disprove that many witnesses, especially factoring in the jury aspect (no matter how many falcons fans are on there). And these are FEDERAL charges. He's not going up against Marcia Clark and the Benny Hill brigade.On a side note, shouldn't a jury of his peers be a bunch of dogfighting fans? By definition?And yeah, I'm pretty sure he's guilty as hell, too. The whole process just rubs me the wrong way. If he wasn't involved and got whamboozled, he'd be 100% screwed no matter what lawyers he could afford.

I think you need to do a little research about what "Jury of Peers" actually means. Hint: it isn't "people just like you with the same background and views" There is no actual right to a trial by a "Jury of Peers""Many people imagine that they have a right to tried in front of a jury of their peers, but there is nothing in the Constitution about that. As with “innocent until proven guilty,” this concept comes from English common law. The Constitution only guarantees a trial before an impartial jury in criminal cases, not that the jury you’re tried before has anything to do with you.""The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The phrase "jury of one's peers" is not included in the Amendment, however, the courts interpret peer to mean equal, i.e., the jury pool must include a cross section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin. The jury selection process must not exclude or intentionally narrow any particular group of people. "A jury of one's peers does not mean a black defendant must be tried by an all black jury or a female defendant must be tried by an all woman panel. The objective is to select an impartial jury from a randomly selected juror pool who will be fair, listen to the facts of the case, and render a just verdict based on the evidence."There have been challenges to jury pools based on gender but not on age. The Supreme Court in the 1979 Duren vs Missouri decided a state statute exempting women from jury duty upon request violated the 6th and 14th Amendments. The statute failed the ensure a jury selected from a cross section of the community because women would not be fairly represented in the jury pool."I really don't get your other points about his "guilt"

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Actually it's not. Try answering the question intelligently.

Try asking an intelligent question and I'd be happy to answer it.

[Cappy37 0]

I think you need to do a little research about what "Jury of Peers" actually means. Hint: it isn't "people just like you with the same background and views"

Peers.. Southern folks who love a rip-roaring good time, and college football stars. Thank you and Drive-Thru!

I really don't get your other points about his "guilt"

I'd make some crack about sounding out the big words, but it boils down to this: "Suppose for 5 seconds that you are Michael Vick, and you *are* innocent. How in heaven's name could he prove it?"

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Peers.. Southern folks who love a rip-roaring good time, and college football stars. Thank you and Drive-Thru!I'd make some crack about sounding out the big words, but it boils down to this: "Suppose for 5 seconds that you are Michael Vick, and you *are* innocent. How in heaven's name could he prove it?"

How in heaven's name does anyone prove they are innocent? You get evidence that exonerates you and then have good attornys present your case. You act like he was railroaded. The reason he can't prove his innocence in this case is because of the EVIDENCE against him......AKA: "Because he is Guilty"

[mase_gotsem 0]

in Dn's new latest blog did he lose a prop bet to actualy give neverwin poker a shout out ? to give those degens a shout makes you dumb so it fits in this thread as for the caddy/slave lol i hope she appreciated your tip and it wasnt looking around pretending you tiped well in reality she thought u were a cheap skate lol jk but yea that wld suck now you guys can continue to hijack the thread

[Miguel McHarris 0]

How in heaven's name does anyone prove they are innocent? You get evidence that exonerates you and then have good attornys present your case. You act like he was railroaded. The reason he can't prove his innocence in this case is because of the EVIDENCE against him......AKA: "Because he is Guilty"

Your first sentence is correct. Your last sentence kinda contradicts it. To clear the innocent thing up. Innocence does not need to be proven there only needs to be reasonable doubt about the evidence and circumstances. That's why a of plea " not guilty" and "guilty" are entered. You need not be innocent to be found not guilty, it's all based on evidence (if it does not fit you must acquit). Vick pleading guilty seals the deal, there is no doubt. He'll get a year in prison and I have no problem with that.Wishing a harsher punishment on him simply means you're allowing your feelings to dictate his punishment, that is bullshit. Making a decision based on how you feel is huge mistake in almost any scenario. Others believe he should receive little (if any) punishment at all. The fact is we are a civilized society. We're not some 3rd world mongoloid country where 19th century diseases run rampant and fresh water is scare. If you're interpreting that last sentence as me saying I'm better than the citizens of countries that eat dogs, cats, monkeys and god only knows what else; you're interpretation is correct. We've come a long way baby, lets not take a step back.

[Zeatrix 0]

Actually, that statement is very dumb.There is absolutely no scientific agreement about homosexuality being a biological issue.Yes, some people have been furiously trying to prove that for a long time now, but there isn't anything conclusive that isn't ultimately blown out of the water by another study by like scientists using like control data yet reaching an entirely different, wholly opposite conclusion.The fact that you state homosexuality (a behavior) is a biological function as though it were an unquestionable matter of fact- water's wet, E=mc2, gays are born gay- really shows the lengths people like you are willing to go in order to insulate your own delusions from reality. I'm not saying it is biological, I'm not saying it isn't biological. What I am saying is that there isn't a rock solid conclusion on the matter, so for people like you to be trotting it out as fact is just beyond dumb.

Well I agree with you and I don't. I know it hasn't been proved scientifically that it is biological (for example, pointing out the gene) BUTDo you seriously think people choose to be gay, considering societies historical response to homosexuals??? I am as sure as one can be without scientific proof that it's not something you make a conscious decision about. I think you make a conscious decision about whether you want to explore that tendency but not that you have that tendency or not. That is what humanity has learned over the last 2000 years, that is what the mortal men did not understand 2000 years ago and therefore labeled it a sin.

[VernonME 0]

well.. your dumb. (_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _)NOT! (_ _ _ _ _)2 famous movie lines, anyone wana guess which?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'm rather disappointing in you McGee. That was the first time I've ever posted anything with religious overtones, and you glossed right over it and fired off into the Vick discussion everyone is sick of

what can I saw, I'm petty tired of relgious discussions myself.. people have been talking about that a lil longer than the Vick saga

[fighter 4]

Lois whipping out the yucky test.

More info thanks

I'm not saying it is biological, I'm not saying it isn't biological. What I am saying is that there isn't a rock solid conclusion on the matter, so for people like you to be trotting it out as fact is just beyond dumb.

You sounds like those religious guys who say "it is the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution"Thats not a good thing

[Dogpatch 2]

Seriously, considering homosexuality a sin is like considering people born with a handicap sinners.

Aren't we all born sinners?

No flaming here. I will say I don't know how you can stand to watch evangelists of any sort. All those dudes give me the heebie jeebies. I also can't stand to watch a pastor get up on television and ask for money so he can amass a brazillion dollars for his "ministry" and then hire a guy to drive him around in some outrageous car and live in a mansion. That's pretty much the opposite of Jesus. I was in meditation and prayer last nightI was awakened by a shining bright lightOver head, a glorious spiritHe gave me a message and you all need to hear it"Send me your money", that's what he saidHe said to "Send me your money"Now if you can only send a dollar or twoThere aint a hell of alot I can do for youBut, if you want to see heaven's doorMake a check out for five hundred or more"Send me your money", do you here what I'm saying?"Send me your money"

Suicidal Tendencies? Sweet!

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Try asking an intelligent question and I'd be happy to answer it.

What's worse? Dogfighting or Fishing?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

What's worse? Dogfighting or Fishing?

Try asking an intelligent question and I'd be happy to answer it.

[Young Turk 0]

We're not some 3rd world mongoloid country where 19th century diseases run rampant and fresh water is scare.

I'll completely skip past all the interesting dicussions and arguments in here, and exhibit some much needed pedantry (what internet forum would be right without it?).Your use of "Mongoloid" can be construed as somewhat offensive, since the term doesn't refer only to Mongols but a large number of East Asian ethnicities (as the -oid suggests). Your singling out of these peoples as the epitome of poverty and backwardness hardly goes down well...the term itself (aside from the context in which you used it) is generally considered offensive these days anyway.

[Jimshoen 0]

DN, I think your comments about many the religious right are spot on. It only takes a few "Christians" to send the wrong message. The Crusades and Inquisition come to mind - and we're all still paying for that. I'm sure Satan is more than happy for us to spend our time and energy chasing things that in the end won't really matter. Your comment about politics in first century and how Jesus dealt with it should give us all a better indication of where we ought to focus our energy. I also liked your comments on sin. In an age of relative truth - sin is what it is and we who claim to be Christians need to take the same line with all sin. I really enjoy your blog- thanks for taking the time and enegy to write it. Good luck on the tour.And thanks for the tracker mouse - it's the coolest.Jim

[scram 1]

Well I agree with you and I don't. I know it hasn't been proved scientifically that it is biological (for example, pointing out the gene) BUTDo you seriously think people choose to be gay, considering societies historical response to homosexuals??? I am as sure as one can be without scientific proof that it's not something you make a conscious decision about. I think you make a conscious decision about whether you want to explore that tendency but not that you have that tendency or not. That is what humanity has learned over the last 2000 years, that is what the mortal men did not understand 2000 years ago and therefore labeled it a sin.

I think that homosexual sex is a behavior and behavioral disorders aren't predetermined as a matter of genetics. The forces that influence them tend to be psychological, cultural and environmental.A number of behavioral and psychological disorders have severe social consequences, yet I don't hear anyone saying the guy who fucks chickens or children was programmed from birth to be attracted to animals or kids. We as a society still recognize bestiality and pedophilia as a behavioral perversion (and mete consequences for it).The fact that we as a culture have become immensely more accepting of homosexuality doesn't change the fact that it is:A) A behaviorB) A biological perversion C) Completely unproven to be a matter of genetic predisposition. Whether I personally like faggots or not isn't the issue (I happen to really enjoy their company in a platonic way), Jesus isn't the issue, Darwin isn't the issue. Science is.

[scram 1]

More info thanksYou sounds like those religious guys who say "it is the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution"Thats not a good thing

Well, lets see. There's more than a scintilla of scientific basis in favor of evolution.There isn't really jack shit to prove that homosexuality is genetic, other than a few scientists who undertake studies not in the name of objective "science" but in the name of supporting a conclusion they already have. Bad comparison.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think that homosexual sex is a behavior and behavioral disorders aren't predetermined as a matter of genetics. The forces that influence them tend to be psychological, cultural and environmental.A number of behavioral and psychological disorders have severe social consequences, yet I don't hear anyone saying the guy who fucks chickens or children was programmed from birth to be attracted to animals or kids. We as a society still recognize bestiality and pedophilia as a behavioral perversion (and mete consequences for it).The fact that we as a culture have become immensely more accepting of homosexuality doesn't change the fact that it is:A) A behaviorB) A biological perversion C) Completely unproven to be a matter of genetic predisposition. Whether I personally like faggots or not isn't the issue (I happen to really enjoy their company in a platonic way), Jesus isn't the issue, Darwin isn't the issue. Science is.

Homosexual sex is a behavior, but homosexual attraction isn't. People can engage in homosexual behavior and not consider themselves gay. This sort of behavior is most common in situations where heterosexual sex isn't an option (prison and all-male boarding schools being the most common examples). When the person leaves that environment, they resume their heterosexual life.Conversely, someone can engage in hetrosexual sex their intire life, be married and have children, but in their mind they are gay as ****, and on their computer it's filled with azz fuking porn ( this happened to a good friend of mine in college, his mom found a bunch of gay porn on the comp, and left him). Truthfully, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or thing. I don't think it's all nature, or all nurture, but probably a combination there of. My human sexuality prof. in college seemed to think that homosexuality in men was linked to a "feminizing" of the brain in the womb. That an introduction of hormones (or a withholding of them) at a certain point in the fetus's development causes the male brain to more resemble a females ( I forget what exact manner this was, or what horemones, it's been too long since college) and that men with this feminized brain where much more likely to be homosexual. It was an interesting theory, but I don't know much about the research behind it.

[Zeatrix 0]

*Where is the delete post button when you need it*

[Zeatrix 0]

The Crusades and Inquisition come to mind - and we're all still paying for that. I'm sure Satan is more than happy for us to spend our time and energy chasing things that in the end won't really matter. Your comment about politics in first century and how Jesus dealt with it should give us all a better indication of where we ought to focus our energy. I also liked your comments on sin. In an age of relative truth - sin is what it is and we who claim to be Christians need to take the same line with all sin.

Your views have one major flaw. There is no such thing as Satan, it's a human fictional creature created by man to scare the common man into thinking his "wrong" actions are at the bidding of a evil creature. Relax, he doesn't exist!

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Try asking an intelligent question and I'd be happy to answer it.

So by choosing not to answer I'm assuming you think it's ok to kill and eat fish, but it's not ok to engage dogs in fighting.

[Mikey Ravioli 0]

So by choosing not to answer I'm assuming you think it's ok to kill and eat fish, but it's not ok to engage dogs in fighting.

The truly scary thing is that when it comes election time, your vote counts as much as mine.Dogs are sentient beings. They are social animals. Fish are not. One is survival in a regulated industry that has helped sustain human life on this planet since the begining of recorded time. Hunting parties are pictured on cave walls. One is cruelty for cruelty sake. A cow is part of the food chain. The circle of life. One animal dies so another can live. That is the way its has been since cavemen walked the earth. Yes we can all live the Vegan lifestyle as a choice and not eat any animals, but enough people are starving on this planet to begin with. Globally limiting food options is not a great idea. Dog fighting is is nothing but sick and twisted entertainment that often involves the loser being brutally put to death. Nothing is gained. No life is sustained. A beautiful creature that under the right training would put his life on the line for your children is torn apart and then drowned or electrocuted or his head is bashed on the floor. Not to mention how these dogs are trained to get the taste of blood in their mouths before they even have their first fight. they are often starved, beaten, and taught to kill by using puppies or kittens. Its not even close to the same thing. The day a cow or a fish wakes up a family in the middle of the night when the house is on fire, or goes for help when Timmy falls down the well, or takes on a bear or cougar while walking through the woods with the kids, is the day I will stop eating them. Yes, there is a hypocrasy about the food chain. Cuter animals that we let sleep inside our houses lives are more valuable to us then a cow or a pig in a yard or a fish in the sea. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong. Every day people go to bed hungry but their religion prevents them from eating cows or pigs. Different animals are sacred in different societies. In our society dogs are as close to sacred cows as it gets. If you want to make a fair comparison compare it to the ancient Romans practice of having Christians fight lions or Gladiator fights.By the way, do some research on the early signs of serial killers / sociopaths. Torturing and killing animals is almost always historicaly present. Finding pleasure or entertainement in death is not exactly normal behavior and is certainly different then finding sustenance.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The truly scary thing is that when it comes election time, your vote counts as much as mine.Dogs are sentient beings. They are social animals. Fish are not. One is survival in a regulated industry that has helped sustain human life on this planet since the begining of recorded time. Hunting parties are pictured on cave walls. One is cruelty for cruelty sake. A cow is part of the food chain. The circle of life. One animal dies so another can live. That is the way its has been since cavemen walked the earth. Yes we can all live the Vegan lifestyle as a choice and not eat any animals, but enough people are starving on this planet to begin with. Globally limiting food options is not a great idea. Dog fighting is is nothing but sick and twisted entertainment that often involves the loser being brutally put to death. Nothing is gained. No life is sustained. A beautiful creature that under the right training would put his life on the line for your children is torn apart and then drowned or electrocuted or his head is bashed on the floor. Not to mention how these dogs are trained to get the taste of blood in their mouths before they even have their first fight. they are often starved, beaten, and taught to kill by using puppies or kittens. Its not even close to the same thing. The day a cow or a fish wakes up a family in the middle of the night when the house is on fire, or goes for help when Timmy falls down the well, or takes on a bear or cougar while walking through the woods with the kids, is the day I will stop eating them. Yes, there is a hypocrasy about the food chain. Cuter animals that we let sleep inside our houses lives are more valuable to us then a cow or a pig in a yard or a fish in the sea. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong. Every day people go to bed hungry but their religion prevents them from eating cows or pigs. Different animals are sacred in different societies. In our society dogs are as close to sacred cows as it gets. If you want to make a fair comparison compare it to the ancient Romans practice of having Christians fight lions or Gladiator fights.By the way, do some research on the early signs of serial killers / sociopaths. Torturing and killing animals is almost always historicaly present. Finding pleasure or entertainement in death is not exactly normal behavior and is certainly different then finding sustenance.

WRONG. Equating dogs suffering and human suffering is what makes you a psycho. There is much more evidence that a pig shares more incommon with a human neurologically, philologically and in terms of brain size than a dog. Yet we eat the shit out of swine. Humans flighting in gladiator fights is just not the fcking same, humans>dogs, end of story. Also, the type of torturing and killing that a serial killer does to an animal is fundamentally different than a dog fighter. Dog fighting is bad enough without you trying to say Vick is Damer. I'd be willing to bet that zero serial killers in the 20th century trained pit bulls for dog fighting.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Your views have one major flaw. There is no such thing as Satan, it's a human fictional creature created by man to scare the common man into thinking his "wrong" actions are at the bidding of a evil creature. Relax, he doesn't exist!

Look, the dude's a Christian, he believes in God and christ, you singling out only one of the many superheros and supervillains he believes seems arbitrary to me.