OFF TOPIC: Stupid ESPN article

by Number22Drew on Dec 11, 2007 9:58 PM PST Comment 29 comments

So I was just on the ESPN homepage and I came across this article http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3150157
Its about a 5 year old boy who went out with his grandfather hunting and killed a 400 pound bear. My question is, why the hell is this on the ESPN homepage. Who cares about some 5 year old shooting a bear. Why is a 5 year old hunting in the first place? I just think its absolutely ridiculous.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

um

cuz its davy crockett's great grand kid or somethin

betting you didn't actually read the article very closely

it was lame but its not like it was front paged main headline or anything

they've certainly posted worse

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Dec 11, 2007 10:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

c'mon man

a 5 year old killed a 400 lb bear. First of all, you should be flabberghasted that 400 lb bears exist in Arkansas (I had no idea) and secondly, he's 5, that's incredible! He's related to Davy Crockett, who is maybe the most underrated badass in American history. Stop worrying so much, at least its not an article on the Patriots, the Celtics, Kidd trade rumors, or Les Miles.
Dude, its a five year old, and he killed a bear.
To answer your last question, its because he lives in Arkansas.

by latvianlegendflex on Dec 11, 2007 10:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

umm

it was lame but its not like it was front paged

yeah it actually was on the front page buddy

by Number22Drew on Dec 11, 2007 11:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

And yet

Lame as the story was, you thought it warranted a diary on GSoM. ;-P

Personally, I'd way rather read about a 5-year-old killing a bear than freaking Nascar...

by Sleepy Freud on Dec 11, 2007 11:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

i like how u didn't quote my entire phrase "front page main headline"

they have all sorts of stuff that fits in that little side area, heck, even the warriors show up there

is espn that important we need to be "outraged" by every stupid thing they do

thats just par for their course

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Dec 11, 2007 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I'm definitely not outraged over this. I just think its really dumb. I think it was just really funny that that story got so much coverage. You should check out the video they have accompanying the article

by Number22Drew on Dec 11, 2007 11:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ain't It Funny?

Killing dogs will get you in prison and daily diatribes on ESPN, but killing bears will get you wild adoration and love on ESPN.

Someday it'll all make sense...

by Atma Brother ONE on Dec 11, 2007 11:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Word to that.

Why do I picture the average Vick-demonizer as a guy who chows down on burgers and ribs daily while he waxes poetic about the all the moose, geese and deer he's killed just for fun?

Alas, I'm afraid it'll never make sense...

On the bright side, if "what is newsworthy?" is the new topic here, this diary may actually have legs...

by Sleepy Freud on Dec 11, 2007 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

really tho

...

by singha on Dec 11, 2007 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wax poetic

Werd, Atma.

by eshock on Dec 12, 2007 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

um...

Maybe its just me, but there is a slight difference between shooting a bear and drowning/electrocuting dogs.
I agree that Vick has, to an extent, been demonized, and I do not agree with hunting just for sport, but killing dogs in ways that are completely unnecessary, drawn-out, strange, and pathological is different.
Now, I must admit to a slight bias here. I grew up in Berkeley and went to college at UCSC. I had roommate from up north who hunted deer. He ate what he caught, and did not hunt simply for the "fun" of it. However, without getting to know him, many so-called open-minded folks demonized him. He, like many other hunters, was a staunch environmentalist and very liberal. He also, coincidentally, liked to watch the occasional Nascar race. Many meat-eaters, and I'm guilty of this as well, enjoy eating the dead animals but wouldn't have the stomach to kill them ourselves.
This whole Vick thing has become enmeshed in quite a few other societal issues that don't have much bearing on the actual facts of the case. For example: Arthur Blank (the Falcons owner) recently said that he is somewhat skeptical about Vick's eventual return as Vick may not be in that great of shape come that time. Blank also said something to the effect that Vick may be out of shape if he eats a lot of fried chicken and french fries. So, now folks are saying that Blank is a racist 'cause he mentioned fried chicken. Really now...
The fact is, moral issues aside, that dog-fighting is illegal, shooting a bear in Arkansas is not. Plus I just feel anyone who would drown or electrocute a dog for no reason is a sadistic SOB. I used to be a huge Vick fan, but I just can't countenance that kind of thing.

by Snesley Wipes on Dec 12, 2007 3:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A few questions

Did Vick actually drown or electrocute dogs? That's a real question, not a rhetorical one. I haven't followed the case closely (since the whole hysterical, indignant tone of the coverage basically makes me want to renounce my US citizenship) but my impression was that he organized the fights, not that he himself tortured any dogs.
Is what Vick did any worse than what our Vice-President and his ilk do for leisure -- massacring farm-raised wingless quails by the bushel-full, just for fun? That one is rhetorical. I'd guess the way your roomie hunts -- for food, which is totally cool in my book -- is more the exception in our country than the rule.
Do you actually not see any racism in the fried chicken comment? Of course it's neither here nor there in terms of the case, but that's about as bad as it gets.

Apart from #3, I more or less agree with your comments. I can't countenance any kind of cruelty, and I do think Vick deserved some kind of punishment. But, personally, it just doesn't compute to see our torturing war criminal of a Vice President still in power in our country, while hysterical sports fans scream for Michael Vick's head.

Yeah, that's probably not a fair way to look at it. I never begrudge compassion or empathy in any form; and I respect the genuine horror some people have at what happened to those dogs. At the same time, I wish people would extend 5% the horror and empathy they feel for the dogs to human beings of different colors, races, and creeds...

See -- told ya this diary had legs...

by Sleepy Freud on Dec 12, 2007 4:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

some good points...

You made some good points there. I haven't been glued to the tv either, but I believe he first denied taking part in the executions, and then later admitted to it. I don't know whether he killed some dogs with his own hands or just ordered others to.
As far as Blank's statements go, my explanation was pretty bad. he basically talked a bunch about whether or not Vick could play after 3 years of relative inaction and at the age of about 30. He then went on to say that this would be exacerbated if Vick were to also eat unhealthy. I admit, in such a charged atmosphere, it probably wasn't the best choice of words. But, in all fairness, it could have been an innocent faux paus. I know its naive.

by Snesley Wipes on Dec 12, 2007 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple questions

I agree that Vick has, to an extent, been demonized, and I do not agree with hunting just for sport, but killing dogs in ways that are completely unnecessary, drawn-out, strange, and pathological is different.

Why is it different? It's killing for sport. The end is the same. The intention is still to kill another living things for a human's amusement.

Why do we separate dogs from rodents or cows? Because we like dogs better? Because dogs are our friends? Why do we go after someone like Vick but so few people care about how "inhumane" slaughter houses are.

My guess is that most people don't understand how much they are politically influenced by anthropomorphismCan you imagine how freaked out people would have been had Vick been fighting Pandas?

by bloodsweatndonuts on Dec 12, 2007 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i beg a pardon

i don't see a big difference between eating covs corpse or potatoes corpse (taste maybe but it's still just food)
but i can see the difference between hunting and sadism

if someone thinx that world and culture makes people better they are wrong -we are still just one step from canibalism (in family of every who reads this in last 20 generations is someone who was eating humans)

build a team & destroy the roof

by Lat We N Trash on Dec 12, 2007 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What does the animal care about?

My bad for carelessly mixing topics. For the sake of clarity let's break it down into two pieces:

Motive: Food versus Sport
Method: Humane versus Cruel

So . . .

1. Motive: I think your argument is that hunting and killing cows or potatoes is ok as long as it's to feed yourself, your family, Latrell Spreewell, or to sell for food. But if someone is hunting for amusement, like Sleepy's Vice President, or many other people throughout the world then it is wrong.

So is hunting for sport sadism? What if they were hunting golden retrievers? What about fishing for sport?

2. Method: Regardless of intention, which is less humane? Breeding animals specifically for the purpose of making them live, packed together and unable to move and then eventually killing them for food? Or training chickens or dogs to fight one another in a "fair" fight (I say fair fight because there is gambling involved)?

I would argue that slaughter house conditions or chicken "farming" is more inhumane than fighting dogs from a "method" standpoint. Do you think they care about the motives?

If you are truly arguing on behalf of the animal, then to argue "Motive" is a serious case of anthropomorphism gone haywire.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Dec 12, 2007 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

happy to talk about it

just non easy to explain my opinion because english is just my 3. language -but i'll try

the way people understand things depends of culture they are representing and i can talk just as guy from northeast europe not some cali citizen same as you can represent just place where you came from

1. i'd say in north hunting always was a traditional way to get food and this is just a part of culture and until yo're hunting in the frame of law (no matter for trophy or food) -i don't see a big problem -this is just a part of traditional lifestyle -people are not more cruel the mother nature -when they are just hunting

if they were hunting retrievers ? if it is a traditional stuff (i mean generation to generation gives knowledge how to hunt a golden retrievers) -let it be

2. if i have to chose -pay for chick 40$ or understand them life just as my foods growing i chose second
but what about dogfights -dos people by my opinion are perverts because we have to escape from unnecessary cruelty

i can understand animal as part of my family but i always will know where is borderline between my family and food

build a team & destroy the roof

by Lat We N Trash on Dec 12, 2007 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

distinctions

Firstly, morality aside, hunting and slaughterhouses are legal. Dogfighting is not.
Morally, a clear distinction must be, and has been, made. As much of an oxymoron as "killing humanely" is, it does have currency in our society. I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty, but I also agree with the distinction made about "cruel and unusual punishment." Is torturing someone to death really the same as shooting them in the head? The fact is the Vick and his associates could have simply shot the dogs. While this would still be both cruel and illegal, the fact that they chose to kill them by drowning, electrocution, hanging, etc exhibits a definite sadistic pathos.
While I agree that slaughterhouses should be changed/reformed, the fact is that they are producing food. They are not just killing the animals for the sick pleasure of it. Slaughterhouse owners are making a capitalist driven choice to get the job done quickly and economically as possible. As distasteful as that may be I can't help but wonder how people can at once be against hunting for food themselves and also disagree with the mass scale production of the food that they refuse to produce themselves. Unless of course you are a vegan. Coincidentally, my mother had a pet chicken when she was young, yet she enjoys eating chicken. Point being, dogs are different. They have been an integral part of human culture for who knows how long. They hold a special place, much like we think ourselves or endangered species do. I may be guilty of moral relativism here, but so be it.

by Snesley Wipes on Dec 12, 2007 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is quite disturbing

That a 5 year old killing a bear is a good thing. I mean, we go all over the world trying to stop children from fighting in civil wars, but when a 5 year old American boy learns to shoot a bear for apparently no reason at all (they decided after the fact to have it mounted) his grandfather cries tears of joy. I wish I could say only in Arkansas, but what the Davy Crocket.

by belli nellie on Dec 11, 2007 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

this has got to be....

.....the LEAST read section on Espn.com

by spartan21 on Dec 12, 2007 12:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

LOL

i must be missed that in ESPN
-cool info
-tnx Number22Drew for posting this

build a team & destroy the roof

by Lat We N Trash on Dec 12, 2007 3:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Chris Rock:

"America is the only country where people go hunting on a full stomach."

by latvianlegendflex on Dec 12, 2007 10:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yee Haw!

I think it's great that kid killed a bear. Think of it like this. Imagine Andris hitting a 3 pointer. It's so hard for him to even make a free throw let alone a 3. I'd be awesome if he hit a 3 pointer and I'm sure that fans would go nuts and there would probably be a blog about it on here as well as something on Youtube. In Arkansas the same could be said for a 5 year old shooting and killing a 400 lbs bear. The difference is that here in Cali, people don't hunt as a culture. We talk on cell phones, blog, iPod to death, buy retro Jordan's for $400 and wax our Honda civics that have multi colored neon paint jobs with body kits that look like UFO's. It's a little different in Arkansas yall. You talk shooting and hunting and it's the same as people out here talking about converting a Word document to a PDF! It's all relative. Think of that kid as the next Larry Bird of competitive shooting. Plus, if any of us were within 500 yards and had beef with that kid, we would be 6 feet under in less than 1 second...

Also, the Gods of the league such as Kobe and LeBron wear coats with fur on them. You see it all the time in press conferences. That originated with humans having to stay warm, thus them killing furry animals to do so. What does it have to say about a multi millionaire wearing fur coats when they could stay warm wearing a hoodie. They may support the thing that some of us here think is barbaric which is killing animals for our benefit whether it be out of necessity or desire. Is LeBron down with killing animals to look good? Is he in the same boat as that 5 year old? That's a question...

by gabezgsw on Dec 12, 2007 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I say

let the 5 year old and Mike Vick become cell mates.

Screw Crockett!

Put a little mustard on it

by The Barnes Supremacy on Dec 12, 2007 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

haha

lol

by Number22Drew on Dec 12, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is anyone else trippin on why a 5 year old

is in a position to have to shoot 400 lb bear? There's gotta be major child endangerment issues there. That's way more dangerous than letting a 5 year old play with a pit bull.

Plus, I don't know about you, but would anyone here let a 5 YEAR OLD BOY you knew play with the kind of gun and ammo it would take to lay out a bear? It takes more than a deuce-deuce to blow away a bear, my friends. Hell, the kid's barely old enuf to know right from wrong, your gonna trust him with a 12 guage shotty? Eff'n hill billies. His parents should go to jail.

Best duo since...

by Tim N Chris Burger on Dec 12, 2007 12:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

@ least

this kid will have some meat @ time when hes parents will be in a jail

build a team & destroy the roof

by Lat We N Trash on Dec 12, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not only

is he in a position to kill a bear.. but i thought it was funny that he did it with his YOUTH rifle. I had no idea they made bear killer guns for 5 year olds. Think about that.. guns made specifically for little kids..

by ilubthedubs on Dec 12, 2007 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs