Marbury on Marbury
-
- August
- 23
For what it’s worth, here’s the statement Stephon Marbury released this afternoon in hopes of clarifying the controversial comments he made earlier in the week:
“It is not uncommon for my comments to be misconstrued in the media but I feel compelled to put my recent comments in the right context. What Michael Vick did was wrong and he has admitted his guilt. He should be punished. However, he should be given a second chance as others have received for more serious crimes. There is no list for which animals should be killed and which shouldn’t. As a spiritual being, I respect GOD’s divine order. We’re all created by GOD and animals are GOD’s creatures as well. I love animals and none of them should be harmed. However, we don’t react the same when other animals are being killed for sport or the sake of human pleasure. Should we as a society stop wearing fur coats and eating meat or hold those accountable who are responsible for the demise of those animals? In order to receive forgiveness we must all forgive in order for healing to take place. As an athlete and celebrity, I realize we are convenient targets for scrutiny, often unfairly. When I received a DUI, I learned from the mistake and vowed never to do it again. I came out a better person as a result. I’m sure he will learn from this mistake and become a better man. My family’s thoughts and prayers go out to him and all of those impacted by this unfortunate situation.â€?
The statement was released by the Knicks, which is a good indication of how they feel about Marbury comparing dog fighting to hunting and practically defending Michael Vick, who pled guilty to federal charges on Monday.
Here’s the original comments if you need perspective:
“I think it’s tough,’’ Marbury said, according to Albany TV station Capital News 9. “I think, you know, we don’t say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It’s just behind closed doors.”
And in case anybody needs a giggle, I’ll include this link to Field and Stream, which seems to be a little upset that Marbury compared hunting to dog fighting.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm by Mike Dougherty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Yeah Mike…whats your personal opinion about steph defending Vick?
KFFL
You should read the last post, wich was very hot.. HAUHAUAHU
marbury sounds so high on something
I have been a dog ownwer all of my life, so I do not like what Vick or anyone does to dogs. However, all the people critisizing him that eat meat, and wear furs should be ashamed of themselves. First of all, over 1 million dogs are killed every year in animal shelters. If Vick had taken his dog to the shelter, they would have been put to sleep in 30 days, if no one adopted them.
Animals that we eat are inhumanely killed every second so that we can keep ourselves over weight. Animals are kept in tight quarters so they cannot move and develope muscles. That keeps the meat tender. We should be ashamed at the horrible way they are killed. Vegetarians live longer healtier lives. How about the rich people who wear dead animals on their back. Where is the outrage about that. Michael Vick has been a target which mostly all Americans should also be. Be carefull when you point fingers.
I like this blog, but on this Marbury / Vick point, the blogger is out of line. While Marbury’s own clarification adequately explains his comments, I want to point out that no clarification was needed in the first place. His original statement was by no means any defense of Vick’s actions, nor was it a statemetn that dog fighting is good or should be allowed, or that Vick shouldnt’ be punished. Marbury’s statement thoughtfull AND accurate.
Yes, dogfighting IS considered a sport to those who practice it, even though it shouldnt’ be. While the people who practice it break the law, they still consider it a sport just like boxing, or UFC. Thus Marbury is accurate when he refers to it as a sport, albeit, an illegal and reprehensible one. The second and more controversial part of his comment was that animals are killed for sport in numerous other contexts, yet this is allowed, and the participants are not held to Vick like scrutiny. Case in point, hunting.
Marbury is absolutely right. There is a double standard at play, in that killing animals is totally legitimized in many contexts, some of which are leisure related, while it is demonized in others. NOWHERE IN MARBURY’S STATEMENT DOES HE TAKE A SIDE, OR SEEK TO LEGITIMIZE DOGFIGHTING, he is only pointing out the double standard.
Quite frankly, Marbury’s statement is one that should have been made by every pundit. Vick’s reprehensible actions are a perfect way to emphasize cruelty to animals for the sake of sport or leisure in all contexts, and for us to reevaluate how we create double standards and heirarchies for these different means and modes of animal cruelty and killing. Is horse racing not cruel to animals? Yet its not condemned, its heralded. Does a horse enjoy its victory, or do the humans who put the horse at risk?
But horse racing has historically been a past time for the privileged wealthy elites, graceful, exciting, and a cash cow, while dog fighting is brutal – and a sport without the built in socialized and commercial benefits and stature. Is boxing no less brutal? But it has the same cache as horseracing, so its not frowned upon, even though it could be seen by some as exploitation.
Where were the pundits to point out these disparities? Why isn’t society’s treatment of animals being discussed in a large scale dialogue that deals with all its forms, some of which are allowed by society, instead of a hypocritical condemnation of a sports figure and nothing else. I personally think Vick’s actions were disgusting, and I enjoy horse racing, but the dialogue is an important one.
Marbury was the only public figure who keyed on it, and should be commended for his forthrightness, and observation of a far bigger point than Vick, and his unlawfullness.
There has been absolutely no Knicks news in days… ANYWHERE. Only thing that I have seen is that Ron Artest recently said, he “wouldn’t mine being traded to the Knicks.”
Dan Dickau and Fred Jones are now eligible to be included in a trade. They were not previously included in any offers for Artest and am wondering if a combination of Dickau, Jones, Rose, Jeffries or Robinson would be enough to land him.
Logic says we need to trade a SF because we have way too many; Jeffries, Balkman, Chandler, Nichols and even Q-Rich plays it.
Mike, what is your input on this new situation now that these guys are eligible to be traded? Do you think including them is better than any offer they’ve received so far?
Miami Knicks Fan,
I’m not big on hunting but there is certainly a difference between that and dog fighting. Read the link to Field and Stream.
I think your comparison is more apt when it comes to horse racing and boxing. Those sports are inhumane. Even football is actually inhumane. Any sport where people or animals health is put at risk for the entertainment of others has a moral flaw. I believe that eating meat is morally wrong, but I still do it.
However, that being said, no one should defend Michael Vick based on that argument. He messed up big time.
Once again Stephon shows that there’s something missing. Even in his “explanation”.