Michael Vick Talk

[Milkman delivers]

I understand what your saying and that's my point in the long run. Stop crucifying the guy already. He did his debt, and now let's see if he could resurrect it the same way we're going to see if Dante is. Let's not give this guy more crap, especially when the other guys who have done worse don't get much pub at all.

 

Now we may disagree on the dogfighting/hunting thing, but I just want people to stop giving Vick so much attention for something that's been said and done, and the sentence is over.

 

So when the convicted child molester moves in across the street, I should just assume he's a changed man that paid his dues and I shouldn't judge him anymore for his crimes?

Edited August 14, 2009 by Milkman delivers

[zenryan]

Go watch a human lose his life due to recklessness and make your same opinions.

 

There's a double standard going on in America. Let's kill animals for food. Let's kill animals for sport. Whoa whoa whoa, don't touch the dogs you inhumane bastard! Please.

 

 

 

How Vick went about killing these dogs is more disgusting than him killing dogs IMO.

 

I probably sound like a hypocrite because I dont care if people hunt or not but I do care if someone kills dogs. But shooting an animal is very different than electrocuting or slamming its body into the ground until it dies.

[nitetrain8601]

And clearly he might not have.

 

 

No one knows what who did what that night but Lewis gets slammed non stop while someone like Marvin Harrison gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

He did get slammed much more than Marvin. Heck, there barely was a mention when it came to Marvin.

 

As far as the idiot comment thing, I'm not the only one to agree with the analogy as I'm not the one who wasn't smart enough to come up with it. If you're going to resort to saying, "That's stupid, you're an idiot" or suggest that anyone is an idiot, don't bother. Just state your argument and that's it. If you don't have an argument or at least something smart enough to get me to think, then your post is worthless to anyone here reading.

[nitetrain8601]

How Vick went about killing these dogs is more disgusting than him killing dogs IMO.

 

I probably sound like a hypocrite because I dont care if people hunt or not but I do care if someone kills dogs. But shooting an animal is very different than electrocuting or slamming its body into the ground until it dies.

 

I suppose that's true. The abusiveness that is. I think if you kill an animal, you kill an animal and it's no better or worse than killing another animal. I grew up around chicken fights and I view it on the same level.

[iamshack]

Go watch a human lose his life due to recklessness and make your same opinions.

 

There's a double standard going on in America. Let's kill animals for food. Let's kill animals for sport. Whoa whoa whoa, don't touch the dogs you inhumane bastard! Please.

 

No one is claiming that human lives are not valuable, or that it is not a tragedy when people die because of a drunk driver.

 

The difference lies in the intent.

 

Stallworth made a horrendous decision. Unfortunately he was in an accident with a guy that ran out into the middle of the road in the middle of the night. The fact that Stallworth was impaired at the time did not give him the best chance to avoid the guy. Therefore, Stallworth has been punished for that.

 

I'll leave what I believe to be major hypocrisy regarding driving while under the influence of alcohol out of the equation for the time being.

 

What Vick did was to systematically torture animals for monetary gain. And not only that, but his cohorts abducted other people's pets in order to help train his attack dogs to further that torture. He did this over a course of time that showed he felt little or no remorse whatsoever for his actions, and then he lied about it.

 

He has paid a major price, which I have stated, and he deserves another opportunity to make a living. Great. I wish him well on the football field.

 

But simply because the victims of Vick's were dogs, while the victim of Stallworth was a human, somehow that makes his crime less horrifying? I just cannot agree. In fact, I find Vick's actions to be far worse than Stallworth's.

 

Just a question: Whose actions do you think are more commonplace in our society, Vick's or Stallworth's?

[Milkman delivers]

He did get slammed much more than Marvin. Heck, there barely was a mention when it came to Marvin.

 

As far as the idiot comment thing, I'm not the only one to agree with the analogy as I'm not the one who wasn't smart enough to come up with it. If you're going to resort to saying, "That's stupid, you're an idiot" or suggest that anyone is an idiot, don't bother. Just state your argument and that's it. If you don't have an argument or at least something smart enough to get me to think, then your post is worthless to anyone here reading.

 

Sorry, let me expound.

 

In deer hunting, the entire point is to kill the animal with as little suffering as possible. The animal is then processed for meat. And, as has been said already, the regulated hunting of deer is also done to keep their numbers from growing too large.

 

In dog fighting, animals are trained to become killers. Smaller dogs and other animals are used to make the fighting dog into a brutal killing machine. The dogs then fight each other, which results in severe, lingering injuries or death (if the dog is lucky enough to have its suffering end that quickly). Dogs that are deemed inadequate to fight are also killed by other inhumane methods (not a simple gunshot to a vital area), but rather by drowning, slamming, electrocution, etc. In the end, this is not done to process the animal for food, regulate the population, or any other positive reason. It is done purely for entertainment and money. The dogs that survive are almost never the same. Some are taken in by groups that attempt to make the animal into a safe pet again, but most are put down because of the severe damage they've sustained both mentally and physically. Plus, the mere act of putting an animal through all of this puts humans in immediate danger due to its behavior.

 

So, perhaps I was a bit harsh in insinuating that a person may be an idiot to see dog fighting and deer hunting as analogous, and for that I apologize. But I will say that any person who actually believes that is extremely ignorant and cannot understand the entire scenario, and might even have trouble with definition of the word "analogy."

[iamshack]

I think Vick's treatment is some what hypocritical.

 

First of all, im not sure where this "drug" ring idea is coming from.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549

 

I see no mention of vick and drug ring, and I really doubt that the federal govt would not even charge him with those crimes. But Im not an expert on the subject, so I would be interested to see where its coming from.

 

Secondly in regards to vick "ruthlessly killing animals", should Mark Buehrle be suspended from baseball for "ruthlessly killing" deers and other animals when he hunts?

 

Its hypocritical to value some animals more than other animals, so if we are really outraged by the barbaric acts of killing animals, we should be outraged equally by all those who hunt and kill animals.

 

Why do they hunt?

 

For sport and entertainment purposes.

 

Why did vick have dogs fight?

 

For sport and entertainment purposes.

 

I dont think what vick did is right, but I certainly do not think that killing an animal (regardless of how heinous) could ever rise to the level of killing a human.

 

And for everyone who is saying "Oh Stallworth made a mistake, weve all driven drunk" maybe thats true. but if vick said that "oh everyone I know dog fights, it was just a mistake" would it really matter?

 

The answer is no. Stallworth has millions of dollars and access to a program called safe ride where a NFL player can get a ride at any time.

 

He killed a man because he just didnt care about following the law.

 

Do you not see the difference between a domesticated animal and one that is wild?

 

Humans have worked, over the course of their history, to domesticate certain animals

 

domesticate - to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans

 

Humans have trained and bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to adapt them to life in intimate association with them.

 

As a result, domesticated animals, and dogs in particular, have taken a very revered and particular place in human culture, especially in their relationship with man, that is now ingrained in our social and even moral norms. Dogs are a companion of man, an animal that lives in his home and protects it, interacts with his offspring, is fed and cared for by him, etc. For the majority of human culture, dogs are a very valuable, loved and protected companion in our social hierarchy.

 

wild - living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated b (1) : growing or produced without human aid or care

 

Wild animals share our resources. They attempt to exist on the same planet as humans, and seek to further their species in competition with humans. They live without human aid or care (for the most part, recently humans have attempted to further the existence of wild animals by creating or reserving their habitats, regulating the hunting of them, etc). But due to the separation of wild animal's existence from our own, they certainly do not share the same place in our cultural or social norms or morals as do domesticated animals. While I do not condone the reckless or pointless killing of wild animals either, they have not been trained and bred by humans to have an intimate association with them. Their initial instincts are still to avoid or compete with humans for resources, not to be cared for by them or to protect humans. I don't think that wild and domesticated animals, or their treatment by humans, is comparable at all.

 

And yet Michael Vick chose to consciously and purposefully set up a medieval torture ring of brutality for pure entertainment and monetary gain over the course of a long period of time.

 

Dante Stalllworth made the mistake of socializing with his friends a bit much and making the poor decision to attempt to transport himself home one evening.

 

The situations are just not at all comparable when you consider our social and moral norms.

Edited August 14, 2009 by iamshack

[knightni]

Murdering someone with your car is more heinous than fighting dogs.

[The Bones]

I hope everyone here who is disgusted with Michael Vick is vegetarian. If not then I would like someone to explain how it is okay for animals to suffer in one case but not another. And spare me the "one is for food and the other is recreation" bulls*** because we eat meat not out of necessity but because it tastes good.

[SoxAce]

Murdering someone with your car is more heinous than fighting dogs.

 

Stop. Your logic makes no sense in this thread.

[iamshack]

Murdering someone with your car is more heinous than fighting dogs.

murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

 

Dante Stallworth did not murder anyone.

 

He did not seek out this person and attempt to run him down on the road and end his life.

 

 

[MHizzle85]

murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

 

Dante Stallworth did not murder anyone.

 

He did not seek out this person and attempt to run him down on the road and end his life.

You've been making the same points that I've been making to people. Hell, I even made a similar in the NFL thread.

[nitetrain8601]

Do you not see the difference between a domesticated animal and one that is wild?

 

Humans have worked, over the course of their history, to domesticate certain animals

 

domesticate - to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans

 

Humans have trained and bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to adapt them to life in intimate association with them.

 

As a result, domesticated animals, and dogs in particular, have taken a very revered and particular place in human culture, especially in their relationship with man, that is now ingrained in our social and even moral norms. Dogs are a companion of man, an animal that lives in his home and protects it, interacts with his offspring, is fed and cared for by him, etc. For the majority of human culture, dogs are a very valuable, loved and protected companion in our social hierarchy.

 

And yet Michael Vick chose to consciously and purposefully set up a medieval torture ring of brutality for pure entertainment and monetary gain over the course of a long period of time.

 

Dante Stalllworth made the mistake of socializing with his friends a bit much and making the poor decision to attempt to transport himself home one evening.

 

The situations are just not at all comparable when you consider our social and moral norms.

 

Really? Because there are farmers who we buy our meat from which raise cows and other animals just to kill them for food. And the slaughtering of these pigs, cows, etc are not the prettiest site. And as far as one is for food, Vick did it for sport, I don't know if I could completely buy it. There are people who hunt just so they could put their head on the wall to show what they killed.

 

This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best:

 

I sit here and read how people are ready to condemn a man because he doesn't share your views on the treatment of an animal. Dogs are domesticated, and many people feel a close companionship with their dogs, so the thought of their dogs suffering causes these reactions that are truly over the top.

 

Go to the Northwest and walk into a cabin where they have the heads, HEADS, of animals on the walls for nothing other than decoration. Stuffed, just looking down on you. People in this country have all sorts of sports, from dog-fighting to cock-fighting to just plain old hunting, not for food, but for the fun of it. Death, to me, is worse than torture. At the end of torture, a person or animal may still have their life. So, to kill animals in the woods for fun is worse than dog-fighting. And anyone who gives me that overpopulation crap is waiting to hear from me again, because when folks are out there shooting, they are NOT thinking about protecting the woods or preserving other wildlife; they are having fun. That's it.

 

Could I have done what Vick did? No, but I live in Ohio, and have many friends all over the South, and those who sit there and think this is a something that only Vick does, or his punishment is too light, get ready to pay out of your own pockets for the housing and imprisonment of THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of people. We use animals for food, for fun, but let it be a dog, and now Vick's a person not worthy of even a second chance? I wish anyone who says that would have all of the skeletons in their closet or the worse thing they've done exposed on national television for weeks straight and have the scrutiny of the country on them. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

 

When I go to other countries, I can see their reasons for looking down or hating or despising the United States. Don 'DC' Curry said it best. People are outside talking about animal rights?!? ANIMAL RIGHTS?!?!! WE DONT HAVE ALL OUR DAMN RIGHTS YET!!!! There are people who lack healthcare, equal civil rights, homosexuals who can't marry or join the army, and racism that still rears its ugly head on an EVERYDAY basis in many parts of this country and yet people have the time and energy to fight for the rights of dogs?!? DOGS?!?! Now that's despicable.

[SoxFan562004]

murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

 

Dante Stallworth did not murder anyone.

 

He did not seek out this person and attempt to run him down on the road and end his life.

exactly right... I believe he pleaded guilty to a "manslaughter" charge in Florida, completely different mens rea necessary... the criminal justice system recognizes the difference

 

That aside, they're two different arguments IMO. I think both are terrible, but because Dante Stallworth killed somebody with his car doesn't mean I think Vick should get an "easier" time of things from the NFL or anyone else. Michael Vick bankrolled and participated over a stretch of time in a heinous criminal dog fighting ring which included him personally killing dogs. To me that shows a strong predilection of criminal and disturbed state of mind. So the NFL and the American public can't be disgusted by him and be cautious of giving him extra chances because Dante Stallworth killed someone with a car or even if he just straight up killed someone with malice? I don't get the connection, they're two different cases.

Edited August 14, 2009 by SoxFan562004

[hammerhead johnson]

I hope everyone here who is disgusted with Michael Vick is vegetarian. If not then I would like someone to explain how it is okay for animals to suffer in one case but not another. And spare me the "one is for food and the other is recreation" bulls*** because we eat meat not out of necessity but because it tastes good.

 

If you never owned a dog, then you wouldn't understand. They become members of your family. To think that a scumbag like Vick oversaw/co-signed the kidnapping of family dogs is what sickens me more than anything else.

 

He can breed his own killer pit-bulls and sacrifice 'em for all I care, but when you go around stealing pets, then it's a different story altogether.

 

Think about that lonely old lady who depends on her dog for companionship, or that little kid who will never get to see his labrador again because Vick needed sacrificial lambs.

 

Vick is a devil, son. Lend your support to someone else.

[SoxFan562004]

This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best:

i see his point except the part about the worst things people have done and have them aired in the public for weeks... I can safely say myself and I think just about all my friends and family have done nothing anywhere near the level of what Michael Vick did, I can honestly say that I can take the worst things I did and air them in public and it might cause slight embarassement, but nothing where I think people would think I am an evil or vicious person.

 

Also, we as humans are allowed to make distinctions and a majority of people (not even me, I wouldn't hunt) have separated game from domesticated animals. Now people obviously have a right to disagree with it, but they don't have a right to say people who disagree with them are "wrong" just because they don't agree with them.

 

Also, to me, people are underplaying the torture he administered on to animals and the fact he stole pets from the neighborhoods and used them as practice kills for the fighting dogs. To me that shows a disturbed mind.

[hammerhead johnson]

Also, to me, people are underplaying the torture he administered on to animals and the fact he stole pets from the neighborhoods and used them as practice kills for the fighting dogs. To me that shows a disturbed mind.

 

Exactly.

[iamshack]

Really? Because there are farmers who we buy our meat from which raise cows and other animals just to kill them for food. And the slaughtering of these pigs, cows, etc are not the prettiest site. And as far as one is for food, Vick did it for sport, I don't know if I could completely buy it. There are people who hunt just so they could put their head on the wall to show what they killed.

 

This guy on RealGM who is having the same discussion said it best:

 

If you review the definition of domesticated, you'll notice that it states humans adapt animals to life in intimate association with humans and to the advantage of humans.

 

The distinction lies in the purpose the animal has been domesticated.

 

I am not even certain if cows bred to slaughter are considered "domesticated."

 

However, it is quite clear that cows are not trained to obey commands so that they can live amongst humans. They are not invited into their homes. They are not trained to protect their homes or their families. They do not interact with their family members. They are not trained to help the blind. They have not been trained and bred for hundreds of years to be eaten by men, but rather to be a companion to men.

 

The reason people are outraged by what Vick has done is because dogs have been trained and bred to be such an intimate companion of humans.

 

As for this RealGM character, his logic seems extremely flawed to me. First of all, I won't disagree that there is all kinds of crazy s*** that goes on in the rural areas of this country. Because those things do occur does not make what Michael Vick did any more or less horrendous. Secondly, I have already addressed his hunting analogy, so I won't go any further there.

 

As for this argument people make in regards to human rights, I just don't understand it. Why does it seem logical to people that for some reason humans must reach the pinnacle of their existence before they can concern themselves with the rights of some other animal? Why must we live in a utopia before we might expend one ounce of energy on anything other than ourselves? It just doesn't follow logically to me that because we still have problems in human society that we must ignore all else until those problems are eliminated. Senseless argument in my opinion.

[knightni]

I'm sure the guy he hit felt better at that last second that his death wasn't meant as malicious.

[iamshack]

I'm sure the guy he hit felt better at that last second that his death wasn't meant as malicious.

 

Honestly, I am sorry the guy bit it, but he was running into the middle of the street at 2 am. For all we know, he might have been killed anyways.

 

It's terrible that he got killed, but he would probably feel better if he had been more careful, too.

[knightni]

Bring back my church youth leader and tell her that the guy who got drunk and hit her didn't mean it.

 

 

[iamshack]

Bring back my church youth leader and tell her that the guy who got drunk and hit her didn't mean it.

 

That's a bs response, and you know it.

 

I'm terribly sorry that people die. And by no means am I excusing what Stallworth or any other drunk driver does or has done. But the fact remains that our society celebrates alcohol and the mass consumption of it. We are also a society that revolves around transportation in large, dangerous, fast-moving hunks of steel. As long as we are going to mix the two, bad things are going to happen and people are going to die. It's a compromise we make in order to live as we do.

 

We can all refer to tragedies that have occurred to someone we know, someone in our family, or perhaps, even ourselves. And while I respect the fact that you have lost someone close to you because of a very poor decision someone else made, and an accident that occurred because of that poor decision, that doesn't make the point moot, nor does it change how human beings live.

 

The only thing we can do is seek the best way in which to deal with these things, and punish those who make stupid decisions. However, the end result of a poor decision often does not equal the intent that caused that result to occur. To simply consider the end result, as opposed to the intent, as well as the other circumstances involved, is in my opinion the incorrect manner in which to punish that person or to rectify the situation.

 

People drive vehicles in an unsafe manner all the time. Until we figure out a better way to solve that problem, we'll be dealing with injuries and deaths which occur because of that.

 

 

[nitetrain8601]

If you review the definition of domesticated, you'll notice that it states humans adapt animals to life in intimate association with humans and to the advantage of humans.

 

The distinction lies in the purpose the animal has been domesticated.

 

I am not even certain if cows bred to slaughter are considered "domesticated."

 

However, it is quite clear that cows are not trained to obey commands so that they can live amongst humans. They are not invited into their homes. They are not trained to protect their homes or their families. They do not interact with their family members. They are not trained to help the blind. They have not been trained and bred for hundreds of years to be eaten by men, but rather to be a companion to men.

 

The reason people are outraged by what Vick has done is because dogs have been trained and bred to be such an intimate companion of humans.

 

As for this RealGM character, his logic seems extremely flawed to me. First of all, I won't disagree that there is all kinds of crazy s*** that goes on in the rural areas of this country. Because those things do occur does not make what Michael Vick did any more or less horrendous. Secondly, I have already addressed his hunting analogy, so I won't go any further there.

 

As for this argument people make in regards to human rights, I just don't understand it. Why does it seem logical to people that for some reason humans must reach the pinnacle of their existence before they can concern themselves with the rights of some other animal? Why must we live in a utopia before we might expend one ounce of energy on anything other than ourselves? It just doesn't follow logically to me that because we still have problems in human society that we must ignore all else until those problems are eliminated. Senseless argument in my opinion.

 

So if they are not trained to love us and be our slaves, fk them it's okay to kill them?

 

[nitetrain8601]

That's a bs response, and you know it.

 

I'm terribly sorry that people die. And by no means am I excusing what Stallworth or any other drunk driver does or has done. But the fact remains that our society celebrates alcohol and the mass consumption of it. We are also a society that revolves around transportation in large, dangerous, fast-moving hunks of steel. As long as we are going to mix the two, bad things are going to happen and people are going to die. It's a compromise we make in order to live as we do.

 

We can all refer to tragedies that have occurred to someone we know, someone in our family, or perhaps, even ourselves. And while I respect the fact that you have lost someone close to you because of a very poor decision someone else made, and an accident that occurred because of that poor decision, that doesn't make the point moot, nor does it change how human beings live.

 

The only thing we can do is seek the best way in which to deal with these things, and punish those who make stupid decisions. However, the end result of a poor decision often does not equal the intent that caused that result to occur. To simply consider the end result, as opposed to the intent, as well as the other circumstances involved, is in my opinion the incorrect manner in which to punish that person or to rectify the situation.

 

People drive vehicles in an unsafe manner all the time. Until we figure out a better way to solve that problem, we'll be dealing with injuries and deaths which occur because of that.

 

It was a stupid decision to have a dog fighting ring knowingly. It was a stupid decision to knowingly drive drunk, high, and speed.

 

[The Bones]

If you never owned a dog, then you wouldn't understand. They become members of your family. To think that a scumbag like Vick oversaw/co-signed the kidnapping of family dogs is what sickens me more than anything else.

 

He can breed his own killer pit-bulls and sacrifice 'em for all I care, but when you go around stealing pets, then it's a different story altogether.

 

Think about that lonely old lady who depends on her dog for companionship, or that little kid who will never get to see his labrador again because Vick needed sacrificial lambs.

 

Vick is a devil, son. Lend your support to someone else.

 

So now kidnapping is a bigger crime than murder. Please continue because I'm really interested in this new line of thinking.

 

I had a dog from the time I was two years old until I was in high school and yes I was sad when she died but it is not comparable to a human being in the least.