Michael Vick Talk

[iamshack]

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

Hah, I was thinking as I was writing that post that that would be your response.

 

I am not saying it is ok to kill anyone or anything. Personally, that is for yourself to reconcile.

 

What I am saying is that if you train and breed an animal for thousands of years to be your companion, that is, man's closest non-human companion, yes, there is going to be a large percentage of the population who finds what Michael Vick did to be entirely horrendous. Humans are emotional creatures who develop bonds to those beings that take part in their every day lives. Dogs are one of those beings. For the most part, cows and pigs are not. Thus, the outrage you see.

Edited August 15, 2009 by iamshack

[iamshack]

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

 

Great comparison.

 

So according to you, all stupid decisions are equal?

[iamshack]

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.

 

No one has argued that.

 

Dante Stallworth did not commit murder.

[The Bones]

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.

 

Someone is arguing this.

[iamshack]

Someone is arguing this.

 

Ahh, I didn't realize when you said "murder," you meant in regards to the pit bulls.

 

[nitetrain8601]

Hah, I was thinking as I was writing that post that that would be your response.

 

I am not saying it is ok to kill anyone or anything. Personally, that is for yourself to reconcile.

 

What I am saying is that if you train and breed an animal for thousands of years to be your companion, that is, man's closest non-human companion, yes, there is going to be a large percentage of the population who finds what Michael Vick did to be entirely horrendous. Humans are emotional creatures who develop bonds to those beings that take part in their every day lives. Dogs are one of those beings. For the most part, cows and pigs are not. Thus, the outrage you see.

 

I actually had a pet pig in which I watched my grandparents slaughtered for food when I was eleven. I didn't like it, but didn't think about it past an hour. Hell, they had me skinning the pig and all. Very popular in Mexico actually where there are a ton of farms as in the US.

 

And for the record, I have a dog in which I adore the crap out of and yes, I would be pissed if Mike Vick stole him and fed him to other fighting dogs. I, however, would not want him sentenced or scrutinized longer than a guy who decided to end my father's life by being under two influences and speeding.

[nitetrain8601]

Great comparison.

 

So according to you, all stupid decisions are equal?

 

No, but I'm trying to reason with the people who believe stealing and killing a dog is much worse than driving drunk and high and speeding to only hit and kill a human pedestrian. It may not be murder, but it is killing.

 

[The Bones]

I understand that what Vick did was wrong, sickening, despicable, heinous, stupid, whatever else you want to say about it and I could never in a million years even be capable of being a part of something like that. What I don't get is how people are so angry at him for this. He's done his time. He pretty much lost everything. Now, he has a chance to move on with his life in a positive way.

 

Anyways, I'm done arguing his case. People who want to boo him can and will. I don't know what exactly they're trying to accomplish because I think everyone, including Mike Vick, knows what he did was wrong.

[iamshack]

No, but I'm trying to reason with the people who believe stealing and killing a dog is much worse than driving drunk and high and speeding to only hit and kill a human pedestrian. It may not be murder, but it is killing.

 

Well, that is a personal decision you make, and I won't attempt to change your opinion. I guess I am only arguing my point of view because I feel strongly about it, but I don't think I am doing so in the hopes of making you see my point of view.

 

To me, it comes down to intent, and in Michael Vick's case, there was a clear intent to accomplish the end result of his actions - killing dogs for entertainment and monetary gain.

 

In the case of a drunk driver, for the very vast majority of them, they are intending to get to a destination. They are not intending to injure or kill anyone. Certainly it is not a wise decision to attempt to drive a dangerous vehicle in an impaired state in order to get to their destination, but in my opinion, they should be punished for that unwise decision, not for some end result of their actions. That being said, there is enormous social pressure on the legal system to punish those drunk drivers who are unlucky enough (or inebriated enough) to actually injure or kill someone, as opposed to those who are actually caught by the police operating a vehicle under the influence, and that is where you see a difference in the punishment handed out.

 

This is a difficult topic and that is why you see the vast divide in peoples' opinions and strongly-worded responses. Personally, I find the venom spewed to be excessive and also that a large amount of hypocrisy exists with regards to drunk drivers considering the society we live in, but I know that is an unpopular and minority opinion.

 

As for Michael Vick, to me, it is the intention and premeditation of pure and certain cruelty involved in his actions that outrages me, far more so than the actions of a drunk driver. Just my humble opinion, however.

[iamshack]

I understand that what Vick did was wrong, sickening, despicable, heinous, stupid, whatever else you want to say about it and I could never in a million years even be capable of being a part of something like that. What I don't get is how people are so angry at him for this. He's done his time. He pretty much lost everything. Now, he has a chance to move on with his life in a positive way.

 

Anyways, I'm done arguing his case. People who want to boo him can and will. I don't know what exactly they're trying to accomplish because I think everyone, including Mike Vick, knows what he did was wrong.

I agree it is time to let the man move on and to resume his career.

 

That doesn't mean I cannot be angry with him.

[nitetrain8601]

Well, that is a personal decision you make, and I won't attempt to change your opinion. I guess I am only arguing my point of view because I feel strongly about it, but I don't think I am doing so in the hopes of making you see my point of view.

 

To me, it comes down to intent, and in Michael Vick's case, there was a clear intent to accomplish the end result of his actions - killing dogs for entertainment and monetary gain.

 

In the case of a drunk driver, for the very vast majority of them, they are intending to get to a destination. They are not intending to injure or kill anyone. Certainly it is not a wise decision to attempt to drive a dangerous vehicle in an impaired state in order to get to their destination, but in my opinion, they should be punished for that unwise decision, not for some end result of their actions. That being said, there is enormous social pressure on the legal system to punish those drunk drivers who are unlucky enough (or inebriated enough) to actually injure or kill someone, as opposed to those who are actually caught by the police operating a vehicle under the influence, and that is where you see a difference in the punishment handed out.

 

This is a difficult topic and that is why you see the vast divide in peoples' opinions and strongly-worded responses. Personally, I find the venom spewed to be excessive and also that a large amount of hypocrisy exists with regards to drunk drivers considering the society we live in, but I know that is an unpopular and minority opinion.

 

As for Michael Vick, to me, it is the intention and premeditation of pure and certain cruelty involved in his actions that outrages me, far more so than the actions of a drunk driver. Just my humble opinion, however.

 

Well I'll agree to disagree then.

[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.

 

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.

 

Bones, it looks like you got a little confused along the way.

 

I never got involved in the killing people vs killing dogs debate.

[hammerhead johnson]

...

Edited August 15, 2009 by hammerhead johnson

[BigSqwert]

because I think everyone, including Mike Vick, knows what he did was wrong.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just look at some of the reactions in this thread. A lot of people could care less about what he did with regards to the dogs, including Vick. He was forced to make an apology. I don't think he was sincere and I've heard first hand from many people that dog fighting isn't a big deal.

[hammerhead johnson]

LOL at Vick being remorseful about torturing dogs. Dude was lobotomized, just like many of the people that support him.

[BigSqwert]

LOL at Vick being remorseful about torturing dogs. Dude was lobotomized, just like many of the people that support him.

Indeed

[jasonxctf]

Torturing Dogs is a horrible, horrible thing.

 

However the man did the crime, did his time.

 

Now its time to move on folks. You can't hold it against him forever.

[hammerhead johnson]

Now its time to move on folks. You can't hold it against him forever.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Two thoughts on the 60 minute interview:

 

(1) Everyone thinks James Brown did a great job interviewing Vick. I thought he sucked. He asked the same question 2-3 times, despite the fact that he already got the answer. ("So, when did you know that it was wrong?" "When I was lying in a jail cell alone..." "And when did you realize what you did was wrong." "Uh, when I was in a jail cell, alone...")

 

(2) The fact that Vick rediscovered religion, allowing him to see the light of what he did.

 

I think what Vick did was inexcusable and despicable, and I'm glad he was served with a serious punishment. I think it's laughable if anyone actually believes that he's remorseful about it. It's an entire culture he's grown up with since he was young that apparently he's forgotten and changed his mind about. That's like saying a serial killer gets busted and then finds out in jail that murder is wrong. It doesn't happen like that. He's sorry for putting his family, the Falcons/ownership, the NFL, etc etc in this situation, but I HIGHLY doubt he feels any remorse for electrocuting dogs and holding them underwater. He's upset he got caught and then lied about it. End of story.

 

I'm all for second chances, and I'm all for people booing the hell out of him. If this were any other person their life would be ruined for this (federal criminal record = no job for the rest of your life). But he gets 2 million guaranteed and a possibility of making up to 7, if not more after 2 years. Hopefully the Humane Society and the NFL forces him to do the things he's promised to do, and hopefully his "sacrifice" will save lots and lots of animals. But I won't hold my breath.

[Steve9347]

I echo what an earlier poster who claimed what Stallworth did was not nearly as bad.

Insane.

 

A man is dead because of Stallworth. I feel bad for those pooches, but where are the folks crying for the pigs who are hung upside down and gutted while still alive? Or the chickens whose beaks are ripped off? I love dogs, I love animals in fact, but doing what they did to those animals does not approach the killing of a human being. That's just the way the world is...

 

That's why Stallworth getting 30 days and Vick getting 2 years is so insane.

 

[iamshack]

Insane.

 

A man is dead because of Stallworth. I feel bad for those pooches, but where are the folks crying for the pigs who are hung upside down and gutted while still alive? Or the chickens whose beaks are ripped off? I love dogs, I love animals in fact, but doing what they did to those animals does not approach the killing of a human being. That's just the way the world is...

 

That's why Stallworth getting 30 days and Vick getting 2 years is so insane.

 

There is a difference between things done in a purposeful manner, and those done on accident.

[StrangeSox]

There is a difference between things done in a purposeful manner, and those done on accident.

 

He purposefully drove while intoxicated.

[BigSqwert]

He purposefully drove while intoxicated.

 

His decision was made while intoxicated. Vick's was made while sober.

 

[knightni]

His decision to get intoxicated was done sober.

[BigSqwert]

His decision to get intoxicated was done sober.

A majority of people decide to get intoxicated. We don't do so to hopefully kill someone.