Michael Vick Talk

[knightni]

If they don't ask for a ride home, they do.

[longshot7]

One is premeditated murder, one is manslaughter. Not the same.

[iamshack]

He purposefully drove while intoxicated.

Once again, I know this will be an unpopular statement, but I am going to say it anyways.

 

Driving while intoxicated, as much as it is an unwise and unlawful decision, does not equate to purposeful acts of harm. They simply are not the same.

[knightni]

One is premeditated murder, one is manslaughter. Not the same.

Killing an animal is not murder.

 

 

[Texsox]

I own dogs but there is no way that what Vick did is worse than murdering a human.

 

Agreed. And he received a very stiff sentence, served his time, and already is having an easier time of adjusting back in the world than most inmates. He found a job right away.

 

I am not advocating dog fighting. But it seems a little hypocritical in a national that processes animals from conception to our plates like a manufacturing plant, we are a tad sensitive about some animals.

[Texsox]

Once again, I know this will be an unpopular statement, but I am going to say it anyways.

 

Driving while intoxicated, as much as it is an unwise and unlawful decision, does not equate to purposeful acts of harm. They simply are not the same.

 

Diminished capacity is an interesting justification for something. If I drink enough, anything I do will not be purposeful.

[JorgeFabregas]

So is purposeful harm always worse than negligence no matter the end result?

[knightni]

Want to kill someone and stay out of prison long term? Get drunk and run them over.

 

There's a lesson kids.

[BigSqwert]

But it seems a little hypocritical in a national that processes animals from conception to our plates like a manufacturing plant, we are a tad sensitive about some animals.

I call it moral schizophrenia.

[iamshack]

Diminished capacity is an interesting justification for something. If I drink enough, anything I do will not be purposeful.

That's not what I am arguing, and that is a poor analogy.

 

Not once has anyone in this thread argued that someone who has committed a harmful act should be held less responsible because their capacity has been diminished.

 

Diminished capacity does not equal less responsibility or culpability, but it also does not equal, by default, a harmful purpose.

[iamshack]

So is purposeful harm always worse than negligence no matter the end result?

No, obviously not. It is also not always worse taking end result out of the equation. However, the question of intent is certainly a big factor in the equation.

[iamshack]

Want to kill someone and stay out of prison long term? Get drunk and run them over.

 

There's a lesson kids.

Honestly, I am terribly sorry that you lost a close friend to a drunk driver, but your responses in this thread are purely hyperbolical and ridiculous.

[JorgeFabregas]

My guess is that people can see themselves driving drunk, but can not see themselves torturing dogs. They consider themselves good people and thus torturing dogs must be worse.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Killing an animal is not murder.

 

And neither was what Stallworth did.

[SoxAce]

Honestly, I am terribly sorry that you lost a close friend to a drunk driver, but your responses in this thread are purely hyperbolical and ridiculous.

 

Funny thing is.. I was thinking the same about yours and calling you delusional. To each his own I guess/agree to disagree. I usually don't agree on knight on alot of things, even though I love Jeremy as a poster, but I agree with him on this one and it's not even close. But I like the mixed agreement here on this topic.

Edited August 17, 2009 by SoxAce

[iamshack]

Funny thing is.. I was thinking the same about yours and calling you delusional. To each his own I guess/agree to disagree. I usually don't agree on knight on alot of things, even though I love Jeremy as a poster, but I agree with him on this one and it's not even close. But I like the mixed agreement here on this topic.

 

Hey, you have a right to your opinion.

 

I'd love to see you cite some examples of hyperbole in my posts, however.

 

My posts have been reasoned and explained. Knight's have been completely the opposite.

Edited August 17, 2009 by iamshack

[ChiSox_Sonix]

To me they are not even comparable situations. The end result of what happened with the Stallworth incident is clearly worse than the Vick situation. I don't think anyone would argue that a dead human being is less tragic than dead dogs.

 

But the actions can not be judged by the outcome. What Stallworth did was make a tragic mistake; a gross error in judgement; a poor, poor decision. What Stallworth did not do was go out that night with the intention of commiting an act in which someone would die as a result of. And let's not forget that it wasn't as if he swerved into a sidewalk, the man was jaywalking on a highway.

 

What Vick did did have the intended consequences. What he did required forethought, premeditation, planning, money, effort, work, time etc...He bankrolled and participated in an illegal activity for years, for which the result was heinous and unbelievable cruelty and malice towards many dogs. He led and profited from an organization that tortured, beat, killed, and maimed these animals. Not to mention the theft of family pets to use as bait for the pitbulls.

 

I really feel you have to separate two things here; intention and result. Clearly, the loss of a human was tragic, and was the result of an action by Stallworth. But who hasn't made mistakes under the influence before? Who hasn't done things they regret. It does not excuse it, but his character and person should not be judged on one, albeit egregious, mistake.

 

What Vick did was not a mistake. Not even close. Thusly, the situations are hard to judge on the same level. What Vick did much more closely can be used to judge his character/person than what Stallworth did.

[iamshack]

To me they are not even comparable situations. The end result of what happened with the Stallworth incident is clearly worse than the Vick situation. I don't think anyone would argue that a dead human being is less tragic than dead dogs.

 

But the actions can not be judged by the outcome. What Stallworth did was make a tragic mistake; a gross error in judgement; a poor, poor decision. What Stallworth did not do was go out that night with the intention of commiting an act in which someone would die as a result of. And let's not forget that it wasn't as if he swerved into a sidewalk, the man was jaywalking on a highway.

 

What Vick did did have the intended consequences. What he did required forethought, premeditation, planning, money, effort, work, time etc...He bankrolled and participated in an illegal activity for years, for which the result was heinous and unbelievable cruelty and malice towards many dogs. He led and profited from an organization that tortured, beat, killed, and maimed these animals. Not to mention the theft of family pets to use as bait for the pitbulls.

 

I really feel you have to separate two things here; intention and result. Clearly, the loss of a human was tragic, and was the result of an action by Stallworth. But who hasn't made mistakes under the influence before? Who hasn't done things they regret. It does not excuse it, but his character and person should not be judged on one, albeit egregious, mistake.

 

What Vick did was not a mistake. Not even close. Thusly, the situations are hard to judge on the same level. What Vick did much more closely can be used to judge his character/person than what Stallworth did.

 

Very solid post, and not simply because I agree with you for the most part, but because it is a well-reasoned and well-thought out response and conclusion.

 

The one point I do question is the concluding statement of your first paragraph.

 

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I am not sure why it is more of a tragedy for one human being to die than hundreds of dogs. I am not in the business of weighing the lives of one creature against another, or in this case, hundreds of creatures again one, but why is it such an easy conclusion for humans to judge the value of one species against another? What are the criterion for making such a judgment?

 

Anyways, not looking to turn this into a philosophical bs discussion that gets us nowhere. It's just the idea that humans make the immediate assumption that a human's life is so much more valuable than the life of another creature seems arrogant to me.

[BigSqwert]

Very solid post, and not simply because I agree with you for the most part, but because it is a well-reasoned and well-thought out response and conclusion.

 

The one point I do question is the concluding statement of your first paragraph.

 

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I am not sure why it is more of a tragedy for one human being to die than hundreds of dogs. I am not in the business of weighing the lives of one creature against another, or in this case, hundreds of creatures again one, but why is it such an easy conclusion for humans to judge the value of one species against another? What are the criterion for making such a judgment?

 

Anyways, not looking to turn this into a philosophical bs discussion that gets us nowhere. It's just the idea that humans make the immediate assumption that a human's life is so much more valuable than the life of another creature seems arrogant to me.

Speciesism 101

[BigSqwert]

And I'm sure if you asked most people who they would help from a burning building, their dog or a serial pedophile, most people would choose their dog.

[Texsox]

Want to kill someone and stay out of prison long term? Get drunk and run them over.

 

There's a lesson kids.

 

And as long as people accept what people do while drunk as not their fault, or excuse them in some lesser way, we will continue to have these things happen. Perhaps, if the social stigma, punishment, and everything else was the same drunk or sober, people would think a bit more when drinking. But as it stands now, people will give someone a pass if they are drunk enough.

[iamshack]

And as long as people accept what people do while drunk as not their fault, or excuse them in some lesser way, we will continue to have these things happen. Perhaps, if the social stigma, punishment, and everything else was the same drunk or sober, people would think a bit more when drinking. But as it stands now, people will give someone a pass if they are drunk enough.

 

Tex, I am not sure I understand how you are reaching this point.

 

Someone who kills someone accidentally in a car accident, if proven that it was merely an accident, would have far less of a stigma attached to them than someone who killed someone in an accident while intoxicated.

 

Your reasoning implies that Stallworth is being given a pass because he was intoxicated at the time of the accident, while the exact opposite is the case.

[Texsox]

Tex, I am not sure I understand how you are reaching this point.

 

Someone who kills someone accidentally in a car accident, if proven that it was merely an accident, would have far less of a stigma attached to them than someone who killed someone in an accident while intoxicated.

 

Your reasoning implies that Stallworth is being given a pass because he was intoxicated at the time of the accident, while the exact opposite is the case.

 

In general, our society cuts criminals slack if they are impaired when they committed the crime.

[IITsox]

The hunting argument is silly - particularly deer hunting serves a vital role in population control, the animals are typically killed humanely after living in the wild, and the animals are used almost always for food (if not, then I condemn it).

 

The real hypocrisy is with factory farmed meat. If I could choose between being one of Vick's dogs or a pig on many factory swine farms, I'd choose dog any day. Many animals on factory farms know nothing but torture from life until death: at least some of Vick's dogs were rewarded for victory, etc.

 

I'm not saying that what Michael did was alright by any means, but what I am saying is that what he did isn't particularly worse than what pretty much every other NFL player (save for Tony Gonzales, a vegetarian, as I recall) does by eating factory farmed meat. I'm not sure how so many people can be OK with the realities of factory farming - it's pretty sickening, and I'm not some crazy PETA protester. I know there are many livestock farms that treat animals humanely, but there are also many that don't, and at the grocery store the consumer typically has no way of telling the difference.

[BigSqwert]

Oh boy. We've been down this road before. Time for everyone to pile on ol' BigSqwert.