Michael Vick

[Neurotic Guy]

There is a difference between killing animals for food (or being the recipient of animals slaughtered for food) and killing animals for pure recreation.  There is also a difference between using your own hands to kill an animal and being layers removed from the killing either by using a distance weapon or by having another person do the killing.  It's no small deal to kill a substantial vibrant animal with your own hands -- especially if it is pleasurable or fulfilling in some way.  However, we really don't know the direct relationship between Vick and the heinous dog killings that were reported. He may have done the deeds himself or instructed others to kill the animals.  He also may have reluctantly killed the animals in the name of his 'business' rather than for the purpose of gaining sadistic joy from the killings.  We really don't know his state of mind throughout the timeframe in which he engaged in dog-fighting and dog abuse.  We do know that dog-fighting is very difficult to watch and impossible to condone if you are raised in a culture in which animal fighting is taboo.  I believe I'd be sickened by it, however, I do recall some 25 years ago being at a resort in Santa Domingo at which cock fights were a daily ritual with locals exclaiming great joy and excitement at the event. 

I can't claim to know what was in Vick's heart or head during his dog-fighting days -- I don't know if he was ever conflicted morally or if he purely relished in the raw violence.  Who knows if he began reluctantly and gradually was de-sensitized to it.  All I can surmise is that he couldn't stop himself from getting deeper and deeper into a violent and illegal activity.  It cost him greatly by most people's standards in cultural realms that matter a great deal to most Americans: reputation, freedom, and money.  His fame also became infamy. 

I choose to accept that a person can make values changes and can grow and learn.  Vick paid for his choices and now is legally free. The commisioner has made a decision to allow him to play and now its up to an owner to choose to offer Vick a chance.  If he gets the chance, I am hoping he makes the best of it. 

so under this doctrine that animals killed for anything other than food is tourter and should be punished above and beyond people killing each other because they can't defend themselves, hunters should be held accountable to the same penalties as vick?

I am puzzled at the conclusion you reached from my post.  So, in response: No - under no circumstances is killing a dog more punishable than killing a human. I am merely stating that its a 'big deal' to kill animals to satisfy a desire to kill -- and I'll clarify that 'hunting' is not what I am talking about -- I am talking about taking unusual joy, gratification and satisfaction in the killing itself.  I do make a distinction between hunting for sport and killing because you need to kill.  I would guess that some hunters probably do take an abnormal amount of joy in the killing and yes, I would be concerned with those folks.  But no, I don't think that describes most hunters.

[Eja117]

This is so typical though.

People will make excuses for these guys saying:
"HE WAS JUST CARRYING IT FOR PROTECTION!!"

Then why isn't it registered?

Somehow its become socially acceptable in african american culture to carry an illegal weapon.........."for protection" and its just flat out wrong.

It doesn't matter why he has it and it's nobody's business. This "register" thing is a load of crud.

"The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon."

[angryguy77]

This is so typical though.

People will make excuses for these guys saying:
"HE WAS JUST CARRYING IT FOR PROTECTION!!"

Then why isn't it registered?

Somehow its become socially acceptable in african american culture to carry an illegal weapon.........."for protection" and its just flat out wrong.

It doesn't matter why he has it and it's nobody's business. This "register" thing is a load of crud.

"The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon."

shhh. your making sense in gun debat. tp

[Eja117]

There is a difference between killing animals for food (or being the recipient of animals slaughtered for food) and killing animals for pure recreation.  There is also a difference between using your own hands to kill an animal and being layers removed from the killing either by using a distance weapon or by having another person do the killing.  It's no small deal to kill a substantial vibrant animal with your own hands -- especially if it is pleasurable or fulfilling in some way.  However, we really don't know the direct relationship between Vick and the heinous dog killings that were reported. He may have done the deeds himself or instructed others to kill the animals.  He also may have reluctantly killed the animals in the name of his 'business' rather than for the purpose of gaining sadistic joy from the killings.  We really don't know his state of mind throughout the timeframe in which he engaged in dog-fighting and dog abuse.  We do know that dog-fighting is very difficult to watch and impossible to condone if you are raised in a culture in which animal fighting is taboo.  I believe I'd be sickened by it, however, I do recall some 25 years ago being at a resort in Santa Domingo at which cock fights were a daily ritual with locals exclaiming great joy and excitement at the event. 

I can't claim to know what was in Vick's heart or head during his dog-fighting days -- I don't know if he was ever conflicted morally or if he purely relished in the raw violence.  Who knows if he began reluctantly and gradually was de-sensitized to it.  All I can surmise is that he couldn't stop himself from getting deeper and deeper into a violent and illegal activity.  It cost him greatly by most people's standards in cultural realms that matter a great deal to most Americans: reputation, freedom, and money.  His fame also became infamy. 

I choose to accept that a person can make values changes and can grow and learn.  Vick paid for his choices and now is legally free. The commisioner has made a decision to allow him to play and now its up to an owner to choose to offer Vick a chance.  If he gets the chance, I am hoping he makes the best of it. 

I understand what you are saying about people taking pleasure in killing having some issues, but I don't think it's as bad as people that took their 12 year olds to watch Gladiator and got pleasure out of that and that's as legal as pumpkin pie.

Are we going to ban former matadors from the NBA?

Someone pointed out that dogs can love.  There are some Native Americans that retained the right to go whaling and whales are intelligent creatures like dogs. Should we ban Native Americans that did that?

Of course we would never ban those groups. We would say it's cultural. I don't understand why it's ok for those cultures to do those things and it's not ok for Vick's culture to have dog fights, when wolves (and that's what dogs are) fight in nature and tear each other apart routinely.

[KungPoweChicken]

There is a difference between killing animals for food (or being the recipient of animals slaughtered for food) and killing animals for pure recreation.  There is also a difference between using your own hands to kill an animal and being layers removed from the killing either by using a distance weapon or by having another person do the killing.  It's no small deal to kill a substantial vibrant animal with your own hands -- especially if it is pleasurable or fulfilling in some way.  However, we really don't know the direct relationship between Vick and the heinous dog killings that were reported. He may have done the deeds himself or instructed others to kill the animals.  He also may have reluctantly killed the animals in the name of his 'business' rather than for the purpose of gaining sadistic joy from the killings.  We really don't know his state of mind throughout the timeframe in which he engaged in dog-fighting and dog abuse.  We do know that dog-fighting is very difficult to watch and impossible to condone if you are raised in a culture in which animal fighting is taboo.  I believe I'd be sickened by it, however, I do recall some 25 years ago being at a resort in Santa Domingo at which cock fights were a daily ritual with locals exclaiming great joy and excitement at the event. 

I can't claim to know what was in Vick's heart or head during his dog-fighting days -- I don't know if he was ever conflicted morally or if he purely relished in the raw violence.  Who knows if he began reluctantly and gradually was de-sensitized to it.  All I can surmise is that he couldn't stop himself from getting deeper and deeper into a violent and illegal activity.  It cost him greatly by most people's standards in cultural realms that matter a great deal to most Americans: reputation, freedom, and money.  His fame also became infamy. 

I choose to accept that a person can make values changes and can grow and learn.  Vick paid for his choices and now is legally free. The commisioner has made a decision to allow him to play and now its up to an owner to choose to offer Vick a chance.  If he gets the chance, I am hoping he makes the best of it. 

I understand what you are saying about people taking pleasure in killing having some issues, but I don't think it's as bad as people that took their 12 year olds to watch Gladiator and got pleasure out of that and that's as legal as pumpkin pie.

Are we going to ban former matadors from the NBA?

Someone pointed out that dogs can love.  There are some Native Americans that retained the right to go whaling and whales are intelligent creatures like dogs. Should we ban Native Americans that did that?

Of course we would never ban those groups. We would say it's cultural. I don't understand why it's ok for those cultures to do those things and it's not ok for Vick's culture to have dog fights, when wolves (and that's what dogs are) fight in nature and tear each other apart routinely.

Did you just compare torturing animals to watching a movie? Wow, man. You are really reaching on that one.

[Eja117]

There is a difference between killing animals for food (or being the recipient of animals slaughtered for food) and killing animals for pure recreation.  There is also a difference between using your own hands to kill an animal and being layers removed from the killing either by using a distance weapon or by having another person do the killing.  It's no small deal to kill a substantial vibrant animal with your own hands -- especially if it is pleasurable or fulfilling in some way.  However, we really don't know the direct relationship between Vick and the heinous dog killings that were reported. He may have done the deeds himself or instructed others to kill the animals.  He also may have reluctantly killed the animals in the name of his 'business' rather than for the purpose of gaining sadistic joy from the killings.  We really don't know his state of mind throughout the timeframe in which he engaged in dog-fighting and dog abuse.  We do know that dog-fighting is very difficult to watch and impossible to condone if you are raised in a culture in which animal fighting is taboo.  I believe I'd be sickened by it, however, I do recall some 25 years ago being at a resort in Santa Domingo at which cock fights were a daily ritual with locals exclaiming great joy and excitement at the event. 

I can't claim to know what was in Vick's heart or head during his dog-fighting days -- I don't know if he was ever conflicted morally or if he purely relished in the raw violence.  Who knows if he began reluctantly and gradually was de-sensitized to it.  All I can surmise is that he couldn't stop himself from getting deeper and deeper into a violent and illegal activity.  It cost him greatly by most people's standards in cultural realms that matter a great deal to most Americans: reputation, freedom, and money.  His fame also became infamy. 

I choose to accept that a person can make values changes and can grow and learn.  Vick paid for his choices and now is legally free. The commisioner has made a decision to allow him to play and now its up to an owner to choose to offer Vick a chance.  If he gets the chance, I am hoping he makes the best of it. 

I understand what you are saying about people taking pleasure in killing having some issues, but I don't think it's as bad as people that took their 12 year olds to watch Gladiator and got pleasure out of that and that's as legal as pumpkin pie.

Are we going to ban former matadors from the NBA?

Someone pointed out that dogs can love.  There are some Native Americans that retained the right to go whaling and whales are intelligent creatures like dogs. Should we ban Native Americans that did that?

Of course we would never ban those groups. We would say it's cultural. I don't understand why it's ok for those cultures to do those things and it's not ok for Vick's culture to have dog fights, when wolves (and that's what dogs are) fight in nature and tear each other apart routinely.

Did you just compare torturing animals to watching a movie? Wow, man. You are really reaching on that one.

If the movie involves getting a charge out of watching people get their heads and limbs cut off I'd say yes.

I'm not comparing it to the old days where a guy went "bang" and another guy said "Ouch" and then fell off a roof onto a mat

I'm talking about films made with highly realistic Steven Speilberg type LucasArts special effects where we see guts falling out and spines.

People have been butchering animals for a long time. But don't tell me Vick is such a horribly sick guy and then take your kid to 300.

[TrueGreen]

I know this isn't exactly breaking news, and I'd rather not give this lowlife any more attention than he's already getting, but I feel as though I need to say what's on my mind.



What Vick did was brutal, sadistic, and merciless. The man does not have a moral bone in his body, a noble beat in his heart, or an honest thought in his head. No amount of prison time and no amount of debt can rehabilitate a mind as sick as Vick’s. He is not, and never will be, a healthy man. Not after he shot, electrocuted, slammed, drowned, raped, fought, and tortured hundreds, if not thousands of innocent dogs. Asking Vick for genuine remorse is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer for genuine remorse, for their morbid and disgusting acts in which they took pleasure in are comparable.

No one should be comparing Vick to other criminals the NFL has embraced in the past. Vick is an entirely different case, for the amount of suffering he inflicted on the many innocent lives he tortured is unrivaled by any NFL player, past or present. If Vick plays in the NFL and he is cheered, every sadistic criminal in the world should be cheered for any good they do: The rapists, murderers, and robbers should all be applauded when they manage to contrive the word “sorry” from their lips.

Michael Vick will not get any cheers from me. In fact, I will protest wherever he plays; I will picket in whichever city he is playing in; and I will refuse to watch the NFL. Any league that promotes a man as bloodcurdling as Michael Vick is a league I want no part of.

This is not about being black, white, brown, or yellow. This is about, and only about, the ignorant monster that is Michael Vick. A life is a life. All animals feel pain comparable to what humans feel. And any man that would enjoy inflicting unfathomable amounts of pain on innocent dogs for recreation is not something I, or any other healthy man, can comprehend. I will not forgive or forget what Vick did.

Before I end this essay, I’d like to leave you with a quote from Leonardo Da Vinci, who was perhaps the smartest and most diverse man who ever lived. Da Vinci once said, “The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”

I love animals and I appreciate your well-articulated statement. Michael Vick is nothing more than a despicable human being and I could care less what happens to him. As said, in another post that he has paid his debt to society--he can never repay society for what he and others like have done and still, unfortunately, do.

[Eja117]

The point of the suspension is that it is a privilege to play in the NFL.  It is a right to be given a fair and speedy trial through the courts and as a citizen you have to accept their judgement.  However it is a privilege to play in the NFL.  They do not have to let him play ever again. 

I know they have that right, stop just playing devil's advocate you haven't made a single point you just contradict what I say.

The NFL can suspend a player permanently but why would they do it to Vick. Explain to me the logic behind that?

Again, does Goodell not think he was punished severely enough?

No he probably doesnt think he was punished enough, thats why he suspended him

And this is where I dissagree with the NFL. While they have the right to do this, its not right.

I think the league is just doing this out of a need for appearances. I'm thinking of protesting and boycotting if they don't let him play.

The man did nothing wrong at all. There, I said it.

If dog fighting could give a man a job and help put his kids through college go for it.

How many people were like "That Mike Vick is a sick sick man. How dare he kill a little doggie. Cmon kids. Let's go home and watch WWE"

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

[Fafnir]

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

People have a choice to participate in those sort of contests. The dogs didn't have any choice at all.

Also last I checked Ken Shamrock wasn't "put down" after he got to old to fight.

I agree that killing animals should not be as harshly punished as taking human life. But that arguments is shallow and silly.

[Rondo2287]

Wasnt it a fact that Michael wasnt even at most of the dog fights?

[Eja117]

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

People have a choice to participate in those sort of contests. The dogs didn't have any choice at all.

Also last I checked Ken Shamrock wasn't "put down" after he got to old to fight.

I agree that killing animals should not be as harshly punished as taking human life. But that arguments is shallow and silly.

Sure the dogs chose to fight
if dogs didn't fight naturally there wouldn't be dog fighting.

You don't hear about people watching worm fights

[Fafnir]

Wasnt it a fact that Michael wasnt even at most of the dog fights?

Yup, his problem was that he was the "big fish" for the feds. He also bankrolled the entire operation. Combine all that with being the last to cut a deal, he got the worst punishment.

He still personally was involved with the dogs much of the time as well, so its not like he didn't participate at pretty much every stage of the operation.

[Fafnir]

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

People have a choice to participate in those sort of contests. The dogs didn't have any choice at all.

Also last I checked Ken Shamrock wasn't "put down" after he got to old to fight.

I agree that killing animals should not be as harshly punished as taking human life. But that arguments is shallow and silly.

Sure the dogs chose to fight
if dogs didn't fight naturally there wouldn't be dog fighting.

You don't hear about people watching worm fights

They beat and tortue the dogs in cages until they are angry and agressive. Then they throw them into a pit with another dog. If they don't fight they're beaten some more.

The Romans did similar things to their captives and slaves, did they have a choice too?

[Eja117]

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

People have a choice to participate in those sort of contests. The dogs didn't have any choice at all.

Also last I checked Ken Shamrock wasn't "put down" after he got to old to fight.

I agree that killing animals should not be as harshly punished as taking human life. But that arguments is shallow and silly.

Sure the dogs chose to fight
if dogs didn't fight naturally there wouldn't be dog fighting.

You don't hear about people watching worm fights

They beat and tortue the dogs in cages until they are angry and agressive. Then they throw them into a pit with another dog. If they don't fight they're beaten some more.

The Romans did similar things to their captives and slaves, did they have a choice too?

Yes they did and there's some interesting stories about that.

[Fafnir]

Maybe we should actually focus on people fighting.

Hey wait. We have a league built on men clobbering each other and then they're all upset when one of them kills a dog. Hypocritical? Oh! Did you see that guy slam that dude's knee? Oh! I think that guy's gonna get a concusion!

People have a choice to participate in those sort of contests. The dogs didn't have any choice at all.

Also last I checked Ken Shamrock wasn't "put down" after he got to old to fight.

I agree that killing animals should not be as harshly punished as taking human life. But that arguments is shallow and silly.

Sure the dogs chose to fight
if dogs didn't fight naturally there wouldn't be dog fighting.

You don't hear about people watching worm fights

They beat and tortue the dogs in cages until they are angry and agressive. Then they throw them into a pit with another dog. If they don't fight they're beaten some more.

The Romans did similar things to their captives and slaves, did they have a choice too?

Yes they did and there's some interesting stories about that.

You truly are a fool to argue that victims have any meaningful choice in such situations.