In Defense of Michael Vick

[drew70]

For me personally, the issue has nothing at all to do with animal "rights." Animals don't need rights. They don't vote, they don't marry, and they don't need attourneys.

The issue has everything to do with our responsibility as keepers of animals. We're responsible for feeding them, watering them, showing them kindness and affection. Most of all we're responsible for protecting them, which by definition precludes any physical abuse.

What Michael Vick did was not a violation of animal rights. It was a violation of his responsibilities as a human being toward another species.

On a side note, anybody who says dogs don't love has never met my Shelby. As George Thorogood would say, "Lawd, she's lovey-dovey!" Dogs like Shelby not only love, but they love unconditionally. They can feel your emotions, too. Last year, when I found out my Dad had passed, I sat down and wept uncontrollably. Shelby came to me and gently licked my hand. Shelby is not a licker. This was not normal behavior for her. She knew I was upset and tried to comfort me. If you could have seen the look on her face, it was like she was saying, "don't cry, daddy."

Dogs are not people, but there is so much more to them than that for which people give them credit. They have personalities, moods, likes, and dislikes. They can get happy, sad, angry, jealous, and bored. And they communicate so much, if you know how to read them. They are wonderful creatures if you take the time to get to know them. To brutalize them by making them fight to near death, then finish them off; this can only be done by somebody entirely bereft of compassion. Somebody like that in my opinion is not fit to walk the Earth. Society is better off without such individuals.

 

[gluestick]

So these guys get a kick out of feeding a live mouse to a bunch of piranha. They probably could have just thrown a steak in the tank…so should they go to jail? Don’t watch if you’re squeamish:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DKShNDA2bV8&mode=related&search=

 

[Capnmad]

Dogs do not respect or love people...they are brainwashed and only obey to suit their needs.

Essentially the same argument is made about humans any time someone questions whether true altruism is indeed possible.

Also, when push comes to shove they'll kill and eat weaker animals to survive like any other carnivore would. However, it doesn’t stop there. I’ve seen countless squirrels and rabbits mauled to death just to satisfy the canine instinct of play. The same applies to cats that toy with mice before killing them and then casting them aside. Here’s my point- if blood sport is demonstrated by animals in nature then killing and torturing for entertainment's sake is part of natural law. Since humans are subject to natural law it follows that we should be able to kill lower/weaker life forms (not of our own species) for entertainment’s sake. So there it is- I’m a sicko.

You said it, not me. So we have an instinct to kill and torture for play unmitigated by conscience or empathy? Interesting. But why arbitrarily draw the line at our own species? I've seen countless animal films where members of the same species tear each other apart, sometimes kill each other, to satisfy the instinct to establish dominance... That falls under your logic, right? We're all subject to natural law, after all... Your taking exception to killing lower/weaker forms of life from our own species seems an artificial and arbitrary limit. You're actually providing an interesting (though profoundly warped) defense for murder...

But if you think its wrong to gamble on animal life remember it was our own government that tried to implement a little something called the “Policy Analysis Market” a few years back that would promote profit from the loss of human life.

Whew! Good thing government's never wrong! I don't know what that has to do with anything, really... Government makes poor decisions? It's poor decisions justify other poor decisions? What are you getting at?

 

[drew70]

So these guys get a kick out of feeding a live mouse to a bunch of piranha. They probably could have just thrown a steak in the tank…so should they go to jail?

People feed mice to snakes as well. Animals eat animals. In what way is this applicable to the Michael Vick scandal?

 

[gluestick]

People feed mice to snakes as well. Animals eat animals. In what way is this applicable to the Michael Vick scandal?

Its applicable because its being used as a form of entertainment, not just to feed piranha. i'm also questioning whether the act is wrong because the guy taunts the mouse before throwing it in the tank. Or would it only be wrong if they were gambling (i dunno, what piranha takes the first bite). Or is it only wrong if it was a dog thrown into a tank of sharks.

I'm just exploring where the line is drawn.

 

[gluestick]

Essentially the same argument is made about humans any time someone questions whether true altruism is indeed possible.



You said it, not me. So we have an instinct to kill and torture for play unmitigated by conscience or empathy? Interesting. But why arbitrarily draw the line at our own species? I've seen countless animal films where members of the same species tear each other apart, sometimes kill each other, to satisfy the instinct to establish dominance... That falls under your logic, right? We're all subject to natural law, after all... Your taking exception to killing lower/weaker forms of life from our own species seems an artificial and arbitrary limit. You're actually providing an interesting (though profoundly warped) defense for murder...



Whew! Good thing government's never wrong! I don't know what that has to do with anything, really... Government makes poor decisions? It's poor decisions justify other poor decisions? What are you getting at?

Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate...got to use my minor in philosophy somehow. I drew the line for our species because thats a whole other can of warms and I'm not dark or naive enough to rationalize the killing of people. And I mentioned the PAM because the government prosecutes gambling while upholding it on a more sinister level. Sorry if it seems I strayed off topic.

 

[isabeau]

Its applicable because its being used as a form of entertainment, not just to feed piranha. i'm also questioning whether the act is wrong because the guy taunts the mouse before throwing it in the tank. Or would it only be wrong if they were gambling (i dunno, what piranha takes the first bite). Or is it only wrong if it was a dog thrown into a tank of sharks.

I'm just exploring where the line is drawn.

to me it's wrong no matter what the form or what the purpose used..and i pity anyone who views this as some form of entertainment..they must be truly sick..

drew70 i know how you feel about your Shelby...the same can be said for cats..they have moods..they have feelings..

 

[Heeko]

Where is the OP? Sorry, but unlike lots of members here I do have a life away from my computer. What I do find laughable is that some members here equate post merit with post count. Big difference.

Debate? There is no debate. Vick is guilty. We all know that. Neither myself, any member of this forum, Matlock, Perry Mason or the guy on Boston Legal would say differently. The point of my post was to raise the issue and allow members to express how they feel on the subject. If I had made a post stating Vick is Guilty, would anyone even bother? Given the number of responses, to which I thank every member who contributed, I would say my post was successful.

Just two points in parting. First, no one here knows exactly, what specifically, Vick actually did. There was no trial, there was no testimony. A guilty plea does not tell anyone what the exact, specific crime was outside of the obviously stated. Vick was part of a 'collective effort' in what happened to those unfortunate dogs. 'Collective effort' could mean anything.

If you are outside a bank in a parked car with the engine runnning and two of your friends rob that bank and leave with you, you are part of a 'collective effort'. Yet you did not actually lift a gun, threaten, or technically, rob anyone. But the media will say as much as you did. Once caught you will more than likely plead guilty just as Vick did and probably say you did nothing, just as Vick did. But still, no one but you and those involved knows exactly what your 'collective effort' was.

I also find it interesting that no one, outside my original post, mentioned the good that Vick has done. He has contributed millions of dollars to the Atlanta community, brought millions of dollars into the Atlanta economy, brought millions of dollars into the NFL and given back to Virginia Tech University so that others may receive a better education and up to this point served as a role model to kids and aspiring college athletes.

Some may say what he did doesn't matter and means nothing now. To each their opinions. I choose not to judge that harshly and try to take everything into consideration when making a decision about someone. If I know a friend for 5 years and they make a stupid, very wrong, even criminal decision it would never erase the fact they are my friend and also never erase the good, right things they have done in that five years.

Some ask why did Vick say he did nothing wrong, then after he got caught admit he did? I can't answer for him and won't try. I can only ask how many times have you seen a kid break a toy and when you asked, what did you do? They look down and their first word is usually "nothing".

No, Vick isn't a kid and he knew better. My point is he was afraid. Just like someone would be knowing they just got caught. Vick isn't alone. How many others convicted have claimed innocence, only to be proven differently?

My biggest regret in this issue are the animals involved. As David Letterman joked, "The Atlanta Falcons are asking for the 22 million dollars from Michael Vick." After the audience applauded, he added "Imagine what the dogs will be asking for."

To reiterate, what happened to those dogs was horrible, wrong and yes, even cowardly. But most here seem to be judging Vick as if he has single handedly killed each one of them personally. We simply do not know that as fact.

Nothing we can say or do will ever bring back the lives of those dogs. But, in my opinion, to judge Vick without knowing the true facts of everything and totally discount anything he has done in life before this issue seems to me the one doing so is putting animal life before human life, or at least on the same level.

And has been said many times in this thread, animals and humans are not equal. No dog will ever give millions to a community. No dog will ever give millions in order to help education. No dog will ever do the good that Vick has done. But dogs will kill innocent defenseless children.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

With all the talk of Michael Vick and how much everyone hates him, I wanted to try a twist and actually defend him.

First, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not agree with or condone his actions. That said, here's my defense of Michael Vick.

Michael Vick is human. He made a huge mistake. That mistake cost him millions of dollars. Like anyone convicted he will serve time. Michael Vick is not saying he is innocent. He is only asking forgiveness. He is not saying he should not serve time for his crime. He is only asking we forgive him during and after he has served that time.

No one on this planet is perfect. At some time in our lives we all have done something we regret. We all have used poor judgment and made poor decisions.

What exactly did Michael Vick do that was so horrible, so terrible and so horrendous? For most it's the fact he murdered dogs. For those who think this one act is so sickeningly threatening to society, I ask you this: How many of us had hamburger last night? Chicken? Steak? That means that somewhere, somehow, someone murdered an animal. Somewhere a cow, pig or chicken got slaughtered, murdered and put through acts that would probably make what Michael Vick did seem humane.

Which brings up another point. He and his partners in crime "murdered" these dogs for performing poorly in the dogfights. The dogs they murdered were probably bleeding profusely, suffering with huge gashes and cuts and writhing in agony as they died. Truth be known, Vick and his partners actually did these dogs a favor, much like putting down a horse with a broken leg to stop the suffering.

I know there are some that say he took a life. This is true. But it was the life of an animal. No different than the life of the dinner most of us ate last night. There's a huge difference in killing a dog, a cat or animal than killing another human. For those who say there isn't, then why aren't slaughter house employees doing time? Why don't they throw hunters in jail? They are killing innocent, non threatening animals every day.

Then there's the argument these people are killing to provide food and sustain life. Wrong. Anyway you look at it, they are no better than Michael Vick. They are killing an innocent animal life for their own gain and profit.

There's a huge difference in what Michael Vick did in killing suffering dogs that in reality were probably going to die anyway, than if he had taken a five year old girl out in his backyard and put a gun to her head. That's a human life. Would you want a murderer that commited that crime doing the same sentence as Michael Vick?

Ok now let's take a look at the positive that Michael Vick has done. He's helped charities and organizations in Atlanta. He's given time and money to Virginia Tech to help improve and further the education of those less fortunate. He's always been there when the people of Atlanta have needed him. His football jersey is the highest selling jersey in Atlanta Falcons history. Until now, he has been a role model for the youth of Atlanta.

Michael Vick has admitted his mistake. He will serve his time. He made horrible wrong decisions and got involved with the wrong people. He has since made peace with himself and turned to religion. He has vowed to redeem himself once he has served his sentence.

In closing I ask you this: If you were Michael Vick, what would you do and how would you feel? You would be ashamed, scared and in need of a friend.

He has admitted his crime. He will serve his time. It's easy to back someone when they are on top but a lot more difficult when they are at rock bottom.

Are you trying to tell me that Michael Vick and his buddies ate the dogs for dinner??? There is a difference. The fact is, that cows and pigs and chickens are raised with the idea of breeding for food. Michael Vick did not do that. You said that he was human in puting them out of their misery when they were in pain. Then why not shot them. It is quick and easy. He drown them. Certainly having a dog under water for let's say a minute and a half to three minutes or whatever it takes for a dog to run out of oxygen and ingest enough water to drown is NOT merciful. And my opinion is he admitted to it only because there was not chose. His friends were all going to roll over on him. Plus when it is going in front of a FEDERAL COURT there is little hope for success. His lawyers said, " Mike, you are in deep doggie doo-doo. Better cop a plea and beg America and PETA and others for forgiveness." And so that is exactly what he did. You believe what want to believe. I will not tell you he is a bad guy or a good guy. But when he gets out of jail maybe he will be a wiser man and I do hope he is able to start up his career again.

 

[lk70]

I believe that even those people who don't care one way or another about animal rights should consider the fact that in order for this society to be a humane society (if you'll excuse the expression), people should not be torturing or indiscriminately killing innocent creatures. We lose part of our humanity if we do.

Amen.

 

[Heeko]

If anyone can post exactly, what specifically Michael Vick did in the "collective effort" please do. I do not mean in general, i.e. he killed a bunch of dogs.. I mean, exactly, precisely what and how Michael Vick did it. That I would like to know. Thanks in advance.

 

[isabeau]

dogs not giving millions...case in point...ms Hemsley left all her millions to her dog..so i suppose that dog is now worth his or her life in gold..

but by all means worship Vicks...he might as well have killed those animals..he was involved..

 

[Heeko]

dogs not giving millions...case in point...ms Hemsley left all her millions to her dog..so i suppose that dog is now worth his or her life in gold..

And two of her grandchildren got zero. That tells you where her priorities are.

Let's see that dog go to the bank and write a check to a university. One dog in a billion who had some looney owner means nothing.

 

[isabeau]

And two of her grandchildren got zero. That tells you where her priorities are.

Let's see that dog go to the bank and write a check to a university. One dog in a billion who had some looney owner means nothing.

hmm the grandchildren were probably just panting for that money too bad for them...and hmm how do you know the dog can't write a check? dogs are smart..give them credit..

 

[Capnmad]

Where is the OP? Sorry, but unlike lots of members here I do have a life away from my computer. What I do find laughable is that some members here equate post merit with post count. Big difference.

I make no such association. I just find it laughable to provoke and walk away. Welcome back. Glad you could re-join the debate you started.

I find it laughable that you assume those who noted you posted a knowingly provocative message and left have no lives because they post more than you do. It may not be the best assumption to enter with.


Anyway, in your first post, you presented your attempt to defend for what he did, or what it's believed he's done. That was a challenge. Good for you. In your second post, the bulk of it was a defense on the basis that while he's pled guilty of something, we don't know what he's done, so we can't judge. That's a completely different "defense". It's something anyone could say, offers no challenge, and adds nothing to your argument (hence I'm ignoring it). Which are you arguing? Pick a defense and go with it. Don't backpeddle and change stances. If you're going to defend something, go all the way.

I don't mean to be unduly harsh in my criticism of your argument style, but I call it as I see it.

I also find it interesting that no one, outside my original post, mentioned the good that Vick has done. He has contributed millions of dollars to the Atlanta community, brought millions of dollars into the Atlanta economy, brought millions of dollars into the NFL and given back to Virginia Tech University so that others may receive a better education and up to this point served as a role model to kids and aspiring college athletes.

That's your role to bring up as defendant/Devil's Advocate. That's why you started this thread. Don't expect others to do it for you. I find it interesting that you thought they would.

And has been said many times in this thread, animals and humans are not equal. No dog will ever give millions to a community. No dog will ever give millions in order to help education. No dog will ever do the good that Vick has done. But dogs will kill innocent defenseless children.

Yep. They'll never earn millions for throwing or catching a football, nor be able to donate their millions to charity. Damn them. I mean, damn me for the same reasons, but damn them for their lack of opposable thumbs and inability to understand a "Statue of Liberty Play" or how to speak English...

And yes, dogs will kill innocent, defenseless children -- if trained to do what Michael Vick and friends trained innocent, defenseless dogs to do. "Thankfully", he killed them for having done what he trained them to do after it was seen they couldn't be quite as efficient killers as others. That Vick's a saint!

Of course, some dogs might actually do something nice once in a while, not that I'd expect you to bring that up because that's not your job in this, but here's some things Mr. Vick hasn't done, if we want to argue it that way:

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200505/20050519/slide_20050519_108.jhtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13439261/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/14/earlyshow/main688146.shtml

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/01/1070127348745.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/17/sica.cnna/index.html

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0104/articles/010415a.htm

http://publicsafety.com/article/article.jsp?id=4815&siteSection=19

http://goodanimalnews.com/dog-puppy/629-life-saving-dog-awarded-for-bravery.html

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0204/articles/020424a.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Newfoundland:-Life-Saving-Dog&id=200757

 

[jugner]

I saw Billl O'reilly talking with a PETA spokeswoman last night, he asked about a comment a guy had made on another show. The guy said that this crime was worse than K. Bryant's attempted rape, both legally and the crime was just more horrific. O'reilly asked her if that was PETA's stance. She said no, that as bad as this was, 99% of PETA's members would never say violence towards animals is on the same level as violence toward humans.

If you see a roach, you step on it. Roaches aren't dogs,but dogs aren't humans either. Micheal Vick is sick and did a horrible thing. But this does not compare to the rape of a child or even an assault on any human.

 

[Heeko]

I make no such association. I just find it laughable to provoke and walk away. Welcome back. Glad you could re-join the debate you started.

Debate? There is no debate. Vick is guilty. We all know that. Neither myself, any member of this forum, Matlock, Perry Mason or the guy on Boston Legal would say differently. The point of my post was to raise the issue and allow members to express how they feel on the subject. If I had made a post stating Vick is Guilty, would anyone even bother? Given the number of responses, to which I thank every member who contributed, I would say my post was successful.

I never 'provoked' anything and walked away. That's quite an assumption in itself.

I find it laughable that you assume those who noted you posted a knowingly provocative message and left have no lives because they post more than you do. It may not be the best assumption to enter with.

No different than the assumption I was given. We can call that one even.

Anyway, in your first post, you presented your attempt to defend for what he did, or what it's believed he's done. That was a challenge. Good for you. In your second post, the bulk of it was a defense on the basis that while he's pled guilty of something, we don't know what he's done, so we can't judge. That's a completely different "defense". It's something anyone could say, offers no challenge, and adds nothing to your argument (hence I'm ignoring it). Which are you arguing? Pick a defense and go with it. Don't backpeddle and change stances. If you're going to defend something, go all the way.

Ignore what you choose. Seems lots of people are doing that in this issue, especially all the good Michael Vick has done in his life. That's one of the main points I was making to begin with.

That's your role to bring up as defendant/Devil's Advocate. That's why you started this thread. Don't expect others to do it for you. I find it interesting that you thought they would.

What I do expect is for people to look at different angles and possibilities. It's called reasoning. I simply offered that angle. I wasn't the one that didn't bring it up. I shouldn't have to draw pictures for people to think outside the box, especially on such a complex issue.

Yep. They'll never earn millions for throwing or catching a football, nor be able to donate their millions to charity. Damn them. I mean, damn me for the same reasons, but damn them for their lack of opposable thumbs and inability to understand a "Statue of Liberty Play" or how to speak English...

Wow. You stated the obvious. You just proved beyond doubt that humans have far superior abilities, can actually think and comprehend more than animals, and basically live a more useful and productive life than animals. Good for you. Now you see my point.

And yes, dogs will kill innocent, defenseless children -- if trained to do what Michael Vick and friends trained innocent, defenseless dogs to do.

I know lots of dogs that have mauled, killed and tortured kids to death with no training period. They felt threatened and attacked. Period. So they took it out on defenseless little kids who were unfortunately playing in the yard at the time the dog decided they were such a vicious threat.

That isn't what this issue is about. I simply made the point that no dog will ever do the good that Vick has done in his life. But they are capable of doing the bad he's done.

"Thankfully", he killed them for having done what he trained them to do after it was seen they couldn't be quite as efficient killers as others. That Vick's a saint!

List me specifics of how many, how and where he killed them. Show me in print precisely and specifically how many dogs Michael Vick personally killed. Not how many the 'collective effort' killed. How many Vick himself killed.

Of course, some dogs might actually do something nice once in a while, not that I'd expect you to bring that up because that's not your job in this, but here's some things Mr. Vick hasn't done, if we want to argue it that way:

Meaningless dribble. What dogs did on Oprah has nothing at all to do with this issue.

 

[Redmage]

List me specifics of how many, how and where he killed them. Show me in print precisely and specifically how many dogs Michael Vick personally killed. Not how many the 'collective effort' killed. How many Vick himself killed.

Why does this matter? Is he somehow a better person because he has people to do that for him? Or do you suppose that several dogs that Vick had paid good money for were executed over the course of several years without his knowledge and consent?

Delegating these crimes to other people doesn't make Vick a bit better.

 

[Heeko]

Why does this matter? Is he somehow a better person because he has people to do that for him? Or do you suppose that several dogs that Vick had paid good money for were executed over the course of several years without his knowledge and consent?

Delegating these crimes to other people doesn't make Vick a bit better.

First, no one here knows exactly, what specifically, Vick actually did. There was no trial, there was no testimony. A guilty plea does not tell anyone what the exact, specific crime was outside of the obviously stated. Vick was part of a 'collective effort' in what happened to those unfortunate dogs. 'Collective effort' could mean anything.

If you are outside a bank in a parked car with the engine runnning and two of your friends rob that bank and leave with you, you are part of a 'collective effort'. Yet you did not actually lift a gun, threaten, or technically, rob anyone. But the media will say as much as you did. Once caught you will more than likely plead guilty just as Vick did and probably say you did nothing, just as Vick did. But still, no one but you and those involved knows exactly what your 'collective effort' was.

My point being, we simply do not know all the facts Redmage. It's my understanding the extent to which our justice system evaluates someone in a given crime is dependent on the facts.

Does it make him a better person? No. To each their opinions. I choose not to judge that harshly and try to take everything into consideration when making a decision about someone. If I know a friend for 5 years and they make a stupid, very wrong, even criminal decision it would never erase the fact they are my friend and also never erase the good, right things they have done in that five years.

I want facts before I put a rope around someone's neck. This is 2007 not the wild west.

 

[Capnmad]

I never 'provoked' anything and walked away. That's quite an assumption in itself.

You walked away long enough to make more than just me wonder. This place is known to have the occasional hit-and-run troll. As of my statement welcoming you back, my assumption that that was all you were was over. I applauded you returning.

No different than the assumption I was given. We can call that one even.

Okey-dokey. 🙂

Ignore what you choose. Seems lots of people are doing that in this issue. That's one of the main points I was making to begin with.

People can't be blamed for ignoring a point that hadn't been brought up before. It wasn't there to ignore.

That's your role to bring up as defendant/Devil's Advocate. That's why you started this thread. Don't expect others to do it for you. I find it interesting that you thought they would.

What I do expect is for people to look at different angles and possibilities. It's called reasoning. I simply offered that angle. I shouldn't have to draw pictures for people to think outside the box, especially on such a complex issue.

That's the burden you take as Devil's Advocate -- to get people to consider the alternative. You hadn't presented that angle (all the good stuff he's done) until now. It's up to you to present it, not for them to do it for you. They will and have reasoned as they will. That you want to bring up a point that no one else has yet doesn't make what you do reasoning and what someone else does not reasoning.

Wow. You stated the obvious. You just proved beyond doubt that humans have far superior abilities, can actually think and comprehend more than animals, and basically live a more useful and productive life than animals. Good for you. Now you see my point.

Definitions of "useful" and "productive" aside, I've known your point, but it's a poor one. I've stated the facts that dogs have no opposable thumbs, can't speak English, and won't understand what a "Statue of Liberty Play" is. There's a big difference between that and what you suggest I've done. In any event, I "basically live a more useful and productive life" than the mentally disabled, by your standards. Should they be afforded less respect and understanding than I?

I know lots of dogs that have mauled, killed and tortured kids to death with no training period. They felt threatened and attacked. Period. So they took it out on defenseless little kids who were unfortunately playing in the yard at the time the dog decided they were such a vicious threat.

Ironically, I know a lot of children who have mauled each other, and would have killed each other, had they not been stopped, for much the same reasons. They felt threatened and attacked. Period. So they took it out on other kids, sometimes adults, some defenseless, some not. They were also not trained to do it. Does it in any way justify their being killed? Does it in anyway condemn the wider population of children?

Your argument that some dogs will kill doesn't justify Mike Vick killing dogs. Again, I don't know where you're going with that.

List me specifics of how many, how and where he killed them. Show me in print precisely and specifically how many dogs Michael Vick personally killed. Not how many the 'collective effort' killed. How many Vick himself killed.

You're welcome to tell me. Clearly you'd know better than I. You were working on that very presupposition in your first post:

What exactly did Michael Vick do that was so horrible, so terrible and so horrendous? For most it's the fact he murdered dogs.

also:

I know there are some that say he took a life. This is true. But it was the life of an animal.

I'm going to argue the things you present, and offer my angle and my views. You presented that he murdered dogs. And you called it a fact. I'm going to argue based on the grounds you offer. Don't expect me or anyone else to argue around that, pretending you didn't say it, and don't try to pull away the very grounds you laid out for argument.

Meaningless dribble. What dogs did on Oprah has nothing at all to do with this issue.

What Vick did for Atlanta has equal bearing. If that's "meaningless dribble" to you, why did you bring it up?

I must get back to cleaning, but will return later to see your response. Good debating you. 🙂

 

[Heeko]

Your argument that some dogs will kill doesn't justify Mike Vick killing dogs. Again, I don't know where you're going with that.

My point being that dogs will never do the good that Vick has done in his lifetime. But they are capable of doing the bad he's done.

I'm going to argue the things you present, and offer my angle and my views. You presented that he murdered dogs. And you called it a fact. I'm going to argue based on the grounds you offer. Don't expect me or anyone else to argue around that, pretending you didn't say it, and don't try to pull away the very grounds you laid out for argument.

I need not pretend nor deny anything. I stand by my statement and why shouldn't I? Mike Vick did murder dogs as part of a 'collective effort'. Fact. What's unclear is when, how many or even how? And as my original post stated this is what bothers most about this issue. What happened was wrong, but I'm not going to judge or label anyone for life for being with the wrong crowd at the wrong time and making very poor sad decisions. I never said Vick was innocent and I never said he was not guilty. If that were so he wouldn't be going to prison. What point exactly are you trying to argue?

What Vick did for Atlanta has equal bearing. If that's "meaningless dribble" to you, why did you bring it up?

I brought it up because everyone seems to be ignoring all the good Vick has done for society. The good, kind, innocent dogs were never the issue as you presented. I also pointed out that dogs are capable of doing as much an injustice and cruel act as Vick. Dogs have their rightful place and some do contribute in their own way. But there's a reason the police force labels them 'expendable' in critical situations.

Btw, lol @ your children attacking other children. That was amusing given the subject of this talk.

Good cleaning my friend and thanks for the welcome. I knew the title of In Defense Of Michael Vick would get someone's attention. You and other members have given me reason to continue my stay here. Thank you.

 

[isabeau]

why is someone considered a troll simply because his opinion doesn't match your own?

 

[ShadowTklr]

The Sum Of Many Evils????

Notwithstanding what will ultimately be decided as Vick's fate in court, I can't help but wonder why someone like himself would find this level of cruelty to be an acceptable measure of entertainment.

Then it occurs to me that we do this kind of shit for sport every day. And what we don't perpetrate against animals in this country, we still sanction in other countries.

Bulls come to mind as an animal that really gets the shit end of the stick in life. They are killed for food and exploited for sport in the most cruel and sadistic way.

I'm referring, of course, to Bullfighting. Bullfighting is absolutely no better than what Vick did or had done to those dogs. The bull is first driven to distraction with cruel taunting by a sadistic Matador who incites the bull's ire with a red cloth in order to get it to charge. It would be one thing if the sole purpose of this was to see how long a Matador could stay in the ring with the bull, but it doesn't stop there.

When the bull is satisfactorily frustrated to the cheers of the crowd, he is then stabbed repeatedly in the neck muscles by swords driven into his flesh by the Matador as he continues to charge at the beckoning of what will now be his executioner. Finally, when the poor animal can no longer lift his head and is bleeding and gasping in pain and hostility, the Matador "does the bull a favor," and drives the final sword into the bulls head.

Here, in North Carolina, torturing dogs to death is considered a fiscally sound alternative to a more gentle form of euthanasia. The heartless bastards that run some of the pounds down here have an interesting way of killing dogs that are no longer wanted. They figure that a euthanizing injection is too expensive, so instead, they lock the dogs in a compression chamber, and suck out all the air, allowing the dogs to suffocate slowly in excruciating pain and terrible fear.

So, is Vick's behavior detestable? Absolutely yes; but let us not forget that society gives this kind of savagery it's own seal of approval through our constant examples of bloodlust in everyday life - animals are merely the beginning of our outreach for violence, pain and death.

ALL HAIL THE HUMAN RACE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[isabeau]

damn best post i've read on this thread...as always Shadowtklr..you make the most sense ever...o yea we are a great race... spot on Shadow my friend..spot on..

i've missed you and your well thought out and intelligent posts..

 

[lk70]

why is someone considered a troll simply because his opinion doesn't match your own?

It was suggested that Heeko might be a troll because he posted once then disappeared for quite awhile. Now that he's back and posting, it would seem evident he is not a troll.

And here's my theory. Neither Capnmad nor Heeko is terribly passionate about this argument (or if they are, that's still not the point here.) I think what we've got here is two people who are passionate about debate for the sake of debate.

For a minute, I thought maybe it was one person with two screen names.