F the Michael Vick apologists!

[84needs1000yds]

Vick loved the pain, anguish, and abject terror he subjected other living things to. It was gratifying for him. It was an enjoyable part of his life of wealth and priviledge. Just think about all those dogs howling and screaming as Vick tortured them for months, perhaps years, all the way from birth, to thier eventual horrific deaths. If you can defend or somhow morally excuse Vick's acts, then, you seriously need to re-evaluate the reading on your moral compass.

How do you know he enjoyed that, maybe I am not as well versed on the issue, but I know he was not the only involved with raising these dogs, and I do not think he loved torturing these animals. He enjoyed the blood thirsty sport that brought money into his pocket, but I highly doubt you speak from experience.

 

[dlockz]

My stance on Vick and the whole issue is pretty well known I think. I'll try to condense it into short bullet points.

1. If you can seriously sit here and tell me that you see absolutely no moral difference in a hunter shooting a duck/deer/squirrel/etc for food and Vick puchasing, breeding, systematically torturing and, then, killing these dogs in the most horrific ways imaginable, then I'd say that you have some major issues discerning morality at all. All the hunters I know take great pains to ensure they take their quarry in one shot, instantly. They don't take glee in the abject suffering of an animal just for their own pleasure.

2. I hope Vick never plays in the NFL again. Will he? Probably. What I hope in a realistic sense happens is that Goodell suspends him for a year. Just like suspensions happen to other players who commit crimes. That way that puts him out of the NFL for three years, which is better than two. He should be allowed to work again, and, even play football again. I just hope it's never in the NFL. He'd do great in the CFL, and, since I don't watch it, that's fine.

3. Vick violated a fundamental law of nature. He violated the trust I believe exists between man and other living things. Man is the steward of the earth. We don't always do the best of jobs, but, we are. All of earth's creaures, we also hold dominion over. That does not mean we can willy-nilly do as we please. I live in the country and always have. Mice get in the house quite often. I have to eliminate them. I do not capture them and torture them. I get snap traps and try to end thier existance as painlessly as possible in order to preserve the health and welfare of my family. It give me no joy to do this.

Vick loved the pain, anguish, and abject terror he subjected other living things to. It was gratifying for him. It was an enjoyable part of his life of wealth and priviledge. Just think about all those dogs howling and screaming as Vick tortured them for months, perhaps years, all the way from birth, to thier eventual horrific deaths. If you can defend or somhow morally excuse Vick's acts, then, you seriously need to re-evaluate the reading on your moral compass.

Most people in the united states hunt for the sport of it not the food aspect and you know this.

As for your enjoyment aspects thats your opinion but far from fact. If all Vick wanted to do was torture and kill dogs he has no need to fight dogs.
This is all apart of the dogfighting culture period not just michael vick.

i respect your opinion though

 

[GoonBoss]

It's extremists like you who make me want to stop at the pound on the way home and pick up a couple of strays for dinner. (a bit over the top, but you get my point)

Bumpus, if you stopped at the pound and got a couple of dogs for dinner, I would not have a moral issue with that. Many cultures use dogs as we use cows, etc. As long as the animals are treated humanely and killed humanely, I have no issue with it. I've lived in a rural setting my whole life. I've had to kill dogs before (Remember ol' Yeller?) but I've never tortured another living creature in my life strictly for the fun of it.

 

[dlockz]

these thing are done to dogs to make them fighting dogs. Dogs do not just instinctively try to kill each other no matter the breed. This is just another reason I dont buy that Porter had dogs that just happened to kill a minature horse. This is not just something a regular dog will do especially considering the size of the animal.

There is no evidence that dogfighters get a perverse pleasure from the things they do to make them mean. They seem to get pleasure from the actual fight and the fame it makes them for having the baddest dog.


As for killing the animals Im sure they did it the most economical way possible. Many times losing dogs are destroyed for various reasons. Im sure he did not just take his time killing animals for enjoyment.

 

[GoonBoss]

Most people in the united states hunt for the sport of it not the food aspect and you know this.

As for your enjoyment aspects thats your opinion but far from fact. If all Vick wanted to do was torture and kill dogs he has no need to fight dogs.
This is all apart of the dogfighting culture period not just michael vick.

i respect your opinion though

And I have stated my opinion on trophy hunting. It is morally repellant to me in every way. However, again, there is a vast moral difference between taking an animal that has lived it's whole life in it's natural habitat (And has every chance to get away) in a swift descisive stroke, than to systematically torture and kill an animal for no other reason than it pleases you to.

All dogfighting culture and the people that do it are sociopaths. I realize that the point of the torture was "training". If you enjoy dog fighting, you enjoy the "training". You get your rocks off making these animals suffer, in hopes of them being able to fight and kill another animal who has had the same done to it.

Every person that engages in this sort of behavior, I hold the same opinion of. Yes...That includes Joey Porter...Though, the difference between the two is that it is uncontested fact that he did it. Even though there is no doubt in my mind Porter has, he has not admitted it to the extent Vick has (Though he has alluded to it). If Joey Porter was suspended tomorrow I'd have no issue with it.

 

[Astrosback]

Bumpus, if you stopped at the pound and got a couple of dogs for dinner, I would not have a moral issue with that. Many cultures use dogs as we use cows, etc. As long as the animals are treated humanely and killed humanely, I have no issue with it. I've lived in a rural setting my whole life. I've had to kill dogs before (Remember ol' Yeller?) but I've never tortured another living creature in my life strictly for the fun of it.

Yeah - we gotta keep in mind what a sick **** Vick must be to have had (ADMITTEDLY) not only watched and profited off of dog fights but the killing of the weaker dogs dogs via electrocutions and drowning and hanging from trees!!! That's some sick sh*t.

Does the NFL really need a guy like that in the league?

Again, other should've also been banned for life (Leonard Little, Pacman, etc.) but just b/c the league f'd up in not banning them, doesn't mean the league should keep making the same mistake.

 

[Astrosback]

And I have stated my opinion on trophy hunting. It is morally repellant to me in every way. However, again, there is a vast moral difference between taking an animal that has lived it's whole life in it's natural habitat (And has every chance to get away) in a swift descisive stroke, than to systematically torture and kill an animal for no other reason than it pleases you to.

All dogfighting culture and the people that do it are sociopaths. I realize that the point of the torture was "training". If you enjoy dog fighting, you enjoy the "training". You get your rocks off making these animals suffer, in hopes of them being able to fight and kill another animal who has had the same done to it.

Every person that engages in this sort of behavior, I hold the same opinion of. Yes...That includes Joey Porter...Though, the difference between the two is that it is uncontested fact that he did it. Even though there is no doubt in my mind Porter has, he has not admitted it to the extent Vick has (Though he has alluded to it). If Joey Porter was suspended tomorrow I'd have no issue with it.

You know it has been well documents by the FBI's serial killer profiling unit that many serial killers start off as animal abusers.

That kid in Kentucky who shot up his middle school a bunch of years ago (right around the time of Columbine) had reportedly burned his family dog alive.

You just have to have absolutely zero heart to do what Vick & Co. did.

 

[NYinBostonFin]

Yeah - we gotta keep in mind what a sick **** Vick must be to have had (ADMITTEDLY) not only watched and profited off of dog fights but the killing of the weaker dogs dogs via electrocutions and drowning and hanging from trees!!! That's some sick sh*t.

Does the NFL really need a guy like that in the league?

Again, other should've also been banned for life (Leonard Little, Pacman, etc.) but just b/c the league f'd up in not banning them, doesn't mean the league should keep making the same mistake.

It doesn't mean we should start our banning with a dog killer that served his time and is apologetic. There are others that have done wrong to humans that are not so remorseful that we can start with.

 

[NYinBostonFin]

You know it has been well documents by the FBI's serial killer profiling unit that many serial killers start off as animal abusers.

That kid in Kentucky who shot up his middle school a bunch of years ago (right around the time of Columbine) had reportedly burned his family dog alive.

You just have to have absolutely zero heart to do what Vick & Co. did.

So, now Vick is a serial killer?

 

[dlockz]

And I have stated my opinion on trophy hunting. It is morally repellant to me in every way. However, again, there is a vast moral difference between taking an animal that has lived it's whole life in it's natural habitat (And has every chance to get away) in a swift descisive stroke, than to systematically torture and kill an animal for no other reason than it pleases you to.

All dogfighting culture and the people that do it are sociopaths. I realize that the point of the torture was "training". If you enjoy dog fighting, you enjoy the "training". You get your rocks off making these animals suffer, in hopes of them being able to fight and kill another animal who has had the same done to it.

Every person that engages in this sort of behavior, I hold the same opinion of. Yes...That includes Joey Porter...Though, the difference between the two is that it is uncontested fact that he did it. Even though there is no doubt in my mind Porter has, he has not admitted it to the extent Vick has (Though he has alluded to it). If Joey Porter was suspended tomorrow I'd have no issue with it.

I would not equate to dealing with a man with a rifle as having a fair chance to get away. As for trophy hunting , just because they eat the animal does not make it less repellant. Very few people hunt for need of food, its about the enjoyment. I detest hunters and dogfighters but admit I dislike dogfighting worse because it hits closer to home. I still think people that are looking at Vick like he is Dahmer are way off. If he just went around killing any dogs I could see it but this was all within the confines of his dogfighting.

 

[GoonBoss]

these thing are done to dogs to make them fighting dogs. Dogs do not just instinctively try to kill each other no matter the breed. This is just another reason I dont buy that Porter had dogs that just happened to kill a minature horse. This is not just something a regular dog will do especially considering the size of the animal.

There is no evidence that dogfighters get a perverse pleasure from the things they do to make them mean. They seem to get pleasure from the actual fight and the fame it makes them for having the baddest dog.


As for killing the animals Im sure they did it the most economical way possible. Many times losing dogs are destroyed for various reasons. Im sure he did not just take his time killing animals for enjoyment.

Dogfighting is a passtime. If these guys also enjoyed the time they took hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, or cutting themselves, or perhaps electrocuting themselves I'd buy that they don't get pleasure from the act of doing these things to another living thing.

As far as dogs not instinctually killing each other or other living things.....That's simply not true. Dogs are pack animals by nature. The relationship between man and dog is an extension of the pack dynamic. I take in stray dogs. They socialize fine, but, occasionally, they do not. I've had to separate some of the dogs because they want to kill each other because of their place in the pack.

Even the most domesticated dogs, once they get together and in a pack, can and, will take down larger/smaller animals. This is why, minus the torture, I could nearly morally excuse dogfighting the way I excuse trophy hunting. If you treat your dog humanely until the point where you take them to fight another dog.....Ok...I'm not ok with it, but, like trophy hunting I can *almost* go there with you. That and if a dog is to be killed, there are ways to instantly do that...Not electrocute them or drown them to they are in abject terror in thier last moments.

 

[burger13]

So it's easier for you to poke fun and blame PETA extremists than just hold Vick responsible for being an animal torturer and support keeing him out of the league?

Why not show some moral fortitude?

holding Vick responsible for his crimes and wanting him banned from the NFL are not the same thing...they don't go together.

I do hold him responsible for his crimes, and thought he should go to jail and serve whatever time the judicial system determined.

He's done that so I wish no further punishment on the man....there's my mroal stand...if it doesn't meet the standards of dog-loving extremists such as yourself, I just have to find a way to live with myself.

 

[84needs1000yds]

You know it has been well documents by the FBI's serial killer profiling unit that many serial killers start off as animal abusers.

That kid in Kentucky who shot up his middle school a bunch of years ago (right around the time of Columbine) had reportedly burned his family dog alive.

You just have to have absolutely zero heart to do what Vick & Co. did.

So Vick is now a Serial Killer? The instance you state above just prove the Kid had a lot of issues, does not mean everyone who abuses dogs is going to be a serial killer or a murder of humans.

Truth is, dog fighting is horrific, and is a sick twisted sport, that requires animals to do a certain task they don't willing want to do. Sounds to me like all sports involving animals is the same thing. **** fights, Hoarse racing, Dog racing, bull riding (Rodeos) and bull fighting. Vick is at fault, he got caught paid his price, but I highly doubt he turns into a serial killer, or took pleasure in torturing the dogs.

 

[Astrosback]

It doesn't mean we should start our banning with a dog killer that served his time and is apologetic. There are others that have done wrong to humans that are not so remorseful that we can start with.

So we disagree. I think the league indeed should've "started with" others before Vick (like some of the guys we also mentioned) but since it didn't, I think Vick would be a good place to start.

Even though we don't agree, you know there are A LOT of people who agree with me. We are not PETA extremists. We are just dog-loving NFL fans and the NFL should ban Vick b/c it is a fan-driven league.

The NFL is a business. It makes its $ off its customers/fans. Why should it risk losing $ for a scumbag like Vick?

 

[GoonBoss]

I would not equate to dealing with a man with a rifle as having a fair chance to get away. As for trophy hunting , just because they eat the animal does not make it less repellant. Very few people hunt for need of food, its about the enjoyment. I detest hunters and dogfighters but admit I dislike dogfighting worse because it hits closer to home. I still think people that are looking at Vick like he is Dahmer are way off. If he just went around killing any dogs I could see it but this was all within the confines of his dogfighting.

Why wouldn't you equate dealing with a man with a rifle as a fair chance to get away? Man is the intruder in the deers natural habitat. Deer have tools with which to survive, as does man. Thiers are more advanced in some areas, ours are more advanced in others.

How is killing an animal for food morally repellant to you? A deer taken from the wild has had more of a chance, and, more of a life than a cow held in captivity then killed. If you are a vegetarian, and object to all killing of animals for food, then, I understand your point. However, if you eat meat, I do not understand how you can pass judgment on a hunter shooting a deer and a guy at the slaughterhouse killing a cow gets away scott free.

The only difference between a hunter that kills a deer for food, and you, who eat beef for food is that at least they kill the animal themselves, instead of by proxy. Again....Which has more chance to get away? A cow in a field or chute, or a deer in his natural habitat?