Is Michael Vick Setting a Bad Precedent for the NFL?

I just answered that in the previous post you responded to

 

I don't deny. I think it's an excuse, even though true. I don't find it's truth to change the facts or conclusions. As you noted, Vick was/is an adult. I firmly believe he knew what he was doing was wrong, and his continuance in it speaks to a perverse desire to continue to participate in such reprehensible acts...or he didn't know it was wrong (unlikely but possible) and thought everything he was doing was a-ok, which also speaks to some ultimate mental concerns. Again, this is a guy who thought it was fun to tear the teeth out of female pits, strap them to a rape stand and then force male pits onto her for breedig purposes. There are obvious issues there with violence, with male/female interaction, etc. Moreover, the studies back this up.

 

Not much of an answer. Why, at it's core, do these guys still participate in it. Again, Vick is an adult. He could have easily said i think this is ok (as it's part of my cultural upbringing) but I'd rather do x. Instead he chose to be an extremely active participant in events such as forced rape, dog electrocution, dog killing by slamming into the ground, etc. (things which you've said are inherent to dog fighting). Why? Why participate in this when as an adult, he could have said no, should have said no.

 

a quick google search and i can't find any clear studies on the subject. when you get to a laptop or desktop you can back up your claims.

 

I literall told you exactly what to google

http://www.google.com/search?q=animal+abuse+human+violence&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Pick more or less any result.

 

How can you argue that culture has nothing to do with it when there are clearly other cultures that think dogs aren't ***** and treat them like we treat other animals that we don't care about, i.e. insects (like someone else noted in this thread)?

Dogs aren't humans.

Do you kill roaches, spiders and ants when they are in your house or do you spare their lives and place them back outside? Some cultures place humans up here and place animals and insects down there. In America some place dogs and cats in the middle but that doesn't mean everyone does.

I don't see how you can argue that culture plays no part in this.

 

I understand this argument, but I don't think I like it very much. It seems to me that dogs and cats have a much wider range of emotion than ants or spiders do. Culture is definitely a big part of this, but I can't see how that makes it okay.

It seems pretty clear to me : He has done what was ordered, and then an NFL team wanted to give him a job, so they did and its worked out for him. I have trouble making an ethical problem out of this.

But I'm not gonna root for him or support him.

 

^^ No, you are both missing the ultimate point (and aside, I've noted, repeated, and repeated again that I understand culture is a part of it...it's STILL an excuse)...

the ant, spider example is perfect to use. THere is a CLEAR and obvious difference between those who not only kill the ants / spiders, but use torture to do so. you know, the guy who captures them and lights them on fire, etc. Do i kill the occasional spider in my house? of course, but like most americans (and people), i try to do so quickly and efficiently, and do so because of ultimate fear of spider bite leading to harm. the guy killing ants with a magnifying glass - yeah, that guy has problems.

other cultures do treat dogs differently. many treat them as clear animals versus the american way of treating them as pets. but still, few (if any) of these cultures torture them.

Again, the reason these are excuses is because they explicitly dminishes the acts Vick actually participated in. Here, I'll remind you:

need a picture?



^^ not a Vick dog in particular, but indicative. this is a dog that was crippled and injured in a dog fighting scheme than left on the side of a rural road where it starved to death.

Does upbringing and culture play a role in the above. Sure. And? What's the point? Does it invalidate the considerable scientific research that clearly shows animal abusers are more likely to commit human violence? Of course not. Does it make what Vick did ok? Of course not. Does it make what Vick did less "bad"? Of course not.

The only thing it does do is point out that there is a cultural issue that needs to be addressed, not just for the dogs sake, but for humans sake as well.

 

I hate the ex-con as much as you and maybe more, because I knew he was guilty, but he's a good football player. I thought he shouldn't be allowed to play again.

BUT: spoiler that mother effin' photo, man.

 

you just contradicted yourself within your own sentence. nobody is using it as an excuse....BUT...

that's what an excuse is.

there are millions of people who don't believe in evolution. there were millions of people who thought slavery was okay. there are millions of people who continue to believe and treat women as inferiors...

AND???

You could be right, but I'm guessing, and am probably right, that there are few (though maybe some) cultures in the world which cultural think it is okay and a normal part of the culture to treat dogs the way dog fighters do.

I think i've already pointed out what Vick did is much different than keeping a dog tied up in the yard, no? (not that I think it's humane)

The point is that he's "more prone" to. Does nobody understand science, statistics?

good, hopefully it will stay that way, but i don't think anyone will be surprised if it doesn't. if vick goes on to hurt animals or humans in the future, be it near or distant, it won't be a huge shock, will it? we already know from his brother, via similar family and cultural upbringing, that there are problems beyond just random torture of animals.

it's like you understand it, yet aren't processing. yes, what you wrote is EXACTLY right. There is a higher correlation. it makes it MUCH more likely. it doesn't make it an absolute. who said it did? but it does make it a concern. again, statistics, anyone? this is basic math.

moreover, i went as far as to provide a google search result with multiple links demonstrating just how strong a correlation this is.

Again, here

i agree with you. not an absolute. but likely? yes. A concern? Certainly.

of course i have issues with him. who wouldn't? did you read / see what he did? but as i've pointed out repeatedly, as I've provided reasoning for repeatedly, as i've now provided search results for repeatedly, it' not just that i shiver to think about what he did and the thought processes that were going on in his brain, but that there are more issues to consider with an offender like Vick, from whether he's truly reformed to how his new "stardom" impacts his mentality, etc.

 

rather not; a picture is worth a thousand words, and all!!

 

Dude, I'll keep this short. One, I didn't twist your words - I literally just pointed out in the same sentence where you tried to note it wasn't being used as an excuse, you used it (the cultural upbringing) as an excuse. I didn't write it - you did.

I understand animals are abused elsewhere in the world. But it's not prevalent. Moreover, this is america, not elsewhere in the world. As I pointed out elsewhere in the world peoe believe / do all kinds of funky stuff that doesn't fly here. It's either wrong here or it's not. Legally, it's wrong. Morally, the majority finds it wrong as well. Understanding the cause of the psyche is interesting, but doesn't impact it's wrongness.

I dont find your comparisons very compelling. A more apt comparison might be middle aged white guys are more prone to molest children and the middle aged white guy down the street likes to play wig barbies and talks weird to little girls, then do you avoid him? Absolutely. Your comparisons, on the other hand, are basically saying groups of peoe simply for being are more prone to do something - it's not the same as a group of people who are I that group because of how they act are more prone to do something. Muslims aren't more likely to be terrorists, Muslims who participate in online forums promoting extremism and jihad probably are. See the distinction?

 

Ok...not that hard, it was the first thing you said in your response to me?

Nobody is using culture as an excuse in diminishing Vick's behavior they're saying that's why he did it.

...I can see where this is going:

excuse - definition

No, it was brought up in the context of "cultural upbringing". Specifically, Icehouse's post #86 was the first to bring up other cultures. I responded to Icehouse in post #88, at which point you jumped in (post #89), and continued talking about other cultures. I quote:

Other cultures do torture dogs but again, it's subjective. There a millions of people who tie there dogs up and think nothing of it and there are others who argue that this tortures them and makes them aggressive. Countries where dogs are eaten don't keep them in the most humane conditions.

I think the above (YOUR QUOTE) is actually the first time the word "country" is even used.

Of course. We live in America.

please show me where i've vilified Vick. please show me where I've pre-judged him? I've post-judged him. I've noted that because of his actions he's now in a group that makes him more likely to do other bad things (reality, fact).

So I guess when I said See the distinction? the answer was no. Once again, you bring up a random analogy where someone is being lumped into a group simply for being. You for simply being a child of divorce. Middle aged white men for simply being middle aged white men.

Again, this isn't about pre-judging. This is about post-judging. Vick has already done X, studies show he's more likely to do Y. Yes, it's statistics. That's how they work.

But even then, again I've never vilified Vick. Frankly, I'm not surprised you'd think I had. I'm guessing you probably haven't even read all my posts in this thread. Heck, you thought I was the one bringing up other "cultures/countries" when it was actually, indirectly, YOU who propagated that line of discussion.

So go on, continue to pretend like I'm on some sort of mission to crucify Vick.

No, wait...actually don't.

See, this is where it becomes a little more nebulous, but this it goes to heart of my issue with using his "cultural upbringing" as a crutch. You've somehow used his upbringing to to try and frame the argument as if there are people out there just out to "get" Vick, and don't understand how he grew up. That he's not a bad person, inherently, just was put in a bad situation and didn't know any better. That in some Asian countries they do this or that to dogs, and if Vick was Asian wouldn't we be thinking differently of him.

It's BS if you ask me. Vick is certainly nowhere close to the first guy to make it out of that culture, or first professional athlete to deal with this type of upbringing. He certainly is one of the few, and certainly most public and prolific, to have this type and level of issue though. How did all the other guys manage to not spray down dogs with water and then electrocute them for fun?

 

apologies for missing this post. exact details of what he did are of course hard to find. the link below has a good timeline, though:

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/timeline-michael-vick-dogfighting-case

In it, Vick's partners say he participated in the killings. Moreover, as a part of his plea and statement of facts, he admits to helping kill them.

I'll admit to being somewhat biased here - I am the proud owner of a pit mix; she's gorgeous and the most awesome dog. I also have an 8 month old son - different thread for debate, but I don't have any concern there - pits are a great breed and temperament. But it's more than just I like the breed, I think doing what they do to any breed is disgusting, and I think there are some psychological issues involved.

But I've also seen, generally, the impact it has had on pits as a breed over the years. Dog shelters are packed throughout the country with pits and pit mixes. Houston specifically and Texas, generally, are particularly overrun. The street fighters and breeders are churning out pits for continued fighting and/or profit through sale. At the same time, responsible adopters/families are increasingly reluctant to adopt out the breed out of fear the dog will be violent. In some areas the breed is even banned. When Denver instituted their pit ban, they literally went around to people's houses where they knew there were pits (which they knew because these people, attempting to follow the law, registered their animals), and collected and euthanized people's pets. Heck, Australia as a country entirely is working to eliminate the breed - can't import them in, they have to be spayed/neutered so they can't reproduce. It's crazy.

And in a very very large part, the activity that leads to stuff like the below is to blame.



So, I do recognize that it is an important issue to me.

But then, I'm also very logical and rationale in my approach. It's not about destroying Vick's life or making sure he really gets punished because I don't think he's been punished enough. It's not about "haters gonna hate" (insert funny cartoon picture of whistling fat kid here).

Rather, as I noted in multiple posts earlier in the thread, it is about Vick's story dominating the sports world when in reality, we should be reading about real, actual honest to goodness good guys in sports. it is about Vick once again being glorified and thus becoming a role model for those 10+ year olds, whose own family situations leave them without someone to fully explain the situation, etc., etc, etc.

 

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..."

He deserves a second chance.. and he's done it the right way... haters gonna hate I guess.

The guy has been nothing but professional since being reinstated.

 

I'm not arguing that what he did is ok. But I'm not going to argue that he is a potential psychopath and a threat to humans for what is viewed as a sport in some cultures. Mike Vick is not little Michael Myers in the beginning of the Halloween movie as the poster is implying with his "studies".