Is Michael Vick Setting a Bad Precedent for the NFL?

what? i don't have a problem. you have the problem. that's why you started replying to me. i simply pointed some things out - you had a problem with those things.

why?

you said something i seemed to "snicker" shows me my attitude, not something I snickered seemed to show my attitude. Semantics, I know. You've also accused me of prejudging. You've also explained to me what my line of thinking was. You've rounded about accused me of having some vendetta against Vick. You've suggested (though misread, I guess) that I wanted Vick to be punished more, whereas I've stated exactly the opposite.

It's cool. Just don't get so upset when I infer from your comments as well.

I'm me. Why is that not enough? Like I have to be god or something to pass judgement.

That said, I can't see any sane reasons to do it. I've asked you (and others) to provide some sort of logical explanation, but am still waiting...

 

It's cool, bro! Just a lively debate. Haven't had one in a while on the BBS, but I think we've been cordial enough, and our views are what they are.

I'd agree that we are definitely quite foolish for debating over definitions!

 

that's fine. i've drawn some conclusions based off what you've said (and continue to say below)...then you got your panties in a wad when i made those conclusions.

this is where the drawing conclusions come into pay. you find it logical and sane to test out different methods of execution on dogs? Methods that include electrocution, hanging, body slamming into the ground? That's sane to you?

Okay...insert psycho music here.

we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Moreover, if logic comes into play, and one is actually rationally thinking about the best way to kill the dog, and assuming further that the best way is what you've described as quickest, least painful or most efficient, well, logic would probably tell you it isn't one of the three ways i've just described. Granted, I've never actually killed a dog...but then, vets put dogs down every day, and theoretically they also look to efficient and painless ways and I've never seen electrocution as an option.

"Sir, I'm sorry your pet has severe and painful liver failure and understand your decision to ease his pain. Would you like electrocution, or should we just body slam him to death? Too painful? We have hanging! It's cheap, too...just need a rope and cord!"

 

yeah, i don't have any problem with you drawing your own conclusions. that's why i've said "that's fine" over and over again.

you know people in the hunting world that use electrocution? weird.

Why shouldn't they have a lethal injection kit? It certainly seems more efficient and less painful. It's probably not the cheapest...but then, in this specific case, I'm guessing that isn't an issue. Not legal? the whole thing wasn't legal.

Regardless, I can think of many more efficient, less painful and cheaper ways to have killed the dogs.

I'm still waiting on a rational reason to have killed the dogs these ways.

 

Why are you killing innocent and defenseless animals? That is messed up.

 

again, very weird.

how about this. Gunshot to the head. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I'm assuming this method was available.

if Vick & Co. thought their way was better (more efficient, less painful, more humane, whatever) that points to being an idiot, or insane, or both.

i've made up my mind because nobody has even attempted to show me one logical and sane reason to kill dogs this way (ignoring the fact that they were killing them in the first place, of course).

the closest you've come to attempting it is to note that maybe they were just looking for the cheapest, most efficient or least painful ways to do it, and they tested some ways out and electrocution, hanging and death by body slamming were their answers.

frightening!

 

no it wasn't. electrocution, hanging and death by body slamming was.

no, it's not. I've said i'm biased, but not immune to logic.

Well, if it is an excuse, insane, idiotic, whatever then of course i'm going to call it out.

It's not that my mind is made up, it's that fundamentally, I find something disgusting, wrong and perverted with killing a dog by electrocution, as an example. Short of "hey that dog is in serious pain, we can't kill him in all these other ways, it's probably most humane to go ahead and put him down, electrocution won't hurt him and should be done" - I can't really imagine why there wouldn't be a more humane way of killing a dog than those attempted.

Unfortunately, nobody has even thrown out other options to even consider.

In either case, no need to respond (or go ahead, i won't respond back anymore).

 

I didnt say it was ok...Im sayin who gives a flying ****...If I see someone smokin crack , it aint my damn bizness ..

 

Michael Vick: 'I Would Love' to Be a Dog Owner Again."

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/12/15/michael-vick-i-would-love-to-be-a-dog-owner-again/

 

winner

 

Great points. I'll have to listen to some Springsteen now.