president Obama congratulates Michael Vick's new boss.

[thublihnk]

He deserves redemption, but he got off too easy.

Two years in prison is getting off easy for killing dogs?

I value human life above the life of any other animal. I frankly don't see breeding dogs to fight each other to death as substantially worse than breeding some other animal to be slaughtered for fashion. Sure it's a deplorable act, but it's worse to take a human's freedom.

If he was caught killing people's family dogs I'd feel differently, but as it is the situation has been blown out of proportion.

Two years in prison, just to get out and go back to a high paying job and deal with remarkably little stigma for what he was doing. Not a bad deal. And yes, breeding anything not JUST to be killed, but to force them to kill each other for your sick enjoyment and gambling is way worse than for food or fashion.

If you can't see why that's true, you're fucking daft.

 

[manythings]

EDIT: on the topic of the Bible there are many good quotes and a far more really bad ones. Some are also just insane like the part where Jesus basically tamed some dragons or when he just straight kills a kid who bumped into him in the street (Neither in the bible because they were extracted in the 3rd century, scriptures of Psuedo-Matthew (not the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Matthew)).

Your immediate jump at the topic to directly attack it ("far more really bad ones") is EXACTLY why he says this is the wrong forum for it. I've gotten cried at because I stated that this forum is fairly anti-religious, but you do it no credit.

Let's keep this stuff in the Religion and Politics forum.

Let's also hope that the Religion and Politics forum gets mauled to death by bears.

I was pointing out that you could quote the bible for pretty much anything you want on any subject and it would be counterproductive.

 

[manythings]

ON the topic of animals, and the abuse thereof, it's bad but they are just animals and if you think a crime against an animal is equal to a crime against a human congratulations you have zero perspective.

Humans are animals.

Good work. That was as incisive as it was witty and topical, much like a young Samuel Clemens.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well if he served his time then I really fail to see any problems here. It's not like his job will lead to more dog abuse, and the guy's going to want a job.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Why are you complaining about a man who was punished for his crimes and became a changed man, while all the Wall Street criminals, Bush, Cheney, and Obama are still raping the world?

Because he's a football player!

And therefore, more important!

 

[Isolda Sage]

Mel is the one who really deserved a second chance. I'm just saying.
http://www.dallasnews.com/video/index.html?bcid=732529084001

*Please pay close attention to the part that is about 2 minutes into the video.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Sorry, I'm about to catch up on pretty much a day's worth of posts.

so I'll start with this:

Snip

Just remember, you're not talking to people who hold animal abuse an oka thing. They just dont see it as as bad a crime as you do, especially in comparison to the other stories and players of the NFL and other pro sports. Again, and this isnt trying to be mean, but I dont know if you should be talking about this, because you odnt really know about other cases and precedents. You're singling outa single example, but when you look in scope, this isnt a bad thing.

Snip

It is, I'll grant you that, but to those people it was normal. Its like when you take a dog out back when it has rabies and is too far gone, or when its too old and is now being a danger to itself. Those people looked at it the same way. They were dogs that couldnt fight, and they didnt want them to go to other homes, so they did the "humane" thing in their mind and killed them. Did some enjoy it? Most likely. Did Vick? I dont know, unless you can find something that says he did, its assumption, and to say he did on assumption is slander, like I siad before. To them, it was humane. to us, its evil and wrong. Matters of perspective and, that we're talking about one of them, not all of them.

Snip

It doenst matter if its provoked. Greed provoked these people, there's reason. You're not listening to your own argument.

Besides, Vick wasnt directly involved in any of the real fighting (I think, its been a while since I had to hear about htis case since I made my decision right after he got out of jail and talked about it). he handed the financial aspect, and was said to be apart of the termination of several dogs. You're going on assumption. By your logic, any sports player at ANY level (pro, college, high school) that plays a rough sport where violence is involved has the potential to be a murderer. That means anyone who's wrestled, played hockey, played football, played rugby, played soccer in some instances, boxed, cage fight, and things like them are all just one step away form killing someone. And thats just not true. Vick has no interest in torturing the dogs, he just wanted the money. He has no intrest in hurting people or else after someone was walking off the football field he would attack them. You're argument that because he enjoys torturing animals, which is slander because you dont know for fact he does, is invalid because he hasnt shown these tendencies since the incident, including in Jail.

And those dogs are historically built to be aggressive. You cant deny it. beagles are historically built to be hunting dogs. Labs to be something of pet dogs. pitbulls are built to be gaurd dogs/aggressive. Its genetic modification through breeding.

 

[fletch_talon]

It doenst matter if its provoked. Greed provoked these people, there's reason. You're not listening to your own argument.

Besides, Vick wasnt directly involved in any of the real fighting (I think, its been a while since I had to hear about htis case since I made my decision right after he got out of jail and talked about it). he handed the financial aspect, and was said to be apart of the termination of several dogs. You're going on assumption. By your logic, any sports player at ANY level (pro, college, high school) that plays a rough sport where violence is involved has the potential to be a murderer. That means anyone who's wrestled, played hockey, played football, played rugby, played soccer in some instances, boxed, cage fight, and things like them are all just one step away form killing someone. And thats just not true. Vick has no interest in torturing the dogs, he just wanted the money. He has no intrest in hurting people or else after someone was walking off the football field he would attack them. You're argument that because he enjoys torturing animals, which is slander because you dont know for fact he does, is invalid because he hasnt shown these tendencies since the incident, including in Jail.

First and foremost lets make something clear.
I have not once referred to this "Vick" character, I have made no comment about his behaviour or motives. My posts have been directed towards people who claim that, when a crime is only harming animals, it doesn't deserve nearly the same level of disgust as crimes directed against humans.

As for greed being a motivator... yeah not so much.
Greed isn't provocation, this kind of greed (especially in this case) leads to deliberate, considered actions. I was talking about instances where violence is an instant and undeliberated reaction to something.
Consider the difference between someone who kills a cashier that fights back in an armed robbery and someone who kills a family to rob their house. The first probably never intended to harm anyone but did so out of desperation, the second planned their actions and always intended to take people's lives.
Both of these crimes involve greed, but the first was actually provoked by desperation/fear.

My point is and always has been that crimes against animals (much like crimes against children, and what we consider the most heinous crimes against other humans) are not provoked. They are very much deliberate and show a great lack of respect for life.

Edit: I almost forgot. Your sports comparison is invalid. Another aspect of animal abuse that I pointed out was the animal's relative inability to fight back against a human (whether due to size/strength, intelligence or because we can use tools to gain the advantage). Sports all involve at least 2 people competing against each other in fair competition. A more accurate comparison would be wrestling someone you've kidnapped and tied down, or in the case of dog fighting, forcing 2 people to unwillingly fight each other, most likely to the death.

And those dogs are historically built to be aggressive. You cant deny it. beagles are historically built to be hunting dogs. Labs to be something of pet dogs. pitbulls are built to be gaurd dogs/aggressive. Its genetic modification through breeding.

Which as I said, is wrong. Wrong as in morally wrong, not wrong as in incorrect.
I pretty much agreed with you when you said this last time. The only thing I debated was the fact that you seem to think that rather than have rabid dogs put down, we should be allowed to put them in a ring and watch them kill each other slowly and painfully.

There is a big difference between killing an animal for food/defence and killing for personal enjoyment.

Oh I caught that part. I'm amused that it basically implies you'd have been okay with Vick's behavior if he'd eaten the dogs afterward. (Or at least butchered and sold them.) Since that way he wouldn't have been doing it for "shits and giggles."

I think there are a few steps missing from your analysis, is what I'm getting at.

I, like many people here don't go through the trouble of explaining every minute detail of our arguments, working on the (apparently mistaken) assumption, that people here are smart enough to work it out.

I would not consider cutting off a rabid wolve's ear, breaking all its legs then watching it slowly starve to death lying in its own faeces a form of self defence. If an animal attacks you, you do your best to fend it off and/or kill it, you do not do so in a way that is deliberately slow and painful.

Similarly I do not consider throwing dogs into a ring and having them slowly kill each other to be covered by "killing for food" even if you eat them afterwards. The meat industry has ways of killing animals which exist to be as humane as possible without a huge decrease in efficiency.
Dog fighting is neither humane nor efficient. It is entirely based on deriving enjoyment from an animals pain, or as Emeraldrafael pointed out, profiting from people who do.

And just because I can totally see you asking about it.
Meat industry - Kills for money, by providing food.
Dog fighting - Kills for money, by providing entertainment, by causing pain.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

Dogs in dog fighting rings are not rabid by any sense of the world, and I did not say we should stick them in arenas to fight each other. I said we should put them down.

Now, maybe its cause I'm just not as big of an animal lover as you are, but I dont see it as as big of a thing when a dog/animal is killed as when a human is. I'm sorry, I dont. I'm not saying its right, or acceptable, but its wrong to put an animal over a human life. Yes, humans are animals in the sense of the world, but we are the top of the scale. Chimps have been proven to go to war, like humans do, for no real and distinguishable reason. These are animals, but when they do it, no one cries out or makes them stop. Humans evolved to the top of the chain, that means that we have dominion over those lower then us and make them inferior. and if you wnat a bible verse instead, god gave us dominion over hte beasts. Either through evolution or Creationism, man is above its animalian brethren. So the life of a lesser animal, particular ones like domesticated animals are never above a human. WE made the what they are, without humans, there would not be the dog/cat as we know it today. or the dairy cow. Or the turkey as we envision it when we eat at thanksgiving.

Its sad to say, but the top predator shapes the world around it until its either dethroned or dies out. and right now, humans are top. The only difference between humans and the animals around them is because humans have sense and the knowledge to make tools, surpassing the other creatures that inhabit the earth with them. Its called survival.

Besides that, no dog is going to change the world like a human will. Would you have saved a dog over the man that was going to invent a vaccine for polio? Or for the man who come up with antibiotics? I'm sorry. I love dogs to death, but they just dont hold the same importance on this earth as humans currently do.

Regardless of provication, greed is a powerful motivator, and all the provication that you need to make an action, whether planned or spur of the moment. It sends countries to war, it turns good men bad and bad men good, and drives the world as we know it today. THe American dream is to make your wealth and capital however you wish and want. If that means you rise to the top of a dog fighting gambling rign and you make millions of dollars through it, thats great. Considering that we even have animal rights laws in comparison to China, Vietnam, and other countries like them where dog and cat are delicacy, I think that alone shows the advancement in animal rights America has made. The man was punished, just move on. He could have did worse, but he didnt.

And dogs of that size can fight back. look at what they do to little children, look at what they do to adults. Dont tell me that pitbull isnt able to fight back if you go at it, bare knuckle brawls. You think if a dog knew how to use a gun, it wouldnt to get what it wanted? Again, man gained dominion over animals, we are not their equals because if we were then dogs would be wolves and we would be nomadic cave dwellers who fought them for meat.

Also, my sports reference is entirely releveant. Looks at James Harrison (242 lb (110 kg)) of the Pittsburgh Steelers against... I dont know... Santonio Holmes (192 lb (87 kg)) of the New York Jets. You telling me if James Harrison had it in his mind to purposely hurt Holmes, Holmes would stand much of a chance against him? Also considering that Harrison is a defensive player, built to knock men down and stop them and Holmes is Wide Receive, built to run and catch, that this would be a fair fight because they are both football players, and they are both thinking and capable humans? Dont make me laugh. Thats like you going up against a Navy Seal, a Spetzna Soldier, or an Israeli Commando and thinking that you'll win in a fist fight.

besides that, it entirely undoes your argument. You say that people with provication are seen as, well, they had reason. Aggressive pro sports players have reason to hurt their opponents. To win the game to ensure they have a job next year, to get a bonus in the form of monetary value. If harrison shot a receiver instead of tackling him to stop him, and said he did it so that the receiver couldnt score and his team could win the game, then he had reason. That is much like dog fighting. They have reason, they want to have money, so that they can satisfy thier wants and needs.

besides, how is dog fighting different from cage fighting? maybe the person didnt die int he ring, but its been scientifically proven after that the repeated assualts and blows suffered can lead to an early death and mental damages.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that these actions arent deplorable, but you're not going to change a person's mind if its not already made. No one's walking into to this thread on the fence about animal cruelty and its level of wrong in society, particularly because depending on your country, you may not even care or this may not even be a huge issue. So stop trying to change peoples actions by saying dogs are equal to humans. If you bleieve it, thats great. but you're not changing anyone else's mind.

 

[fletch_talon]

I said we should put them down.

As did I.

Now, maybe its cause I'm just not as big of an animal lover as you are, but I dont see it as as big of a thing when a dog/animal is killed as when a human is.

Its not about animals being killed.
Its about animals being forced to endure pain for people's enjoyment.
Killing a living creature for no justifiable reason is bad.
Essentially torturing a living creature for no justifiable reason is disgusting.

its wrong to put an animal over a human life.

There was no human life at risk.
Nobody (or at least not me) has suggested the death penalty for animal abusers.
This was not a case of self defence.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that these actions arent deplorable

And yet you keep debating my posts, the basis of which is essentially that these actions are deplorable.
Life, whether human or animal should be treated with a degree of respect. It should not be taken or damaged without good reason. What constitutes reasonable varies between animals and humans.

-defending your life = always acceptable
-food = acceptable for animals only (barring very very unlikely and extreme circumstances)
-pleasure/fun/entertainment = never acceptable

So stop trying to change peoples actions by saying dogs are equal to humans. If you bleieve it, thats great. but you're not changing anyone else's mind.

I never said dogs where equal to humans.
I said (implied) that disregard for life is equally deplorable regardless of species.
Follow your own advice, you're not changing my mind. I never directed my initial post towards you. In fact I never quoted any specific person. I pointed out a flawed statement that was frequently being used to excuse the actions of someone whose actions I considered morally repugnant. It was you that chose to challenge my opinion and continue to do so.

The meat industry has ways of killing animals which exist to be as humane as possible without a huge decrease in efficiency.

So, for example, if the meat industry's "humane" methods for slaughtering beef included violent, sadistic abuse of the animals [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilEBWc7GCwA], or if it housed them in cruelly inhumane, unhealthy conditions [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4], that would not in fact be defensible as just killing for food, because neither hunger nor profit justify gratuitous and obscene cruelty. In fact, gratuitous and obscene cruelty is wrong no matter what activity it purports to be in service of. Right?

Because if so, that would be a sane and moral stance. But it would mean the question about agribusiness is relevant despite your earlier attempt to pretend otherwise, since, again, agribusiness is a far larger-scale abuser of animals than Michael Vick. And if you need a roadmap as to why I'm needling you about this a little, it's because it would be unclear how your heated rhetoric about the subhumanity of animal abusers and absolute need to remove all of them from society would line up with practical reality. There can't in fact be one standard of animal abuse for Ohio dairy farmers and a different one for Michael Vick.

You asked me about my feelings regarding the meat industry, not specific examples of animal abuse in the meat industry.
You may as well have asked me whether I think the Catholic church should be imprisoned for their large scale abuse of small boys.

While we're at it, why don't you ask me whether I think the middle east should be bombed for their large scale acts of terrorism?

My standards do not differ, your confusion is the result of your own flawed questioning.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

gah. fine, fine. I'm done arguing. Obviously we see it as different levels but I dont see this as he should be damned. The guy made mistakes. PEOPLE make mistakes. Personally, i think there are FAR too many people/dogs/cats/things of that nature and the world needs a trimming of all of them. So while every action like this is deplorable, I cant say that I'm that upset by it. What would you honestly do with these dogs anyways? How many are honestly going to be successfully rehibilitated after htis? I'm sorry, but these dogs are menaces to society, so they'd be damned to live out their lives in shelters and die. They're nto going to get along with anyhting.

Everyone has vices, its wrong, but whatever. None of us are in position to judge, so its not like our opinions really matter what we think of animal abuse.

 

[Trucken]

Look a how all the bible fans line up talking second chances. It´s you´re fault, and you´re fault alone the world is a sewer.

So there should be no second chances? If you mess up once ( Vick's case wasn't exactly "once", but whatever) you should be damned for life? What kind of a world would that be? It would be a world full of rapists, pedophiles, murderers and all sorts of criminals that wouldn't even try to repent and make amends. Where the hell would Vick be if we lived in that world? "I got caught. Aw, fuck it, once I get out I can continue, I'm screwed anyway." Instead he's doing what he can to prevent others from doing the same inhumane things he did. Isn't that a fuckload better than the alternative?

 

[fletch_talon]

Okay with all sincerity, I'm not trying to be argumentative now, I just want to answer the questions you asked and explain my stance.
Please don't take this post as an attempt to continue the debate (though you are of course free to state any disagreements you have).

I dont see this as he should be damned.

I don't either. I'm actually rather pleased with his punishment. I've seen crueller instances (where the person was directly responsible for harming the animal) where the person responsible recieves a fine and a slap on the wrist.

I realise I may have caused confusion when I said "how can we trust them in society". Please understand that I didn't mean to imply that they should be locked up permanently or otherwise removed from society, simply that they not be too readily trusted until they have proven themselves worthy of it. Perhaps this man has, but my first comment was a broad statement about animal abuse in general, not this specific instance.

I also think that there should be some concern with placing a criminal back into an extremely rewarding job in which he can be considered a role model. I'm not saying he definitely should have been kicked off the team, but I definitely think its a decision that should have been taken with care and that regardless of the outcome, it did not warrant the president's input.

Whilst I probably wouldn't have commented so strongly, I would still consider it inappropriate for the president to congratulate a football team for rejecting an animal abuser as well.

We should also note that losing his job is not damning him. There are plenty of us who don't recieve millions of dollars for playing a sport and we seem to do just fine.

What would you honestly do with these dogs anyways?

As I said the last 2 times. Put them down.
But that's not the issue at hand, the thing is they shouldn't have been bred and trained the way they were in the first place.
You need to realise that we agree on this.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I like how he's been given a second chance, but I don't get why Obama would want to call the Eagles for anything.

 

[Kryzantine]

He deserves redemption, but he got off too easy.

Two years in prison is getting off easy for killing dogs?

I value human life above the life of any other animal. I frankly don't see breeding dogs to fight each other to death as substantially worse than breeding some other animal to be slaughtered for fashion. Sure it's a deplorable act, but it's worse to take a human's freedom.

If he was caught killing people's family dogs I'd feel differently, but as it is the situation has been blown out of proportion.

Two years in prison, just to get out and go back to a high paying job and deal with remarkably little stigma for what he was doing. Not a bad deal. And yes, breeding anything not JUST to be killed, but to force them to kill each other for your sick enjoyment and gambling is way worse than for food or fashion.

If you can't see why that's true, you're fucking daft.

I'm quoting this post, but most of my comment isn't going to be addressed at it specifically.

Part of the Vick issue is that his role was mostly finance rather than involvement in the ring itself. Really, he got caught because the ring was busted at a property owned by Vick. He didn't breed anything. That was his cousin. He also did not gamble on his ring.

And the other thing is, and this is really the reason Obama congratulated the Eagle's owner, is that Vick is not a unique case. Vick was not the first pro athlete to come out of poverty and he won't be the last. There are a lot of problem childs in American pro sports, and particularly in the NFL, because a lot of athletes don't have the same mentality we think they do. They don't have the money saving mentality, nor do they lose the desensitization to crime. This isn't just athletes, this is pretty much anyone who's come out of poverty and living in a ghetto to making some serious money. MC Hammer is a great example of money mismanagement. Mike Tyson is a prime example of this phenomenon, he went bankrupt AND had legal issues. Ricky Williams actually had to leave football for a year because he couldn't handle being a pro. When these guys go pro, they blow their first paycheck. They buy houses, they buy cars, they buy all kinds of non-practical things for themselves and for their families. Vick's first purchase was a home for his mother. He owned multiple properties at a time and simply could not manage them all. It's important to note that he's not the only NFL player going through this. There are numerous athletes that not only mismanage money, they get into trouble with the law. Look at the Cincinnati Bengals, the cops deal with those thugs nearly every day.

So when Obama was congratulating the Eagles owner, he was thanking him for allowing Vick a second chance to prove he has risen out of the mindset he grew up in. And he has gotten past it. He's legitimately past dogfighting and he's past poor money management. The ghettos of America need that icon, and you know what? Vick has become that kind of icon, and believe me, it would never have been possible had the Eagles not taken a chance on him. And that's what Obama was thankful for.

Sports in America is all about the success stories and the tragedies. The death of basketball star Len Bias from cocaine overdose literally triggered shockwaves that caused the Reagan administration to launch the War on Drugs. The Pacers-Pistons brawl in 2004, and the death of Redskins safety Sean Taylor in 2007 were glooming America at times when the economy was going down. And sometimes sports brighten us up in our dark hours. The Miracle on Ice in 1980 was a huge boost to an America just coming out of its darkest decade since the 30s. The Giants-Patriots Super Bowl in 2008 was a great boost to NYC at a time when the financial system was collapsing. The Flyers thug game and 2 Stanley Cups in the 70s were an enormous lift on a struggling Philadelphia. The Saints championship run last year was highly publicized as being a lift on the spirit of New Orleans. And probably the best example I can make is Brett Favre launching one of his best athletic performances the day after his father died, on Monday night at Oakland back in 2003. To give you an idea of how uplifting this performance was to an entire country, the Raiders fans were cheering for Favre as he was blowing out their team.

All of these are stories, of athletes and teams that provided for their communities and for America through competitive willpower and the overcoming of struggle. And Mike Vick is a story in the making, a man who struggled not past dogfighting charges, but past his childhood and the ghetto mentality instilled in him. A lot of people think he shouldn't have been given a second chance, but all those people are doing is alienating the ghettos, because the people who live there see Vick and think, "That's my ticket out" or "I want to be like him", both when he was with the Falcons and right now with the Eagles.

How can the President NOT thank the Eagles for giving that to America?

 

[TeeBs]

This qualifies as news worthy, or is this just more political attacks over something that isn't relevant.

 

[bpm195]

He deserves redemption, but he got off too easy.

Two years in prison is getting off easy for killing dogs?

I value human life above the life of any other animal. I frankly don't see breeding dogs to fight each other to death as substantially worse than breeding some other animal to be slaughtered for fashion. Sure it's a deplorable act, but it's worse to take a human's freedom.

If he was caught killing people's family dogs I'd feel differently, but as it is the situation has been blown out of proportion.

Two years in prison, just to get out and go back to a high paying job and deal with remarkably little stigma for what he was doing. Not a bad deal. And yes, breeding anything not JUST to be killed, but to force them to kill each other for your sick enjoyment and gambling is way worse than for food or fashion.

If you can't see why that's true, you're fucking daft.

Picture these two scenarios:

A dog is born and put in a cage. He's given enough food so he doesn't starve to death, and he's with other children in their own respective cages. There he's allowed to grow until he's ready to be killed so some rich lady can wear him as a jacket.

A dog is born and put in a cage. He's given enough food to sustain him as he's put through intense training. His life goes on like this until he's forced to fight another dog to death. He repeats this cycle until he dies.

Is either scenario actually worse than the other? I don't think so, and if I were forced to choose between being killed and fighting for my life I'd choose the latter. This isn't to say that I support dog fighting, but it's simply a ridiculous double standard that breeding animals for fur is perfectly fine, while dog fighting is illegal.