Tucker Carlson: Vick 'should have been 'executed'

[Lerxst]

Stick him in a cell and make him fight people until he dies. Seems only fitting.

 

[Ken Sapp]

While I can easily agree with the sentiment expressed by Carlson I am also of the opinion that Vick should be allowed to reform himself. Does he deserve a second chance? Probably not but he has received one and the ball is in his hands now so to speak. Should people who help others get a second chance be praised? In general, yes but I severely doubt the owner/s and coaches of the Eagles were thinking about Vick's reformation when they signed him.

On the other hand the NFL should not allow him to be eligible for the Pro Bowl until he has shown himself to be provably reformed and a good role model. It is sad that professional athletes are put in the position of role models but since they are the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and NASCAR should hold them to a much higher standard of conduct.

but should athletes be in the position of role models? the athletes are paid to be athletes, and in that respect is it any wonder that the eagles signed him? should we look at athletes for what they do on the field or off of it? can anything good come of observing anybody for extended periods of time? im sure if i followed you around i would find some things others would find objectionable. granted, you may not have something of that magnitude in your basement, but still.

As I inferred in my original post I do not think they should be held up as role models. But as long as they are they should be contractually held to a higher standard of conduct and should face heavy penalties for misconduct.

And yes you would find objectionable things in my life were you to follow me around but I do not pretend to be a model of what others should strive to be. And I also do not participate in things like animal-cruelty.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I think it's dumber that half the people in this thread still feel that Vick deserves another cruel punishment himself. One thing is, Vick didn't go out there and choke dogs to death or even personally order them to their deaths, he simply financed the operation and made it possible. It's no different than a general ordering men to their deaths from a command post far away. He never sees it, so he doesn't have a conscience about it.

It is pretty odd that, while in threads about meat consumption animal rights is shrugged off as silly or impractical by a large minority or slight majority. But in this thread (and more generally, this case) animal rights is something sacred. I heard it described that "pet animals", especially cats and dogs in the West are sort of "fetishes" (in the classical sense of the term). Because we keep them as pets, they're more sacred than other animals[footnote]More generally of the animal rights movement, this applies to mammals and birds, some reptiles. Interestingly, one of the big (cruelty) complaints about commercial fishing is that sometimes dolphins get caught in the nets.[/footnote]. If Vick had gotten caught as part of a cock fighting ring, an equally violent practice, I'm sure the responses would be radically different. People would consider it mostly eccentric, and most of the protest would come from people who were also opposed to eating chicken.

It's a bit crazy how many people seem to be taking Hammurabi's position for dogs.

I am opposed to deliberate cruelty not killing for food. When I eat chicken I don't put it in a cock-fighting ring first. I hunt and kill my own venison, but I try to be as humane as possible by shooting to kill quickly and cleanly. We raise our own beef but we don't treat the cattle inhumanely. Whether it be plant or animal, something has to die for me to continue living.

Deliberate cruelty and killing for food are two different subjects.

@Kryzantine: As I recall Vick was involved at every level from the raising and training of the dogs to putting them down. He was not an innocent financier who had no dealings with it other than the writing checks.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Really?!
One of the right wing weirdos over at Fox News wants to hang a black man for a crime that usually isn't punished with the death penalty?
It must be normal day.

 

[no space]

I have to agree. I don't know if he should be executed or not,it's a very hard moral choice...but what I do know is that people like that do not change.

Also, he should NEVER have a dog again. A man that can do that can't just suddenly change and say "I'm an animal lover! The ASPCA are my best friends!" Think about it, a woman goes back to an abusive boyfriend because he says he's "changed" and yet, when he starts hitting her again, no one is surprised.

First off, how is that a hard moral choice? A hard moral choice is deciding whether a murderer deserves the death penalty. Dog fighting? Please; no ethicist would have trouble stating that that does not warrant death.

Second, what reason would the abusive boyfriend in your scenario have to change? Vick went to prison for 18 months - a fairly nice incentive to change, if you ask me. He's doing his best to be a better "role model," as so many people on here are wont to claim all athletes should be. You can purport that this is only an act, purely for the public, but if no one sees their role model misbehaving, what does it matter to the children who now think that people can change for the better?

Everyone loves to be cynical and claim, "People don't change," because they saw it on House once and, oh, isn't he such a badass, but the truth of the matter is that they can, and they do, all the time.

I applaud Vick for the change he's undergone. Of course, maybe he hasn't changed at all, but I can only go on what I see, and what I see has been good so far.

 

[Dags90]

I am opposed to deliberate cruelty not killing for food.

So you're opposed to the fur and special leather industries (things like crocodile or snakeskin)? Would you support someone who raised dogs or cats for the purpose of consumption? You might not kill your food inhumanely, but many large scale operations due treat livestock in ways that would get you arrested if they were dogs or cats.

I'm sure a fair amount of the people in this thread who are criticizing Vick have bought animal products at a grocery or restaurant in which the animals were treated in ways equally as cruel as Vick treated dogs.

As a note, Vick wasn't deliberately cruel to the dogs. He was indirectly cruel to the dogs as part of his dog fighting ring. He wasn't out killing dogs for the purpose of killing dogs, he was running a business (that happens to be illegal). In order to run that business most effectively, he had to do some pretty cruel things.

 

[jrubal1462]

Ugh, I'm all over the place on this one. LOVE dogs, love that Vick got convicted and punished for it. Do NOT love the death penalty (Thank you, Maraveno for making the distinction clear (I'm not trying to say here that Americans who love the death penalty ARE stupid, I'm just saying thanks for not lumping)). I hope to God Tucker Carlson's statement was hyperbole, and he doesn't actually support execution for everyone that tortures and abuses animals, since killing animals isn't executable, and neither is torturing, kidnapping and abusing human beings.

Anyway, I'm glad he got punished, but then came back to the public with the promise of not pitting sweet dogs against each other in a fight to the death for his own amusement and financial gain. I do have a slight problem with the PR statements he makes that are all, "oh no, I'm so sorry about these horrific and terrible things I have done." Listen, I think dogfighting is a terrible terrible problem, and I agree I don't think he'll ever do it again...but let's face it, he saw his first dog fight when he was 7, he's been running this show for I don't know how long...I don't think when he was in jail he was visited by the ghosts of all the dogs that died in his ring, and explained scrooge-style why he needs to turn his life around. I understand the necessity of PR pandering but I'd rather hear, "I'm sorry I got caught, I won't fight dogs any more even though I think it's fun."

 

[Ken Sapp]

I am opposed to deliberate cruelty not killing for food.

So you're opposed to the fur and special leather industries (things like crocodile or snakeskin)? Would you support someone who raised dogs or cats for the purpose of consumption? You might not kill your food inhumanely, but many large scale operations due treat livestock in ways that would get you arrested if they were dogs or cats.

I'm sure a fair amount of the people in this thread who are criticizing Vick have bought animal products at a grocery or restaurant in which the animals were treated in ways equally as cruel as Vick treated dogs.

As a note, Vick wasn't deliberately cruel to the dogs. He was indirectly cruel to the dogs as part of his dog fighting ring. He wasn't out killing dogs for the purpose of killing dogs, he was running a business (that happens to be illegal). In order to run that business most effectively, he had to do some pretty cruel things.

I am not opposed to the fur or leather industries in general but I am opposed to those that kill animals strictly for their skin and waste the rest. And I would not oppose someone who raises dogs or cats for consumption. I see no difference in the average dog or cat than in any species of animal which we commonly use for food. In India cows are sacred beasts, in some parts of the world there is no real aversion to the consumption of felines or canines. Morally there is no difference in the consumption of any species of which you are not a member.

The only difference is in which ones we have determined to be pets. Or as Denis Leary put it, " we only want to save the cute animals".