PDA

View Full Version : Doesn't Mike Vick have PR people?



brauneyz
12-15-2010, 12:46 PM
"I would love to get another dog in the future," Vick said. "I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love and my passion for animals; I think it would be outstanding."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/michael-vick-dog_n_797028.html

Somebody. Just. Shoot. Me. Now!

iwatt
12-15-2010, 01:54 PM
Somebody. Just. Shoot. Me. Now!

I like to think he is sincere.

Pruitt
12-15-2010, 02:03 PM
Hate to say it, but I really hope he does something in the off season to remind people - and Roger Goddell - about what a human carbuncle he really is.

The Vegas odds are 3/2 that this will happen.

brauneyz
12-15-2010, 02:24 PM
Don't rich and famous (let's not forget stupid) people like this have 'handlers' or something? His guy ought to be shot for allowing this.

Regardless of how one feels about MV, how is this not in incredibly poor taste?

iwatt
12-15-2010, 02:34 PM
Regardless of how one feels about MV, how is this not in incredibly poor taste?

I'm not getting this. I read the whole article, and he says he feels very sad that his daughters can't have a dog because of what he did. People have to learn how to forgive.

P.S: I'm troubled by people who feel showing people dying in movies is OK, but god forbid that something happens to a dog. I'm always brought up to that scene in Independence Day whern the family is trapped inj the tunnel, and instead of helping other people into the locker room, they worry about the dog.... I guess culture shock actually does exist!

Pruitt
12-15-2010, 03:03 PM
I'm not getting this. I read the whole article, and he says he feels very sad that his daughters can't have a dog because of what he did. People have to learn how to forgive.

His handlers are probably as dumb as he is.

I can forgive, but I can't forget. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

SpartaChris
12-16-2010, 08:24 PM
His handlers are probably as dumb as he is.

I can forgive, but I can't forget. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

THIS^

From a commenter on PFT: "From the book “The Lost Dogs” written by Jim Gorant, the senior editor of Sports Illustrated…..

As that dog lay on the ground, fighting for air, Quanis Phillips grabbed its front legs and Michael Vick grabbed its back legs. They swung the dog over their head like a jump rope then slammed it to the ground. The first impact didn’t kill it. So, Phillips and Vick slammed it again. The two men kept at it, alternating back and forth, pounding the creature against the ground until, at last, the little red dog was dead.*"

I'm sorry, but this isn't Utopia. How can anyone "forgive" a guy capable of this kind of behavior? This is the kind of behavior often attributed to psychopath. How anyone can feel sorry for him because his daughters can't have pets is beyond me. He chose to torture those animals, and at some point Vick knew what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally. He chose to do it anyway.

Pruitt
12-16-2010, 08:30 PM
THIS^

From a commenter on PFT: "From the book “The Lost Dogs” written by Jim Gorant, the senior editor of Sports Illustrated…..

As that dog lay on the ground, fighting for air, Quanis Phillips grabbed its front legs and Michael Vick grabbed its back legs. They swung the dog over their head like a jump rope then slammed it to the ground. The first impact didn’t kill it. So, Phillips and Vick slammed it again. The two men kept at it, alternating back and forth, pounding the creature against the ground until, at last, the little red dog was dead.*"

I'm sorry, but this isn't Utopia. How can anyone "forgive" a guy capable of this kind of behavior? This is the kind of behavior often attributed to psychopath. How anyone can feel sorry for him because his daughters can't have pets is beyond me. He chose to torture those animals, and at some point Vick knew what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally. He chose to do it anyway.

Amen.

iwatt
12-16-2010, 09:41 PM
I'm sorry, but this isn't Utopia. How can anyone "forgive" a guy capable of this kind of behavior? This is the kind of behavior often attributed to psychopath. How anyone can feel sorry for him because his daughters can't have pets is beyond me. He chose to torture those animals, and at some point Vick knew what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally. He chose to do it anyway.

He knew what he was doing was legally wrong. I think you are missing the point on the fact that what he was doing was not "morally" wrong from how he was raised. I was raised in bull fighting country, and through desensitization I never really questioned wether it was "wrong" or not. Loe and behold, now that I live in Chile and not Ecuador I find that everybody looks at me as weird for enjoying this "inhuman" sport. I cheered with the rest of the crowd when the matador made the kill.

Be careful when you label somebody as a sociopath. You are assuming he was showing lack of empathy towards animals. If you are brought up to believe animals are just things, you cannot empathize with them by definition.

SpartaChris
12-16-2010, 09:52 PM
I don't have to be careful. Torture of animals is listed as a characteristic of sociopaths.

kotar44
12-16-2010, 10:01 PM
Reprehensible behavior cuts across all social, cultural and economic barriers. Even if you allow yourself the delusion that one can be forgiven for his/her illegal adult behavior based on what they were exposed to as a child, you are making huge assumptions about Vick's upbringing. The majority of people who share his same upbringing geographically, culturally and morally do not become animal abusers as adults. He has served his debt to society so to speak, but to forgive, or be expected to feel sympathy because his kids can't have dogs is absurd in my mind.

Amy
12-16-2010, 10:15 PM
THIS^

From a commenter on PFT: "From the book “The Lost Dogs” written by Jim Gorant, the senior editor of Sports Illustrated…..

As that dog lay on the ground, fighting for air, Quanis Phillips grabbed its front legs and Michael Vick grabbed its back legs. They swung the dog over their head like a jump rope then slammed it to the ground. The first impact didn’t kill it. So, Phillips and Vick slammed it again. The two men kept at it, alternating back and forth, pounding the creature against the ground until, at last, the little red dog was dead.*"

I'm sorry, but this isn't Utopia. How can anyone "forgive" a guy capable of this kind of behavior? This is the kind of behavior often attributed to psychopath. How anyone can feel sorry for him because his daughters can't have pets is beyond me. He chose to torture those animals, and at some point Vick knew what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally. He chose to do it anyway.

What Vick did was wrong. We all agree with that. Personally, I rate it less wrong then some people do, but it was still wrong. However, he paid his debt to society, and from all appearances, he has learned his lesson. Our entire society is based on punishing people for wrongdoing, and, if they learn from it, letting them move on. Vick has, as far as can be told, done that. In fact, the head of the American Humane Society has said that he thinks Vick could one day earn the right to have the no dog ownership element of his sentence lifted.

Now, I don't expect any of that to change your opinion, but let me ask you something: Where are the *other* indictments? Michael Vick was charged with being part of an interstate dog fighting ring that operated for over 5 years, and that was the centerpiece of the gambling charges against him. But, you need more than one team to gamble. Clearly, there was at least one other kennel, and likely more than that, that Vick's dogs fought against, and none of them have been named publically, and none of thier owners have been indicted. And not one 'Vick is the worst person ever for what he did' people in the media, or PETA, or Virginia, or the FBI has ever mentioned that.

I have my own theories as to why, but they're just that, and I have no proof. I don't expect you, or anyone else who hates him to stop hating him. But, if what he did is why you hate him, then your own convictions should have you sending letters to your Senators asking where are the other indictments.

As for me, I don't agree with what he did at all, but he stood trial, he did his time, and I think he's earned a chance for redemption.

iwatt
12-16-2010, 10:17 PM
As for me, I don't agree with what he did at all, but he stood trial, he did his time, and I think he's earned a chance for redemption.

Better said than I could. Thanks Amy.

kotar44
12-16-2010, 11:07 PM
I take issue with your thesis. Our society is not, in fact, based on forgiving individuals who learn from their punishment. Just take a quick look at the employment opportunities available to parolees, or the hoops convicted sex offenders must jump through once they have "paid their debt". And even if you do believe in such a simplistic system, on what would you base your conclusion that Mike Vick has indeed learned his lesson? In my opinion the real issue at hand is how people view the severity of the crime. You are correct however that no one will change anyones opinion here. I am troubled by the concept of redemption, but that is probably beyond the scope of this discussion.

Pruitt
12-16-2010, 11:16 PM
I realize that Vick has paid his debt to society. I also concede that he has a right to play football. What I don't believe is that he is anything more than a savage punk who is lucky that he has a hell of a lot of athletic ability.

And how he could even think of authorizing a statement that smacks of self-pity because his poor daughter can't have a dog is just mind boggling.

if he really gave a **** about his daughter, he wouldn't have been jeopardizing his livelihood and risking jail time to pursue a "hobby" that he knew was illegal.

So like I said earlier - let him play. He's done his time.

Just don't be surprised if he is back in court sometime in the near future.

BuckeyeRidley
12-16-2010, 11:44 PM
This did blow up a bit but I think Vick showcasing his desire to have a dog further brings to light what his actions did to sabotage something that I understand his daughter wants.

I think that his money going away and the constant personal attacks he gets are part of the punishments he gets but I think the ultimate punishment is letting his children down. This is real life showing when one makes extremely terrible decisions.

brauneyz
12-17-2010, 12:07 AM
He knew what he was doing was legally wrong. I think you are missing the point on the fact that what he was doing was not "morally" wrong from how he was raised. I was raised in bull fighting country, and through desensitization I never really questioned wether it was "wrong" or not. Loe and behold, now that I live in Chile and not Ecuador I find that everybody looks at me as weird for enjoying this "inhuman" sport. I cheered with the rest of the crowd when the matador made the kill.

Be careful when you label somebody as a sociopath. You are assuming he was showing lack of empathy towards animals. If you are brought up to believe animals are just things, you cannot empathize with them by definition.

And the lying? And the gambling? BS, iwatt, he knew exactly what he was doing. And it was wrong. And he didn't care. That makes him a sociopathic POS. :mad:

Pruitt
12-17-2010, 08:01 AM
And the lying? And the gambling? BS, iwatt, he knew exactly what he was doing. And it was wrong. And he didn't care. That makes him a sociopathic POS. :mad:

It's sadly symptomatic of our society that if he was still on the bench, or if he was playing like Alex Smith, than no one would be paying attention to this issue. As he is playing at MVP level, he starts to garner a lot of sympathy.

KabaModernFan
12-17-2010, 06:22 PM
Jason Whitlock is a well-respected journalist, and he shares the exact same opinion that I do. So instead of trying to do it myself, I'll let him formulate my argument for me. Excerpts from his article on FOX Sports:

"There’s no risk in standing against Mike Vick, a parolee convicted of despicable cruelty to defenseless dogs, an outrageously blessed professional athlete who tossed away a $100 million contract and his freedom because he rejected the mainstream in favor of hip-’hood rebellion."

"I get it. It’s easy to dislike Michael Vick, easy to believe his road to redemption is yellow bricked rather than an arduous green mile. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking there’s something courageous in vilifying Vick for his dogfighting past and denying him the opportunity to write an uplifting future."

"Bashing a convicted dogfighter falls somewhere between blasting John Wall for dancing in pregame introductions (bogus) and shredding Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly for his role in the death of Declan Sullivan (legitimate). The Vick crucifixion smells like John Wall."

And here's the 2nd half of his article in it's entirety, because I couldn't possibly think of any better way to say it myself:

"Vick’s fair-minded dog critics realize he is very unlikely to brutalize animals again. The risk is too great. They want the Philadelphia quarterback locked out of the mainstream because they see his mistreatment of dogs as a sign of a brutal soul. Vick’s brutality, they believe, will manifest itself in other ways.

There is absolute truth in their position. There also is truth in this: The rehabilitation of Vick’s soul must start somewhere, and there is no better place to begin than with normalizing his appreciation and respect for dogs.

A reader tweeted me Thursday analogizing Vick’s right to own a pet dog to allowing a child molester to adopt kids. It’s a ridiculous comparison. As far as I know, there is no segment of American society that believes child molestation is acceptable. There are significant segments of American society where dogfighting is as acceptable as gambling or recreational drug use. As difficult as it may be for some dog owners to fathom, Vick didn’t leave the womb looking for a place to fight dogs. The poor, southern culture he grew up in taught him it was an acceptable form of entertainment and competition.

Why not let him learn/move into a new culture? Why not let him evolve?

If he fails, he’ll suffer harsh consequences. If he succeeds and transitions, he’ll serve as an important symbol of hope and redemption. If the goal is to educate people about the evils of dogfighting, if the goal is to move more people into the mainstream, Michael Vick is the perfect spokesperson.

He’s been punished enough. His path to recovery may be paved with gold, but the obstacles are extreme. He’s still cursed with sycophants who swear to him he’s a victim of racism and that he did no wrong. He’s still a relatively young man who is cursed with too many friends and family members dependent on him for their economic survival. There are well-intentioned, clueless forces pushing Vick the wrong direction every day. The Vick haters empower those forces.

I can think of few men more in need of man’s best friend than Michael Vick."

Link to entire article: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/michael-vick-deserves-to-own-dog-again-Jason-Whitlock-121710

kotar44
12-17-2010, 07:05 PM
Ah, where to begin..first off, Whitlock as a respected journalist is shaky ground to start an argument/comment with. Typically he receives coverage as an ill-informed blowhard with an oversized ego. Regardless, he is entitled to an opinion, but, like many apologists, he manages to mix his opinion with reasons to excuse Vick's past behavior, along with hokey notions of soul redemption, which are as meaningless as they are trite. There is nothing in his column that hasn't been written thousands of times before, so why you chose to post it here as if it were novel is beyond me. Let's keep this simple: even after a criminal serves his time, there are typically restrictions on his post-jail life. He is allowed to make a living, earning millions, so the fact that he can't own a dog is something I'm sure he will find a way to live with.

brauneyz
12-17-2010, 07:47 PM
I started this thread to invite discussion of the badly-aborted marketing angle, IMO, that MV's PR people allowed, not to rehash old history.

But now that this can of worms is opened yet again ...

The legal system has processed Vick. Fine. Done.

America is a quasi-capitalistic nation that allows wealthy men like Jeffrey Lurie to throw their money wherever they choose. Fine. Done.

Forgiveness is a religious concept I have no intention of addressing here. However blindly people engage themselves in the Greatest Redemption Story Ever Told, it does not change the facts. Vick not only engaged in dogfighting, he took pleasure in the repeated torture of these animals, outside of the sport ring. He engaged in interstate gambling. He lied to everyone who gave him the honor of playing in the NFL.

He did not make a mistake, but rather, lived a criminal's life by engaging in repeated behaviors he knew were wrong and went to great lengths to conceal. For those who insist he did not know that what he was doing was wrong, let me just state this. Even a mentally-developing toddler who steps on the tail of the family dog knows he's inflicted pain. Of course, MV knew what he did was wrong. He simply did not care.

Embrace him if you will. He is a freakishly good athlete. Admire that. But let's not rewrite history so sleep can come to those who choose to lie down with evil.

Colts01
12-17-2010, 07:53 PM
"In mid-April of 2007... VICK, PEACE, and PHILLIPS killed approximately seven dogs by hanging and drowning...VICK, PEACE, and PHILLIPS hung approximately three dogs by placing a nylon cord over a 2 x 4 that was nailed to two trees located next to the big shed. They also drowned approximately three dogs by putting the dogs' heads in a 5 gallon bucket of water...VICK and PHILLIPS killed a red pit bull dog, by slamming it to the ground several times before it died, breaking the dog's back or neck. VICK and PEACE instructed [name redacted] to dig two graves for the dead dogs and VICK paid $100
for the job. However [name redacted] refused to bury the dogs, so PHILLIPS, PEACE and VICK buried the dogs themselves."
Culture my ass....

SpartaChris
12-17-2010, 08:30 PM
I am so sick and tired of having Michael Vick crammed down my throat. I'm sorry, but this is not a redemption story. What, because he's managed to keep his nose clean since getting out of federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, he's suddenly a hero? Screw that. There's plenty of players in the NFL that have never spent a night in jail. Shouldn't they be considered heroes too? You want a redemption story? How about Donald Driver, who used to slept in the back of a moving van. Or how about Packers Guard Nick McDonald, whose father deserted him and his 3 siblings when he was 14, leaving them to fend for themselves?

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Packers-McDonald-Shares-Story-Of-Turbulent-Youth-To-Help-Others/87d41cb5-06ed-462e-986a-76ba750738ea

There's probably a ton of stories like this throughout the NFL, yet we choose to celebrate Michael Vick, a guy whose done little more than keep his nose clean. The guy -effed up and was handed an opportunity on a silver platter. That's not redemption, that's being given a gift. Frankly, I'm sick of this guy being treated like a hero. There's nothing heroic about doing your job and staying out of jail.

KabaModernFan
12-17-2010, 08:32 PM
He simply did not care.

How can you expect him to care when he was raised in a society and culture that wholly desensitized him to these acts? I would be willing to bet money that Vick saw as a child or young adult some of the very things it was said he did, such as the killing of the dogs, first-hand while watching elders that he was raised to respect, be they family or friends. iwatt nailed this exactly when he talked about bullfighting and his experiences with it, you cannot assume that everyone loves dogs as much as you or other dog lovers like you do. Vick is a product of his environment, just like everyone else is. It does not excuse his actions, but it is easy to see why he did it. He's not a sociopath or psychopath. He is not evil or the devil reincarnate. He was a man with an impressionable mind, and where he grew up in rural Virginia, dogfighting is something that is easy to be exposed to. No different than bull or cockfighting is in Latin America. It was a common thing in the area Michael Vick grew up in, so to condemn him for life for doing something he grew up learning was okay, seems more than unjust.

Again, it does not excuse his actions, but for those who cannot fathom how a person could knowingly commit these acts, and who epitomize Vick as scum of the Earth or a deranged psychopath, you are well off-base.

SpartaChris
12-17-2010, 08:44 PM
Again, it does not excuse his actions, but for those who cannot fathom how a person could knowingly commit these acts, and who epitomize Vick as scum of the Earth or a deranged psychopath, you are well off-base.

I'm sorry, but I feel those who can justify his actions by claiming "He grew up with it" are well off base. At some point in life you learn right from wrong, and I refuse to believe he never once realized his treatment of those animals was wrong. Otherwise, why host the fights in a black colored shed at night? Why try to hide it?

brauneyz
12-17-2010, 08:55 PM
How can you expect him to care when he was raised in a society and culture that wholly desensitized him to these acts? I would be willing to bet money that Vick saw as a child or young adult some of the very things it was said he did, such as the killing of the dogs, first-hand while watching elders that he was raised to respect, be they family or friends. iwatt nailed this exactly when he talked about bullfighting and his experiences with it, you cannot assume that everyone loves dogs as much as you or other dog lovers like you do. Vick is a product of his environment, just like everyone else is. It does not excuse his actions, but it is easy to see why he did it. He's not a sociopath or psychopath. He is not evil or the devil reincarnate. He was a man with an impressionable mind, and where he grew up in rural Virginia, dogfighting is something that is easy to be exposed to. No different than bull or cockfighting is in Latin America. It was a common thing in the area Michael Vick grew up in, so to condemn him for life for doing something he grew up learning was okay, seems more than unjust.

Again, it does not excuse his actions, but for those who cannot fathom how a person could knowingly commit these acts, and who epitomize Vick as scum of the Earth or a deranged psychopath, you are well off-base.

Kaba, you know I like you and appreciate your contributions here, but you are the one off base.

First, I don't even like dogs!

Secondly, you have not addressed the lying, gambling and covering up aspects of his crimes. Even if he were brought up in the dogfighting 'culture', he certainly knew it was wrong by these very actions.

Thirdly, do not replicate the Tu Quoque fallacy presented by iwatt. (Look it up, it'll be good for you.)

Lastly, you are a bright young man and would do well to study some psychology if you plan on making such false arguments. Check the DSMIV for sociopathy. Without first hand knowledge of MV, I would not feel comfortable making that dx., but you certainly cannot rule it out.

Now, I'm all good and pissy so I'm putting myself in a timeout. I'll post my picks and upset tomorrow, but I gotta get outta here now.

KabaModernFan
12-17-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm sorry, but I feel those who can justify his actions by claiming "He grew up with it" are well off base. At some point in life you learn right from wrong, and I refuse to believe he never once realized his treatment of those animals was wrong. Otherwise, why host the fights in a black colored shed at night? Why try to hide it?

Well whether or not they thought it was right or wrong, they knew it was illegal. Same reason people who smoke weed don't just do it out in the open, they still know it's illegal. And please don't think I'm trying to justify what he did, not my intention at all. I just know that, sure, he probably knew it was wrong legally, but morally it's possible he never questioned it at all.

iwatt
12-17-2010, 09:14 PM
At some point in life you learn right from wrong, and I refuse to believe he never once realized his treatment of those animals was wrong.

History is full of atrocities commited by people who thought they were doing the right thing, or at least not doing anything wrong in the eyes of your family. It doesn't make it right by your eyes and the culture you were brought up in, but it's the height of arrogance to instill your own morality as absolute over that of the rest of the world. If you want to condemn Maori tribes for eating their enemies, that's fine. I'd argue the sin was in the killing, the eating was just taking advantage of available protein and fat, a luxury in those islands.



Secondly, you have not addressed the lying, gambling and covering up aspects of his crimes. Even if he were brought up in the dogfighting 'culture', he certainly knew it was wrong by these very actions.

I will. You want to condemn the gambling? Really. As far as I can tell every lsat person in the USA gambles. Or at least a high percentage. If you have a poker night, bet on football, etc... A case could be made for fantasy football, given the randomess a lot of it involves. Sure, there is a lot of skill, but there is a huge ingredient of fortune (injuries, sleepers). So to argue about gambling is facetious.

And the cover up: He was brought up in a culture were they felt that laws were placed on them to try to control them and change them. Until you are black man in rural Virginia been told that "them rules were placed there by the man", I doubt you can undertand his situation.


I'm sick of this guy being treated like a hero. There's nothing heroic about doing your job and staying out of jail.

Who is treating him like a hero. All I'm saying is the man payed a heafty price for a crime, and now is trying to continue his life.


The guy -effed up and was handed an opportunity on a silver platter. That's not redemption, that's being given a gift.

That's not a gift. That is people like you and me willing to pay to see a guy do something only a few people in the world can. He is well recompensed for that skill, only because there are people willing to do that. There is no "honor to be in the NFL". He does things you and I can't. Thats why he is in the NFL. And the moment he can't do it anymore, it won't matter if he is Santa Claus or Satan, we will be happy to be rid of him, making room for the next young thing.

KabaModernFan
12-17-2010, 09:24 PM
Kaba, you know I like you and appreciate your contributions here, but you are the one off base.

First, I don't even like dogs!

Dogs shouldn't even be relevant to the argument though. Whether it's dogs, bulls, or rats, they are all just animals. Should there really be a double standard?


Secondly, you have not addressed the lying, gambling and covering up aspects of his crimes. Even if he were brought up in the dogfighting 'culture', he certainly knew it was wrong by these very actions.

Not necessarily, since I would assume that the lying, gambling, and cover-ups were also part of how he was raised. Again, he probably knew these things were wrong legally, but morally is another thing entirely.


Thirdly, do not replicate the Tu Quoque fallacy presented by iwatt. (Look it up, it'll be good for you.)

Actually, I do know of Tu Quoque, albeit vaguely. Person A makes Statement X. Person B accuses Person A of being guilty of Statement X. As a result, Statement X is null and void. I don't exactly see how it applies to the situation at hand though. Who is supposed to be Person A/B here? Me? Michael Vick? Perhaps I am just confused here, but I would like clarification.


Lastly, you are a bright young man and would do well to study some psychology if you plan on making such false arguments. Check the DSMIV for sociopathy. Without first hand knowledge of MV, I would not feel comfortable making that dx., but you certainly cannot rule it out.

I feel both complimented and insulted at the same time. However, I did indeed take your advice! You do seem on point in regards to sociopathy being mainly a cause of environmental factors, but the definition given for sociopathy doesn't seem to match with Vick's actions.

"...A pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."

I don't see where Vick disregarded/violated the rights of others in what he did. What he did was wrong, but I don't see how his actions and that given definition match up.

kotar44
12-17-2010, 09:32 PM
The condescension in iwatts posts are amusing, but the argument is still flawed. Regardless of his upbringing, he broke the law. As much as you may want to not label your (borderline rascist) defense of him as an excuse, that is exactly what it is. Otherwise, every other person who grew up in that same world would be abusing and killing animals for amusement. That is clearly not the case, so while culture and upbringing no doubt play a role in this story, they are not the main event so to speak. He made poor decisions, he paid part of his price already (prison), continues to pay now (parole, ban on dog ownership), but in 2 years he can do whatever he chooses. And if you insist he is not being hailed as a hero, then you must not have ESPN, or be subjected to numerous print and online paeans to that effect.

iwatt
12-17-2010, 09:42 PM
The condescension in iwatts posts are amusing,

Pot. Kettle.

I give up. My point is simple. He did something illegal. That doesn't necessarily mean he knew what he was doing was wrong. Kaba has made my points more cogently than I ever could. You've based your rebuttals on basically: Whitlock doesn't count. Then you called me a racist. You also dismiss my belief's by calling them hokey.

So yes, I think I will leave this discussion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Life is too short to get involved in pissing matches with guys on the other side of a keyboard.

kotar44
12-17-2010, 10:05 PM
Just for the record, I did not call anyone rascist. I don't care enough about you (no offense) to do that. I did label your defense as borderline rascist, but thats a huge difference that I hope you can see. I apologize if it came across as a personal attack, it was not meant as such. But yes, I do dismiss Whitlock, as many do. As for the argument, defending someones actions by saying they either A) didn't know it was wrong, or B) were raised that way is, to me, a copout. I tend not to alleviate personal responsibility from adults of sound mind. Also, since we are both unaware of the actual conditions he was exposed to as a child regarding dog fighting, it strikes me as excuse shopping to say with such certainty that this would be the reason for his behavior. You don't know, I don't know, so its easier to deal with what we do know.

brauneyz
12-17-2010, 10:16 PM
Dammit, Kaba, you want the warden to revoke my internet privileges? :p

Not sure I like where this thread is going and not comfortable going full bore here, but you made some valid points and asked great questions. Rude of me not to answer. Let's keep it short and sweet. If it's not enough, PM me, OK?

The compliment was intended. I would not have addressed you if I didn't think you capable. No insult intended.

The Tu Quoque fallacy I mentioned plays out like this. Because iwatt said bullfighting is OK (legal, whatever in Chile (?)), does not translate to dogfighting being legal in the US. "Well, Bobby did it first" ... is not a logical argument to use here.

Now, paraphrasing the symptoms of sociopathy, or Antisocial Personality Disorder, from the DSM, would include ...

# Persistent lying or stealing
# Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
# Cruelty to animals
# Inability to tolerate boredom
# Disregard for what is normally considered right or wrong
# Irresponsible work behavior

I believe Mike Vick has admitted to all of these.

KabaModernFan
12-17-2010, 10:28 PM
Lol brauneyz, I would never want that to happen. I know if you're going down you're taking everybody with you. :)

Thank you for clarifying your statements about Tu Quoque, I understand now what you meant. And looking at your further expansion upon sociopathy/APD worries me somewhat, since I can admit to be guilty of at least two of those (Boredom and work behavior to be specific :P).

I was actually intent on not posting in here, because I knew it was going to get intense and somebody's feeling would probably get hurt. I just can't resist getting involved in debates/arguments/he who yells loudest wins.

iwatt
12-17-2010, 10:51 PM
Brauneyz: you are reducibg my argument to an absurd. My point is that what sone people consider morally wrong isn't an absolute truth. I used a personal example, in which bullfighting is illegal in Chile but is legal in Ecuador, were i wad raised. When people call me a monster for enjoying it, i take umbrage.

Fact if the matter is, i abhore moral absolutists, since they have no problem laying the law until it affects them personallt. But this topic is leaning way too muchtowards relugion and politics, a definite no no in a public forum like this one, I believe.

kotar44
12-17-2010, 11:28 PM
I'm not sure what this argument is about at this point. It seems to me the sole reason the media is searching for an explanation for Vick's previous behavior is to serve up this redemption story in a neat and tidy package. It's a typical story narrative, but it seems based on the responses here some are unwilling to accept it. As for iwatts belief that religion and politics are seeping into the conversation, I personally have not seen any of that. To me it's a legal and ethical issue, and not one of morality. In fact, iwatt is the only one bringing morality into the issue (except for 1 early entry).

brauneyz
12-17-2010, 11:39 PM
Kaba, well done. I enjoyed it.

iwatt, I have not called you a monster and was only using your bullfighting example as a learning point in the Tu Quoque argument. I understand and agree with your point of relativism, but again, I am specifically referring to the pattern of behavior, not just the dogfighting, that Vick engaged in. I could almost disregard the dogfighting as a cultural component, but the lying and concealment, et al, complete the circle.

I am sorry if you are offended. Again, I was not addressing you. It was not an ad hominen attack against you personally. This is about MV and his behaviors in this country, which I maintain, he was well aware of and disregarded.

Drink up everybody. It's the weekend. :D

Pruitt
12-18-2010, 12:38 AM
Whitlock is completely full of **** on this one.

Many of us believe that Vick has the right to play in the NFL, AND still believe that he is a worthless human being.

KabaModernFan
12-18-2010, 12:42 AM
Whitlock is completely full of **** on this one.

Many of us believe that Vick has the right to play in the NFL, AND still believe that he is a worthless human being.

I don't think Whitlock is saying anything about his right to play in the NFL. That article focuses almost entirely on the subject of whether or not he should be allowed to own a dog.

Sridhar
12-18-2010, 03:50 AM
To all you people on your high horse about Michael Vick: Do you eat factory farm meat (i.e) McD, Burger King, KFC..... What moral legs are you standing on? By the way people do eat dogs in some far east asian cultures

SpartaChris
12-18-2010, 04:14 AM
To all you people on your high horse about Michael Vick: Do you eat factory farm meat (i.e) McD, Burger King, KFC..... What moral legs are you standing on? By the way people do eat dogs in some far east asian cultures

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Regardless of your feelings on eating meat, there's a big difference between the mass slaughter of animals used for food and the sick pleasure Vick felt when he was torturing those animals. Vick got off on it. He enjoyed inflicting the absolute most amount of pain and discomfort that he could, as evidenced by the fact that he electrocuted some of those dogs through their testicles. No matter how you slice it, that's simply not the same as running a slaughterhouse.

iwatt
12-18-2010, 06:58 AM
I am sorry if you are offended. Again, I was not addressing you. It was not an ad hominen attack against you personally. This is about MV and his behaviors in this country, which I maintain, he was well aware of and disregarded.

No worries B, you and me are cool. I hate the interwabz :D . When I talked about being looked at as a monster, I was referring to people here in Chile (were there is no history of bullfighting), or in the United States when I've been up visiting some family. Not at anybody here in FP.

Regarding the crime: I agree with you that he knew it was a crime. I also believe that a year in a half in Federal Prison is more than enough punishment.

I also believe that the Law of the Land is not an absolute measure of what is right and what is wrong.

Laws were developed as a survival adaptation, as the social animal known as man began to increase the size of it's communities. As more diverse individuals were included in the pack/herd, more rules were incorporated. This of course meant including rules that covered the mainstream, but excluded the fringes. This leads to groups that know something is illegal, but for any number of reasons don't believe it's wrong. It also leads to groups that know something is Legal, but for any number of reasons believe it's wrong. And I'll leave it at that, because the examples I might bring to the table are definitely political.

Regarding this topic, I have only the words of a couple of wise man to quote:


I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. ~Booker T. Washington


Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. ~Henry Emerson Fosdick

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule. ~Buddha

SpartaChris
12-18-2010, 11:55 AM
Regarding this topic, I have only the words of a couple of wise man to quote:

"Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."- Michaelangelo

Sridhar
12-18-2010, 12:11 PM
Denial is not a National park in Alaska. Just because you call something nonsense doesn't mean it is. I have nothing against slaughter houses or people eating meat. My closest friend works in a slaughter house now. There is a difference between treating animals humanely before they are killed and growing a pig in a cardboard box. Now calling both of them the same might make your next meal go down better. So be it. And for the rest, your snootiness makes for fun reading. That's that. The merits of your argument however, are pretty thin. To get a reality check, take a drive up I-5 from LA.
Sridhar

KabaModernFan
12-18-2010, 12:33 PM
Denial is not a National park in Alaska.

But it is a river in Egypt.

brauneyz
12-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Apologies to all my Fipple Friends. As the OP, I should have known better than to start a MV thread, or at least monitored it better. Careless and naive on my part. So sorry.

If anyone would like to resume the discussion about the football aspect (makeover of tarnished image from advertising standpoint) I'm all ears. Was talking to a friend yesterday about it (not an MV apologist at all) who thought it was a great PR ploy. Of course, that just leaves me more perplexed. :confused:

If we look at the spectrum and ignore both polarized ends (not likely to change their view), would a casual centrist be swayed by a marketing campaign such as this? No matter how I try to wrap my head around it, I can't help but think the ideal moves would include; be quiet, stay clean, and perform on the field. What am I missing?

Thx to all for at least attempting to muddle through this civilly. Love this place!

Pruitt
12-18-2010, 03:35 PM
Denial is not a National park in Alaska. Just because you call something nonsense doesn't mean it is. I have nothing against slaughter houses or people eating meat. My closest friend works in a slaughter house now. There is a difference between treating animals humanely before they are killed and growing a pig in a cardboard box. Now calling both of them the same might make your next meal go down better. So be it. And for the rest, your snootiness makes for fun reading. That's that. The merits of your argument however, are pretty thin. To get a reality check, take a drive up I-5 from LA.
Sridhar

My friend, there are apples and there are oranges.

I'm assuming that your point is that since we all eat meat, therefore we don't have the right to criticize someone who breeds dogs in order for them to be killed as he and his friends watch and gamble on which dog gets killed.

Great point... can't wait to see you as a regular contributor to this forum. I haven't heard logic like that since high school.

GoBigOrGoHome
12-18-2010, 03:46 PM
If we look at the spectrum and ignore both polarized ends (not likely to change their view), would a casual centrist be swayed by a marketing campaign such as this? No matter how I try to wrap my head around it, I can't help but think the ideal moves would include; be quiet, stay clean, and perform on the field. What am I missing?

If you ignore both polarized ends, you are missing only one thing: the guy's kids want a dog. He wants to make his kids happy.

As a marketing ploy, this was brilliant. FP is abuzz about Vick owning a dog, sports radio is abuzz about Vick owning a dog, etc. At some point, the noise will get so loud, we'll all just tune it out and he'll once again be allowed to own a dog.

kotar44
12-19-2010, 12:40 AM
Well, addressing the PR issue, it seems to be successful. I know we have some strident opposition here, but most of the mainstream coverage I have seen has been positive. He is presenting himself as someone who just wants a second chance to prove he has changed. I can respect that if it is genuine. I think we all know there is no chance he will be in the dogfighting game again (at least while he still has an NFL career), so there is no harm in him having a dog, other than the fact that it is prohibited during his probationary period, which ends in 2012 I believe. He definitely needs to avoid more situations like this past summer's party incident to keep the positive vibe flowing, but if his PR are good, that should be no problem.

Sridhar
12-19-2010, 01:27 AM
My friend, there are apples and there are oranges.

I'm assuming that your point is that since we all eat meat, therefore we don't have the right to criticize someone who breeds dogs in order for them to be killed as he and his friends watch and gamble on which dog gets killed.

Great point... can't wait to see you as a regular contributor to this forum. I haven't heard logic like that since high school.

Really. I said 'I have nothing against slaughter houses or people eating meat'. I haven't seen this level of reading comprehension since middle school

kotar44
12-19-2010, 10:31 AM
Not all of us eat meat, but we don't want to go there again, it upsets Sparta. I'm in favor of Brauneyez idea of bringing this back to a discussion of the PR aspects of the issue.

darvon
12-19-2010, 11:05 AM
I think the PR effect of the Kid's Dog comment is secondary. If he keeps performing well on the field, he can start thinking about small regional endorsements. Unfortunately, from a PR aspect, he is now playing in Philly. It would be better in the South. But small Philly endorsements can work if the demographic of the target purchaser are heavily blue collar male. And when the nationals pick it up, it has to be OK. Needs to be very local. It's dynamite, but dynamite can do constructive work.

Pruitt
12-20-2010, 09:51 AM
Really. I said 'I have nothing against slaughter houses or people eating meat'. I haven't seen this level of reading comprehension since middle school

No, but you insinuated that people who eat meat don't have the moral right to criticize a guy who tortures and kills animals for sport.

Somewhat akin to saying that anyone who drives or rides in a bus, train or boat does not have the right to criticize BP.

darvon
12-20-2010, 03:56 PM
Take a look at Ephraim's article WOW Mr. Vick. I talks about Vick's "amazing story".

Also I have heard Antonio Pierce on ESPN talk about Vick's overcoming his downfall as inspirational.

There are 3 camps in the Vick Story, whether they think deeply about it or not.

A) People who think almost all felonies are not recoverable. Felony conviction simple is a telltale of a permanent, heinous character flaw. The purpose of jail is isolation and punishment. Felons should be permanently shunned.

B) People who think MOST felonies are recoverable. Felony conviction is a mistake made in the past and indicates a character flaw which can be overcomed. Possible exceptions are pedaphilia and serial homocide. Purpose of jail is change and recovery.

C) People who think B) but animal cruelty/death is one of the unrecoverables.


Problem is that in real life the political spectrum B and C are usually together, but with Vick C and A are thrown in the same pot, but C is violently allergic to A. So it's hard for C to make thire case without being thought of as an A, which C strives not to be.

As we hear more and more from B in the media, C tries harder and harder to define their position.

Is it heading for a blowup between B and C?

Sridhar
12-21-2010, 12:43 AM
Mr Pruitt,
There is a difference between eating meat and eating factory farm meat. Now it may be the same for you. For me it is not. Obfuscating the argument over and over again with irrelevant talking points: Where have I seen that before? From my end I'm done with this argument

iwatt
12-21-2010, 08:48 AM
There is a difference between eating meat and eating factory farm meat.

Yes there is: Price.