I Hate Michael Vick

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
#######
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:38 am

I get so sick of people feigning outrage at Michael Vick, when Casey Anthony is about to become a famous reality TV star and nobody gives a flying uknowhat.

I hate Vick because he's an Eagle. What he did was wrong, but in America, we have a justice system. The dude did 2 years in the Federal Pen, lost all of his money and endorsements, went bankrupt, and had to EARN his way back to stardom.

Most of the people on here couldn't do what Vick did once, let alone twice. Yet everyone seems to have the moral authority to take a leak on him.

He hung 59 points on us last year. I hate him for that more than anything else. I'll save the fake outrage for Nancy Grace.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:39 am

RayNAustin wrote:
emoses14 wrote:Absolutely agree with your first sentence and his transgression was extreme. Also, is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer? In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution.


I know this was in response to kaz, but I'd like to add my commentary.

The crimes you are attempting to compare or summon comparison from others are not as disparate as you might choose to characterize them, since serial killers (of the human murdering type) often begin their careers in mass murder with the systematic torturing of animals. That we define murder as a human killing another human is the only distinction between a Serial Murderer, with the more oft used term "Serial Killers" which does describe Vick's treatment of those animals, no? He killed many ... in brutal fashion over an extended period of time. Sounds like Serial Killing to me.

Now, that's not to suggest that killing a dog is equal to killing a human, just that the mentality of someone capable of such acts against either is indicative of a similar lack of empathy and compassion witnessed in serial killers.

Furthermore, I cannot escape the impression that you just don't consider it a big deal, given the quote marks placed on "complete moral depravity". Perhaps you consider it "partial" moral depravity? Or is more like a little "oopsie" .... like not paying close enough attention, allowing the door to slip your grip, delivering a door ding to the car beside you? I think I know the answer already ... it was a rhetorical question.

emoses14 wrote:And to be honest, Mike Vick doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that he's a changed man, he only needs to be honest with himself. If he has changed and is sorry and can look himself in the mirror and know it to be true, to hell with anyone else, moronic dog lovers, PETA members, and moron supporters who blindly follow him included.


You're right, he doesn't ... nor does the rest of the world owe him forgiveness. But really .... "moronic dog lovers" ? So, loving a noble and loyal to a fault creature is a moronic act, but torturing and killing them in a most extreme and brutal manner such that Vick did, and apparently "enjoyed" while doing it, is just a minor transgression ... nothing to get all worked up about? Just a 5 yard penalty, not a 15 yarder?

emoses14 wrote:Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs? Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated.


I don't think you recognize where your real problem resides ... and I cannot speak for anyone else, but you seem to be missing the first point which is the extreme moral depravity part, and how that is inconsistent with the high code of moral conduct the NFL claims to embrace.

Clearly, an individual has no "god given right" to be a member of the NFL .. which is a true privilege that demands a certain level of character be maintained. And though some mistakes and transgressions which constitute violations of NFL conduct policy are ultimately forgivable offenses and constitute lapses of good judgment ... Vick's behavior demonstrated a total absence of even the most minimal level of morality. Purely disgusting in the extreme, and certainly not the role modal one would want their Son's to embrace ... save for the people who don't think it was a big deal.

emoses14 wrote:Since he's served his sentence and is in compliance with both his parole and bankruptcy plan, he has the exact same right to earn a living as anyone else. Given that Philly has chosen to hire and pay him, this normative determination that he doesn't "belong" in the NFL sounds petty, since very clearly he does belong.


Clearly, if Vick belongs in the NFL, he landed in the perfect spot ... a hooligan team with hooligan fans seems to be a perfect match for an ex-con sociopathic animal torturing hooligan QB.

emoses14 wrote:Nevermind that you assume he's not, or is incapable of, simultaneously dealing with the enormously horrible things he did (note the lack of quotations, because I don't think there's any room to disagree with that, really) while collecting his paycheck, based on . . . what exactly? I've read and listened to folks write off his lobbying for stiffer penalties for those who spectate at dog fights and his anti-dog fighting work with the Humane Society (neither of which is a condition of his parole or is he getting paid for) and any other positive thing he's done or tried to do as solely a "PR" move; but I ask, precisely what is it he needs to do to pay his debt to public opinion, you know, other than the one he's already paid to society? So what IF he is only doing these things as a PR move? Hell that has to be evidence of dealing with his transgressions to some degree, right?


No ... how could you view his efforts as PR motivated and confuse that with "dealing with his transgressions"? It's a selfish act of rehabilitating his image, for his benefit... not an act of sincere remorse for his atrocious behavior which was not a single act or momentary lapse of judgment, but repeated acts over the course of several years.

emoses14 wrote:Or is this just simply the case of a human man, who bred, was entertained by fights to the death starring and killed, dogs, who will never be forgiven no matter what penalty he pays, acts of advocacy, contrition and charity he performs, or how much time passes? Is it really the case that his actions with BAd Newz Kennel preclude him from ever changing, making a living "playing a game", surviving one of the most brutal sports without "blowing out a knee," or whatever other pound of flesh "we" believe he ought to give "us"?


Obviously you have forgiven him .. but it's much easier for you since you don't consider his actions as morally reprehensible as many others do. Those others find it more difficult, because 1) there has been no convincing display of sincere remorse .. he looks pretty phony and pretty coached up in his responses ... and 2) Some things are reserved for only Momma and God to seek forgiveness from ... since we the public are neither ... we don't owe that degenerate punk anything. And each of us has the right to determine who does and does not deserve our respect and forgiveness.

Personally, I don't wish bodily injury on anyone, though I'd feel no sadness if universal karma where to settle the debt. It's already happening to that team of misfits to a certain extent, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch up there in the City of brotherly love. The dream team are having nightmares, and they deserve them.

Go Redskins ... Ryan and Brian, have a good time in the Philthy backfield.


That's a lot to respond to, before I do so, did you happen to see my follow up post to Kaz? That may or may not address some of your responses above.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:05 am

SkinsJock wrote:I'm not concerned about Vick as a human being because that has nothing to do with the Redskins chances of winning this game


Then why are you posting in this thread? Read the title and the first post, it's about Vick as a human being, not a quarterback.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:08 am

The Hogster wrote:I get so sick of people feigning outrage at Michael Vick, when Casey Anthony is about to become a famous reality TV star and nobody gives a flying uknowhat.


I get so sick of people telling me that I can't think something about one person unless I think something about someone else they pulled out of their ... first. You can play that game endlessly.

Though for completeness, can you give us the full list of people we're required to think about and what we are supposed to think about them so I can think it and we can get back to any points on Vick in the thread about Vick?
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:26 am

RayNAustin wrote:
emoses14 wrote:Absolutely agree with your first sentence and his transgression was extreme. Also, is there a difference in your mind between Vick's "complete moral depravity" and the degree of moral depravity of an actual pre-meditated murderer or a serial murderer? In any event, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else (supporter or detractor) believes is a reasonable amount of time for contrition, reflection and self absolution.


I know this was in response to kaz, but I'd like to add my commentary.

The crimes you are attempting to compare or summon comparison from others are not as disparate as you might choose to characterize them, since serial killers (of the human murdering type) often begin their careers in mass murder with the systematic torturing of animals. That we define murder as a human killing another human is the only distinction between a Serial Murderer, with the more oft used term "Serial Killers" which does describe Vick's treatment of those animals, no? He killed many ... in brutal fashion over an extended period of time. Sounds like Serial Killing to me.

Now, that's not to suggest that killing a dog is equal to killing a human, just that the mentality of someone capable of such acts against either is indicative of a similar lack of empathy and compassion witnessed in serial killers.

Furthermore, I cannot escape the impression that you just don't consider it a big deal, given the quote marks placed on "complete moral depravity". Perhaps you consider it "partial" moral depravity? Or is more like a little "oopsie" .... like not paying close enough attention, allowing the door to slip your grip, delivering a door ding to the car beside you? I think I know the answer already ... it was a rhetorical question.


Typically, you are absolutely right that the killing of an animal (usually domestic cats and dogs) indicates a mentality that would allow for the escalation to the killing of humans. The only issue is that the vast majority of that research draws that link between the animal killing during childhood/adolescence and then human in adulthood. Don't know if Vick killed dogs while he was 15 or younger, but what i do know (w/a fair degree of certainty) is that he has never killed a human. Yes, he is a serial killer of dogs, it is reprehensible, but I do, as I believe everyone does, draw a distinction, a very important one, between animals and humans.

NOW, to correct one thing which is entirely unfair; I absolutely consider what he did is a very big deal. I find those who brush it off as if it was a little oopsie as mental midgets. He absolutely deserved all of the punishment he has received and the vindictivness and negativity from the public. You know damn well that just as there is a stark differene between taking a human life and a canine life, so is there a difference between rubbing paint and killing a canine. The quote marks would have been more appropriate around "complete" (and I believe in a different post i did) rather than the entire phrase. You're damn right I don't consider his actions to be evidence of zero morality. I'd say alarming moral depravity, serious moral depravity, an f-ed up moral compass, sure, but I would not compare the man to Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, or Adolf Hitler. Those men exhibited COMPLETE moral depravity. And I am being extreme on purpose. I am sorry that I do not take those actions and use them as a blanket to over the man's entire life and worth and come out determining that he is a sociopath.

emoses14 wrote:And to be honest, Mike Vick doesn't need to convince the rest of the world that he's a changed man, he only needs to be honest with himself. If he has changed and is sorry and can look himself in the mirror and know it to be true, to hell with anyone else, moronic dog lovers, PETA members, and moron supporters who blindly follow him included.


RayNAustin wrote: You're right, he doesn't ... nor does the rest of the world owe him forgiveness. But really .... "moronic dog lovers" ? So, loving a noble and loyal to a fault creature is a moronic act, but torturing and killing them in a most extreme and brutal manner such that Vick did, and apparently "enjoyed" while doing it, is just a minor transgression ... nothing to get all worked up about? Just a 5 yard penalty, not a 15 yarder?



Yes, really Ray. Despite how ludicrous that reading of the entire sentence was, I'll engage. What you've desribed are not moronic dog lovers. Those are normal dog lovers. Moronic ones are the ones who believe that a pet should have the same legal and civil rights as a human being, that Vick should be locked away for life, or put to death, or put in a rape stand, never allowed to make another dollar that isn't immediately garnised to a dog rescue or humane society (and quite frankly, anyone who puts their dog in a purse to go to the mall).

emoses14 wrote:Now, where I have a problem is with the highlighted sentence. What does earning a living have to do with his cruel treatment of dogs? Unless his career happens to be in pet grooming or running a kennel, they are completely unrelated.


RayNAustin wrote:I don't think you recognize where your real problem resides ... and I cannot speak for anyone else, but you seem to be missing the first point which is the extreme moral depravity part, and how that is inconsistent with the high code of moral conduct the NFL claims to embrace.

Clearly, an individual has no "god given right" to be a member of the NFL .. which is a true privilege that demands a certain level of character be maintained. And though some mistakes and transgressions which constitute violations of NFL conduct policy are ultimately forgivable offenses and constitute lapses of good judgment ... Vick's behavior demonstrated a total absence of even the most minimal level of morality. Purely disgusting in the extreme, and certainly not the role modal one would want their Son's to embrace ... save for the people who don't think it was a big deal.


I know that I recognize where my real problem lies, and I stated it. How can you possibly engage my words discussing the issue of moral depravity in one breath, then in the next tell me I missed the point regarding moral depravity? That's precisely the point I'm discussing. Or did you mean I missed the point becaue I dare to have a different take on the issue? IN any event, Ray, this is a second point. Now, unfortunately for us, the question about whether his actions constituted a moral depravity to the level of being so inconsistent with the moral conduct code of the NFL has been asked and answered. As the arbiters of that code, the NFL made the call that in fact it was not. That, in fact, it was not an unforgivable transgression against that conduct policy, thus the privilege of playing in the NFL, is one that Vick gets to continue enjoying. His right to try and earn a living (which really means it is necessarily not right for him to be restricted from doing so), therefore still includes pursuing an NFL career. I happen to agree with that reading. I get it that you don't without considering you to be some crackpot animal lover. Why on earth is it so difficult for folks in your position to not see the other side of the coin? The one that says, What he did is disgusting, it is wrong and at the same time recognize that a man can change and oh by the way, isn't it odd that everyone who's had the means to ascertain whether he is in the process of doing so, seem to all agree that he is.

emoses14 wrote:Since he's served his sentence and is in compliance with both his parole and bankruptcy plan, he has the exact same right to earn a living as anyone else. Given that Philly has chosen to hire and pay him, this normative determination that he doesn't "belong" in the NFL sounds petty, since very clearly he does belong.


RayNAustin wrote:Clearly, if Vick belongs in the NFL, he landed in the perfect spot ... a hooligan team with hooligan fans seems to be a perfect match for an ex-con sociopathic animal torturing hooligan QB.


Now, here we agree 92%. Everything is right on except Vick is not a sociopath. Sociopaths are incapable of corrective behavior. Again, there's is a COMPLETE lack of moral compass. That isn't Vick. His actions are reprehensible. The man himself is not, the ability to see the difference is called balance.

emoses14 wrote:Nevermind that you assume he's not, or is incapable of, simultaneously dealing with the enormously horrible things he did (note the lack of quotations, because I don't think there's any room to disagree with that, really) while collecting his paycheck, based on . . . what exactly? I've read and listened to folks write off his lobbying for stiffer penalties for those who spectate at dog fights and his anti-dog fighting work with the Humane Society (neither of which is a condition of his parole or is he getting paid for) and any other positive thing he's done or tried to do as solely a "PR" move; but I ask, precisely what is it he needs to do to pay his debt to public opinion, you know, other than the one he's already paid to society? So what IF he is only doing these things as a PR move? Hell that has to be evidence of dealing with his transgressions to some degree, right?


RayNAustin wrote:No ... how could you view his efforts as PR motivated and confuse that with "dealing with his transgressions"? It's a selfish act of rehabilitating his image, for his benefit... not an act of sincere remorse for his atrocious behavior which was not a single act or momentary lapse of judgment, but repeated acts over the course of several years.


As I think I said, this is the biggest problem between you and Kaz (and those aligned with you) and myself (and those aligned with me). None, NOT A SINGLE ONE, of us KNOWS whether they are purely PR motivated or not. That is where our biases come into play. You've no proof that he isn't sincere, its simply your belief and all I have are his words and his actions.

emoses14 wrote:Or is this just simply the case of a human man, who bred, was entertained by fights to the death starring and killed, dogs, who will never be forgiven no matter what penalty he pays, acts of advocacy, contrition and charity he performs, or how much time passes? Is it really the case that his actions with BAd Newz Kennel preclude him from ever changing, making a living "playing a game", surviving one of the most brutal sports without "blowing out a knee," or whatever other pound of flesh "we" believe he ought to give "us"?


RayNAustin wrote:Obviously you have forgiven him .. but it's much easier for you since you don't consider his actions as morally reprehensible as many others do. Those others find it more difficult, because 1) there has been no convincing display of sincere remorse .. he looks pretty phony and pretty coached up in his responses ... and 2) Some things are reserved for only Momma and God to seek forgiveness from ... since we the public are neither ... we don't owe that degenerate punk anything. And each of us has the right to determine who does and does not deserve our respect and forgiveness.


Now, on this you are 100% correct. No argument. Your point 1) is a matter of opinion not a statement of fact; you believe there hasn't been a convincing display of sincere remorse. The substantive part of point 2 is right on as well. That poor woman has to live with the fact that she raised a man who thought it was cool to kill dogs after pitting them against each other in fights to death. You're absolute right that we all have the right to choose whom we continue to hate and whom we choose to forgive.

RayNAustin wrote:Personally, I don't wish bodily injury on anyone, though I'd feel no sadness if universal karma where to settle the debt. It's already happening to that team of misfits to a certain extent, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch up there in the City of brotherly love. The dream team are having nightmares, and they deserve them.


100% agree.


RayNAustin wrote:Go Redskins ... Ryan and Brian, have a good time in the Philthy backfield.


. . . And please please please let Rex act like an NFL quarterback for once.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:29 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:Now that is purely a disgusting remark ... you must be a cowboy fan. But the issue has nothing to do with the value of human life compared to a dog ... the issue is intent. There is a significant difference between an accident and a continued and repeated inflicting of pain and suffering on many living creatures purposely and apparently with enjoyment.

It's a shame this isn't immediately apparent to everyone.


Bam! That's it exactly Ray. This is what I was trying to argue, but hadn't figured out how to say as exactly as you did. No doubt a dog is less then a human life, but that's not the issue, it was his repeatedly and intentionally inflicting cruelty, not whether his victims were more or less important.

word


Well, I'm not sure I could say that in EVERY case ... there are some dogs out there that really are higher quality individuals than some of their human counterparts. So to me, I think that fact earns them the right to be treated with equal respect regarding the value of life, and concern for their feelings :wink:

I don't know if you've seen this ... but it's remarkable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

I didn't need to see this video to know the depth of feelings, intelligence, and ability to think which dogs possess .... but many people just don't believe dogs are capable, or at this level. Well, they're wrong.

They feel joy and sadness, pleasure and pain, shame and pride, courage and fear, loyalty ... empathy ... compassion. Just because their structure won't allow verbal communication, doesn't mean they aren't intelligent beings.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby Hooligan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:15 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
a hooligan team with hooligan fans seems to be a perfect match for an ex-con sociopathic animal torturing hooligan QB.




After careful consideration, I've decided to go in a different direction at the position of QB. Vinny Testaverde is being brought in for a workout.
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

08 Champ
Posts: 13052
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:22 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I'm not concerned about Vick as a human being because that has nothing to do with the Redskins chances of winning this game


Then why are you posting in this thread? Read the title and the first post, it's about Vick as a human being, not a quarterback.


:lol: because I can :lol:

feeling a little defensive, are we :wink:
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open

RG3 will benefit from having a full off season to prepare and a better 'fit' at both HC and OC

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:11 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I'm not concerned about Vick as a human being because that has nothing to do with the Redskins chances of winning this game


Then why are you posting in this thread? Read the title and the first post, it's about Vick as a human being, not a quarterback.


:lol: because I can :lol:

feeling a little defensive, are we :wink:


Defensive? :hmm:
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:12 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
kaz wrote:No doubt a dog is less then a human life


Well, I'm not sure I could say that in EVERY case ...


True, you got me there...
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:16 pm

emoses14 wrote:Typically, you are absolutely right that the killing of an animal (usually domestic cats and dogs) indicates a mentality that would allow for the escalation to the killing of humans. The only issue is that the vast majority of that research draws that link between the animal killing during childhood/adolescence and then human in adulthood. Don't know if Vick killed dogs while he was 15 or younger, but what i do know (w/a fair degree of certainty) is that he has never killed a human. Yes, he is a serial killer of dogs, it is reprehensible, but I do, as I believe everyone does, draw a distinction, a very important one, between animals and humans.

NOW, to correct one thing which is entirely unfair; I absolutely consider what he did is a very big deal. I find those who brush it off as if it was a little oopsie as mental midgets. He absolutely deserved all of the punishment he has received and the vindictivness and negativity from the public. You know damn well that just as there is a stark differene between taking a human life and a canine life, so is there a difference between rubbing paint and killing a canine. The quote marks would have been more appropriate around "complete" (and I believe in a different post i did) rather than the entire phrase.


Then I stand corrected. But I definitely disagree with the broad brush approach to a "one size fits all" distinction between taking a human life and a dog's life. Again, it's about intent ... and it involves degrees, just as there are distinctions made in the area of taking a human life ... from premeditated murder to justifiable homicide, as well as many shades in between. A fit of rage killing is certainly a different scenario than a systematic luring of victims and horrific infliction of terror and mutilation. All of these circumstances are considered when assigning levels of wrongdoing and or psychopathy.

That's why I reject an earlier position that claimed that an accident that claimed a human life was MORE wrong than an intentional act of torturing and killing animals. One might legitimately claim the loss of human life more tragic ... but an intentional act of extreme cruelty will ALWAYS be more wrong than an accident.

emoses14 wrote:You're damn right I don't consider his actions to be evidence of zero morality. I'd say alarming moral depravity, serious moral depravity, an f-ed up moral compass, sure, but I would not compare the man to Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, or Adolf Hitler. Those men exhibited COMPLETE moral depravity. And I am being extreme on purpose. I am sorry that I do not take those actions and use them as a blanket to over the man's entire life and worth and come out determining that he is a sociopath.


Tell me, emoses, where in his actions and treatment of these animals do you see this glimmer of morality that separates him from those who possess zero? Because he hasn't stepped over the line to include inflicting such horror on humans? Could that not be based on lack of opportunity or circumstance rather than a moral and conscious choice not to?

For instance, rather than being a Multi-Millionaire football player .... had he joined the military and been deployed to Iraq ... would you be utterly shocked (knowing what we know now about him) if he were implicated in the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians as have some other soldiers have?

You see, the absence of evidence for his capacity to murder, is not evidence of absence of capacity. Lack of opportunity, or circumstances that would facilitate such behavior could be the primary factor here .. and not an element of Vick's morality that prevented such behavior.

Moreover, I see little value in comparing Vick to the likes of Hitler, just as I do were the comparison be made between Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Does the fact that Mao murdered more people than Hitler make Hitler more redeemable? Of course not .... no more so than to suggest that a person who robs a liquor is less of a thief than one who robs a bank.

Insofar as Vick being a sociopath, I believe he has demonstrated that beyond any doubt whatsoever .. if indeed one understands what a sociopath actually is. And we'll be returning to this point shortly ... but for now, a sociopath lacks the normal human emotions of empathy and compassion that prevents normal people from committing such acts of supreme cruelty as was perpetrated by Vick. These people ...and estimates suggest this condition may affect as much as 10% of the population ... are defined by their inability to feel those normal human emotions, which, by the way, are also the source of one's feelings of remorse.

emoses14 wrote:Yes, really Ray. Despite how ludicrous that reading of the entire sentence was, I'll engage. What you've desribed are not moronic dog lovers. Those are normal dog lovers. Moronic ones are the ones who believe that a pet should have the same legal and civil rights as a human being, that Vick should be locked away for life, or put to death, or put in a rape stand, never allowed to make another dollar that isn't immediately garnised to a dog rescue or humane society (and quite frankly, anyone who puts their dog in a purse to go to the mall).


I just viewed the very inclusion of "Moronic Dog Lover" as a gratuitous insult to those with moral character, in defense of someone without such.

And though it might seem extreme to contemplate the idea that animals have equal rights ... when it comes to extreme treatment, I believe they should enjoy equal protection. I think the act of claiming our human rights so superior, and their rights so inferior by comparison, tends to provide the best evidence against such a claim. The moment we can consciously acknowledge the value of such creatures who demonstrate the multitude of acts of loyalty and defense and of risking their lives to save their human companions as is well documented by dogs ... we might have more solid ground on which to stake that claim. Right now? Such claims of superiority are lacking in evidence.

In other words, these noble creatures demonstrate a level of dedication, loyalty, and unconditional love toward us that demands reciprocity from us in like manner. For those that don't embrace that sentiment ... well, they are far less superior than they believe.

emoses14 wrote:I know that I recognize where my real problem lies, and I stated it. How can you possibly engage my words discussing the issue of moral depravity in one breath, then in the next tell me I missed the point regarding moral depravity? That's precisely the point I'm discussing. Or did you mean I missed the point becaue I dare to have a different take on the issue? IN any event, Ray, this is a second point.


Yes ... in my holier than thou self righteousness, on this point, I declare my take on the matter as the only appropriate response. :wink:

emoses14 wrote:Now, unfortunately for us, the question about whether his actions constituted a moral depravity to the level of being so inconsistent with the moral conduct code of the NFL has been asked and answered. As the arbiters of that code, the NFL made the call that in fact it was not. That, in fact, it was not an unforgivable transgression against that conduct policy, thus the privilege of playing in the NFL, is one that Vick gets to continue enjoying. His right to try and earn a living (which really means it is necessarily not right for him to be restricted from doing so), therefore still includes pursuing an NFL career. I happen to agree with that reading. I get it that you don't without considering you to be some crackpot animal lover.

That the NFL decided Vick's conduct was sufficiently punished by the criminal justice system, and that he deserved reinstatement does not prove they are correct in their assessment ... only that they possess the power to make that determination.

I find it totally inconsistent, given how the league might treat a player with a substance issue ... say marijuana .. a victimless crime that has no moral implications whatsoever. This holds true for the criminal justice system as well, with some victimless crimes being punished far more severely than what most would consider far worse crimes of violence.

emoses14 wrote:Why on earth is it so difficult for folks in your position to not see the other side of the coin? The one that says, What he did is disgusting, it is wrong and at the same time recognize that a man can change and oh by the way, isn't it odd that everyone who's had the means to ascertain whether he is in the process of doing so, seem to all agree that he is.


I could ask you the same question, and to be honest, I have a much stronger position, and here's why. As mentioned before, sociopaths lack the ability to experience and feel normal human emotions. This can be problematic for them insofar as functioning invisibly among society, and fitting in. These people "learn" how to act and respond to various stimuli and situations and events by observing others. The demonstrations of concern ... and sorrow ... and affection are mimicked because they aren't capable of the genuine response driven emotions. This is well documented in the scientific/medical literature describing sociopath behavior. But they also have a tendency to overreact and under-react also. And if observed closely, inconsistencies are detectable, to include inadequate displays of emotion when confronted.

So, such a person can "say" they are sorry verbally, and use all of the right words and sound sincere, while their body language doesn't reflect those words ... such as not looking down in a physical demonstration of shame or remorse.

This is what I see with Vick, as well as an inadequate and inappropriate responses verbally, when asked if he's remorseful. As was earlier suggested, he seems far more sorry for the level of pain his actions brought upon himself than for any pain he caused those animals or those who supported him and believed in his declarations of innocence.

emoses14 wrote:Now, here we agree 92%. Everything is right on except Vick is not a sociopath. Sociopaths are incapable of corrective behavior. Again, there's is a COMPLETE lack of moral compass. That isn't Vick. His actions are reprehensible. The man himself is not, the ability to see the difference is called balance.


No ... it's not balance that you describe, it's called rationalization. As far a being a sociopath, there can be no other explanation. Normal people cannot do what he did. Perhaps you aren't familiar enough with what he actually did do that could lead you to your conclusion. This man wasn't simply conducting a dog fighting operation that had dogs killing each other ... he participated in the systematic torture of these animals to create aggression and meanness ... to the point of torturing to death those dogs that refused to fight. Electroshock, drowning, beating ... on and on. A person with even a sliver of humanity couldn't commit these unspeakable atrocities. Some hardened criminals in prison couldn't bring themselves to commit these acts. NO ... sociopath is a minimum requirement for such antisocial behavior, with borderline psychopath not completely out of the question.

emoses14 wrote:As I think I said, this is the biggest problem between you and Kaz (and those aligned with you) and myself (and those aligned with me). None, NOT A SINGLE ONE, of us KNOWS whether they are purely PR motivated or not. That is where our biases come into play. You've no proof that he isn't sincere, its simply your belief and all I have are his words and his actions.


Sure we have cause. This guy was doing this deplorable crap for a long time, and he only stopped because he got caught. And immediately, he lied about it ... lied about his involvement ... then lied about his participation, and he lied to some of the people closest to him, many of whom trusted and believed in his innocence.

Ask Arthur Blank about the credibility of Michael Vick's words and promises, and let me know what he thinks of taking Vick's statements at face value? And not many were were closer to Vick, or more of a supporter and ally than Mr. Blank, and Vick lied repeatedly to him, and apparently well enough for Mr. Blank to stick his neck out in support of him. What a bald faced betrayal he committed against Blank!

Couple all of this with the realization of what he's obviously capable of insofar as merciless treatment of those poor animals ... he deserves no benefit of the doubt when it comes to truthfulness. He's a cold blooded, sociopathic abuser and a freaking liar.

Now, what are your reasons for believing him?

emoses14 wrote:Now, on this you are 100% correct. No argument. Your point 1) is a matter of opinion not a statement of fact; you believe there hasn't been a convincing display of sincere remorse. The substantive part of point 2 is right on as well. That poor woman has to live with the fact that she raised a man who thought it was cool to kill dogs after pitting them against each other in fights to death. You're absolute right that we all have the right to choose whom we continue to hate and whom we choose to forgive.

100% agree.


You're a very well spoken and well written fellow. And you views are not too far off that there isn't hope for you :lol:

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:27 pm

This thread started with only marginal relevance to the Redskins, and it's since gone pretty far afield. Moving this to the Lounge, so the dogs-v-humans discussion can continue unhampered . . .
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1639
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Houston, TX

Postby markshark84 » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:59 pm

funsho2 wrote:
markshark84 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I give him the benefit of the doubt. He was convicted and served his time. I do not care for him, but that is because he is an Eagle.

Let's not forget what Stallworth did...


Really??? You can't compare what Stallworth did to Vick. Totally different circumstances. Stallworth's was a one time thing and even admitted to drinking at the scene (totally dumb move, but honest). The dog fighting, on the other hand, occured multiple times over the course of multiple (some say close to 7) years. Vick's actions were premeditated in that he had time to contemplate what he was doing and the consequences of his actions -- and continued to do it. He killed and used the dogs lives as a form of entertainment and revenue with full knowledge of the outcome.

And honestly, the dog fighting isn't even the worst of it for Vick. Personally, I think that Vick (aka Ron Mexico) knowingly giving woman non-treatable STDs is just as bad. There are also the marijuana charges.


So a human life is less than a dog's? is that what you are saying...u must be one of those people that have sex with their dogs


How in the did you get that out of my post. What are you even trying to say??? I basically said the exact opposite. I basically said giving chicks the herp is just as bad as killing dogs. In the future, I would suggest that you attempt to actually read something before posting.

Nice comments though. I should have expected this, though. Seems like a typical Dallas fan response.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:49 pm

This thread was moved to the Lounge, not Smack. Please keep personal attacks and profanity in Smack, and keep this thread PG.

Thanks.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:29 pm

Postby muktech » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:21 pm

Hooligan wrote:I'm sure he's a changed man in that he's a little more humble after being forced to spend time behind bars. Other than that, I think that if he weren't arrested, he'd still be doing what he was doing.

I hope he blows out a knee, and I don't wish things like that on many people. He doesn't deserve a career where he gets stinking rich by playing a game.


Well, that is the point, isn't it? You commit a crime, you get caught, you get punishment, you get rehabilitated, learn your lesson, and not repeat the same mistakes anymore otherwise you go back to the slammer.

This is usually how life works!! If you are not caught, you keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. Sometimes, if you are caught and go through the above, you still don't learn the lessons and you go back to the slammer. That's how life is.

I ONLY care about one thing: Mike Vick will get sacked 50 times on Sunday; will fumble the ball 50 times; Redskins will recover the fumble 50 times!!

Return to The Lounge