I'm not a Michael Vick fan, and I've never met Michael Vick. I have nothing against him though personally, or professionally for that matter. To me he is just another guy, except for the things he has admitted to doing. That having been said, I am deeply disappointed in the prosecutors in this case.
LET'S PUT ALL THE CARDS ON THE TABLE
Not only will we now be bombarded with race card play, but we will have the inevitable screwy comparisons of hunting and dogfighting. Let's just nip this thing in the bud, right here. Right now. We waste time arguing the differences between legal hunting and illegal dogfighting. Never mind that hunting is about human deductive reasoning versus animal survival instinct (where sometimes the animal wins), and dogfighting is about pitting two animals against each other to the death, not for territory, for food, or even sport, but rather for no instinctive reason known to them. They do it simply because they are trained to do it. People who do not get that point, probably never will, and people who hunt will never see a dog on the same level with a duck or a deer. I could spend hours trying to convince a reasonable person that there are remarkable differences between hunting and dogfighting, and we could argue the details until O.J. admits he's a murderer, but the bottom line is quite simply, like it or not, hunting is perfectly legal, and it is government regulated and enforced. Those that are unwilling to admit that hunting is legal and therein lies the difference, are typically the ones who are anxious to play the race card when it comes to the differences between hunting and dogfighting. Hunting is something that the white man does so it's ok to do as the argument goes and it's not fair that a black man by the same token cannot fight dogs just as matter of factly.
BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE
For all those people, your argument is fatally flawed. Though it stirs up a good debate, you are going to be bitterly disappointed to learn that hunting was not invented by white american males. Therein lies the trump card, so save all that hot air and huffing and puffing on this one. Hunting was invented millions of years ago. It's practiced by males and females, of all races, on every contintent in the world., even for the sheer sport of it. Dogfighting is not legal or even practiced in most countries outside the supposedly white dominated american society. Insist on playing a race card in this debate, and you lose the battle before you get out of the kennel and say breakstick.
THE TRUTH
The real reason we should all be angry is that Michael Vick did a stupid thing and he has let everyone down around him and he made it worse by lying to us about it. Period. End of story. Now, let's get on with our lives without Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcon quarterback.
anyone who plays the race card here is stupid. Mike Vick is wrong because he did something illegal.
But your logics are also flawed. Forget about dog fighting, there are many countries that eat dogs. So please stop putting dogs and cats so much higher than chicken and ducks.
The bottomline is this: they are all not human beings and all are animals.
It's just unfortunate that Vick picked one that is illegal.
bbing168- Nowhere in my statements did I ever say that dogs and cats are "above" ducks (never even mentioned chickens.) and I never said that people don't eat dogs, they just don't make them kill each other. I'll say it once again, a dog doesn't even know why they are killing the other dog.
You didn't directly mention that dogs and cats are superior, but you implied it. Don't tell me that you think otherwise.
And I still don't understand your whole argument that it is wrong to make animals kill each other, but it's okay to kill animals ourselves.
Either way, it's killing for pleasure!
It's like saying prostitution is okay, because you are paying for sex, but porn is wrong because you are paying for two people to have sex with each other.
It's never over. Not as long as people like you gloss over dogfighting and make rece excuses for people like Vick. DOG FIGHTING IS ONE OF THE MOSE HEINOUS CRIMES MAN CAN DO AGAINST ANIMALS and the fight has just begun.
Dude, you totally missed the point; one is legal and one is not; one is regulated and one is not.
But besides that, the blanket statement that hunting is "killing for pleasure" is very narrow and therefore incorrect. Did you miss the part about it being practiced for a long time, dating back to the origins of mankind? Do you realize that the earliest cultures were "hunter gatherers"? For many hunting is survival, not sport. In portions of America it still is. It was for my Grandfathers, literally. Tho for many it is sport, they still, for the most part, eat what they kill.
It blows my mind that so many bloggers can't make the logical distinction between survival (hunting) and torture (dog fighting). A better analogy than prostitution would be self defense (survival) and murder (dog fighting). One is legal and perfectly acceptable in our society, the other is illegal and abhorent.
When you leap that Grand Canyon of logic come on back... if you can't clear the canyon walls PETA has a spot just for you.
UltTroy...I've been fighting that same logic for quite some time on these blogs. Why people want to bring up hunting in regards to dog fighting/torture is beyond me. I especially like it when they start blaming it all on GW Bush. It's called diversion...anything to distract people from reality. Supporters will always do this...and it is a human trait, that unfortunately will always be around. Thank goodness there are those of us who have morals and standards that support life. Those who think it is okay to train dogs to rip each other's faces off...and then think it is okay for humans to torture the one's who lose will be the next one's getting finger printed. They have no conscience. Anyone who says "they're just dogs" needs to take a good look in the mirror...stop blaming Bush for their problems, and listen to the screams of an animal being tortured....POINT BLANK!!!
You obviously missed my points. anyway, you are right, hunting started out as acts for survival. But c'mon, can you really say with a straight face that the majority of hunters in this country are hunting because they do it for survival?
Why can't you just admit the obvious? Hunting is legal, and dog-fighting is illegal, thus Vick did something illegal, and deserves to pay for his crimes.
But from a moral point view, to a person like me (who don't believe in hunting nor dog-fighting), they are all the same. Maybe you (as a hunter) thinks differently, and that is fine, because I am sure dog-fighter probably think they are good people and hunters are sick. It's all about who you are, it's all subjective.
Lastly, regardless of your opinion on dog-fighting, hunting, Vick, or the NFL, you have to admit that Vick doesn't deserve to be punished as severely as he is getting punished right now.
Afterall, a deer is still a deer and a dog is still a dog.
bbing168- Not sure where your hostility is coming from...but here goes...I believe cats and dogs are on the same level with other animals (not human), but they are in a different category. There is an emotional bond that exists between dogs and humans that does not exist with say cattle. That having been said, I could spend hours explaining the difference between hunting and dogfighting but the dogfighting diversionists wouldn't hear it anyway. You can argue with a good point, you can argue with a bad point, but when it's illegal, it's still arguing for the sake of arguing because at the end of the day either way it's still illegal and therefore, wrong.
The anti-hunting folks seem to be missing an ingredient in their crusade. What ulitmately made dogfighting an illegal enterprise is that in a democracy a majority of our voting citizens thought it to be wrong, and thus made it so...IF you truly believe that hunting is wrong, you are welcome to attempt to bring it to light and perhaps change the laws, although I doubt seriously, given that about 92% of the people in this country are good with hunting that you could be successful in that endeavour. To kick and stomp about the unfairness of it incessantly, is as silly as being stockaded in the middle of town square and ranting about the process that got you there.
Last edited by Forgotten_Fan on August 21st at 1:41 PM.
I suppose this same #### who is putting down hunting and talking about it in the same sentense as dog fighting also goes to McDonalds and orders hamburgers all the time. What a hypocrite. Killing an animal in the wild for food is much more honorable and humane that supporting factory farms in which animals don't see the light of day. We eat to survive. People dog fight because they are immoral and unethical.
You're Kidding!! Do you really think this would have been as widely covered if it were Trent Green? I think not. It would have been glossed over just as the Chmura incident was - and that was with a 16 year old girl. Now that's immoral because of the sheer age of the girl not to mention he was married at the time. Does anyone even remember the details of that incident? I doubt it because it was covered as heavily.
lgbrown- If it had been Trent Green instead of Vick, would it have been as widely covered? YOU BET. The Chmura incident was what, ten years ago? ALOT about media coverage has changed since then. It think it has more to do with 2007 and instant media coverage than it does Mike Vick. More time will tell. I think the media coverage has been all over Tim Donaghey. Few remember or cared about Chmura because he was a mediocre tight end. If he had signed a $100Million contract, he would have been roasted a lot more. Mike Vick is getting major coverage for a couple reasons and neither is because he is a black quarterback. Vick IS/WAS an NFL icon and the pot continues to stir because people are making lame arguments why what he did is ok with them, and that creates a huge debate. There was no debating Chmura was garbage.
