drew patrick wrote:Whether Vick would be better off legally had he been accused of person-on-person violence is an entirely hypothetical question of evidence (including primarily witness testimony and physical/documentary evidence), but I suspect that he actually would be. That wasn't my point.

Many NFL players have disgustingly beat up (or done worse to) humans (usually women) with nary the discussion or conferral of all-time pariah status that is accompanying Vick's conduct against canines. That is my point.

Understood. The point I'm making is that the all-time pariah treatment is administered in direct proportion to your fame. Because Vick is a superstar, he is conferred that status. And to say Rae Carruth, Ray Lewis, Mark Chmura don't carry them with them is not exactly true - the fact that people were able to cite some of these examples shows that it does follow them to an extent. The fact that some football players have beaten up their girlfriends and have been able to return to their jobs is more a statement about the legal system. If you're saying that it's reprehensible that they are able to go back to doing their jobs, you'd have to apply that standard to the average blue / white collar worker as well.

I think your first statement touches on something that I think is making this story horrific to many people. Whenever you have a boyfriend / girlfriend incident - there's always the notion that there are two sides of the story. It's not inconceivable that part of the story could have been manufactured, etc. In this case - there's really not another side to this story. The dogs didn't "knowingly enter a contract" or do something to deserve it - there's an added extra level of cruelty associated with inflicting harm on something that is dependent on you.

barndog wrote:I think your first statement touches on something that I think is making this story horrific to many people. Whenever you have a boyfriend / girlfriend incident - there's always the notion that there are two sides of the story. It's not inconceivable that part of the story could have been manufactured, etc. In this case - there's really not another side to this story. The dogs didn't "knowingly enter a contract" or do something to deserve it - there's an added extra level of cruelty associated with inflicting harm on something that is dependent on you.

Thanks for making a very good point. There have been fabricated cases of rape and assault charges pressed on athletes and other celebrities (and many valid cases as well). The situations need to be examined in all of those cases to determine what actually went on. An ass whooping at the hands of an NFL player could have ben precipitated by the other guy's swinging first, a one night stand could have been twisted into a rape charge. But the training and conditioning of dogs for fighting, and then the forcing of the actual fighting, can never really be anything other than that. It is excusable to injure or kill an animal in certain circumstances (food, self defense, euthanasia). But raising animals to kill or maim each other for human amusement is inexcusable. Even the muay thai fighters who undergo brutal conditioning and brutal fighting conditions to bring themselves out of poverty (or get a sex change) have agreed to do what they do, no matter how much criticism we can justly lay on a socio-economic system that encourages violent competition between two (often lower class) men for entertainment. An animal can never agree to something like this; in this way cruelty towards an animal is (as a general practice, situations involving two humans need to be evaluated on a case by case basis) generally more depraved than cruelty towards another human. It cannot be reasoned to any other cause than just the pure enjoyment of inflicting pain or enjoying the spectacle of the infliction of pain.

slincire wrote:An animal can never agree to something like this; in this way cruelty towards an animal is (as a general practice, situations involving two humans need to be evaluated on a case by case basis) generally more depraved than cruelty towards another human. It cannot be reasoned to any other cause than just the pure enjoyment of inflicting pain or enjoying the spectacle of the infliction of pain.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. And anyone who would argue otherwise, please shut the fuck up.

Vick suspended indefinitely by the NFL

I would like to join those commending slincire on an excellent and well-thought-out post.

slincire wrote:

barndog wrote:I think your first statement touches on something that I think is making this story horrific to many people. Whenever you have a boyfriend / girlfriend incident - there's always the notion that there are two sides of the story. It's not inconceivable that part of the story could have been manufactured, etc. In this case - there's really not another side to this story. The dogs didn't "knowingly enter a contract" or do something to deserve it - there's an added extra level of cruelty associated with inflicting harm on something that is dependent on you.

Thanks for making a very good point. There have been fabricated cases of rape and assault charges pressed on athletes and other celebrities (and many valid cases as well). The situations need to be examined in all of those cases to determine what actually went on. An ass whooping at the hands of an NFL player could have ben precipitated by the other guy's swinging first, a one night stand could have been twisted into a rape charge. But the training and conditioning of dogs for fighting, and then the forcing of the actual fighting, can never really be anything other than that. It is excusable to injure or kill an animal in certain circumstances (food, self defense, euthanasia). But raising animals to kill or maim each other for human amusement is inexcusable. Even the muay thai fighters who undergo brutal conditioning and brutal fighting conditions to bring themselves out of poverty (or get a sex change) have agreed to do what they do, no matter how much criticism we can justly lay on a socio-economic system that encourages violent competition between two (often lower class) men for entertainment. An animal can never agree to something like this; in this way cruelty towards an animal is (as a general practice, situations involving two humans need to be evaluated on a case by case basis) generally more depraved than cruelty towards another human. It cannot be reasoned to any other cause than just the pure enjoyment of inflicting pain or enjoying the spectacle of the infliction of pain.

To the extent that I make value judgments about levels of depravity, I don't see less depravity in a person with a mentality allowing her or him to rape another human or habitually physically abuse another human vis-a-vis a person who is murderously cruel to animals.

Superking wrote:

This is an obscure forum reference if ever I saw one.

drew patrick wrote:

Brinkman wrote:

drew patrick wrote:I think Mr. Weissenberger already made the point, but it is a pathetic commentary on the current state of affairs in the media when Vick would be better off had he raped a woman or given a Lawrence Phillips-style beatdown to his significant other rather than mistreating and abusing canines.

You and Weissenberger should stop pretending you actually care about these victims of abuse you both mention.

When did I "pretend" to "actually care about these victims of abuse"?

My caring, faux-caring, or non-caring about the human victims of violent crimes by NFL and ex-NFL players has nothing to do with how ludicrous the coverage of and attention to the Vick story has become in comparison to these other stories.

Dog fighting is not worse than rape or murder but it is LOWER. Rape and murder is not a culture but generally an individual activity that does not invite onlookers and attention. Dog fighting is a social activity, group entertainment, a status competition and a monetary exchange..it is a growing CULTURE and will spread if not eliminated. Dog fighting is sub -human and the sub-human must be rooted out if the human is to ever evolve beyond things like rape, murder, street crime, child abuse, drug addiction. You start at the bottom, the lowest, you start with the sub-human, you start with dog fighting, you start with cowards so low that they can't even kill a man or take a woman or even beat a child, too weak to even drug themselves for entertainment..scum so small and unraveled that they have to torture and destroy the most trusting thing ever created..the DOG. People like this are multiplying and they need to be stopped. That is why there has been such an outcry. It is not just a crime it is a threat to civilization.

I will go ahead and say that the torture of dogs is just as bad as the torture of human beings.

They both involve the same horrifying lack of sympathy for the victim and the sick excitement in seeing the victim placed in depraved situations.

People who would participate in dogfighting would also participate in rapes and murders if given the proper context in which to do so.

Michael Vick is a piece of shit.

This is an obscure forum reference if ever I saw one.

Because I'm old school.

And sometimes, when I read BRW's posts, I hear Sam the Eagle in my head. Whoever suggested that: thanks, or 'up yours'.

Carry on.

Ha, DMX too, what a shock...Creeps.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines