And that’s why he’s going to jail. I don’t understand what you’re arguing here?
I can’t speak to anyone else’s anger. My own anger is that I’m reading his statements as an attempt to manipulate people with an appeal to religion, rather than any kind of genuine conversion on his part. Which I think is further scummy behavior.
For that matter, while I don’t think it’s going to affect Michael Vick’s sentencing, it’s a bit naive to imply that faith or announcements of faith have nothing to do with the criminal justice system - my understanding is that such announcements are often considered by parole boards, and often have an effect on sentencing after trial, too.
Which, I’ll grant, does give incentive for the people to want to fake a public conversion.
That’s because most politicians are lawyers, and one of the first things you learn in law school is never admit responsibility for anything, ever.
His statements ARE an attempt to manipulate people – that’s a fact. His conversion might or might not be genuine…but regardless, his using it in the “forgive me” speech is manifestly an attempt to manipulate. He could just say he’s sorry, accept his sentence, and find Jesus in the silence of his own cell, leaving us out of it. But that’s not what he’s done.
Sailboat
In the pantheon of celebrity apologies, Vick’s was pretty good.
The “I found Jesus” stuff is such fucking baloney, though.
(paraphrasing)
Emmitt Smith lapped it up, “oh, well the good thing is that he found jesus. Sometimes, someone has to fall to find Jesus.”
Keith Jackson straightened that shit out, “I’m not buying it.”
So, would some of you prefer no apology at all?
I wonder who here hasn’t screwed up - I’m sure some of you have done things that are seemingly unforgivable to others but have been sincere in your apologies. It feels as if some would wish the death penalty in this case - nothing less would satisfy. That saddens me.
I’ll bet there are hunters and fishermen (for sport - not as a livelihood - think about it again - for sport), who feel no remorse for shooting innocent deer and birds or gutting innocent fish. I’m against hunting animals for fun - I’ll admit that I’m hypocritical in that I have leather purses and boots and I eat meat, so I won’t assume a “holier than thou” role. Deer, birds and fish are lesser animal than dogs it seems since one can buy a license to kill these creatures and remain a good citizen instead of being considered a “thug”.
Those PETA protesters in Richmond and Atlanta had their dogs out in the hot sun with shirts over their fur. I wonder was this in the best interest for those particular animals. Wasn’t that abusive, or is it okay for individual animals to suffer to make a point?
I thought Mr. Vick’s apology sounded sincere - I appreciate his words to children.
If you see no difference between shooting an animal for food, or to put it down, or even for “sport,” and breeding, training, and fighting animals one against the other, then there’s a fundamental failure of understanding somewhere. But ask yourself if you personally would rather be killed by being shot in the head, or by being literally torn to pieces in a ring. Furthermore, the cruelty to fighting animals (not just dogs, but cocks and bears and others) is not based just how they die, but also how they live: Raised intentionally cruelly, in fear and anger and with no affection, in order to make them good fighters. Attacked and injured repeatedly, sometimes very severely so, until they outlive their usefulness and are killed, sometimes very cruelly. (The animals Vick allegedly killed were, among other things, drowned and slammed into the ground.) It has nothing in common with hunting.
Gee whillikers, that’s exactly the same thing! Out in the sun, with your owner, forced to endure the agony of a T-shirt – versus living and dying as a fighting dog, in anger and pain, with no affection and probably no future, since it is very likely that even the dogs that were rescued will have to be put down because they are so damaged, emotionally and physically. No, having your dog outside on a hot day is not abusive, so long as you take care of it and keep it hydrated.
No, they’re not the same thing. A lesser degree of cruelty is acceptable to you?
You don’t think the dogs would have preferred to stay home in the cool air conditioning.
Cruelty is cruelty.
You know, if Vick had refused to do a public apology, the outcry would have been louder than the outcry of his deeds. His law team probably advised him that the apology would help his image and his chances in court, not that he’ll get off, but maybe his sentence would be lessened.
As for his deeds, he broke the law, he’ll be paying for it. Why people put more value to a dog or cat than a cow or a deer is beyond me, but I accept that most people do.
How do you know this? Again, even if it were true, his religion with his own (and a higher) being has absolutely nothing to do with you.
I took his speech as:
- I’m not a good person.
- I want to be a better person.
- Incorporating Jesus into my life will allow me to get there.
- I apologize to everyone I’ve hurt.
I didn’t see it an as appeal to religion, I saw him finding ways to improve his character. That is one hell of a lot better than reading an apology written in language by lawyers that Michael Vick doesn’t even use.
No. More than anything, a dog likes to be with it’s owner.
Your black & white position (cruelty is cruelty) really makes you come across as obtuse, uneducated, and intentionally confrontational. Just FYI.
Yes. We kill animals for food and for clothing. We use them for testing. There is no question that the actions of destroying or injuring an animal are in most cases inherently cruel. But we make determinations as to when that cruelty is justified. If we decide that it is, then we still have a moral obligation to reduce it as much as possible – to be no more cruel than is absolutely necessary, IOW. We can certainly have an argument about whether, say, animal testing for HIV research is okay, or whether animal testing for make-up is okay, or whether hunting is okay – but regardless of where a person draws the line on using or destroying an animal, they STILL have an obligation to treat the animal as humanely as possible. AND certain cruel exploitations of animals are or should be unjustifiable in every case, and injuring or killing them for entertainment purposes is chief among these, IMO. Besides, I’m not getting the argument you’re making here: There’s some inherent cruelty in having your dog outside on a hot day, so therefore dog fighting is okay? Even if I accepted the first premise – which I do not – it certainly doesn’t lead to that conclusion.
How would I know? Is anything other than the animal’s preference inherently cruel? What exactly is your argument here?
Thank you for sharing that important piece of information. I feel better knowing that one comment on a message board is your measuring stick for someone you don’t know. Uneducated . People who disagree with you are uneducated - or is it just me? Confrontational. Hmmm, I suppose your comment isn’t confrontational.
I take it from your comment that lesser degrees of cruelty are acceptable to you - am I wrong? Leaving a dog in a hot car for 10 minutes : bad vs dog in hot sun for a couple of hours: acceptable.
Dog fighting is NOT okay. I’ve never said that - I’ll never say that. I’m saying it’s hypocritical to use a dog to illustrate a point against cruelty if the dog needs to don a shirt over his fur on a very hot day. My own dog loved to go out - except on blazing hot days.
No, people who disagree with me are not uneducated.
I save that for people who make arguments like “cruelty is cruelty” and “a lesser degree of cruelty must be acceptable to you.”
You’re not even missing nuance, which is forgiveable. You’re arguing absurdities.
*:: Shrug :: * You assume that having a dog in a T-shirt on a hot day is inherently cruel. I’m not seeing the hypocrisy, but even if I saw it, it is a pathetically weak argument against those who protest dog-fighting: “Vick tortures and kills dogs for fun and profit!” “Yeah, well, YOU have your dog outside on a very hot day!” :rolleyes:
[hijack]
I don’t see the fundamental difference between fighting dogs on the one hand and killing deer or other game animals for sport on the other.
In both cases, an animal is being killed so a human can get some kicks. Nothing more.
(I am OK with hunting for food. But not just for trophies.)
And please don’t tell me how much fighting dogs suffer in comparison, because I know better. Hunted animals do not die with a quick shot to the head. (A shot to the head? Heavens no! Wouldn’t want to spoil the trophy.) The target in hunting deer is the heart. Sometimes hunters hit that target. Often they don’t. It is not at all uncommon for a deer to be wounded, and to sprint away, never to be found…only to die a miserable death later from its wounds.
It is not uncommon for a deer to be shot in the belly or the leg, meaning the animal gets tracked as it hobbles away injured and in pain.
Trophy hunting entails pointless animal suffering, just the same as dogfighting.
There’s no moral difference, and there used to be no legal difference. The only difference is that humans have anthropomorphized their pets and as a society we therefore have decided to ban dogfighting.
I find both dogfighting and trophy hunting equally reprehensible.
spoke-
(who loves a good steak)
[/hijack]
It’s not a “tit for tat” type of argument. How did you get that from what I said?I’ve never said that what Mr. Vick did is acceptable - it was cruel. It was horrible.
Because one person is crueler than the next doesn’t excuse someone else’s cruelty.
I tried to make a point against hypocracy. Lead by example - if you want others to join your cause, treat your own animal a little better. Do you think a shirt over fur is good for a dog in the hot sun? The dogs weren’t necessary for the protest. They were accessories used to make a point. I don’t think what I’m saying is pathetically weak, but of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. Do you generally roll eyes when someone disagrees with your stand?
What you’re saying is totally weak.
First of all. . .the premise that the dog is suffering because it is in the heat and wearing a shirt is quite questionable. I imagine the dog likes being around other dogs, and being out with its owner. It’s at least arguable
Second, to call this cruelty, just on a different level than what Vick did, is just you trying to make some connection that isn’t there for the point of argument. Do you not think that at the first sign of distress that one of these people would comfort their dog? Provide it with water? Take its shirt off? You really think that is a type of animal cruelty?
And, yes, they were there to make a point: these are our companions. They trust us. The want to be with us. Please take a picture of them wearing my slogan so that I can get my point across.
You want an example of someone NOT making a pathetic point? Read spoke-'s post. He has something interesting to say.
Yes, I get that. My points – of which there are two – is that (a) you are assuming that these people having their dogs with them on a hot day are being cruel to their dogs, thus making their actions hypocritical, an assertion of “cruelty” that I personally do not buy; and (b) that, in the context of a discussion of Michael Vick’s actions, accusing protesters against him of hypocrisy on such flimsy grounds is six kinds of lame.
Better than what? Again, you assume mistreatment of these animals. Do you have any proof of that, anyone except yourself who takes issue with how these animals were treated?
The question isn’t whether it was good or bad (why couldn’t it be merely neutral?), but whether it was cruel, thus making the owners hypocrites. AFAICT, the only person making this extremely lame argument is you.
IYO, you mean. At what point does my pet become an “accessory”? If I can’t take him to an animal cruelty protest, where can I take him?
Yes, thank you.
Not always, no. I give legitimate arguments respect; I roll my eyes at stupid ones.