# If you thought you knew Michael Vick... **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 26, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624 "2009-09-26T04:49:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/61 "2009-09-29T22:27:10Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So what jobs should a convicted criminal who has served his time be allowed to hold? Is it a salary cap type thing - he can only earn minimum wage? > > I can see restricting the employment of an ex-con based on relevant factors - a convicted child abuser not being allowed to work in a day care center; a convicted drug offender not being given the power to prescribe drugs; Michael Vick not being allowed to be a dog breeder. But last thing I check, and Cleveland aside, the NFL has bugger all to do with dogs. If he isn’t allowed to work, who should support Vick? If he is allowed to work, how do we determine what jobs he should be eligible for? Why are you trying to extrapolate more from what I said? I said how I feel, period, end statement. How come every time someone disagrees with someone’s opinion around here they try to shoehorn that opinion into the law and then say it doesn’t make sense? That is a classic strawman. What I think Michael Vick should do, and my personal feelings on forgiveness towards him, have absolutely nothing in the world to do with the law. In fact, that’s pretty much why we _have_ a rule of law – so individuals’ opinions don’t rule the land. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/62 "2009-09-30T00:48:50Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > That’s a perfectly reasonable approach to take. I didn’t bring up Little to point out a double-standard, but to highlight that there are two ways to deal with criminal behavior among sports stars. Either they are forever banned/shunned, or they serve there penalty to society and are then re-admitted to the games. The Little story seems to point out that both the NFL and NFL fans by and large choose to cheer for criminals if they serve there time (and help the team win, of course). > > Also, **Cisco** ’s response does point out that there is a cultural effect on what crimes are tolerated by the fan base. DUI is something that a large percentage of NFL fans can see (and often have seen) themselves committing. Dogfighting is not (or shooting yourself or someone else for that matter). I think it’s an important point that, as I don’t give a shit about football, I don’t know ANY of those other players who have been convicted of felonies. Only Vick. ETA - if it wasn’t clear, that was to point out that the media does evidently think that killing dogs is worse than killing people in this particular instance. Also, really, the Clifton study? Again? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/63 "2009-09-30T04:36:23Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Why are you trying to extrapolate more from what I said? I said how I feel, period, end statement. How come every time someone disagrees with someone’s opinion around here they try to shoehorn that opinion into the law and then say it doesn’t make sense? That is a classic strawman. What I think Michael Vick should do, and my personal feelings on forgiveness towards him, have absolutely nothing in the world to do with the law. In fact, that’s pretty much why we _have_ a rule of law – so individuals’ opinions don’t rule the land. Well I was basing it on this… [QUOTE=Cisco] If the NFL had any scruples whatsoever he would not be playing. [/QUOTE] It seems to me you don’t think the NFL should allow him to work in that field. That’s not about forgiveness. It is you saying that a job should not be available to him “if the NFL had any scruples whatsoever.” So I am wondering what jobs you think could be offered to him by employers with scruples. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/64 "2009-09-30T05:09:57Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well I was basing it on this… > > It seems to me you don’t think the NFL should allow him to work in that field. That’s not about forgiveness. It is you saying that a job should not be available to him “if the NFL had any scruples whatsoever.” So I am wondering what jobs you think could be offered to him by employers with scruples. I already took your objections into consideration and explained myself plenty sufficiently. It seems obvious at this point that no matter what I say, you’re just going to raise another objection. You don’t care how I feel on the matter, you just want to be to able to somersault through enough hoops to make yourself look “right.” You’re only making yourself look pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/65 "2009-09-30T13:54:47Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I already took your objections into consideration and explained myself plenty sufficiently. It seems obvious at this point that no matter what I say, you’re just going to raise another objection. You don’t care how I feel on the matter, you just want to be to able to somersault through enough hoops to make yourself look “right.” You’re only making yourself look pedantic. Just wow. I am pedantic because you didn’t express yourself clearly? Still after reading what you wrote multiple times, I can’t come to any conclusion other than the one I did about your meaning. I’m sorry that you have the impression I don’t care how you feel about this. I would have thought discussing it was a sign I did. Next time I will preface every comment with “I care deeply about your opinion and emotional investment in this matter, however I think you are incorrect because…” ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/66 "2009-09-30T14:03:32Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I already took your objections into consideration and explained myself plenty sufficiently. It seems obvious at this point that no matter what I say, you’re just going to raise another objection. You don’t care how I feel on the matter, you just want to be to able to somersault through enough hoops to make yourself look “right.” You’re only making yourself look pedantic. No, he’s asking a question in an attempt to get clarification. He obviously didn’t find the explanation to be sufficient, and I must admit that I didn’t either. You may find the question to be a difficult one to answer, but that doesn’t make \*\*villa \*\*pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/67 "2009-09-30T14:55:00Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Just wow. I am pedantic because you didn’t express yourself clearly? Still after reading what you wrote multiple times, I can’t come to any conclusion other than the one I did about your meaning. > > I’m sorry that you have the impression I don’t care how you feel about this. I would have thought discussing it was a sign I did. Next time I will preface every comment with “I care deeply about your opinion and emotional investment in this matter, however I think you are incorrect because…” Oh please. Save your phony shock and awe. What could possibly be unclear about this: > [@Cisco](#): > > Sorry, I see what you mean. I guess I just mean that if Vick rededicated his life to doing something positive for animals, I would have no problem personally forgiving him. Not that my personal forgiveness means a fart in a wind tunnel to him, but there ya go. and this: > [@Cisco](#): > > Why are you trying to extrapolate more from what I said? What I think Michael Vick should do, and my personal feelings on forgiveness towards him, have absolutely nothing in the world to do with the law. In fact, that’s pretty much why we _have_ a rule of law – so individuals’ opinions don’t rule the land. I expressed myself plenty clearly. You’re just raising specious objections to make it look like you’re “winning” the “argument” [that you’re having with yourself.] ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/68 "2009-09-30T14:58:49Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > You’re just raising specious objections to make it look like you’re “winning” the “argument” [that you’re having with yourself.] The fact that you’ve said this twice probably reveals more about your mindset than it does about his. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/69 "2009-09-30T15:18:12Z")
Thank you for the brilliant, insightful contributions here, Labrador Deceiver. Your posts in this thread have been so profound I think I’m going to print them out and have them tattooed on my butt. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/70 "2009-09-30T15:20:49Z")
If it says anything about my mindset it’s that I’ve seen this behavior here a million times, I’m bored to death with it, and I’m not going to feed it anymore. You’re right that that’s probably more than you can say about the thought villa has put into it, which it’s somewhat safe to say is virtually zero. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/71 "2009-09-30T15:25:21Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > Are you arguing that Vick’s breeding and training of fighting dogs didn’t endanger humans? No. Why would you say that? I’m not arguing anything. I’m pointing out that this statement – > [@](#): > > Rather, I’ll just point out that, per the CDC, pit bulls are far more likely to be involved in dog-related fatalities than any other breed. is unsupported by the study that you cite. I would be interested in any evidence that any of the dogs trained by Vick actually harmed anyone, however. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/72 "2009-09-30T15:27:46Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > If it says anything about my mindset it’s that I’ve seen this behavior here a million times, I’m bored to death with it, and I’m not going to feed it anymore. You’re right that that’s probably more than you can say about the thought villa has put into it, which it’s somewhat safe to say is virtually zero. Sure - I am just being argumentative here. It isn’t that you are making no sense whatsoever. You said… [QUOTE=Cisco] What I think Michael Vick should do, and my personal feelings on forgiveness towards him, have absolutely nothing in the world to do with the law. In fact, that’s pretty much why we have a rule of law – so individuals’ opinions don’t rule the land. [/QUOTE] Which would be fine and dandy if I had been talking about whether you think the law should prevent him from working. I wasn’t. As I have mentioned, I am responding to the following… [QUOTE=Cisco] If the NFL had any scruples whatsoever he would not be playing. [/QUOTE] It strikes me as pretty clear from this quote that you don’t believe the NFL should allow him to work for one of their teams. It’s not an uncommon opinion. But it has bugger all to do with the law. Despite your petulant claims otherwise, I am interested in your opinion on this. I’ll ask again. If you don’t think the NFL should hire him, what jobs should be available to him? What employer with scruples could hire him and where do you draw the line? Is it based on the public nature of the job? The amount of money earned? Some other factor you won’t tell me? Once again. Not the law. Under your moral code, who should be able to offer him work without violating your view of their scruples? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/73 "2009-09-30T15:28:56Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > If it says anything about my mindset it’s that I’ve seen this behavior here a million times, I’m bored to death with it, and I’m not going to feed it anymore. You’re right that that’s probably more than you can say about the thought villa has put into it, which it’s somewhat safe to say is virtually zero. As opposed to that post about tattooing things to your butt? Real mature. You’re dismissing villa’s question re scrupulous companies, and which ones should or shouldn’t hire Vick. The question isn’t pedantic, or thoughtless, or any of the other accusations you’ve made amidst the frantic hand-waving you’ve engaged in. No amount of juvenile name-calling is going to change that. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/74 "2009-09-30T17:07:54Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I’m pointing out that this statement – is unsupported by the study that you cite. It is, in fact. All you have pointed out is one qualifier in the study. **Sailboat** asserted that pit bulls are “famous for their deference and tolerance toward humans”. The CDC study linked to above certainly suggests otherwise, though by their own admission it is impossible to establish “bite rates” by breed absent a reliable census. Still and all, pit bulls do constitute a marked plurality in the data collected therein. I’m not uncomfortable with what I said, though you may be. Breed designations aside, breeding training dogs to kill as a matter of course certainly seems like a reckless course of action. Don’t know how I’d go about proving this; it seems \*a priori \*to me. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/75 "2009-10-01T21:17:19Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > It is, in fact. All you have pointed out is one qualifier in the study. **Sailboat** asserted that pit bulls are “famous for their deference and tolerance toward humans”. The CDC study linked to above certainly suggests otherwise, though by their own admission it is impossible to establish “bite rates” by breed absent a reliable census. Still and all, pit bulls do constitute a marked plurality in the data collected therein. I’m not uncomfortable with what I said, though you may be. You have been coy about admitting whether this is the Clifton study. I suspect it is, as the time frame coincides. In that case, you are out of gas, as the CDC itself has disavowed it. Regardless, unless we know how many pit bulls there are in total, and whether they have been properly identified, said “plurality” is meaningless. You have no way of knowing whether the attacks were a function of the dogs being pit bulls, or simply a function of the dogs being dogs. > [@](#): > > Breed designations aside, breeding training dogs to kill as a matter of course certainly seems like a reckless course of action. Don’t know how I’d go about proving this; it seems \*a priori \*to me. Again you dissemble. Your question was whether the dogs were dangerous to humans, not to other dogs. I’m still waiting for that evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Jettboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@Jettboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jettboy)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/76 "2009-10-01T21:41:45Z")
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about Michael Vick’s “crime”. I think sending a person to a environment as insane and inhumane as prison for harming/killing a few dogs is absolutely crazy, but that’s beside the point. The man did his time in the joint and seems genuinely remorseful. In Mr. Vick’s case it seems like prison has done _exactly_ what it’s supposed to do: served as a wake-up call to his behavior and punished him for his crimes. In the interview, he seems like a reasonably intelligent person who has learned a harsh lesson. I’m absolutely convinced that he will never, ever, fight dogs, participate in dog fighting, or cause any injury or death to a dog _ever again_. If the concept of punishment and/or rehabilitation have no real, practical application, why even bother with it? I’m still stunned that Michael Vick’s crime has garnered so much widespread attention and condemnation, especially in comparison to Donte Stallworth’s drunk-driving killing of an _actual human being_; a crime which, unlike Michael Vick’s, only got Stallworth 30 days in lockup and a fine. I guess it’s considered A-OK to kill a _person_ and still be considered redeemable; but kill a flea-bag _dog_ or two and you should be buried in a deep, dark hole and forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624/77 "2009-10-02T00:02:01Z")
I don’t think anyone is accusing Vick of killing people. So what is that argument about? He was involved in a “sport” that resulted in maiming and deaths of dogs. I and a lot of others are offended and disgusted by it. I will never see Vick the same way again. Then he killed dogs whose sin was they were not good enough at ripping other dogs apart. I think that is sick. I do not think prison is a healing place. I still think his regret is getting caught. People who can be that cruel to animals are hard for me to relate to. Sorry about that, but he is unlikely to get me for a fan. I [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-thought-you-knew-michael-vick/511624.md?page=3)