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.
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?
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.
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…”
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.
Oh please. Save your phony shock and awe. What could possibly be unclear about this:
and this:
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.]
The fact that you’ve said this twice probably reveals more about your mindset than it does about his.
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.
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.
No. Why would you say that? I’m not arguing anything. I’m pointing out that this statement –
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.
Sure - I am just being argumentative here. It isn’t that you are making no sense whatsoever.
You said…
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
Again you dissemble. Your question was whether the dogs were dangerous to humans, not to other dogs. I’m still waiting for that evidence.
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.
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