For the past two NFL seasons, the greatest show on any given Sunday has been whatever game features either the Kansas City Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes or the Baltimore Ravens’ Lamar Jackson. These two quarterbacks’ creativity and playmaking skills stand out in comparison to the conservative tactics and brute physicality of so much of the league, which lately has been producing games that feel choppy and graceless. By contrast, watching Mahomes and Jackson escape tackles and make impossible throws isn’t just exciting, it’s moving. It’s marvelous theater.
For older fans, the Mahomes and Jackson phenomenon has been pleasantly familiar. It’s a throwback to the early 2000s, and the heyday of Michael Vick.
The new 30 For 30 installment “Vick”—directed by Stanley Nelson—is a two-part, four-hour deep dive into the former Atlanta Falcons QB’s rise and fall and eventual return. Part one covers Vick’s remarkable high school and college years, detailing how he emerged as one of the NFL’s most exciting players, all while handling an uncommon level of media scrutiny about his work ethic and off-field lifestyle. Part two (which airs the following Thursday, February 6) gets into what many people perhaps most remember about Vick: that he and his friends were arrested for running a dogfighting ring on his property.
Nelson—a three-time Emmy-winner—has had a long and distinguished documentary filmmaking career, including the likes of Freedom Riders, Miles Davis: Birth Of The Cool, and The Black Panthers: Vanguard Of The Revolution. He sees Vick’s story as more than just a simplistic cautionary tale, about how a rich and successful athlete is undone by a lack of personal discipline and an excess of loyalty to his buddies. The two-part structure of “Vick” serves a purpose. The first half gives Vick’s glory days their due, putting them in the context of how other superstar Black athletes were treated by the press and public. The second half wrestles with some difficult issues concerning what Vick did to those dogs—and whether his punishment fit the crime.
The halves are unified by two questions, which Nelson answers as honestly as possible, weighing the available evidence: What kind of person is Michael Vick, really, and how much of what happened to him was due to his race?
The documentary is partly about where Vick came from: an underprivileged community where friends and family were expected to take care of each other. Early in his career, Vick’s coaches and financial managers urged him to stop hanging around with any old acquaintances who could be “a bad influence.” But that advice wasn’t so easy to take. Nelson makes it clear that Newport News, Virginia is an important part of this story… as is suburban Atlanta, which around the time the Falcons drafted their franchise QB had been in the national news for incidents of overt racism. “Vick” notes that from the beginning, some white people were quick to judge and condemn the quarterback—and that some Black people were quick to defend him—no matter what he’d done right or wrong.
A lot of the tension in the documentary’s first part involves Vick’s associations and his attitude toward his job. It’s still up for debate as to whether he made the most of his running and passing skills, which were unlike anything that anybody had seen at any level of organized football. But here again, Nelson is even-handed. He uses old ESPN clips and new interviews to remind viewers of the way sports journalists have talked about Black quarterbacks. He makes the case that some reporters wanted Vick to slip up, to confirm their biases.
But Vick himself admits that in his early years, he relied more on his instincts and his physical gifts than he ever did on practicing and studying. A sensation from the moment the Falcons drafted him, Vick spent a lot of his time away from the stadium shooting commercials and appearing in rap videos—as well as partying with his crew at his rural Virginia estate. During his Atlanta years, he led the team to some of their greatest seasons. But his style of play also made him injury-prone, and he and his chums’ pot-smoking habit led to some embarrassing legal problems. Part one of “Vick” suggests that the QB was wearing out his welcome with the NFL even before the dog-fighting scandal hit.
Pretty much the entire first hour of part two digs into the dog-fighting, and avoids easy explanations or excuses for what happened. In new interviews, one of Vick’s childhood friends insists there’s nothing wrong with the sport—and nothing wrong with killing dogs when they lose. In archival clips from around the time the scandal broke, Black celebrities like Steve Harvey wondered why he was being sentenced to a longer jail sentence for harming dogs than policemen serve for killing defenseless Black suspects; meanwhile, some white commentators argued back then that Vick should’ve gotten the death penalty. (A young Tucker Carlson said he should be hanged… not a great image.)
What the average football fan may not remember is that Vick emerged from all this disgrace and controversy a changed man. As a condition of being taken off the NFL’s suspended list when he got out of prison, Vick admitted he was wrong and pledged to work with charities and programs promoting the protection of animals. (According to this 30 For 30, he still does this, long after retirement.) The Philadelphia Eagles then signed him as a third-string quarterback, but through a series of unexpected twists he became the starter, and proceeded to have two of the best seasons of his career. According to most reports, he became more committed to game-prep, and was a model NFL player all the way up to his retirement: hard-working, community-focused.
Is that enough to excuse what he and his friends did with those dogs? Nelson doesn’t go that far. “Vick” does though once again reflect on how white celebrities, politicians, and athletes are often treated warmly by the media and the public after they apologize for their mistakes. Shouldn’t even someone who did something as heinous as Michael Vick did also be allowed to atone?
Perhaps most importantly for sports fans, the documentary asks whether we can be allowed to enjoy Vick’s old highlights, and to celebrate his legacy. “Vick” takes maybe too sharp a turn into “and then he lived happily ever after”-land after it covers the comeback years; but a closing montage of Jackson, Mahomes, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray is undeniably stirring, especially given that it comes nearly four hours after the episode’s earlier montages of sports broadcasters doubting the NFL futures of Black quarterbacks. During the clips of these new-wave QBs, reporters fumble for the right way to describe what they’re seeing, before settling on “like Michael Vick.” If nothing else, this 30 For 30 explains the many things “like Michael Vick” can mean. Remembering him as a villain—or a hero—doesn’t tell the whole story.
187 Comments
No. I will not watch. I will not contribute one second of time to this, other than this rant. Attaching jumper cables to a dog’s ears and throwing him or her into a pool is a fucking redline for me.Ask any animal lover whether they would have cared if it was Vick or Favre who did it and they’d say the same: Under the Fucking Jail. Take your race cards and fuck yourselves with them.If your culture – racial, socio-economic, regional, whatever – says that dogfighting is OK, then your culture deserves erasure
This is the kind of insanely disproportionate reaction that I hope this documentary explores. Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs, and he served jail time. And your response to this is to advocate for racial genocide.
Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs, and he served jail time. This merits discussion, as I think the idea of “paying one’s debt to society” is one that we have never been able to square with.Even if that debt is paid, though, it doesn’t mean that people *have* to consider it paid.
I’m okay with people thinking he should serve more time, or that he shouldn’t have been accepted back into the NFL, or that he should be a complete pariah from society. Those are proportionate responses.I’m certainly not okay with this guy saying poor black culture in Newport News should be “erased” and I really hope you don’t realize you just defended an argument for ethnic cleansing. I’m also not okay with saying unironically that someone should put a bullet in Vick’s brain, as I heard so often at the time from ostensibly “liberal” white people (who somehow also claimed to be anti-death penalty) but had no interest in understanding the circumstances that Vick came from, which did not really stigmatize dog fighting.I love dogs. I love animals. I volunteer at the damn zoo. I would never do what Vick did. But I also know where Vick is from, its 15 minutes from where I’m typing this. And while its genuinely shocking to privileged white people, a belief in the extreme wrongness of dogfighting is culturally instilled value, not a universal constant of human nature. What Vick did is a little less humane as the industry that puts beef and chicken on your plates every night, but waaaaay smaller in scale, but no one is advocating for the pork farmers of America to be shot, or for their culture to be erased.
I’m certainly not okay with this guy saying poor black culture in Newport News should be “erased” and I really hope you don’t realize you just defended an argument for ethnic cleansing.Uh, no. No, I did not. At all. In any conceivable way. I was speaking directly to your point, and not his, and did not even make a reference to his argument. I said this: Even if that debt is paid, though, it doesn’t mean that people *have* to consider it paid. I will not defend, nor will I give much of a shit about, Worf’s terrible wording. He has a good amount of people dragging him for it already.If you would like to continue with that completely false and entirely uncharitable read, fine. But we will not continue this conversation if that is the case.
I was speaking directly to your point, and not his, and did not even make a reference to his argument. My point was entirely about his point. The three sentences I typed said calling for cultural erasure was a grossly disproportionate response to the crime of dog fighting, which Vick served jail time for. Here, I’ll reprint them for you: This is the kind of insanely disproportionate reaction that I hope this documentary explores. Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs, and he served jail time. And your response to this is to advocate for racial genocide.Nowhere did I say people should forgive Michael Vick. Nowhere did I gloss over the fact that he tortured and killed dogs, I stated it directly, and also stated the fact that he went to prison. It was a dry, concise, and accurate summary of the situation.Based on what I’ve seen in the entirety of human history, calls for cultural erasure mean one very specific thing. Maybe there are alternate readings for what cultural erasure means, but I’m honestly afraid to Google that term to find out.But I don’t have to read anything into Worfington’s point, because he states directly that he is including the race option: If your culture – racial, socio-economic, regional, whatever – says that dogfighting is OK, then your culture deserves erasureIf he had just said cultural erasure I would at least understand how someone could have a charitable read. But he makes a point to include race in the cultural erasure conversation. Maybe that’s a “completely false and entirely uncharitable read” in your book, but to me, its just basic reading.
“If he had just said cultural erasure I would at least understand how someone could have a charitable read. But he makes a point to include race in the cultural erasure conversation. Maybe that’s a “completely false and entirely uncharitable read” in your book, but to me, its just basic reading.”I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about this uncharitable read:“I’m certainly not okay with this guy saying poor black culture in Newport News should be “erased” and I really hope you don’t realize ”As written, you’re saying I defended an argument for ethnic cleansing when I absolutely, categorically did not.By doing that, you absolutely dragged me into it, and conflated my (unrelated) argument with his. Which, again, I did not refer to in my response to you.I have no problem discussing the rest, but you did what you did, and it is inaccurate.
As written, you’re saying I defended an argument for ethnic cleansing when I absolutely, categorically did not. You criticized a three sentence attack on someone’s call for racial cultural erasure. An attack on an attack is called defense.I don’t think you meant to defend him. I think you were so zoned on anything resembling a defense of Vick, that you missed that it was a quick summary used to illustrate why his call for racial cultural erasure was insane and disproportionate. But unfortunately, you rushed to judgment and attacked the guy who was calling out the guy who was advocating for racial cultural erasure.And that’s a great example of how this Vick case makes people crazy, something I hope this documentary explores.
“But unfortunately, you rushed to judgment and attacked the guy who was calling out the guy who was advocating for racial cultural erasure.”No. I categorically did not. I was branching the conversation outward, in entirely good faith. I absolutely, categorically, did not attack you. The only way I can see that you’d take it that way is if you see *any* rejoinder as an attack.And, if you ask people who know me on Kinja, there would be absolutely no doubt if I were attacking you. You’d know full well, because the utter lack of respect would be plainly stated.If you see that as an “attack,” which it categorically was not, that’s on you.
Let’s re-package it it like this so maybe you understand what you did. A guy calls for systematic extermination of Jewish people because Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted women. I say “You’re a psychopath, yes he raped women, but you’re calling for an extermination of a whole people” and to that a third person says “well he lost his career, but Weinstein still hasn’t been properly punished.”
With that message, that third person (I hope and think unwittingly) is playing into the white supremacists rationale for exterminating Jewish people, and implying that the person attacking that white supremacist didn’t have the full set of facts.Maybe that wasn’t your intent, but that’s absolutely how it reads to me, and it will be how it will read if you do it again the next time you reply to someone who is attacking a white supremacist. It’s not on me to research your Kinja history and understand the full context of you as a person. Its on you to be aware of the full context of the conversation you’re joining, and what your communication implies in that context.
Alright, I’ve been patient. That ends now. A guy calls for systematic extermination of Jewish people because Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted women. I say “You’re a psychopath, yes he raped women, but you’re calling for an extermination of a whole people” and to that a third person says “well he lost his career, but Weinstein still hasn’t been properly punished.” Nope. You can twist this literally any way you’d like, but the fact is that I tried (in ENTIRELY good faith) to branch the conversation outward BY USING YOUR VERY POINT as a starting point. You, quite bizarrely and out of left fucking field, said I defended ethnic cleansing. You’ve since doubled and tripled down to say I “criticized a three sentence attack on someone’s call for racial cultural erasure. An attack on an attack is called defense.”This is very important, so I’ll bold it: I. Did. Not. Criticize. Your. Point.I. Did. Not. Attack. Your. Point.FFs, I didn’t criticize your fucking point! It was a “Yes, and,” for fuck’s sake! With that message, that third person (I hope and think unwittingly) is playing into the white supremacists rationale for exterminating Jewish people, and implying that the person attacking that white supremacist didn’t have the full set of facts. Dear God NO. No. This is a ridiculous reach. Utterly absurd.You took my attempt to open up another avenue of conversation as an attack on YOU and YOUR point, when it was not. At all. I have explained this multiple times. You flatly refuse to see it as anything other than me attacking your point (I was not) in defense of his. You have repeatedly – and, at this point, it feels like deliberately (seriously, are you trying to fuck with me here?) -asserted that I was personally attacking YOU, and YOUR point, and decided to use a rhetorical trick and tie my post to a defense of ethnic cleansing. This entire exchange is due to a bad read on your part. One that I cannot imagine someone misunderstanding unless it was a deliberate act of fuckery. Its on you to be aware of the full context of the conversation you’re joining, and what your communication implies in that context. Generally? Yes. Here? This is your misread. Entirely. There is literally zero validity to any inference you tried to make.
FFs, I didn’t criticize your fucking point! It was a “Yes, and,” for fuck’s sake!Maybe you need to take an improv class dude.
Well, he included race because every time Vick comes up the excuse is that is a cultural thing for people of his race. Black people say, “It’s a black thing.” So, while I do not agree with the cultural erasure (just erase the part that says dog fighting is cool,) he didn’t start the racial aspect of it. That’s been part of Vick’s defense since day one.I would say that some people (myself included) who are taking issue with your comment are taking issue with the he served jail time part as if his sentence was anywhere near what he deserved for what he did. That is the part that caused me to respond to your initial comment. Because he didn’t. Not at all.
A guy floated the idea of erasing black culture, I called him insane. You zoned in on the summary I used to illustrate why he was insane, and had the takeaway: “Yea but did Vick really pay his dues for his crimes against dogs?”If anything you confirmed my suspicion. The Vick case is still proving society is more concerned with protecting dogs than protecting black people.
It.was.not.just.dogfighting. FFS, how have you read this thread and you don’t know that? He tortured and murdered dogs. He didn’t just train them to fight then put them in the ring to fight. He hands-on participated in the torture and extremely cruel murdering of dogs who lost or would not fight. He also tied them to trees, all by themselves, going long periods of time without food or water, very little human interaction, no other dog interaction. I can buy the “I grew up with this being OK” with just flat out dog fighting. But, slamming a dog into the ground over and over until she dies. The electrocution that was described in the first comment. The things in my previous paragraph. How is that cultural? How is that excused by how he grew up? If he was beaten as a child then beat his children, would you excuse it because that’s how he grew up? If he was sexually molested as a child then did that to children himself, would you excuse it because that’s how he grew up? Why is it only OK if it’s dogs?You can take your meat industry strawman and stick it.
I said he tortured and murdered dogs in the post that you didn’t read.And again, for the 1000th time. I’m not arguing what Vick did was okay. I’m not saying you need to forgive him. I’m not even arguing he paid his debt to society. I’m making the simple statements that 1) Vick’s torturing and killing of dogs does not justify this maniac from calling for racial based cultural fucking genocide. And 2) that so many people seem okay with the concept of race based cultural genocide in the face of attacks on dogs is a great example of how the Vick case fucks up ostensibly liberal white people’s civil rights priorities, which is what the documentary explores., and which you are demonstrating by jumping on the side of a white supremacist because you didn’t fully read what I wrote.What about this is hard to grasp? Vicks dog fighting ring was brtual, disgusting, and awful. Calling for cultural erasure is asking for one of history’s greatest atrocities. Michael Vicks dog fighting ring, while brutal disgusting, and awful, was not one of history’s greatest atrocities. Loving dogs should not prevent you from acknowledging this. Having the slightest shred of empathy for poor black people should prevent you from ever even approaching a defense of some white supremacist who is calling for their cultural erasure. And make no mistake, one simple glance at the comment history of the dude I was attacking, who you are defending, shows he’s a white supremacist. But somehow I’m the asshole here?Citing the meat industry is not a strawman. As pigs are of the same intelligence level as dogs, and have the same capacity for emotion, its a totally apt comparison. But the pork you eat comes from dunking them in scalding tanks while still alive, and this is on a scale of millions, not tens as was Vick’s case with dogs. If anything, comparing Vick’s case to the pork industry is like comparing an acorn to a forest.
I didn’t defend a white supremacist. Unfortunately, I didn’t pay enough attention to user names to realize you are the one who is claiming that anyone saying anything not agreeing with you on this thread means they are defending a white supremacist.That person and I agree that Vick is an irredeemable asshole who did horrible things. We do not agree on anything else that I know of. I’m 100% sure there is something you believe or know that a white supremacist would also believe or know. That doesn’t make either of us white supremacists or white supremacist defenders.Everything you are writing in this thread comes off as if you are saying that we should drop any negativity about Vick. You are not just arguing against the original commenter’s white supremacist statements. You are, as a matter of fact, making the “Anyone against Vick is a racist” argument in a more subtle manner so that you can deny it. It’s bullshit for many reasons, primarily because you have no idea what anyone who dislikes Vick feels about anyone else’s misdeeds. Anything you say about anyone else is just whataboutism and strawmen.
If we left it at “Vick done fucked up, paid for it with some time and seems to be doing better” that would be one thing.But this documentary apparently tells us we are all just big old meanies for thinking he was wrong.
But this documentary apparently tells us we are all just big old meanies for thinking he was wrong. I mean…it seems like if you go into it with an inflexible opinion (which is your right), some of what it’s trying to do might not register with you.
The dogs used to be flexible. Then they got their backs broken
Right. So you’ll find absolutely zero value in literally anything this has to say outside of people calling him a monster.
Yes
Did you read the full a review?They don’t hold back on how fucked up the shit he did was.They just contextualize it with his upbringing, and show that when exposed to dogs in a different context, he completely changed.
Awwww…Isn’t that sweet? When Court-ordered to do work with dogs, he learns that dogs should’n be tied to rape stands for better breeding.How heartwarming
And if you watch the documentary, you’ll learn that he has proceeded to spend a decade-plus working against dogfighting, long after he signed his massive deal with the Eagles, and even after he retired.
Thanks for your outraged review of something you have not yet seen. I have every reason to believe yours is a rational response.
How is that your takeaway from this review? Sounds to me like it’s pretty unflinching in its presentation of what he did.
It also doesn’t mean you get to be a star again. If you actually paid your debt, then sure, go be successful doing something. But you don’t get to do that something on the stage in front of everyone, getting praise and being considered a hero and a role model.
Thank you for actually getting the point! This would be the sort of discussion I was trying to start, before someone somehow took that post and twisted it into me supporting ethnic cleansing.
No, for the elimination of those cultural beliefs. But if being against dogs being slammed to the ground until their backs break makes me racist, just tell me what kind of ice cream to bring to the Klan rally
You’re not a victim, bro. Stop acting like you are one.
holy shit. lmfao. alright awesome very cool!
exactly. redemption doesn’t exist for a lot of people. it’s insane.
Well-said, thank you.
Ask any animal lover whether they would have cared if it was Vick or Favre who did it and they’d say the same: Under the Fucking Jail. Take your race cards and fuck yourselves with them.Perhaps among animal lovers, and animal lovers only. I think you’ve majorly got your head in the sand if you think Tom Brady or Payton/Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger (how many times is he gonna get accused of rape before people start looking at him twice?) would have been taken to task the way Vick was. And obviously, there’s a larger discussion here about how often we as a society overlook and forgive violence against women far more easily than we do violence against animals, but to be crying “race card” demonstrates an engagement with the topic that is facile at best.
I think you’ve majorly got your head in the sand if you think Tom Brady or Payton/Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger (how many times is he gonna get accused of rape before people start looking at him twice?) would have been taken to task the way Vick was. Correct. There’s an angle to look at here, which does not have to do with whether one does or does not forgive Michael Vick.
Agreed, it’s definitely a serious problem in our society that a black person who is murdered by the police, doesn’t generate the ongoing outrage and response that killing a dog does. That said, one doesn’t excuse the other. However, Michael Vick, at best, is a footnote in that story
And obviously, there’s a larger discussion here about how often we as a society overlook and forgive violence against women far more easily than we do violence against animals, but to be crying “race card” demonstrates an engagement with the topic that is facile at best.Chris Rock, ladies and gentlemen.
I think it’s safe to say that the deliberate torment of a creature with no capability to defend itself or even resent its treatment will always provoke the strongest hatred, but I think another large part of why Vick can’t get by it is that it’s the only thing most of America knows about him.It’s also interesting to see this defense in contrast to the “anti-zionism isn’t antisemitism” defense of double standards, exaggerations, and conspiracy theories.
I am intelligent enough to hate Ben and Winston and Vick and Adrian Peterson.We heard the “culture” bullshit on the Peterson case, too. If your culture has determined that whipping a four year old boy in the balls with a switch is OK, then fuck your culture
You’re really saying the quiet part loud, huh?
It could have been Tom Hanks and people would have called for his head. Lots of people have extremely strong emotional attachments to animals and do not forgive violence, especially systemic violence, towards them.Comparing it to violence against women is apples and oranges. If Vick imprisoned women, forced them to fight underground gladiator battles for his friends to gamble on and had them killed when they were no longer useful to him, he would have gotten the death penalty.If he beat and raped the occasional dog, the general public’s primary negative reaction would be towards the bestiality aspect and the violence would be hand waved by many.
He repeatedly slammed a dog into the ground until she was dead. Now, I agree that a white guy would have likely got off easier, but he still got off too easy because he wasn’t convicted of torturing and murdering dogs. He’s the Roman Polanski (except he served his time) of animal cruelty in that what he was convicted of was a lot less serious than what he did.So much of the public don’t actually know about the torture and murder. They just know he helped run a dog fighting ring. And that’s why so many people defend him and say he served his time. I do think that if it was a Payton or Eli Manning or someone like that and people actually knew about the atrocities, they would come around. It might take a while, like it did with Cosby, but they wouldn’t want them in the NFL anymore. I think more people would feel that way about Vick if they knew the things he actually did.I take solace in knowing that almost all of those dogs were rehabilitated and live/lived in good homes, happy, fed, loved. And the one thing this did was change the status quo from automatically euthanizing all dogs recovered from a dog fighting operation to giving them a chance. But, fuck Michael Vick.
Let’s be clear what these fuckers are defending or apologizing for.This wasn’t putting a bullet in the back of the head or something quick and painless.This was torture, just for the fucking fun of it. Fuck Vick. Fuck those who still like Vick.
tucker carlson, ladies and gentlemen.
Check the voting records of the states where dogfighting is most prevalent. They are Tucker’s people.Remember, that was Tucker 2004. He’s a new guy now. If Trump told him to dogfight, he would
I just hope you spend far more time being Mad Online about Roethlisberger and Winston as you do Vick!
Can’t I hate all three of them equally ? I find each of them reprehensible but I only get called a racist for hating one of them though. Guess which one ?
It’s probably the one who you hate “equally” as much as two multiple rapists, despite zero evidence that he’s ever hurt a human being, and his having spent over a decade as a highly influential animal rights activist.
PULEEEAZE ! Just for verification try googling the name “Ron Mexico” that was the name Vick was using as a defendant for lawsuits accusing him of knowingly infecting women with herpes. And his advocacy is hand and hand with what Judy Smith and Tony Dungy advised him to do to help rehabilitate his image so dumbasses could look themselves in the mirror while wearing his football jersey. Have a nice day dumb ass
So is your point that giving people herpes is worse than multiple credible rape allegations?Or is it that the reason Michael Vick STILL does a ton of work with animal rights organizations, years after his playing career and with no publicity to speak of, is solely for PR purposes?
My goodness, you’re dense. Take a gander at his wikipedia page and you’ll find a laundry list of felonious activity that predates him running a concentration camp for dogs but if at this point you’re still on board then perhaps I’m dealing with a Trump supporter ? Because that’s the type of stupidity I’m hearing right now. Peace out dumb ass
lol.Much as I enjoyed that freak out…you didn’t actually refute anything I said, did you?
Pretty much everything, listen if your willing to dig yourself into a trench and act like a psychopath like Michael Vick is being victimized because of his race then you’re lost and I can’t do anything for you. I find Vick reprehensible, I also find Ben Rothlisberger reprehensible if that helps your delicate sensibilities but I’m sure it doesn’t. Now fuck off
Commenter: He’s significantly and permanently changed for the better since the dogfighting.You: HIS WIKIPEDIA SAYS HE DID A LOT OF BAD STUFF BEFORE THAT THOUGH.Good point. /s
Moving goalposts. It’s not just for getting ready for the football season anymore!
But the things he did show a deep disregard for life and have been indicators of future serial killers. If you do not respect the life of animals—especially animals that have evolved to be loyal to us and serve us and want to please us—enough that you can slam them into the ground repeatedly until they die, among other things, then how can I expect you to respect any life, including that of humans? If all he had done was run that fighting operation, I would probably not even care by now. I would have been mad about it, because making dogs fight is cruel. But it is not a behavior that comes off as sociopathic. But torturing and cruelly murdering living beings is unforgivable.
Since you’re imagining this entire exchange… I have no idea how to guess. Why don’t you finish your novelization of this discussion so we can all find out.
Given his racist comments, Ben and fellow whites will always get a pass.
I do!
Then you officially score an internet Point for Moral Consistency In Being Mad About Athletes Online.
Cool! Are they like Chuck E Cheese tickets?
Thank you!! Honestly it seems people care more about animals than they do women.
Fuck Vick and Fuck Roethlisberger (and fuck Ben even more because his last name is so hard to spell and slows me down when I want to rant about his sorry, rapist ass.) And Fuck Winston, too. And fuck all the white guys who do the same shit that the black guys get called out for. Even though most NFL players who do fucked up shit don’t get punished (or at least not enough) for it, we don’t even hear about most of the white guys. And you know damn well just as many of them, if not more, are beating their wives/girlfriends, doing drugs, and so on as the black guys, but we only hear about the black guys.
I take it you’re a dog person?
Animal person, but yes
I’m not going to condemn you for your views, because I do partly agree. What he did was heinous. But I would also note that Michael Vick is the model for how to apologize, express contrition and do your best to atone for your actions.As part of the conditions for his release and rehabilitation, he had to work with animals. And everything, everything about his behavior since that time suggests that this has completely and massively changed him as a person and as an animal owner. He privately donates time and resources to animal rescue, and continues to do so even after he’s retired and left public life.Again, I don’t blame you if you can’t forgive what he’s done. That’s an individual’s choice, and I respect it. But it would be a mistake to think that he hasn’t change, or couldn’t change. Everything about his behavior says he has, and did. And as someone who wants to see more of that positive change in the world, who wants to believe that people can be better, I will not ignore that, no matter how angry his actions made me at the time.
And as someone who wants to see more of that positive change in the world, who wants to believe that people can be better, I will not ignore that, no matter how angry his actions made me at the time. ::sigh:: Yep. ALSO a part of moral consistency.
Annnnd apparently even broaching that topic means, however broadly, means that you’ve ::checks today’s page of notes:: “defended an argument for ethnic cleansing.”Fucking shoot me, man…
Yeah, we’re done, ValidPoint. You don’t want to swallow your pride and admit to a misread? Fine. But the fact remains that you deliberately misread and mischaracterized my point, and you’re still doing it. I can only assume you’re trolling at this point, so yeah, we’re done.
Except that as I uncovered in my thread with him, the OP is arguing in bad faith. He’s just using this and Vick as an excuse to affirm and confirm his biases towards the poor and minorities. Hence why he had to drop “race card” into it.
Vick is the embodiment of how hard it is for someone who goes from a rough upbringing to sudden wealth to cut ties. Another even more dramatic example is Ray Lewis. In both cases it took something terrible to force their hands, when it should have been done voluntarily years before.
People hate Vick more than Lewis…who literally murdered people.
No they don’t. More people know more about what Vick did than what Lewis did. And no one is doing a 30 for 30 about Lewis.Although I cringe every time I see him on TV. It disgusts me that he and Roethlisberger and Winston and all the guys we don’t even know about face no consequences for their actions.
Most people who do the things that Vick did move on to doing those same things to humans later in life. Every serial killer tortured and murdered animals before the killed people. When you can do something like bashing a dog into the ground until she dies, you have no respect for life. I don’t think a decade is enough to turn that around. I’m not even sure you can, because it is an indicator of sociopathy and that’s not curable.
If your culture – racial, socio-economic, regional, whatever – says that dogfighting is OK, then your culture deserves erasure
You’re so against animal abuse, that you’ll be a racist willing to kill other human beings because of their skin color and culture!
Hey, you’re the one that said they’d rather die than give up their cultural belief that dogfighting is cool, not me.I’d be happy with them just you know, NOT dogfighting. Or going to jail until they learned not to.You’re the one saying it’ll take a genocide. I tend to have a higher opinion of African-Americans, and Southerners, and poor people than you do. Maybe I’m wrong, if you’re the best defense
You’re the one saying it’ll take a genocide.
Just to remind you what you said: WorfWWorfingtonNoel Murray1/29/20 1:08pm“If your culture – racial, socio-economic, regional, whatever – says that dogfighting is OK, then your culture deserves erasure”
I’m the one calling you out on your obvious dog whistling while you trot out the “I’m not racist. I have black friends/like black people” bullshit. Because I and others here are wondering what the hell do race and culture have to do with dogfighting? And Michael Vick? And who is “them” exactly? And why you went full Nazi on why a race and culture have to be eliminated?
Them are people who like dogfighting because they are hicks, or poor, or white hicks who are poor, or black hicks who are poor. Or whatever combo you like.I’ll stand over here with the people who don’t dogfight. You stand with the ones that do.
There have been illegal dog/animal fighting rings found on every continent and corner of the globe. From Brazil to China to Saudi Arabia to France. Based off of your mindset, we should eliminate the entire human race then. Doesn’t seem like it though as you seemingly focusing on the poor (even though the ones caught are rich sports players and blacks.) Gee, I wonder why? Seems that calling you Tucker Carlson is quite accurate.
You’re the one standing over here making dumb comments of pigeonholing entire races, cultures, and classes under the guise about caring for dogs. I’m standing on the side of calling you out on your dumb, nonsensical bullshit.
Oh look, the stubborn jackass thinks false dichotomies are airtight logic!
“I’d be happy with them just you know, NOT dogfighting. Or going to jail until they learned not to.”Your continued hatred of Vick proves you to be a liar when you say the quote above.
So you want Mike Vick to be killed by the state for what he did?
Roy Jones Jr was big into chicken fighting in the same era and nobody seemed to mind
Do you walk around with a shirt that professes your hatred of all brown skinned people, or is it the pointy white hat that gives it away.
Ok now do one about a culture and country built on enslaving humans.
I was thoroughly disgusted with what he did. Dog fighting and animal cruelty are crimes for a reason and I’m glad he served real jail time. But I do believe that in the world where he grew up it was commonplace and he didn’t see anything wrong with it. Dogs were just animals that you didn’t give a second thought. I’m glad he reevaluated his life and has worked ever since to atone. But I can certainly understand if someone doesn’t want to ever forgive him.
Good God, I hope it wasn’t commonplace where he grew up to slam a dog into the ground repeatedly until they died, or electrocute them. These are things Vick hands-on participated in. This is why those of us who are still angry with him are still angry. Because he did not serve enough jail time to make up for that. It wasn’t just dogfighting and hitting or kicking the dogs sometimes. It was horrific torture and murder.This is my problem with people trying to excuse what he did because it’s what he grew up with. I would understand that if it were just dog fighting. But there is so much that he did that was horrible. And some of it was really counter intuitive to a successful dog fighting operation (you would think you would want to keep them in good shape, feed them and keep them in shelter, but he kept them tied to trees, isolated and going long periods of time without food or water. No shelter, so exposed to the elements. He just wanted to make them mean. He failed.)
No disagreement with anything you wrote, and I’m definitely not excusing it. But there are segments of society that do not take the same view of animals as most of us.
I think Michael Vick is an unrepentant scumbag. That said, you sound pretty racist when you suggest that an entire culture should be erased. By that ahhhhh…”logic” then the entire caucasian white America should be “erased”. FFS factory farms and taxes being used to kill 30,000 healthy dogs a day,with drugs, heartsticks or Co2. The latter 2 are very painful.
You’re the one who seems to think the culture of dog fighting = African-American culture. You should get that looked at. It sounds pretty racist
Most people who torture and kill animals end up doing the same to humans eventually. So, the claim that he’s a changed man after knowing what he did to some of those dogs—that he personally participated in—makes me doubtful.That said, I would not wish him dead. I would not wish black culture dead. I would wish that he would have had more jail time and that he would have never been in a position to receive accolades from the public (playing in the NFL and being the offensive team captain for the AFC in this year’s Pro Bowl, for instance.) And I 100% agree that it would not matter if it had been Favre or Aikman or Rodgers or any white, beloved football player. The things he did were atrocious and you don’t get to come back from that and be adored again in the public eye.
Consensus seems to be that animal lovers aren’t ever, ever going to forgive the dude.And, seeing as adoration, forgiveness, and respect are not compulsory, that’s absolutely fine. People who hate his actions do not have to give a single shit about his prowess on the field.Yeah, this should be obvious, but the past week has shown me that it ain’t.
As long as none of those people were singing hosannas for Kobe on Sunday, and spend far more time being angry about Winston and Roethlisberger’s continued stature in the NFL, that’s fine.
I think you’re expecting a level of moral consistency that is beyond the grasp of many Americans.
Yeah, my stance on Vick is “What he did is horrible, and he deserved to be punished…but dogs aren’t people.”
Shit, man, don’t you tell some of these dog moms that their fur babies ain’t people! :DSeriously though, they ain’t people, but that kind of makes it worse to me. Where do sociopaths start? By mutilating animals. Which they do because the things are weaker than them, still feel pain, and very few people give a shit about them.
Y’know, dog moms actually tend to be more amenable than dog dads to my argument that raping women is worse than killing dogs!The key for me is that Vick not only, y’know, spent a few years in federal prison, but also took full responsibility for his actions and changed his life. He’s spent over 10 years advocating for animal rights at this point, even now that he’s out of the public eye.
The only squabble I have with your comment is that not all sociopaths turn into murderers. Many of them lead decent lives. All serial killers are sociopaths, though. (I mean, I don’t know that for absolute fact, but the evidence points to it being the mostly likely truth.)
Far too often, before murderers kill people, they kill animals. To have the capacity to not only kill, but also torture is not someone who I want run loose. If the people who tortured and murdered my daughter had been charged for skinning hogtied cats alive and posting online videos of themselves doing it, my daughter Jasmine would be alive.
But people who torture animals almost always go on to hurt and/or murder people. If you don’t give a shit about animals, you should care about stopping animal abusers for that reason.
Do you eat factory farmed pork?
“Dogs aren’t people….”Thank God. They don’t kill each other for sport or a profit.
My dog has killed baby rabbits for sport.I still love him, though.
I don’t care about football at all, so all I see in this guy is someone who tortured and killed animals for ‘sport’ and entertainment. If he wasn’t a rich and famous football player, where would he be? Under the damn jail, that’s where.It’s not about being an ‘animal lover’ to me. It’s about being someone who has a shred of decency and respect for other living things in general.
“If he weren’t a rich and famous football player” you’d never have heard of this, and he would have gone on with his life after being released from prison 10 years ago.Hell, “if he weren’t a rich and famous football player,” there would be much less awareness today of the horrors of dogfighting, and those fighting it wouldn’t have one of their most effective advocates.
Fair enough. Some rando convicted of this probably wouldn’t have gotten signed to a professional football team for millions of dollars immediately after they got out, either. They’d probably have a hard time getting a job at 7-11, and I doubt anyone would give two shits about what they had to say about dogfighting.The world and how it interprets and responds to celebrity status is a very strange thing. All I’m saying.
And the fact that no one would give a shit about his opinion on dogfighting would be fucking terrible for dogs.
Except you’re only looking at the negative aspects of that statement. Which makes it a little less of a straight-talking “All I’m saying”. And more of a hope-you-don’t-challenge-me “All I’m saying.”
This is true. The one good thing that came of this is the change in how we deal with dogs rescued from dog fighting operations. Before this, they were automatically euthanized. These dogs were rescued by a couple organizations (one being Bad Rap—they are aweseome) and almost all of them were able to be rehabilitated and given loving homes. If you like this kind of thing, you should read The Lost Dogs. It’s all about the rehabilitation of the dogs rescued from Vick’s fighting operation. They go over a little of what he did (and some of that is disturbing) but the main focus is on their journey to rehabilitation. It’s a great read.
If he wasn’t a rich and famous football player, where would he be? Under the damn jail, that’s where. Not false.I see what the dude did and see utterly fucking horrific acts of torture. Ain’t anywhere close to my jam.My comment is more about that weird “Hey, I rationalized this away, so YOU HAVE TO TOO” compulsion I’ve seen in Kobe fandom. I asked a dude, point blank, why he gave a shit whether another dude did or did not forgive Kobe. Like…do you need fucking permission to be a fan? Are you a goddamned child? Are you THAT addicted to validation?
This is the internet. It’s high school writ large. Public validation is just about all that matters to most people.
He did two years in federal prison. That’s about as heavy a sentence as you’ll see for crimes against animals. He wouldn’t be “under the jail”, he likely would have gotten around the same sentence.
If he wasn’t famous… he’d have had a lighter sentence, he probably wouldn’t have had the support he did to change the ways he has, and he definitely wouldn’t have millions of people who (frankly) love animals too much* still villfying him 20 years later.I guess it’s hard for me to see vengeance and decency as the same thing*almost 20 years vegetarian, i respect animals without holding them about everything else
one, he wouldn’t have been able to bankroll such an operation, and two, you woulda never heard of him.
Say what you will about Vick’s particular brand of animal cruelty, at least it’s not also contributing to the destruction of the entire planet.
This reads as if you believe something should only be condemned if it also contributes to the destruction of the planet. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but it certainly sounds that way.
He did three years in federal prison. People get less time for manslaughter. I expect he did about what anybody would have.
He did two years. You may be right, but the part about that argument that I don’t buy is that the difference between Vick getting busted for this and some ordinary schmoe is that Vick had the multibillion dollar corporation called the NFL on his side. Surely they had an interest in keeping him in prison for the shortest amount of time possible. Would any huge corporations care if Johnny Lunchpail got popped for dog fighting?I admittedly know little about it, but did the NFL get him a lawyer? How involved were they when it all went down? He sure got signed with the Eagles pretty quick after he got out of prison. It wasn’t for much money, but what a weird world we live in where someone who goes to federal prison for dogfighting gets to come back and play, but someone else who takes a knee to protest police violence can’t.
He was suspended under the league’s personal conduct policy, but I honestly don’t remember if it was before he was convicted (or pleaded guilty? Don’t remember that part either). No way they paid for his criminal lawyer.I won’t pretend to know what the typical sentence is for something like this, but do recall that he went to jail for running the gambling ring, not animal cruelty. So there are a lot of variables here.
They may not have paid for it, but I wouldn’t doubt they influenced the outcome of the case in some regard. Or at least the sentencing. They still had plenty of money to make off of him.
His was such a unique case. Public opinion turned against him pretty hard and as best I can remember the league sort of took a wait and see approach. Plenty of people argue he wouldn’t have been charged if he were white, so who knows.
He was getting busted for dumb shit like smoking weed in the interim, as well, so yeah. What a mess.
Just because people get less time for something else doesn’t mean he did enough time. I mean, people get less time for rape, too. Maybe they should be getting a lot more time for rape and he should have got more time for torturing and cruelly murdering dogs.
If you think someone is getting put “under the jail” ( which is nonsensical way to say death penalty ) for killing animals you are completely out of touch with reality.
He has been very contrite and atoned for his actions, which is laudable and i generally believe in rehabilitation and not punishment.
but given the brutality and cruelty of what he did, i also have a tough time believing that anyone who doesn’t harbor very strong sociopathic tendencies would do what he did. and sociopaths can be very good at putting on a good public face.
older sociopaths tend to be good at controlling themselves, so i’m not sure he’s a risk to society, but i woudn’t want to be in the same room as him.
I agree.But where I have a problem is when those people think I don’t have the right to think they’re morons for still hating Vick despite what he’s done after his conviction.
I think you have it backwards. I fully see his “prowess on the field” and it doesn’t excuse his extremely violent cruelty.He personally did that.
I fully see his “prowess on the field” and it doesn’t excuse his extremely violent cruelty. That would be my point, yes. People who hate his actions do not have to give a single shit about his prowess on the field. You see his prowess, but it does nothing to impact your opinion of him as a person: someone capable of extremely violent cruelty.
Yeah, in all seriousness I will never watch any of this and f..k Michael Vick, now and forever. There are so many serious everyday issues regarding racial injustice, actual racial injustice that the idea that anyone would try to attach that to this cruel murderous unrepentant human being is beyond the pale.
I remember after the comeback Vick was running got the first down and extra, had the chance to slide but dove forward instead, two linebackers sandwiched him and for a second he looked two-dimensionaland I was like “well there’s that sorted”killing dogs is what cancel culture was created for
I mean, yeah, like…the cruelty unearthed in the investigation is on another level. I cannot begin to speculate how one would even reasonably SEEK atonement, let alone receive it.
I’d like to think that hurting women is what Cancel Culture was created for.Since, y’know, women are people.
I don’t give a fart in a hurricane about foobaw, so to me Vick is always just going to be that asshole who tortured and killed dogs, and also I guess he could run fast or throw a ball real good or some shit.
Probably the most honest take!
If that is enough for him to remain FOREVER unforgivable that reflects as much (more?) on you than anything else.
No. Not everyone deserves forgiveness from every single person. Fuck you and fuck Michael Vick.
You say that like it’s a minor thing to torture and brutally murder dogs.
I love football (although in recent years it’s kind of a love/hate relationship) and think Vick was a great QB. I followed him a lot before all this came out and I was excited about him. I still think he was an exciting QB, but that is all tainted now.
It’s worth noting that Vick didn’t get done for killing dogs.He got hammered because he was *running* a major dogfighting ring.Dude wasn’t Wallace or Poot.He was Stringer Bell.
I thought what they got him on was a federal gambling charge related to the dog fighting.
They got him on a few things, haha.All racketeering, though, and related to the fact that he was *running the ring*, not just someone who owned a couple fighting dogs.
I rooted for Vick’s failure early in his career not because of race, but because he would constantly run the ball all up and down the field over the New Orleans Saints twice a season. It seems the only way for us to beat ATL in those seasons was when Vick wasn’t on the field (the year he broke his leg, the one game he sat because their playoff seeding was locked up).
One thing that always confuses me about the continued Michael Vick vitriol existing to this day is that he is literally the ONE celebrity/athlete/rich person who was brought to justice for their crime. We continue to praise a bunch of unrepentant assholes but fuck off to the one guy who actually paid his debt to society.
Personally I say fuck them all right to hell.
We continue to praise a bunch of unrepentant assholesSpeak for yourself.
Cool that so many people don’t believe in rehabilitation at all and apparently want all violent criminals either executed or eternally imprisoned.
He got to play again, he earns a living talking about football……I don’t have to like him though, do I ? If I think he’s a horrible person that doesn’t make me Tucker Carlson
No one is thought-controlling you, victim-boy.It’s just if you believe in your right to have your own opinions… why don’t I get think whatever I want about things you say?
Because your opinion sucks
Only the animal related ones.If your a cop who shoots an unarmed person you’ll have tons of defenders, many of whom will never forgive Vick.If you drug dozens of women over several decades you’ll have tons of defenders, many of whom will never forgive Vick.If you rape kids and set up a charity to have easier access to them you’ll have an entire alumni to defend, many of whom will never forgive Vick.
Good thing you don’t judge everyone without knowing anything about them. I think there’s a word for that. Prejudice.
Why do you think those are the same people?
That’s a whole lot of assumptions right there.
redemption is a fallacy for the black athlete. someone on kinja said they were cool with kobe dying on fire and scared. really cool people here.
I didn’t say that, and wouldn’t, but I really don’t like rapists, not just black or athlete ones.
Here’s the thing: So many athletes get away with horrible things, or they get minimal punishments. And then they go back to being the hero. The racist part is that we only find out about the black guys and it seems like the white guys we do find out about never even get the minimal punishment (unless they deflate balls, because somehow that’s much worse than raping women.) Michael Vick, Jameis Winston, Ray Lewis, Adrian Peterson all deserve to be punished for the things they did (Vick went to jail, but not for the animal cruelty, which should have netted him a bigger sentence.) But so does Roethlisberger and the countless other white guys who have done similar things (and likely outnumber the black guys doing these things) that we never even hear about. I agree that it seems like we’re all picking on the black guys, but if they’re doing the crimes, the problem isn’t that they are being punished for it (if they are.) The problem is that the white guys are not even being outed for it. I do see the desire to say, “Leave these guys alone” but the proper thing would be to say, “Hey, why aren’t we talking about the white guys who are doing the same and sometimes worse?”
You think we should let rapists and murders just run free? I’m against the death penalty because we get it wrong too often, but I’ll be damned if I want some murderer or rapist to just serve a few years and go free. Rehabilitation is fine for non-sociopaths. Sociopaths (like those who slam dogs into the ground repeatedly until they die) are not able to be rehabilitated. And when you say “all violent criminals” you are including the Ted Bundys of the world. I don’t think anyone could make a case for letting people like that out of prison.
Steve Harvey (and others) make a very good point: it’s b.s. that Vick served more time for killing dogs than many (too many) white people serve for rape or the killing of black people. I agree 100%.But the problem isn’t that Vick was judged too harshly; it’s that those others (the Roethlisbergers, the Kobes, the George Zimmermans, the Mel Gibsons) aren’t judged harshly enough. You can advocate for criminal reform – especially in the realm of civil rights – and also believe that Vick got off easy. The two feelings are not mutually exclusive. On a completely unrelated note, this is a picture of my dog.
This take is the best take. There is no doubt in my mind that Vick got the punishment he did because he’s black. I see that punishment He got as fair, and the proper answer to Steve Harvey’s very legitimate concern (a phrase I’d never thought I would type) as not to reduce Vick’s punishment, but rather to start raining down like the wrath of God on the many celebrities and cops and other folks with power who’ve down so much worse. And that’s an awesome dog. Oh, and ETA: fuck Tucker Carlson…that can’t be said often enough.
Your dog can read?
Yeah, but he only reads late 20th century trash. VC Andrews, Jacqueline Susann, etc. It’s really disappointing.
He didn’t serve time for killing dogs. He did time for running a dogfighting ring.
Cutie pie! Bonnie and Mia do not like Vick, either. (I don’t know if the picture is going to show, probably because I am gray.)
It’s insane to me how forgivable rape is (Kobe).
And how unforgivable Vick’s actions have been.It’s equally insane how many people feel both of the above thoughts.
Part one airs at 9 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, January 28 on ESPN, followed by part two on February 6Think It’s 30th not 28th
The only reason to watch this is to confirm he is not the shitty person he use to be. I’ve got way more interesting things to watch.
I will never, ever be able to generate an explanation why people will get murderously enraged over the treatment of animals when they can barely care about similar treatment of human beings.No, wait, I’ve got two:1. Animals are perfect victims. They possess no agency, and there’s no way to say they were “asking for it”. We have incentives to deny other peoples’ humanity all over society, but there’s no payoff to devaluing animals further.2. It’s a crime that holds no allure for the vast majority of people. Give me too much money and too much free time and I might do drugs, or hire prostitutes, or any number of other vices; put me in the right pressure-cooker-situation and I might kill someone. But there’s no set of circumstances that I can think of where I’d go “Y’know, let’s round up some dogs and have them fight each other to the death.” I don’t think this is an excuse to pile on Vick. It’s the same reason lots of straight Evangelicals love to gay-bash – it’s something they never have to worry about doing, so they get to show no empathy whatsoever.
Why do you assume that people who get enraged about cruelty to animals don’t also get enraged about cruelty to humans? Why is this a thing? Is it because while they are commenting on a post about animal cruelty they don’t also slip in how much they hate human cruelty? Because most people tend to comment about the topic at hand. Do we need to list everything that outrages us if we are going to talk about one of them? People can care about more than one thing. If I had to save a dog from Micheal Vick or a woman from being raped by Ben Roethlisberger, I would save the woman. I would hate having to make the choice, because they both deserve to live without abuse, but I would choose the woman.I’m sorry you got the brunt of this, but this comment section has been filled with comments like yours and yours was the straw.
I can’t relate to anybody who doesn’t see a dog as a pal.
it’s only tangentially related but i had a boss who claimed to be a dog person but also openly talked about being a fan of Michael Vick… ? coincidentally the same boss that admitted to searching for social media profiles of employees and applicants to glimpse + judge their character. it was… wild, but at least i knew immediately that any moral/character judgments from them were absolutely meaningless. anyone that does those things is indefensible, and there’s really no apology or atonement that’s enough to make up for it, from anyone.
I assume you don’t eat supermarket pork, then?
I don’t care if he was black or white or purple, he abused, tortured and killed innocent dogs. Now I can’t begin to figure out why humans get more outraged over animal abuse than human abuse except that dogs come into this world wanting to love us and be our companions and in return they are beaten and neglected. Now I certainly would never advocate the death penalty for his crimes but I’m not inviting hm over for dinner either.
I’ll add that I’m not a vegan, but I am troubled by the way our food supply (meat, chicken, and pork) are raised and processed. It’s borderline immoral. The animals are terrorized and raised in filth. Pigs and cows aren’t much different than dogs and horses. Anyway, it’s a system that I participate in, and am troubled by.
I’d argue that pigs are materially different from dogs:They’re much smarter.
I have a coworker who has a steer she’s had since he was a calf. He runs to the fence when she gets home and she says, “Give me a kiss” and he licks her face like a dog would. He likes having his back scratched with a rake. I’ve never met the steer but I like him. I also learned recently that cows in a herd have best friends and they get sad when their best friend isn’t around. And because of all that I’m thisclose to never eating beef again.Pigs are super smart, too. That makes me feel bad about eating pork. But bacon is so good and no other “bacon” from other animals is good (turkey bacon sucks so bad, but turkey sausage is good.) Chickens are stupid and annoying and they stink, so…
I also can’t relate to black men who grew up dirt poor in rural West Virginia!
Are you trying to imply that black men in rural West Virginia torture and brutally murder dogs on a regular basis? Because that’s the only way your comment is relevant to a conversation about Michael Vick. And, if so, I don’t want to relate to them and I want them all to be stopped from ever having animals again. At the least.
I mean, Trump says he sees no point in having a dog (there are lots of good reasons to now want to own a dog, but most people–even those who are allergic–can at least understand why someone would want to have a dog) so that tells you all you need to know about him and anyone who doesn’t like dogs.
I wonder what the world would look like if people cared as much about actual people as they do about dogs.
“In new interviews, one of Vick’s childhood friends insists there’s nothing wrong with the sport—and nothing wrong with killing dogs when they lose.”Apparently, he’s wrong about that.
Man, it would be killer if G/O Media somehow had a sports site to discuss this doc
Ive always been interested in the Venn Diagram of white people that were/are outraged over Michael Vick and watch/support the Kentucky Derby/horse racing. I forget which celebrity brought this comparison up, but found it very interesting in how our cultures differ on animal abuse.
So much talk about Dogs are gods etc.Sections of humanity have suffered way worse at the hands of others sects in history; descendants of said ruthlessly evil sects have not been vocal about the deeds of their forefathers to the point of the least minuscule denouncement, but have stayed mum.But swat a fly and “Oh my, living things are the future!”Sigh…
Lot of comments (including a few of my own) about the dog fighting, so I’ll move on to a couple of football-related thoughts:1. By the time he went to jail the league had figured him out. Defend the run and short-yardage passes and make you beat him downfield. He had an absolute cannon for an arm but by his own admission never fully developed his game. He wanted busted plays. But once that was taken away he was much less of a threat. By the time he got to the Eagles he finally accepted this wasn’t going to work any more – and look at the results.
2. The coaching for QBs like Vick has finally caught up with player ability. 20 years ago no one knew exactly how to build a NFL offense around a guy like this. Now you have coaches down to the high school level finding ways to maximize their talent. Don’t just let these guys win in HS and college by being the best athlete on the field; develop them fully as QBs so that defenses have to make a decision whether to defend the run or the pass. Likewise, don’t try to force them to be pocket passers. With a mobile QB who can actually throw, you can’t defend both.
In fairness…give Vick Andy as his coach 20 years ago, and they could have done some scary things together.
Maybe, but that’s kind of my point about coaching finally catching up. Jackson and Mahomes have been coached as QBs their entire lives; Vick never had his game developed in the same way so even if Reid had the same perspective then on how to structure an offense around a guy like Vick, he may not have had the same raw materials for success. Today look how many of the top quarterbacks are mobile guys who know how to keep their eyes downfield first.