Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said he couldn't help it. Nor did I say that this background justifies why it was okay to do what he did. My only point was that "dog-fighting" had always been a NORMAL occurance in his life. Whether it was right or wrong, it always existed. He of course, at any point time, had the ability to stand outside it and question the moral implications of doing it. He also could have refrained from being an active participant. The fact that that he did neither, indicates that on some level, his beliefs about dog-fighting(again taking into account that it was something he had always been used to) was that it was not wrong, and that it was a normal form of entertainment. Beliefs shape a lot of our actions, our decisions, and what we view as right or wrong. The way he grew up, what he was taught about dog-fighting and later on believed about it, was that it was a "normal" thing to do and that there was not anything necessarily wrong with it. Hence the reason he continued to participate in it, even once he was out of his environment. Vick is a product of his environment, and the beliefs and values that were shaped while he grew up in this environment, PLAYED a role in a lot of his decisions, the dog-fighting being one of them. People at any point in time, can CHANGE their belief systems, and that can CHANGE the decisions they make.
I'm not trying to justify why he did what he did, or even say it was okay, but that to HIM, and from his OWN beliefs about it, it was not a "bad" thing to do, it was normal. Now once the public found out, and he was scrutinized about it, and the rest of society(outside of his sub-society) told him that it was wrong, disgusting, sick, etc and he experienced the ramifications, did he probably fully understand the implications of what he was doing. And he might have changed based upon this discovery, most of us probably will never know... I still stand by what I said that I cannot necessarily call him "evil" for doing what he did, despite the fact that the "act" itself is an act that I could never do myself or understand how someone could enjoy doing it. I also know, that, we all don't have the same beliefs, and that just because I believe it is "sick" to do it, does not mean that at the time he was doing it, he believed it was anything beyond "normal". Now that he knows that it is "sick", and why it is, if he were to do it again, then that would be the occasion that I could potentially say that there is something very wrong with him, evil, etc. At this point, I can only assume that after paying his dues and learning why it was wrong, that he has moved on with his life and is trying to make better decisions.
I cannot hold what he did 7 years ago, against him, if he is no longer participating in "it", and for all intent and purposes has made better decisions since it happened.
And yes I DO know and I am aware of what happens in a dog-fight, to the "losing" dog. Like I said to the other poster, the OP was about VICK, so this was what I focused on. The animals he tortured, the "act" itself--is not something I agree with. I was not raised to think that was right, nor was I ever in environments where this happened. I had always had pets, whether it be dogs, or cats. Obviously my experience with animals, was nothing like Vicks. I cannot comprehend how animal fighting can be anything pleasurable, nor can I understand why people engage in it in it the first place, but I credit this to my own experience regarding animals, and the beliefs I have regarding acts like "dog-fighting". I also believe that since doing what he did, and coming to an understanding about the implications about it(once he had to pay his dues) that he NOW can use this newfound understanding to spread the word to others within his sub-society, and those outside of it, NOT engage in the same activity that he did. He is living proof of how his actions nearly destroyed the life he built. To me being able to relay this to youth that come from similar environments, is one of the greatest ways in preventing MORE people from participating in dog-fighting and also "spot-lighting" the issue itself. In other words Vick can reframe his actions, the poor decision that he was told that he made, and explain to youth and others like himself why dog-fighting is a "no-no". Or I suppose, he can disappear, like most of you want. I respect the fact that his way of moving on has been to continue to use his 'role', as athlete to influence others in a positive way(at least at this point).
Also, in regards to millions of people doing it and not getting caught, my only point is that there are so many people in this thread that complain about his "lack of" punishment or what he still needs to do to prove he is reformed, and yet the fact that he's even served his time, and did what he's done to make ammends is more than anyone else that has tortured animals without receiving punishment for doing so. There many crimes that are committed where those that committed the crimes did not get caught, they never paid their dues and moved on with their lives--some continuing to commit crimes, others ceasing to do so. VICK, has at the minimum "paid" his dues to society since doing what he's done, and he is now ready to move on with his life. Why not just let him?
he paid his dues to society for TAX EVASION.... not for dog fighting.....
and if he thought it was so alright and so normal, why did he go to such great lengths to conceal the operation?? ..... maybe because society knows it is immoral and evil and has written laws against it?? he knew it was against the law.... he knew it was wrong.... and yet he CHOSE to engage in it anyway....
no one will EVER be able to justify the torture and abuse of animals in such a manner.... no one....
Why is it so important to label someone as something? Does it make you feel better to attach labels to people? Or is it just an attempt to distinguish that this person is different from you(i.e. he is evil to do that, that I'm not). I guess I'm just not seeing why it's so important to call Vick these types of names because of what he did?
I am saying some of us can call a spade a spade and some of us can't. There are also shades of gray in life, but this situation is definitely NOT one of them.
I can also label someone as "nice" or "generous" when they display that behavior. It is OK to do so.
Even if you choose not to label him, can you at least not make excuses for Michael Vick? That is worse.
I was generous enough to say in an earlier post: "Michael, give us five more years of exemplary and law abiding behavior and maybe I change my mind. It is too early" Frankly, that is probably too generous. I am not unforgiving, but I am not a gullible fool either.
You won't change my mind and we likely won't change yours.
I'll be out of town for the next two days largely staying offline, so there are plenty of other very reasonable people you can disagree with on this thread.
he paid his dues to society for TAX EVASION.... not for dog fighting.....
and if he thought it was so alright and so normal, why did he go to such great lengths to conceal the operation?? ..... maybe because society knows it is immoral and evil and has written laws against it?? he knew it was against the law.... he knew it was wrong.... and yet he CHOSE to engage in it anyway....
no one will EVER be able to justify the torture and abuse of animals in such a manner.... no one....
As I said, he grew up thinking it was normal, and once out of that environment probably realized it was "not", or that people didn't see it the same way he did so he concealed it. I never said that he didn't know it was wrong to OTHERS outside of those that he knew that actively did it, only that it was "normal" to HIM and because so many in his life did it, and he grew up doing it, he didn't see it the same way that you or I did. He's not a stupid man though, on some level, especially as he got older he knew there were others with entirely opposite belief systems. And he knew that because that other belief system was the prevailing one, especially in this country, if he was caught, that he would get in trouble. And you mistake me explaining that this was a "normal" thing for him and those around him, as a way to justify why it's okay that he did it. My purpose isn't to justify his behaviors or to even attempt to. I know that it is moot, because you are repulsed by him(again your beliefs are completely opposite his). My only goal is to point out that his perspective on dog-fighting, the reasons he may have derived pleasure or entertainment from it, are influenced by the beliefs that are shared amongst him and the people that he grew up with. If his belief have since changed, and he is no longer doing it, or is at least attuned to how awful it was that he did it in the first place then why continue to hold it against him?
Decisions made years ago, should not haunt him for the rest of his life, as long as he takes the lessons that he learned and decides to reshape how he *once* looked at something(for instance dog-fighting) in a much more different light. He can move on with his life, in a much more positive way and have a positive impact on those that relate to him. At the very least, I don't see how this is harmful.
And he paid his dues even if it's not enough for you. He's contributed to causes for animals, he apologized, he's made speeches about his actions, etc. Would you prefer he go back to jail, for an action he did 7 years ago-and has not done since? Would that somehow make it seem like he's done his "time", if he does more time specifically for animal torture? Even though he hasn't tortured in the last 7 years(as far as we know) and even though he has stepped away from that lifestyle? I mean at what point do people have the ability to move on from past decisions(no matter how faulty they are) if they are trying to lead a much more positive life since those bad decisions took place?
I believe if my hubby could have married the lab we just had to put to sleep....he would have.
I have been very sick for the last year and put off some treatments for fear of not being there for her.
I want you to know how deeply some pets are loved.
Some of the love is transferred to all dogs........that is why I feel so much hate for Vick.
Now you know.
All joking aside. That is great and all, but I think dogs are dogs. I appreciate dogs, enjoy them, and I certain do not advocate people doing harm to them in any way shape or form but I don't put any animal above another human being. I believe that kind of thinking is backwards and quite honestly disturbing. If someone treated you poorly, but treated their dog better, it would be no different than what you and others have explained. I think the love for dogs and animals should have it's proper perspective. People are flawed of course. You will never find a perfect human being, but a dog isn't going to replace the companionship you get from an actual person. The problem that I find is that people are more willing to help stray animals than innocent children who have been neglected or maybe even have suffered because of losing family members. If we are more willing to help out dogs and other animals then who will ever help the children who are without families?
So because, once he was caught, and had to "face" the punishment and might not have been sorry "then", he is not sorry now? That was seven years ago. A lot could have changed in his life. It's speculation to assume that he is the same man with the same beliefs about this issue that he had 7 years ago. I remember when I was 17, and got caught in a huge lie to my parents about where I really was that night, when I got home and had to face the music, I didn't want to face it, I wanted to try to make it go away. So I lied to them even more. And of course, I received an awful punishment. There are few people, who won't try to weasel their way out of "trouble" if they can help it. Doesn't matter if they are sorry or not. Not to mention that this was BEFORE he had went to prison, and before he had dealt with his punishment. time has passed since then, can we still assume that he is not "sorry" and that he is not remorseful for his actions? Or do we believe that a person, can never "grow", can never change their ideas about something, and that the decisions they make define who they are forever, even if those decisions are decisions they no longer partake in?
So because, once he was caught, and had to "face" the punishment and might not have been sorry "then", he is not sorry now? That was seven years ago. A lot could have changed in his life. It's speculation to assume that he is the same man with the same beliefs about this issue that he had 7 years ago. I remember when I was 17, and got caught in a huge lie to my parents about where I really was that night, when I got home and had to face the music, I didn't want to face it, I wanted to try to make it go away. So I lied to them even more. And of course, I received an awful punishment. There are few people, who won't try to weasel their way out of "trouble" if they can help it. Doesn't matter if they are sorry or not. Not to mention that this was BEFORE he had went to prison, and before he had dealt with his punishment. time has passed since then, can we still assume that he is not "sorry" and that he is not remorseful for his actions? Or do we believe that a person, can never "grow", can never change their ideas about something, and that the decisions they make define who they are forever, even if those decisions are decisions they no longer partake in?
He is just sorry he got caught...IMO.
If he had not been caught he still would have been hurting dogs.
and there are the operative words.... as far as we know....
so apparently, deep down somewhere, even you believe he has the propensity to do it again....
and THAT is what is unforgivable in my book....
No, the "as far as we know" is meant to say that I don't KNOW Vick, his thoughts, his beliefs, or anything since this event has happened. I don't want to judge him TODAY, based on actions that took place 7 years ago when I have not seen him do anything that indicates that he is even the same person that he once was. In other words, I cannot say whether or not he would do it again, so what is the point of trying to prevent him from trying to lead his life, IF he is doing such in a manner that is not harmful to any person, animal, or anything really? Who is being harmed by him choosing to speak at his event? Who is being harmed by him picking up his career in the NFL after he nearly lost it? In other words, what is he doing NOW(not 7 years ago) to show that he is a descipable human being?
I know that 7 years ago I was NOWHERE near the same person I am today. Life has been very humbling for me, I've lost a lot, I've gained a lot too. Anyone who knew me then, can say with certainty that I am NOT the same person I once was. Sure there might some "minor" things that I still do, but overall as a person, my beliefs have changed significantly, and my life has changed significantly. I would hate for people to base their ideas about me NOW, on how I was 7 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
