OT: Michael Vick

[Icebear]

Seriously, you think people can't change. I think time (lots of it) money (lots of it) and disrespect by your old fans (yes, lots of that too), is a very large price to pay, and it can really change your life for the better. Trust me, I'm sure this dog will have a very happy life with it's new owner.

It isn't about changing. It is about losing the privilege to being a pet owner. It is not a right.

 

[Husk-E]

It isn't about changing. It is about losing the privilege to being a pet owner. It is not a right.

But I think that is a privilege that can be re-earned after thoroughly changing your attitude and feelings towards animals. Everyone deserves a second chance.

 

[Icebear]

But I think that is a privilege that can be re-earned after thoroughly changing your attitude and feelings towards animals. Everyone deserves a second chance.

What proof is there that Mr. Vick has done that?

 

[Aluminny69]

 

[Icebear]

Sociopathic, and, also, NPD.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Admittedly, the connection or joke you are making with eco-terrorism went over my head, but I have a feeling its a stretch and asking you to explain it would be material for another board.

That was bit oblique...my apologies. I was attempting a little irony in response to what I interpreted as an attempt to diminish cruelty to animals by placing it within the context of civilization's encroachment on the natural environment. In my mind's eye, I thought you might be less conflicted if a band of eco-terrorists were roasting you slowly over a fire for buying redwood furniture.

I've worked in the environmental field for a long time, and so I'm sympathetic with your view. But living in Atlanta, and having sat through my wife's florid descriptions of Vick's treatment of dogs, I have no conflict at all about what he did...it was wrong and he was punished appropriately...I won't tell you what my wife's friends at the Humane Society recommended, but roasting over the fire would've been pleasurable by comparison.

 

[Fishy]

The man has kids and yet we're worried about his dog...

 

[OneTrickPony]

The man has kids and yet we're worried about his dog...

Good point...I doubt he could adopt a child from Child Protective Services here either!

 

[Icebear]

The man has kids and yet we're worried about his dog...

It is reasonable to be concerned about both.

 

[Fishy]

I'm actually not concerned about either - simplistic internet graphics aside, he doesn't appear to be a sociopath and has served his time for whatever he's done.

If he tries to buy a tiger or something like that, I might change my thinking.

 

[k9fanatic]

I'm actually not concerned about either - simplistic internet graphics aside, he doesn't appear to be a sociopath and has served his time for whatever he's done.

If he tries to buy a tiger or something like that, I might change my thinking.

Well, sure. It's just unfortunate that his dogs were not allowed to "serve their time" on this earth.

I don't know what the clinical definition of sociopath is exactly, but anyone that can beat, hang, drown and otherwise torture an innocent, living, breathing animal like that can't be too far off.

 

[diggerfoot]

That was bit oblique...my apologies. I was attempting a little irony in response to what I interpreted as an attempt to diminish cruelty to animals by placing it within the context of civilization's encroachment on the natural environment. In my mind's eye, I thought you might be less conflicted if a band of eco-terrorists were roasting you slowly over a fire for buying redwood furniture.

I've worked in the environmental field for a long time, and so I'm sympathetic with your view. But living in Atlanta, and having sat through my wife's florid descriptions of Vick's treatment of dogs, I have no conflict at all about what he did...it was wrong and he was punished appropriately...I won't tell you what my wife's friends at the Humane Society recommended, but roasting over the fire would've been pleasurable by comparison.

Thanks for the clarification. I would not call myself conflicted. Species change their environments, including the human species. Granted, in our natural condition of small band society we probably lived more conscientiously towards sustainability than other species, but changing environments as a matter of survival is no big deal to me. I'm much more concerned about humans, which is why I'm not an animal rights activist.

However, if you were to assess all the "ten acre" and "one acre" lawn people, I seriously doubt if you would find a significant difference in either health or happiness, particularly if you were to control for debt. Indeed, if you were to bias the study by comparing "ten acre" folks in debt with "one acre" folks who aren't, I suspect the "one acre" folks would measure substantially higher in both health and happiness. In other words, sometimes we change the environment in ways that really do not benefit us, but we've been led to chase after fools gold while allowing a conceptual detachment for the harm done.

But that was not even my point either. It was more along the lines of the "speck in someone else's eye." Some folks are quick to judge Vick as an incurable "monster." Perhaps he is. Perhaps he deserves everything he got and more, though I don't think anyone here can be reliable judges of whether he has been rehabilitated or not. I just find righteous indignation regarding the matter a little too convenient; that's where I was heading.

 

[OneTrickPony]

Thanks for the clarification. I would not call myself conflicted. Species change their environments, including the human species. Granted, in our natural condition of small band society we probably lived more conscientiously towards sustainability than other species, but changing environments as a matter of survival is no big deal to me. I'm much more concerned about humans, which is why I'm not an animal rights activist.

However, if you were to assess all the "ten acre" and "one acre" lawn people, I seriously doubt if you would find a significant difference in either health or happiness, particularly if you were to control for debt. Indeed, if you were to bias the study by comparing "ten acre" folks in debt with "one acre" folks who aren't, I suspect the "one acre" folks would measure substantially higher in both health and happiness. In other words, sometimes we change the environment in ways that really do not benefit us, but we've been led to chase after fools gold while allowing a conceptual detachment for the harm done.

But that was not even my point either. It was more along the lines of the "speck in someone else's eye." Some folks are quick to judge Vick as an incurable "monster." Perhaps he is. Perhaps he deserves everything he got and more, though I don't think anyone here can be reliable judges of whether he has been rehabilitated or not. I just find righteous indignation regarding the matter a little too convenient; that's where I was heading.

I'm a big fan of the New Urbanism concept and sustainable living. Georgia Tech's architectural school has done a great job with it here in Atlanta. In fact the Atlanta Beltline Project is a good example, and it's the largest infrastructure project in the US at the moment.

As to Vick...he did some things I'd call monstrous...he claims that's the way he was brought up and there is no doubt some truth to that. Is he a monster or not...I'm not certain...will he do it again...I don't know...but he won't be allowed around my dogs. If you think this was righteous indibnation, you should've been around the animal shelters, pet stores, and pet boarding facilities a few years ago...serial murderers stir up less bile!

 

[JACKofallTrades]

Just saw this thread... some thoughts that I didn't see others raise (?) ...

I think Vick got that (very severe) sentence (prison & big bucks $$$) more from the gambling aspect than the cruelty. No? You don't screw with the IRS! And they were making him an example. There are people who get arrested for animal cruelty all the time, but they are generally small local stories & the sentences tiny (compared to the Vick sentence). This case... everyone heard about it. The government can't buy that kinda media publicity.

I didn't follow the details of his story closely (too depressing & I have better things to do), but my impression was that he was raised in a culture (sub-culture) of dog fighting. I have no idea of that culture's "ethics"... but there are people raised in hunting cultures too; killing animals, dressing them, etc can seem cruel & just awful to many (non-hunters). It's not torture, but to many it's no different.

If a person is raised in certain far-east cultures, you might EAT dog, quite naturally, just like we eat cows. If you were raised in certain Indian cultures, you would never eat (or kill) cows (which are much more docile, & "innocent" animals than dogs BTW)... and you'd find Americans who eat hamburgers & steak quite reprehensible.

The point I want to make is that if Vick was raised in a culture of animal violence (& I admit I don't know the extent of it), you have to make some compensation in your "hate" toward him (his behavior). Just like there's a (moral) difference between murder in the first, 2'nd, or 3'rd degree. (knowledge vs intent)

As to the sociopath claim... about 5-10% of people have tendencies in that regard and it varies in degree & in type (of disorder). But it seems to be genetic(ally) based. (So curtail some of your 'blame'). It manifests in a lack of empathy (towards others, & their feelings, including animals). You can lie & not feel a twinge of guilt. If you cry at certain films, or books, or events... relax, you're quite normal & NOT a sociopath.

As to Vick... that's hard to tell without more info & a psych evaluation. BTW, you CAN live a (non criminal) & (outwardly) normal life if you are a sociopath... it doesn't mean you'll act badly... just that you're more predisposed to it if you're raised in certain ways or exposed to certain (bad) behavior as a youth.