• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vick says he would like a pet dog; anger follows

Should Michael Vick be allowed to own a dog?


  • Total voters
    43
Fighting cocks and dogs are very low-risk forms of entertainment that satisfies certain humans' thirst or quest for violence. While I don't personally endorse or ascribe to any form of this type of behavior, I do understand its roots.

Vick should be allowd to have a dog! Why not?

He will get to own dogs again after May 2012. But he is whining for that new puppy now.

There are ways of putting a pet down with the least of suffering then there were the way Vick did it including drowning. Maybe things are different in your parts but I don't find anything entertaining about drowning a dog.
 
He will get to own dogs again after May 2012. But he is whining for that new puppy now.

There are ways of putting a pet down with the least of suffering then there were the way Vick did it including drowning. Maybe things are different in your parts but I don't find anything entertaining about drowning a dog.
Or electrocuting them
 
That's like letting a child molester live next to an elementary school, don't you think?

No. Vick was not simply abusing animals for no apparent reason... there was potential for profit involved. As sick as dog fighting is, it doesn't equate to some kid burying a cat up to it's neck and running it over with a lawnmower. That is the true picture of animal abuse, because the abuse itself is the focal point and sole purpose. Vick doesn't fit that picture... because animal injury is a residual effect of fighting, which (if preventable) would be dealt with the same way humans (who have the capacity to prevent/reduce injury) issue gloves to boxers to prevent severe head trauma... as well as a system to determine a winner well-before death. Abusing dogs isn't the goal... making money is. Where this becomes fishy is with their methods of putting the animals down. That, to me is cruelty... but still the result of environment.

So no, they're nothing like child molesters.
 
Last edited:
No. Vick was not simply abusing animals for no apparent reason... there was potential for profit involved. As sick as dog fighting is, it doesn't equate to some kid burying a cat up to it's neck and running it over with a lawnmower. That is the true picture of animal abuse, because the abuse itself is the focal point and sole purpose. Vick doesn't fit that picture... because animal injury is a residual effect of fighting, which (if preventable) would be dealt with the same way humans (who have the capacity to prevent/reduce injury) issue gloves to boxers to prevent severe head trauma... as well as a system to determine a winner well-before death. Abusing dogs isn't the goal... making money is.

So no, they're nothing like child molesters.

Regardless of his sick intentions he still committed horrible atrocities to those animals. He should have no right to own an animal. All I hope is that when he was in prison he wasn't given any special treatment.
 
No. Vick was not simply abusing animals for no apparent reason... there was potential for profit involved. As sick as dog fighting is, it doesn't equate to some kid burying a cat up to it's neck and running it over with a lawnmower. That is the true picture of animal abuse, because the abuse itself is the focal point and sole purpose. Vick doesn't fit that picture... because animal injury is a residual effect of fighting, which (if preventable) would be dealt with the same way humans (who have the capacity to prevent/reduce injury) issue gloves to boxers to prevent severe head trauma... as well as a system to determine a winner well-before death. Abusing dogs isn't the goal... making money is.

So no, they're nothing like child molesters.
Apparently you're not aware of everything Vick did to losing dogs. It was more than just the fighting (as if the fighting is just ok :roll:)).
 
Apparently you're not aware of everything Vick did to losing dogs. It was more than just the fighting (as if the fighting is just ok :roll:)).

Oh I am... I forgot to mention it in my original post, then edited it (around the time you posted the above quote). I would call those actions severe, unnecessary, and cruel... but I don't believe they stem from the type of condition apparent in people who abuse animals for pleasure. If they did, he'd have no reason to fight dogs... he'd just abuse them fresh off the trucks (or however the dogs were transported to his property). I believe the way losing/unable dogs were dealt with were a result of what he's been shown... and rehabilitation isn't an impossible task. Surely someone in his position should understand the backlash behind his sentiments, but I believe he could curtail some of it by allowing an organization like the humane society to make random visits to ensure proper care of the animal is being met.
 
Regardless of his sick intentions he still committed horrible atrocities to those animals.

I agree.

Where we may disagree deals with his placement among animal abusers. I believe that (like other offenses) there should be degrees… and motive should be considered.

• Those that abuse animals for pleasure/recreation/excitement/boredom/illegal research should receive penalty without the ability to own an animal in the future. (1st degree)

• Those that abuse animals as a result of negligence (to include malnourishment) should receive penalty, rehabilitation, probationary period that determines how long they cannot own an animal, and randomized visits with tenure **in the event that they wish to purchase an animal in the future. (2nd degree)

• Those that commit an act where animal abuse is an alternative result of the original action (sport/persistent or reoccuring rough housing/hazardous living conditions/man..err...mansbestfriendslaughter) should receive penalty with rehabilitation, probationary period that determines how long they cannot own an animal, and randomized visits with tenure **in the event that they wish to purchase an animal in the future. (3rd degree)

The mental state of the convicted should be considered when it comes to determining whether or not the abuse of an animal stems from an inherent condition or the environment he/she grew up in… which could determine whether or not an offender deserves a 1st degree conviction. I don't view a kid who was molested (and made to believe the action is normal) and does so him/herself in the same light as someone who develops a condition on their own or of their own fetish. There are levels to a lot of things.

He should have no right to own an animal.

While I may or may not agree, I acknowledge that my opinion doesn't matter (with regard to law). Morally speaking, I also believe that judgment of character shouldn't be approached from a reductionist point of view. I haven't the expertise to cross-examine him to a degree that determines his state of mind... and how owning an animal from this point on would transpire. Therefore, to say outright that he shouldn't own one would be a premature and ignorant proclamation.

All I hope is that when he was in prison he wasn't given any special treatment.

I wouldn't hope for special treatment or maltreatment. Prison time is enough.
 
Last edited:
Your lines are so oddly drawn. You put negligence above intentional actions with your second and third degree, uh, offenses. You know what makes me suspect about his so called rehabilitation? Because later he kept claiming he just made some bad mistakes. I really hate it when intentional crimes are referred to as mistakes. I think that's just a way to minimize responsibility.
 
Your lines are so oddly drawn. You put negligence above intentional actions with your second and third degree, uh, offenses.

Of course. As stated before, the focal point of dog fighting isn't cruelty, it's profit (the same way gambling on a boxing match isn't about injury, but making money). Cruelty is the side effect of dog fighting, where animal cruelty is the focal point behind actions like abuse for pleasure & negligence.

You know what makes me suspect about his so called rehabilitation? Because later he kept claiming he just made some bad mistakes. I really hate it when intentional crimes are referred to as mistakes. I think that's just a way to minimize responsibility.

To claim you made mistakes isn't minimizing responsibility. I can intentionally commit an action and realize later the severity of those actions. To fully realize/understand the severity of an action means you won't commit it... and that can come with rehabititation. If an environment teaches me something from a youthful age... I'll adopt it. The same can be said for gang cultures.
 
Last edited:
That's like letting a child molester live next to an elementary school, don't you think?

No, not at all. It's completely different, child molesting will ALWAYS be worse than dog fighting.

I find it disgusting how many die hard sports fans are willing to give Vick a pass over something this atrocious! It is like just cause he has "game" that all is forgiven..

It's bad, but people should be given a second chance, and from everything I've heard of Vick, he seems to have learned his lesson, and is becoming a good role model for kids.
Plus, he is exciting to watch ;)
 
No, not at all. It's completely different, child molesting will ALWAYS be worse than dog fighting.



It's bad, but people should be given a second chance, and from everything I've heard of Vick, he seems to have learned his lesson, and is becoming a good role model for kids.
Plus, he is exciting to watch ;)

But isn't there some things you should not get a second chance on?
 
But isn't there some things you should not get a second chance on?

For some things I would agree, what Vick did though. Yes, someone should get a second chance.
 
He will get to own dogs again after May 2012. But he is whining for that new puppy now.

There are ways of putting a pet down with the least of suffering then there were the way Vick did it including drowning. Maybe things are different in your parts but I don't find anything entertaining about drowning a dog.

Hey listen, most guys have done something in the past of which they are ashamed. It could be anything from participation in gang fights, jumping somebody, vandalism, inflicting pain upon another living being for pleasure, wife-beating (girlfriend-beating) slapping, theft, or whatever.

Heck! We even get brainwashed into joining the military so that we can go into someone else's land to kill all of the available folks we see. However, when you get back home, if you try to do that same crap again after you get pissed at group of drunks cursing your name from across the street, they call it mass murder. You then don't get medals for heroism. You do however, get to go to prison for life!

So life is full of twists turns and surprises. People can be rehabilitated believe it or not. People change daily. People switch political parties. People change their minds all of the time. We can go from radicals as adolescents to ultra-conservatives at the age of forty.

When I was an adolescent, I did some pretty stupid things. Most of the bad things that I did involved vandalism. Some of the things that I did back then makes me shiver at how blatantly stupid they were. I would never do anything like that again. There are things that I've done at 13, that you couldn't pay me to do at 18 years of age. There are things that I've done at 18, that I would absolutely refuse to do at the age of 25 years. There are things that I did at 25, that I would feel quite stupid doing at the age of 40 years.

I've known guys who've fought dogs before. They would usually end the conversation with, "Damn man! That's too bad about Bullet. That was a really good dog, though!" Eventually, they mature and they stop fighting dogs on their own. I think Vick, just like all the rest of those fools in the NFL. He just had too much money and too much time on his hands. When you add those features to a slice of immaturity and a slice of adventurism, you've got a pretty stupid-looking sandwich.

It's not like Vick was convicted of child abuse or child molestation or something and now he wants to start a nursery school for kids.

He most probably really does like dogs and just wants to prove to both himself and society, that he's not the monster the press portayed him to be.

Let the man have a dog! His dog will most probably eat better than any of us do, today!
 
Last edited:
We don't let convicted sex offenders be in the company of children, why would we let a man convicted of what this man did EVER have another dog.....it makes zero sense.
 
But isn't there some things you should not get a second chance on?

Absolutely...I'm all for second chances. However, it doesn't mean that he should ever be given a second chance to torture and kill like he did before. Give him a chance to get his life back...give him another shot at football....but absolutely do not ever give this man another dog.
 
Oh I am... I forgot to mention it in my original post, then edited it (around the time you posted the above quote). I would call those actions severe, unnecessary, and cruel... but I don't believe they stem from the type of condition apparent in people who abuse animals for pleasure. If they did, he'd have no reason to fight dogs... he'd just abuse them fresh off the trucks (or however the dogs were transported to his property). I believe the way losing/unable dogs were dealt with were a result of what he's been shown... and rehabilitation isn't an impossible task. Surely someone in his position should understand the backlash behind his sentiments, but I believe he could curtail some of it by allowing an organization like the humane society to make random visits to ensure proper care of the animal is being met.

Are you serious? Vick ABSOLUTELY used and abused those dogs for his own pleasure. What do you think dog fighting is about?
 
I understand the outrage but I wonder if anyone bothered to read the article. He has done his service...he still goes above and beyond. He works with the Humane Society and does speaking engagements by choice. He acknowledges his past and the mistakes he has made. He was responding to a question...one he probably gets all too often. He felt that in addition to work that he has done a family pet would be a positive thing for him in his rehab process.

Take him at his word or dont. Agree or disagree. But at least read and understand the context of the response.
 
Hey listen, most guys have done something in the past of which they are ashamed. It could be anything from participation in gang fights, jumping somebody, vandalism, inflicting pain upon another living being for pleasure, wife-beating (girlfriend-beating) slapping, theft, or whatever.

Heck! We even get brainwashed into joining the military so that we can go into someone else's land to kill all of the available folks we see.
Nice dig at the military. Right up there with Obama's "air raiding villages and bombing civilians" comment.

However, when you get back home, if you try to do that same crap again after you get pissed at group of drunks cursing your name from across the street, they call it mass murder. You then don't get medals for heroism. You do however, get to go to prison for life!

So life is full of twists turns and surprises. People can be rehabilitated believe it or not. People change daily. People switch political parties. People change their minds all of the time. We can go from radicals as adolescents to ultra-conservatives at the age of forty.

When I was an adolescent, I did some pretty stupid things. Most of the bad things that I did involved vandalism. Some of the things that I did back then makes me shiver at how blatantly stupid they were. I would never do anything like that again. There are things that I've done at 13, that you couldn't pay me to do at 18 years of age. There are things that I've done at 18, that I would absolutely refuse to do at the age of 25 years. There are things that I did at 25, that I would feel quite stupid doing at the age of 40 years.

I've known guys who've fought dogs before. They would usually end the conversation with, "Damn man! That's too bad about Bullet. That was a really good dog, though!" Eventually, they mature and they stop fighting dogs on their own. I think Vick, just like all the rest of those fools in the NFL. He just had too much money and too much time on his hands. When you add those features to a slice of immaturity and a slice of adventurism, you've got a pretty stupid-looking sandwich.

It's not like Vick was convicted of child abuse or child molestation or something and now he wants to start a nursery school for kids.

He most probably really does like dogs and just wants to prove to both himself and society, that he's not the monster the press portayed him to be.

Let the man have a dog! His dog will most probably eat better than any of us do, today!
Do you even realize how many assumptions you're having to make in order to believe your ridiculous claim that Vick actually likes dogs?
 
Last edited:
Right, the Pit Bulls and roosters put themselves in the fighting ring, just like the people do. :roll:

Bet you wish we'd bring back bear baiting and bull fighting, huh?


You obviously didn't READ my post. I said I don't care for **** or dog fighting. I noted that gamecocks are fighters by nature... I didn't say they put themselves in the ring.

I just said I didn't think it should be a FELONY. Perhaps you have heard of "misdemeanors". These are also crimes...and can involve incarceration... they don't remove your civil rights forever like felonies.
 
We don't let convicted sex offenders be in the company of children, why would we let a man convicted of what this man did EVER have another dog.....it makes zero sense.



This is my point. Animals are not people. Comparing dog-fighting to child molestation is, IMO, ridiculous and shows how upside-down we are as a society.
 
At one point slaves were considered property what is your point? It is determined by society. Though I like having pets, you should treat them as a living being and not an object.

No, it's determined mostly by nature. Slaves were humans, all humans have the same base set of abilities. While we had slaves, we eventually came to see that human is human and that all humans should be allowed to practice the same base set of rights. Dogs and the like are not humans. Not human is property. Slaves have the ability to rise up and make themselves not slaves. Animals do not.
 
This is my point. Animals are not people. Comparing dog-fighting to child molestation is, IMO, ridiculous and shows how upside-down we are as a society.
It's not ridiculous, it's just an analogy. Also, it's probably a way to try to frame the issue in such a way that folks who maybe aren't the most sympathetic to animals, can, at least, understand the argument against letting Vick keep dogs again.
 
Regardless of his sick intentions he still committed horrible atrocities to those animals. He should have no right to own an animal. All I hope is that when he was in prison he wasn't given any special treatment.

When one has completed their punishment in full, they should have the full of their rights recognized once again.
 
Also, it's probably a way to try to frame the issue in such a way that folks who maybe aren't the most sympathetic to animals, can, at least, understand the argument against letting Vick keep dogs again.

By making appeals to emotion? Sorry, it's logic or nothing for me. I'm not going to be swayed by improper comparison meant to raise emotional states.
 
By making appeals to emotion? Sorry, it's logic or nothing for me. I'm not going to be swayed by improper comparison meant to raise emotional states.
Well then, taking your other posts into consideration and looking at it logically, once a child molester has served his punishment, he "should have the full of [his] rights recognized once again", including the ability to open a day care if he wants, right?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom