• 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
What kind of a moron would inject politics into this thread???

Oh...wait...never mind...makes sense...
 
Hancock said:
Kelzie, you said:

I never claimed we were perfect. I also am aware that people makes mistakes. Vick did not make a mistake. A DUI is a mistake. Hell, murder can even be a mistake. Vick repeatedly and purposefully engaged in his behavior. To claim he made a mistake is about as logical as claiming a serial killer "accidently" murder 14 people

I'm saying:

That is the equivalent of saying Vick's mistake, "the mindless killing of innocent animals", is on par with, or is "as logical as claiming a serial killer accidentally murdered 14 people".

I've already thoroughly explained human soundness of mind and rationality. As far as I'm concerned, all bets are off on that one!
Click to expand...

Do you know how an analogy works?
 
liblady said:
i know, right? i'm sending mike my resume.
Click to expand...

Theres probably a whole bunch of others in the sports realm that could use your help. Calling Mike Tyson...Terrel Owens...LeBron James...
 
Kelzie said:
Do you know how an analogy works?
Click to expand...

With your logic, I was wondering the same about you...

You simply can't talk about any accident or anything else related to the loss of human life, serial killing, or the murder of people. They are just too different and they're certainly not coplanar.

It loads the question and places prejudicial inferences into the mind.

There is no way that we are supposed to be introducing "serial killing" and "murder" of human beings, into this discussion as they are far too remote from being parallel to the plane of the killing of animals.

Analogies work by using parallelisms...

There's really no direct correspondence from the killing of animals to the "serial killing" or "murder of people". That's just too sensational and too far of a reach.

Try Again!
 
Last edited:
Hancock said:
With your logic, I was wondering the same about you...

You simply can't talk about any accident or anything else related to the loss of human life, serial killing, or the murder of people. They are just too different and they're certainly not coplanar.

It loads the question and places prejudicial inferences into the mind.

There is no way that we are supposed to be introducing "serial killing" and "murder" of human beings, into this discussion as they are far too remote from being parallel to the plane of the killing of animals.

Analogies work by using parallelisms...

There's really no direct correspondence from the killing of animals to the "serial killing" or "murder of people". That's just too sensational and too far of a reach.

Try Again!
Click to expand...

An analogy compares two DIFFERENT things for the purpose of highlighting a relationship. The very fact that I used an analogy means the two actions I compared are different.

For instance, I could say that riding a bicycle is like learning to read; you never forget. That's an ANALOGY. Notice how the two things are completely different? It is only one aspect that is the same, in this instance how you never forget.

So when people say what Vick did is LIKE what pedophiles or serial killers do, we're not saying they're the same. That wouldn't be an analogy. Instead, we are comparing one aspect of the crime. So for instance, when you insisted that poor little Vicky just made a mistake, I drew the analogy that he is more like a serial killer than someone who gets a DUI. A person who got a DUI made a mistake, it was a one time occurance. A serial killer exhibits a pattern of intentional behavior that can in no way be called a mistake, much like Vick did.

I know it's confusing. I hope I've cleared things up a little.
 
Kelzie said:
An analogy compares two DIFFERENT things for the purpose of highlighting a relationship. The very fact that I used an analogy means the two actions I compared are different.

For instance, I could say that riding a bicycle is like learning to read; you never forget. That's an ANALOGY. Notice how the two things are completely different? It is only one aspect that is the same, in this instance how you never forget.

So when people say what Vick did is LIKE what pedophiles or serial killers do, we're not saying they're the same. That wouldn't be an analogy. Instead, we are comparing one aspect of the crime. So for instance, when you insisted that poor little Vicky just made a mistake, I drew the analogy that he is more like a serial killer than someone who gets a DUI. A person who got a DUI made a mistake, it was a one time occurance. A serial killer exhibits a pattern of intentional behavior that can in no way be called a mistake, much like Vick did.

I know it's confusing. I hope I've cleared things up a little.
Click to expand...

It's not just confusing, it's wrong! It's wrong to try to draw a simple colinear relationship between the murder of humans and the killing of animals. It's just an immoral act to do so. It's practically obscene!

When anologies involve moral issues, one should use restraint and levity of thought before doing so. Your colinear thought or concept of not forgetting was great for issues irrelated to morality, because both reading and riding a bike are unforgetable skills when acquired. Both concepts intersect at that precise point of not forgetting and riding a bike is just as innocuous as reading a book.

Just like we don't compare the mass killing of the buffalo to genocide, we don't compare the killing of a dog to murder. To do so, is inhumane and void of any sense of humanity at all. We're suppose to place ourselves as humans on a higher plateau. We sacrifice our external or environmental elements to preserve and maintain that of our own. There is no comparison and we don't speak of one concept in conjunction with another, there is no agreement between the two concepts of killing animals and murdering people.
 
Last edited:
Hancock said:
It's not just confusing, it's wrong! It's wrong to try to draw a simple colinear relationship between the murder of humans and the killing of animals. It's just an immoral act to do so. It's practically obscene!

When anologies involve moral issues, one should use restraint and levity of thought before doing so. Your colinear thought or concept of not forgetting was great for issues irrelated to morality, because both reading and riding a bike are unforgetable skills when acquired. Both concepts intersect at that precise point of not forgetting and riding a bike is just as innocuous as reading a book.

Just like we don't compare the mass killing of the buffalo to genocide, we don't compare the killing of a dog to murder. To do so, is inhumane and void of any sense of humanity at all. We're suppose to place ourselves as humans on a higher plateau. We sacrifice our external or environmental elements to preserve and maintain that of our own. There is no comparison and we don't speak of one concept in conjunction with another, there is no agreement between the two concepts of killing animals and murdering people.
Click to expand...

It's immoral? :roll:

Instead of complaining about how inhumane I'm being, why don't you try to point out exactly what is wrong with my analogy. You know, with logic.
 
This thread has started to reek of much Fail. ;)

I'm off to sort my socks...
 
Goshin said:
Keltzie, as I said earlier I know a guy who used to fight dogs when he was younger. He did it for a while in his 20's and then gave it up. If you ask him why he did it, his answer is along the lines of "I was young and dumb."

He currently has three dogs, two little fuzzballs that stay indoors and a big dog that lives in the fenced back yard. Those dogs are like family to him. They get first-class dog food, they go to the vet at the slightest provocation, they're spoiled rotten. He loves those dogs almost as much as he loves his kids. He's a good guy.

You don't have to be a psychopath or an evil person to have been involved in dog fighting. "Young and dumb" is an adequate explanation. People can get over it.
Click to expand...
Uh uh, don't buy it. I've never in my life, no matter how young I was, would have enjoyed watching dogs chew on each other or hearing them yelp in pain, and let's not forget about the use of bait dogs. What kind of mind does it take to take pleasure in that? I don't know your friend, but dismissing it with some glib remark about being young and dumb, to me, sounds like a real lack of regret for what he's done.
 
X Factor said:
Uh uh, don't buy it. I've never in my life, no matter how young I was, would have enjoyed watching dogs chew on each other or hearing them yelp in pain, and let's not forget about the use of bait dogs. What kind of mind does it take to take pleasure in that? I don't know your friend, but dismissing it with some glib remark about being young and dumb, to me, sounds like a real lack of regret for what he's done.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you also didn't live in an environment where dog fighting was normalized.
 
disneydude said:
Child Molestation can vary in degrees. Legally it is considered "Child Molestation" for a twenty year old to engage in sex with a 16 year old. Should THAT person go away for life? Or perhaps a child molestor that inappropriately touches a child on a playground. Yes, that person should be punished severely, but locked up in prison for life? No, not in my book.
Click to expand...
In my book, there doesn't seem to be much use for you in society if you see kids as sexually desirable. Today's molester in the playground that you want to treat so gently is tomorrows predator.
 
X Factor said:
In my book, there doesn't seem to be much use for you in society if you see kids as sexually desirable. Today's molester in the playground that you want to treat so gently is tomorrows predator.
Click to expand...

And that is why I said that they should be punished severely (Who said anything about treating them gently?). Are you suggesting that they should receive a life sentence? Execution?
 
disneydude said:
And that is why I said that they should be punished severely (Who said anything about treating them gently?). Are you suggesting that they should receive a life sentence? Execution?
Click to expand...
Probably not execution, although, in some extreme cases... Do you think anyone can ever learn to not see kids in a sexual way if they're predisposed to that. What kind of chance are you willing to take on sex offenders?
 
Your Star said:
I'm guessing you also didn't live in an environment where dog fighting was normalized.
Click to expand...
Right, I forgot, nobody is ever actually responsible for anything they do.
 
X Factor said:
Right, I forgot, nobody is ever actually responsible for anything they do.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. He should have been punished the way he was. I have no problem with that. But to say that he hasn't learned his lesson, and he will always want to fight dogs, is just inaccurate. He was brought up in an environment where dog fighting was normalized, and that no one told him otherwise. It was just another thing to do, it didn't mean he hated the dogs, he just saw them as a form of entertainment, and it is very reasonable to think that with him going through this ordeal that he has learned his lesson, and realizes the error in his ways. Now if he continues to fight dogs, I will agree with you, but Vick has shown by his actions that he has learned his lesson.
 
X Factor said:
Probably not execution, although, in some extreme cases... Do you think anyone can ever learn to not see kids in a sexual way if they're predisposed to that. What kind of chance are you willing to take on sex offenders?
Click to expand...

There are people who have been successful in counseling. If someone commits a serious sexual offense on a child, then they should be locked away forever. If someone commits a minor touching....they should be punished severely, but I don't believe they should be treated the same as the person who commits an aggravate sexual assault on a child. I DO believe that they should be barred from being around children or places that children congregate after being released from a lengthy prison sentence..and they should be forced to participate in therapy and counseling.
 
Your Star said:
No, not at all. He should have been punished the way he was. I have no problem with that. But to say that he hasn't learned his lesson, and he will always want to fight dogs, is just inaccurate. He was brought up in an environment where dog fighting was normalized, and that no one told him otherwise. It was just another thing to do, it didn't mean he hated the dogs, he just saw them as a form of entertainment, and it is very reasonable to think that with him going through this ordeal that he has learned his lesson, and realizes the error in his ways. Now if he continues to fight dogs, I will agree with you, but Vick has shown by his actions that he has learned his lesson.
Click to expand...


Perhaps he has learned his lesson...which is why I'm all for giving him another chance at life. However...regardless of whether he learned his lesson, he forfeited his right to ever own another dog in my book. Drug addicts may learn their lesson, but you don't put drugs back in their hands to see whether they will abuse again.
 
Your Star said:
No, not at all. He should have been punished the way he was. I have no problem with that. But to say that he hasn't learned his lesson, and he will always want to fight dogs, is just inaccurate. He was brought up in an environment where dog fighting was normalized, and that no one told him otherwise. It was just another thing to do, it didn't mean he hated the dogs, he just saw them as a form of entertainment, and it is very reasonable to think that with him going through this ordeal that he has learned his lesson, and realizes the error in his ways. Now if he continues to fight dogs, I will agree with you, but Vick has shown by his actions that he has learned his lesson.
Click to expand...
He didn't just fight them, he drowned them and electrocuted them himself and there is no way you can prove that he didn't do all that with extreme pleasure. Seriously, what does it take to be so cold to their cries of pain, maybe even relish it? And we're supposed to believe that he just suddenly has empathy for them. One does not turn their thinking around at the drop of a hat like that.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
There are people who have been successful in counseling. If someone commits a serious sexual offense on a child, then they should be locked away forever. If someone commits a minor touching....they should be punished severely, but I don't believe they should be treated the same as the person who commits an aggravate sexual assault on a child. I DO believe that they should be barred from being around children or places that children congregate after being released from a lengthy prison sentence..and they should be forced to participate in therapy and counseling.
Click to expand...
Okay, I admit, this isn't unreasonable and is probably actually harsher than what actually happens to certain sex offenders now. You have made me curious. What do you think of lifetime sex offender regisration?
 
When it's normalized you think nothing of it. He has learned his lesson it seems, and I see no reason why he should have a dog. Seriously, the dog he would probably adopt won't be a fighting dog, and will probably be euthanized if he didn't take it in. I see no problem with this, now if he abuses animals again I will agree with you. But people deserve a second chance, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to have a dog.
 
Your Star said:
When it's normalized you think nothing of it. He has learned his lesson it seems, and I see no reason why he should have a dog. Seriously, the dog he would probably adopt won't be a fighting dog, and will probably be euthanized if he didn't take it in. I see no problem with this, now if he abuses animals again I will agree with you. But people deserve a second chance, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to have a dog.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he's "learned his lesson"? Because he's exciting to watch (as you posted before)?
 
X Factor said:
Okay, I admit, this isn't unreasonable and is probably actually harsher than what actually happens to certain sex offenders now. You have made me curious. What do you think of lifetime sex offender regisration?
Click to expand...

Depends. (good answer?) The registration laws are flawed. In California, you have to register if you are convicted of crimes such as sexual battery (which could be grabbing someone's ass in a bar), Lewd conduct (consensual sexual conduct in a public place), sex with a minor (which generally SHOULD be registerable or life imprisonment, but this also includes situations where you have a 17 year old engaging in sex with their 19 year old boyfriend.
As for other more serious sex crimes, yes....I do believe in lifetime registration.
 
Your Star said:
When it's normalized you think nothing of it. He has learned his lesson it seems, and I see no reason why he should have a dog. Seriously, the dog he would probably adopt won't be a fighting dog, and will probably be euthanized if he didn't take it in. I see no problem with this, now if he abuses animals again I will agree with you. But people deserve a second chance, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to have a dog.
Click to expand...

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice....shame on me.

Why would you ever put drugs in the hands of a drug addict. Rehabilitated or not?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice....shame on me.

Why would you ever put drugs in the hands of a drug addict. Rehabilitated or not?
Click to expand...

Speaking as an expert on drug addiction, as a drug addict who has not used drugs in the past 25 years, I can say that, as a musician, I have been around drugs many times since I quit. I still don't do drugs. I learned my lesson, and I believe that Michael Vick has learned his. He paid the price for what he did, and now deserves the benefit of the doubt. In my case, I am grateful that people have not held my past against me, and as a result, I have done very well as a productive citizen. Vick also deserves his chance to be a good citizen.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
As a drug addict who has not used drugs in the past 25 years, I can say that, as a musician, I have been around drugs many times since I quit. I still don't do drugs. I learned my lesson, and I believe that Michael Vick has learned his.
Click to expand...

Because you've talked with him have you? Or is it just because he wants another dog? Empathy is not a lesson you can learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom