Michael Vick on 60 minutes
 

Of course, I have to see the actual show to see if the quotes are indeed correct, but based on this excerpt, my perception is that he's trying to portray himself as someone who didn't approve dogfighting, but chose to stand on the sideline. Absolutely BS. "I didn't step up. I wasn't leader."???? Exactly the opposite, he's the leader... of a dogfighting ring.

"Football don't even matter."?????? I guess "Money does, though" Does he really think everybody is retarded? If that's true, what the fXXXing hell is he doing trying to get a team? Shouldn't he be satisfied with his $10/hr construction job???!!!!

He will keep on lying forever. Despicable human being. I bet once his career is over and he's off the NFL hook, he'll be back to killing animals. I wish he will NEVER get another chance. Sorry I seldom got so wounded up but I love animals more than human beings, so my point must be biased.


NEW YORK -- Michael Vick says he accepts blame for not stopping an illegal dogfighting ring that he bankrolled. He spoke in an interview with "60 Minutes" set to air Sunday.

Vick tells CBS Sports anchor James Brown that he feels "some tremendous hurt behind what happened." He adds that "I should have took the initiative to stop it all ... I didn't -- I didn't step up. I wasn't leader."

Brown asks the former Falcons quarterback if he was more concerned about his playing career or the dogs he hurt, and Vick replies, "Football don't even matter."

Vick also discusses his time in prison and admits he cried at night in his cell.

Few teams have expressed any interest in signing Vick. The Buffalo Bills reiterated Thursday they are not interested in him.

This is a problem.

It doesn't exactly sound like he's taken responsibility for his crime. "I should have took the initiative to stop it all" Right.

Textbook criminal thinking. It's the mindset that allows people to do horrible things.

Seriously, I'd hate to know what he does to a creature he loves LESS than dogs.

Umm ... I think he "loves more than" was cyril's comment, not Vick's.

I think that line was by cyril, not Vick.

Not really IMO. Most animals are far more lovable.

Well. That certainly makes a lot more sense then.

I can't really think of many animals that deserve to die, I can however think of quite a few humans who have no business being alive.

I think I need to clarify the statement "I love animals more than human beings" What I mean is that animals often times "deserve" more protection from the dedicated. They are much more prone to abuse than humans are.

how many thousands of dogs, cats, and other pets are abandoned every year by human beings whom these poor, helpless animals love and trust? Surely some children and people suffer abandonment too and I am not trying to underplay their psychological suffering. But few human beings get shot, get skinned, get euthanized because of abandonment.

Anybody know what time the interview is at?

My impression is that despite his admissions, he likely had little to do with the actual dogfighting. He just admitted to it after his "boys" said he did, because that's was part of their plea, Vick admitted to all of it basically or the feds probably told him he'd never see a field again and his lawyers concurred.

I find it very hard to believe this guy was doing this in his spare time and just understanding the pathology, I'm guessing he gave them the money and space, they were doing what they were doing and then they got caught, it was on his property and instead of fessing up and throwing them to the wolves, he shut his mouth and then all hell broke loose and the thing crashed down on him.

Rightfully so, but...I'm just not thinking that all of the 'facts' of the story are really all that true. Not that it matters, but...I think it'll pepper the way he makes responses and comments based on it and it'll lead the Puppy Brigade to think that he's not remorseful enough and that he doesn't deserve to exist on earth as a result of his crimes.

It's one thing to cover your eyes and pretend he didn't do what he said he did so you can defend him. It's an entirely different thing to insult people for criticizing him based on the actions he said he committed. It's especially trollish to do that when you post bullshit like that and ignore all responses to your insults.

If Leonard Little got a second chance, there is no reason Michael Vick shouldn't.

Source: Vick 'one of the heavyweights' in dogfighting - NFL - ESPN

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/11312/VA/US/

Falcons' Vick Indicted In Dogfighting Case - washingtonpost.com

An excerpt from the last article:


Yeah, sounds like he wasn't involved at all.

Premeditated actions over a 5 year period > Stupid, terrible mistake

Not sure what the interview can tell anyone. He's a sociopath and nothing he says should ever be believed.

It seems like the defenders don't really believe that anyone could be that upset about dogs, and they're being disingenuous.

They never (or rarely) come out and say what it seems like they're thinking. I'm just going to say it. Is the theory that this is just the white man's opportunity to beat up a black man? That the Vick hate is motivated by racism? That the white man is using this to attack a part of black culture? Is that's what's believed?

I am not trying to defend Vick here at all, but I took this comment a little different. Instead of taking it like:


I took it like:

I did not stop the dog fighting, I was not acting like a leader.

It might not even matter which way he meant it. I don't remember the details of the original story and I am not going back to read them right now, but if he was the man in charge, it wasn't about him "stepping up" to stop it. It is about never starting it in the first place.

:popcorn:

I have been wondering this myself. Personally, I don't give two shits about skin color. This has everything to do with a disregard for life.

I honestly believe that it is a cultural difference. To 90% of America (including me), this is a horrible crime. To the other 10%, there is no difference between this and bull fighting, horse racing, hunting, or any other sport that involves the possible injury or death to an animal. Once again, I think it is way way way off base, but from some people I have talked to, that is the thinking.

But do those 10% think the other 90% is lying about how this impacts them emotionally? That's the tone I get.

This came up a little back in the orignal vick thread. Dog fighting is a "back thing", and thus its villified. People couldn't honestly be that upset about dogs. (goes the theory).

:banghead:

So Leonard Little only drove drunk the one time? Wait, didn't he get another DWI after he killed the woman? And those were the only times he got caught.

I'm more forgiving than most. I believe both should get second chances. And I can see why you may feel Vick shouldn't get a second chance. But I find the inconsistency disturbing by saying that Vick shouldn't get a second chance and people like Little should.

I don't think anyone is saying that Little deserves a second chance. He got one and I'd bet that a lot of people here believe he shouldn't.

Well, I think Larry implied that in his post by saying that what Vick did was worse than what Little did.

If you hold the view that neither deserve second chances, more power to you. I disagree, but can understand where you are coming from.

If you have something to say, then say it. You've indirectly insulted me and others several times on this subject. Then we respond to those insults and you either disappear or ignore those responses. If you're going to make the insults, then stand by them. If you can't do that, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.

Well in a way I can see why people could say Vick is worse. Little probably didn't go out hoping to kill someone. Vick on the other hand took joy in what he was doing and considered it a hobby.

One is someone who was careless and did something dangerous, but I doubt intended to kill someone. The other is someone who intended to kill something. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a murderer. The murderer is far more repulsive in my book.

If he's truly remorseful for what he did, I (not that I have any authority) would give him a 2nd chance. However, based on his history of lies, up to this last one - saying "football doesn't matter" then turned around a few hours later and signed for eagles, I have no reason to believe he's not lying to save his own ass.

The fact that "he paid his price to the society" does not prevent him from committing the same hideous cruelty later in life. Sure he could hire a PR firm to kiss up to PETA, humane society or even do some photo-ops licking some bull terriers' asses, but all those are just for show. If he, say, voluntarily donates 50% of his salary over the next ten years to causes against the crimes he committed, then maybe I believe he's in a sense remorseful. Until then, every act he pulls now does not cost him anything. All the "prices" that he paid so far was enforced on him, not out of personal remorse.

While none of us could conclusively tell what his true intent is, I know which side I am on. I don't give him the benefit of doubt. No reason to do that. For now.

It is. Intentional Actions > Stupid Mistakes

Little may have done it twice, but Vick did it constantly over a 5 year period.


There's a difference between someone deserving a second chance and deserving to play in the NFL. I would've been happy with a harsher punishment on Little, but that ship is sailed. It seems silly to say we can never increase punishments because in the past the commisioner was a pussy.

If you honestly believe Little may have done it only twice, you are incredibly naive.




That's where I think we'll just need to disagree. I don't feel that after somebody has paid for a crime they have committed based on the standards and punishments that society has set that he should continue to pay in his pursuit of a livelihood. What types of jobs should he be allowed to pursue?

So if you owned a business, you would have no problem hiring a guy convicted of embezzling company funds? How about hiring a convicted felon to do work around your house? Or a child molester working at the local elementary school?

I mean as long as they did their time, you're saying you would have no problem with them pursuing their livelihood?

The cleanest thing to do is just have a no-felon rule. You get convicted a felony, you're banned from the league. Then you don't to make these case-by-case judgment calls that half the people will think are unjust. There's no shortage of football players.

Little v. Vick - reasonable minds can disagree. Easier to just ban 'em both.

I agree 100%. Simple rule. Many businesses and professions do not hire felons. Not exactly a stretch to place that rule in the NFL.

I have a question. If Rae Carruth was paroled tomorrow, should he be allowed in the league? Would you have a problem with him being on your team?

Let me take these one by one:


Of those two, hiring a convicted felon to do work around the house I wouldn't have a problem with, if he/she was reliable and did a good job. The problem with a child molester at a local school is that the crime committed by the child molester is directly related to the work he'd be doing. Likewise, hiring somebody that has embezzled funds from a previous company probably wouldn't be the best idea if they are going to be handling the money. Otherwise? No big deal.

I wouldn't hire Michael Vick if I was running a pit bull rescue operation. I just don't see how Vick's crime will be detrimental to him being a football player.


That's reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it is certainly reasonable for you to come to that conclusion.


I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. My biggest problem would probably be that his skills have eroded. The problem with this scenario is that Carruth won't be paroled tomorrow. Society has determined that his crime was serious enough to warrant spending the rest of his life in jail (I think?)

Completely agree. That would eliminate douchebags like Vick, Carruth, PacMan Jones, Little, and Lawrence Phillips (he will try a comeback too eventually).


You are braver than I am. I would never even allow a convicted felon near my house, never mind hiring him to work in/on it.

Vick is a public figure by playing a sport for money. Playing a sport, while getting paid millions of dollars, is a privilege, not a right. Vick has the RIGHT to find work and provide for himself. By virtue of his actions with dogfighting, he should lose the PRIVILEGE of working/playing in the NFL.


Prison is not necessarily a rehabilitation clause. Prison is a means of removing offenders from the public in order to remove the danger they present to others. Anyone who believes Vick (or Carruth for that matter) is rehabilitated, especially after seeing him speak lately, is just being naive.

But it does directly relate to the NFL. The NFL is a form of entertainment that needs to portray positive images to maintain audiences and advertisers. Image matters to them.

[quote=RomaGoth;2095631 Lawrence Phillips (he will try a comeback too eventually). [/QUOTE]

As a criminal maybe.

But at 34 and out of the league for 6 years already, I have a tough time seeing that one getting any play beyond unintentional comedy.

Only insofar as it costs them money though. And so far today the NFL, the Falcons, and the Eagles have all made money on the signing (not to mention the media outlets covering it).

Should this cost them money? Oh hell yes. I lose some respect for anybody who'll give the f'n Eagles a dime for at the very least as long as this POS is on the roster. If society wasn't as completely fucked up as it is they ought to be playing in front of an empty stadium ... but it is that fucked up and obviously they won't be.

Will it cost them money? Marginally, depends upon the out clauses in some advertising contracts and who they're negotiating new ones with.

Phillips is a complete douche. He was talking a while ago about an NFL comeback, but who would take him now that Shanahan is out of coaching?

If image mattered to them so much, there would be a lot of people not in the league. Heck, are you trying to argue that Michael Vick shouldn't be reinstated when they already have set when he could be reinstated?

If image was so important, there would be a no felon rule.

The NFL is just another occupation that is on a larger scale than most other occupations. Any occupation there is is providing a product or service to somebody else. So by virtue of the grand scale of the NFL he should not be allowed to play? Keeping in the spirit of football, what about the UFL? Should he be banned from that too?

Who, under the current administration, has done something worse than Vick? Or more specifically, who harms the league's image worse then him? Arguably Stallworth, and he's been banned a year.

So they run United Way commercials for fun? Are anal about their uniform policies just for kicks? The NFL is all image. Everything you see on Sunday is the image they want to present and they have done a phenomenal job at it.

I'm not arguing against the punishments already set. I'm arguing against lifetime bans like some are proposing.

Not really a lifetime ban. Just stating there are requirements to play in the league. Not being a felon is one of them.

Read what Jon said, he makes the point more eloquently than I can.

Setting requirements is just a nicer way of saying lifetime ban.

NFL is a privilege, working to earn a living is a right. I suppose if someone in pro sports is willing to "hire" Michael Vick (which the Eagles obviously have done), that is their right to do so. I don't believe, however, that Vick has the right to accept the offer and work in the NFL. I guess this is where the problem lies. Obviously, labor laws and such allow for him to work wherever he wants, but this does not make it right.

They are kind of the same thing really. But I agree with you. Perhaps a background check should be required of all new "applicants" before these guys even get drafted? And random background checks once or twice each season thereafter?

And the NFL has determined that Vick has the right to pursue this privilege. That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around here. Some of you are arguing (can't keep track of who is who here) that by virtue of the NFL being an image driven league, that Michael Vick should not be allowed to pursue work in the NFL. Yet, the NFL has determined otherwise. So is this a black eye for the NFL?

Wait, what? Why don't you think he has the right to accept?

The question, I suppose, is what is the NFL's chief purpose? Is it to field the best football sport in the world, is it to provide the best entertainment for its fans, orr is it to promote fair play and decency in its pulbic image? Obviously it's some of all of them, but the NFL has to ask what are its priorities. Clearly there is tension between them. The NFL could ban felons, as suggested, but is it then failing to provide the best sport that it could? Obviously some amount of its fan base expects them to be promoting sportsmanship and citizenship as well, but others could care less and just want to see great football.

I do believe it is a black eye for the NFL. However, Goodell and the union have no real way of telling Vick to F-off (that I know of). They also know that tickets and merchandise will sell to the droves of brainless people who just want their football fix.


As I said, the NFL is a privilege not a right. Somewhere along the line it became acceptable to expect millions of dollars to play a sport for a living. Good luck finding a job if you are the average Joe and do time in prison for dogfighting.

Dola,

Imagine answering THAT question in your job interview.

Interviewer: "so I see you did time in Leavenworth for maiming and killing dogs in a dogfighting ring. On your property too. Can you explain what happened?"

Interviewee: "uh....well........I'm not going to get the job, am I?"

Actually, I'd imagine it wouldn't be that much tougher than any number of other felonies. After all, people are buying the jerseys & tickets just to see this particular SOB.

You really think that deep down they'd give any bigger flying fuck about working beside someone who did the same thing? Or having them make money for them as an employee ... so they could buy more stuff to glorify Vick.

The way to change that is for the public to stop paying their money to watch Vick, or whatever other player they're upset about. The reason he gets millions of dollars is because lots of people pay lots of money to watch him. We can sit back and expect hte NFL to do something about this, and certainly they could. But they are a business, and like most other businesses, they're going to think based ontheir bottom line. If people turn away from the NFL and spend their money elsewhere, Vick will be out on the street before you know it. But in general, people don't put their money where their mouth is.

Believe it or not there are people that look at it differently than you. They choose not to care about it, believe he has been properly punished by our judicial system, or are able to forgive. It doesn't make them brainless just because they have a different view on the situation than you do.



What it comes down to is people have a problem with Vick making a lot of money after being in prison. The average Joe would likely be able to find himself a job somewhere, but it may take him some time. Not only did Vick found himself a job and one that pays well, but he also had an employer that sought out his services. This is a problem for some. They simply want him to be lower on the totem pole than they are personally because of what he's done.

If you feel strongly about it then quit watching and supporting the NFL. Otherwise I reserve the right to lump you in the with the same brainless people you mock above.

Way to come up with a valid argument. I guess according to you I should just leave the country if I don't agree with the government, eh? This has very little to do with how much money he is making, and more to do with what he did to innocent animals. But I guess in your world that is irrelevant as long as he can play football right?

The illusion (in my opinion) is that people can change the government by voting at the polls. So if they don't agree with the government, they can go to the polls and vote new people in. I mean, you can stand on a soapbox all you want and say that the government is doing things wrong, but nothing changes until people actually take action and vote somebody else in, right?

So wouldn't it work the same with the NFL? If it bothers you that much, vote with your time and your wallet. Don't give your time and your money to the NFL, and if enough people do the same thing, things will change. What right do you or any other NFL fan have to expect the league office to behave the way you want it to? Just as if you were voting for someone else in the polls, you can do your part to initiate change by no longer supporting the NFL, but if you really want this change, wouldn't you want to take action yourself?

I refuse to state any opinion on Michael Vick's actions specifically, because I'm not really into that sort of discussion, but I'm just asking these questions in general.

True. Although i might add that the fact I haven't been to an NFL game in twenty years has not had the desired effect I was hoping for. The Lions remain abysmal and Bill Parcells is still fat.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There's a lot of people at Ford Field who haven't been to an NFL game in 20 years too.

:lol:

But who says anyone is trying to change anything? I don't come on FOFC to change the world. We're having a discussion here. Some people think Vick should be let back in. Some people think he should be banned. Some people think the Eagles shouldn't have signed him. I fully respect those that don't want to wade into it, but if you are talking about it, then saying, "If it bothers you that much, then stop watching" is a pointless comment. It adds nothing to the discussion, and is a lame out for someone who doesn't really have anything left to say.

I think "If it bothers you that much, then stop watching" adds just as much to the discussion as anything else. At the end of the day, you just summed up the whole discussion in a single paragraph, so no matter how much people repeat themselves in multiple threads (which doesn't bother me, although I think it's amusing), there's not much being added at this point anyway.

I have a feeling that people are a couple of steps away from labeling me as a troll or a clown in this thread. So I guess I just want to say that I'm ready for that, although I don't agree with it.

(in response to Larry) True, except that part of the discussion is what the NFL and Eagles and Vick *should* do. "if it bothers you, don't watch," is in some ways an answer to that question.

No, this is a clown.

I see it more as what the league and the Eagles should've done. I'm disappointed in what they did, and I'm expressing that. I don't expect them to do anything different now.

Right, but there's a difference between saying what you wish somebody would do, and stating that it is your belief that they have an obligation to do a thing.

Anyway, I think Pumpy the Clown is right, we're just going in circles now. It's an interesting question, what obligations we should expect from a group like the NFL, and are they increased because of the amount of money and spotlight they receive.

Yeah, I am guilty. Not even sure which threads are about what anymore.

*sigh*

This one's about clowns.

Quotes from remorseless-liar and hypocrites

here's the link, in case anyone accuses me of taking a quote out of context: Michael Vick embraces new opportunity with Philadelphia Eagles - ESPN

"For the life of me, I can't understand why I was involved in such pointless activity," Vick said. "Why did I risk so much at the pinnacle of my career?"
isn't this obvious that his only concern is his own career? Remorse where? This is the same guy who says "Football doesn't matter" in 60 minutes. Pointless activity? that's it?


"There was a point in my life where I felt it was wrong and I knew it was wrong," he said. "To this day I have to live with that shame and that embarrassment."
...while he was holding down the poor struggling dog in the pool for whatever minutes until he drowned. I can see that.

Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie said he did serious "soul-searching" regarding Vick. The owner said he met with Vick for hours and is convinced he can become a force in stopping animal cruelty. Come On... soul searching??? The only thing he is convinced of is Vick's athletic ability.

"I needed to see a lot of self-hatred in order to approve this," Lurie said.
I don't even know what this BS means.

"There's no third chances and we know that. If it isn't fulfilled the way we expect it to be, then it will be the end," Lurie said. Guess he doesn't know Adam Jones.

Vick, who said he has no more pets, said he planned to prove he can help more animals than he has hurt.
Maybe he's telling the truth now. What animals he is referring to now? The ones in the cages or the ones outside the cages holding a whole stack of dead prez?

From what I understand (and take this with a grain of salt, I have probably talked to a total of five people who are in the 10%), they really do not understand. They really do not see the difference between this and hunting (a mainly white activity). I see it differently, because hunters do not beat or electrocute deer....

If you aren't a vegetarian or a vegan, then you can just kindly STFU with your moral outrage toward Michael Vick. It rings so hollow it hurts.

-1

So because I'm not a vegan I don't have the right to complain because he fights dogs for sport and kills them? Sorry Karl, I like you and you're normally on the ball, but you're way off base on this one.

I can be morally outraged about whatever i want, whether it's logical or not, for whatever criteria I want.

To me it's the difference between hunting for food and hunting for sport.

Ditto. Torturing dogs is much different than killing for food.

Not even in the same zip code.

Just doing a drive by on this thread, but how do you feel about hand hunting for Hogs?
If you are unfamiliar a wild boar is ran by dogs into a trap location where a "brave" hunter slits its throat or stabs it with a machete. Often taking literally dozens of hacks. This activity is perfectly legal, and we haven't even touched on the dogs that the hogs catch and maim.

I guess I am just a naive dumbass, but I really think this experience has opened Vick's eyes. I think he finally sees how big of a deal this is to the 90%, I am not sure he agrees with the 90% but I think he now finally sees how the activity is viewed by society at large.

By your argument Carruth is "better" than Vick because it was one mistake vs. a pattern of behavior.

But I don't think you can make that as a blanket statement. Some single crimes are worse than a consistent pattern. To me, killing one person is much worse than killing multiple dogs. Sorry, but I think there is something wrong if you value the life of 10 animals over 1 human.

But I think you're also ignoring that it's a pattern of behavior for all of them. Leonard Little probably drove drunk all the time -- he only got caught twice. To a certain degree, Vick was the same thing. He was involved in dog fighting for a long time until the one time he got caught, then the pattern came out.

I don't begrduge your opinion but I think you clearly would be unhappy with anything Vick said. That's fine, it's your feelings but I think it's at least fair to acknowledge that there is nothing Vick could say that would change your mind about him.

Sound like the same for Lurie. I think the Eagles have a good reputation for being straight shooters. For me, the biggest thing Vick has going for him is Tony Dungy. Dungy has a reputation of being a honest and sincere guy. He's given Vick his backing. That's pretty big.

That said, I'd have a hard time hiring Vick myself. I wouldn't necessarily want him to be part of my team. But I'll be honest -- I have a certain amount of respect for people willing to lay their reputations on the line to give someone a second chance. Let's face it, Vick's athletic ability is not enough for Lurie and Dungy to risk their reputations for him. He was an underachiever before he had been out of football for a couple of years. The chances of him hitting it big now are slim. It's a low percentage play.

In poker parlance, being in business with Vick is putting all your money in drawing to an inside straight. I don't think Lurie does that without being convinced that it's the right thing to do.

That wasn't the only argument I made, though. I also argued intent and Carruth clearly intended to do what he did. Why are you only responding to part of my argument? You're better than that.

You are correct. There is nothing Vick could say that would change my mind about him. After seeing the complete interview on 60 minutes, I gotta asked those who watched the show: do you really believe he's remorseful? I just don't, and the interview only solidifies my belief he's putting up a show to save his career.

The only thing, as I have said earlier, that I believe he's "reformed" is too see him put his money where his mouth is. Donate half of your income to causes against animal cruelty during your entire NFL career. Talk is cheap. Rhetoric costs nothing. And fake remorses are a dime a dozen in this world.

I can't help but shaking my head when the prez of the Humane Society made a pact with the devil. Maybe the end justifies the means, if this SOB's fake remorse and plead about "love towards animals" could steer some easily-impressed kids away from animal cruelty, maybe that's enough and I should be satisfied whether or not he's a hypocrite or not.

I don't know whether I am more saddened by his getting back into NFL or the way how the majority of the population, eager to see his athletic ability, simply shoved aside the issues they claimed they stood for two years ago, and using the lame excuses of "second chances." I am sure if Vick got busted again, there would be third and fourth chances.

I admit I take this incident harder than 99% of the population. Everybody has justice issues he/she feels strongly about, this whole animal cruelty issue just happens to be someone I feel strongly about.

I would rather him just not do it again than be "remorseful." Isn't the whole point of putting him in jail just to make sure he doesn't do it again. I doubt he does it again--if he does he's a dumbass and deserves what he gets then. But, I'm not going to spend my time speculating on what someone really feels--especially someone who I don't know or particularly care that much about as a human being. I'll just be happy that his behavior has changed, and I do think he won't do it again.

I realize it's not a popular opinion to have, as everyone loves CUTE WIDDLE PUPPES! OMGZ! What about all the animals that aren't even given a chance to fight for their lives every single day? Why is that okay and this isn't? I realize that dogfighting is despicable. I would never dream of participating in it, watching it, or associating with anyone who would ever do either of those things. It's pretty hypocritical, though.

I'm not a vegetarian. I love me a good steak more than just about anything in this world (not hyperbole). Cows on a conveyor belt a la Another Brick In The Wall is something that feel rather sad about. However, before I was old enough to develop a conscience, I ate meat all the time. Some people are force fed religion by their parents. I was force fed filet mignon. It sounds rough, I know, but I haven't been able to cut meat out of my diet. It's morally reprehensible to eat as much meat as we do. I wrestle with it all the time, and am paranoid that my vegan friends all meet up and have tribunals about the meat-eating sins of heartless Karl.

What would people think of me if I just started lining up dogs and slaughtering them? When the outrage started, I'd just say, "Hey, man's gotta eat. You do this shit to all other animals, and I do it to dogs. I like how dogs taste."

So, to sum it all up: If Lassie had been about a cow, none of this would have ever happened.

You probably ought to seek professional help about that. Or at least have a good steak while pondering it.

I have a laundry list of issues to seek professional help over. I'd get more satisfaction with the steak. Ribeye, medium rare, salt and pepper.

Just to go off on a bit of a tangent, I don't like snobs when it comes to beer, which is very hypocritical of me, as I am a complete snob when it comes to steak. I will probably not eat a steak unless I either A) cook it myself (with the lack of equipment I have, the way I do it is to put a skillet on the stove, turn up the heat to the highest level, wait till it's as hot as it can get, sear it about 90 seconds each side, then throw it into the oven, which is set to the highest temperature possible, for about 8 minutes. Sorry for the mind-boggling run-on sentence), B) Have it at a restaurant where I have it made to order (With this, I get about a 2 or 3/1 ratio of satisfactory/disappointing), or C) have someone I trust cook it. That list, at this point, is one person.

We need to make more steak threads. I could talk about steak forever.

Completely off topic, as I really don't have much more to offer about Vick or steak for that matter. I just wanted to let you know that I just checked out the whitepowerupdate link in your sig. There is some solid gold in there.

You & I have been reading different things, clearly. Plenty of the documents and/or summaries I read about the case indicate a substantial amount of evidence existed proving he was quite active in all facets of the enterprise.


I'm pretty sure we do have one somewhere....

I have not hear yet if Vick is required by the NFL to undergo any psychological treatment for his cruelty to animals.


Generally, anytime someone take pleasure any harming animals they need some serious help. Is Vick seeing anyone?

I hear you. While I assume (not actually following this closely) that dogfighting is much more cruel even than our meat industry, and it is a very deliberate, conscious cruelty, there is much to say about the unconscious cruelty we inflict on animals every day by the way we eat, and by the way our society produces food. Most of us have nothing to do with it, and those who do are doing it for the sake of the rest of us, so no one really feels culpable. But there's a big disconnect about how we feel about cruelty imposed consciously (animal abusers) and the lesser, but still significant cruelty imposed unconsciously every day to feed us (or for other reasons). What happens to animals we eat usually is not as horribly cruel as dogfighting, but there's something to be said about how casually cruel we can be to the food we eat.

All that said, I think there's still plenty of room for outrage about dogfighting, I wouldn't call it hypocritical, but I would hope most people can look and realize that we have a pretty strong double standard about which animals we truly care about.

I'm pretty sure this is the most significant post in this whole thread. He's a sociopath.

He was able to set aside his humanity to kill animals as just one component of what he chose to do as a pastime, which included the routine abuse and toture of those same innocent animals.

This was what he did to enjoy his free time.

So...What kind of sick fuck does this as a hobby? Anyone here?

I think there's a pretty good chance he gets in dogfighting again. Let's not forget - he stopped because he got caught. It will be a little tougher now to invest in the business in his current financial sitaution, but it's going to be hard for him to stay completely away from his favorite hobby.

My family has a farm and we all chip in and help raise the cattle, and we butcher them and give them to the family, so no one has to pay for meat, and they are free range and all that. Is that okay?

It's not like he's a pedophile with this hidden urge to dogfight or anything. He'll find other hobbies. I could give up painting if I had to.

Well, it's not hidden any more at least.