The Michael Vick Ordeal

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

He seems like an all-around decent guy... except for his tendency to encourage dogs to maul each other to death for enjoyment.

Other than that. You know.

Sadly this is probably a pretty good description of the man. Hes not much of a partier. He doesnt really flaunt his riches like some money crazy athletes. He HAD donated and founded inner city resources since hes been in the NFL and without seeking acclaim or notoriety for it. And yet hes participated and funded an activity most of us consider heinous and cruel and despicable. Why? Well what we do know is that he has a history of making bad choices and being poorly influenced by bad seeds. What we do know is that hes not the most intelligent guy in the world. What we do know is that his own father tells stories of dog fighting being a prevalent part of his youth in the community he grew up in (in fact in most of the south it exists at alarming levels). So to him this was kind of part of the landscape. And when he suddenly had a hundred million dollars to play with it only made sense to him to help fund and run what he thought was a borderline legitimate “sporting” activity and when he had always only been encouraged to engage in by his peers and those with an interest in seeing it. He would even talk about it among his teammates in the locker room as if it wasn’t illegal. It was clear to him it really didn’t seem like a big deal. So lets cut him a little slack before we utterly and permanently denounce him as the worlds ultimate scum bag…

He was stupid to engage in this activity. He was even more stupid to deny it. But now hes admitted to his crimes. And hes saying all the right things to make amends for his behavior. Is he genuine? Time will only tell but so far so good I think. In his last press conference he basically stated he honestly didn’t think it was a big deal. But he has since learned to many people it’s a huge deal. And how wrong he was for engaging in it. And how desperate he is to make amends for it and better the world because of his mistake. He particularly focused on how much he had failed the youth who saw him as a hero and wanted to emulate him. And that he ultimately wants to use his own tragedy in this to educate these same youth about dog fighting and how its most definitely NOT cool. And that’s a good thing if he means it. So lets hope he does. I think that would actually be more beneficial then him rotting in jail for years. Kids tend to look up to athletes even if they go to jail (sometimes especially if they do…). So our only chance is to have these same athletes “see the light” and pass this light on to those kids who might otherwise engage in vile behavior themselves.

So lets keep a close eye on him… And see if he continue into the Amazing Grace realm of life changing opportunity or if he just goes through the motions and doesn’t seem to get it despite everything that’s happened…

[Nurvingiel]

I was being a bit facetious before (you probably noticed ), but I still think he does deserve whatever's coming to him.

I can sympathise that he has made a very poor decision. I can also sympathise that in some areas, dog fighting is sort of accepted. I also sympathise that he has been taught that dog fighting is a sport, and is okay.

However, he chose to participate in this activity. I see no problem with the fact that he now faces the consequences of his actions. While a regular Joe wouldn't have been publicly vilified like Michael Vick has, I don't think Vick is getting anything more than he or any dog fighter deserves.

The only thing I see wrong with this situation is that every single dog fighter (especially the three guys that were in on the operation with Vick) aren't getting the same treatment.


Edited because I missed The Gaffer's post:

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hehehe. This thread should be framed. Maybe even get into the Internet Hall of Fame as the first time anyone has every changed their mind online. Hooray for hector.

Absolutely. Hector, you have made internet history! Right on.

First, there was ARPANET. Then, there was Usenet (and the subsequent birth of Godwin's Law). Now, there is Hector. Bringing positive influence to internet discussion since 1999.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Still, I agree with your initial sentiment.

(Maybe the thread should be framed twice?)

In that there are a bunch of double standards around animal cruelty. The media will happily run a horror story like this then cut to adverts exhorting you to rush down the local McDs and chow down on a Finger Lickin McHormone Sandwich.

I agree that there are double-standards around animal cruelty, but dog fighting is all-out animal abuse. It's worse than questionable farming conditions where animals suffer needlessly; in dog fighting, animals are tortured needlessly. I see this as an important difference. I don't think this means we should be complacent about situations where animals are treated less horribly, but I don't see it as hypocritical that people would make a big deal out of this over other issues.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see this as an important difference. I don't think this means we should be complacent about situations where animals are treated less horribly, but I don't see it as hypocritical that people would make a big deal out of this over other issues.

I agree, and we shouldn't be complacent.

But it seems more likely that there is a class/race issue here that's driving the media rather than some sudden concern for animal welfare.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree, and we shouldn't be complacent.

But it seems more likely that there is a class/race issue here that's driving the media rather than some sudden concern for animal welfare.

lol. Trust those furrein socialists to bring THAT up.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree, and we shouldn't be complacent.

But it seems more likely that there is a class/race issue here that's driving the media rather than some sudden concern for animal welfare.

Some have seen echoes of what happened in the UK actually where fox hunting was only recently banned while "lower class" blood sports like cock fighting and badger baiting (whatever that is) were long ago outlawed. Along the same lines I doubt youll see an outright ban on foi gras or veal anytime soon but they have almost entirely illegalized noodling (a fishing technique popular with the lower classes generally in southern US states. Look it up...) in this country. Coincidence?

[The Gaffer]

What possible justification could there be for banning noodling?? (We call it tickling)

The ban on fox hunting is routinely ignored here, and the cops do nothing about it.

Sis, you think this is just about animal welfare / gambling?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What possible justification could there be for banning noodling?? (We call it tickling)

The ban on fox hunting is routinely ignored here, and the cops do nothing about it.

Sis, you think this is just about animal welfare / gambling?

Naw, I think it's about selling papers.

But it's also about the growing danger of dog-bites, and it's also about the discomfort people feel with having a Black man have lots of money.

We love to see anyone with wealth and fame brought low. There's no other reason for TMZ.com. We want to be reassured that people on the covers of magazines barf frequently and have miserable marriages. But there's an additional element of malice when we see people of color doing something "low class." It just "proves" (to the people who crave such proof, who are short on evidence) that our racist society has a basis in "justice."

I just thought it was funny you brought it up. See, our STORY is, that there's no racial identity or class distinction in this country. Anyone can grow up to be president. Or a sports star. But the subtext is "and look what happens when they do."

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and it's also about the discomfort people feel with having a Black man have lots of money.

Sis, your following explanating didn't really cut it. Why would people have a problem with a black man having lots of money? They shouldv'e stopped Chris Gardner if they felt that way. Or YOUKNOWWHO on tv.
I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Yes there is still racism, but not like that.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I just thought it was funny you brought it up. See, our STORY is, that there's no racial identity or class distinction in this country. Anyone can grow up to be president. Or a sports star. But the subtext is "and look what happens when they do."

Gotcha.

Of course, I don't KNOW (I had never heard of the man until I read this thread), I just supposed, on the basis that humans are humans the world over, and 99% of journalists are pondlife.

But hey, OJ is back in the news so we can forget about Vick

Or should we open a book on what they drag up about Barack Obama?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sis, your following explanating didn't really cut it. Why would people have a problem with a black man having lots of money? They shouldv'e stopped Chris Gardner if they felt that way. Or YOUKNOWWHO on tv.
I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Yes there is still racism, but not like that.

The racism she speaks of is a more subtle racism than what you are thinking here. Its a racism that stems from the concept of inferiority of blacks versus whites. This kind of racism is deeply engrained in our system and our collective psyche. Even the most “enlightened” folk cant escape its subconscious effects INCLUDING most blacks (although, just like whites, most would NEVER admit it). It’s the same kind of racism that causes us to think “drug dealer” or “pro athlete” or “rap star” when we see Michael Vick dressed up in a fine suit or driving an expensive car but “agent” or “lawyer” or “vip executive” when you see his white equivalent. It affects me and you and everyone we live with. None of us can resist its subtle programming even if we overtly know better than that. Its also the reason why you see so many well paid black sports stars (doing what blacks do best: being athletic…) but so few black team owners. As long as our black stud is being paid his big bucks by a nice white team owner who makes a whole lot more than him than everything makes sense and the world isn’t upside down.

[The Gaffer]

Hence it behoves us all to be on the lookout for this.

Great Daily Show tonight: relentless montage of journos saying "why are people so obsessed with OJ?" while they follow his car in a helicopter as he drives to the airport.

The answer? Hillary's got a new health care policy.

They should all be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own excrement.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The racism she speaks of is a more subtle racism than what you are thinking here. Its a racism that stems from the concept of inferiority of blacks versus whites. This kind of racism is deeply engrained in our system and our collective psyche. Even the most “enlightened” folk cant escape its subconscious effects INCLUDING most blacks (although, just like whites, most would NEVER admit it). It’s the same kind of racism that causes us to think “drug dealer” or “pro athlete” or “rap star” when we see Michael Vick dressed up in a fine suit or driving an expensive car but “agent” or “lawyer” or “vip executive” when you see his white equivalent. It affects me and you and everyone we live with. None of us can resist its subtle programming even if we overtly know better than that. Its also the reason why you see so many well paid black sports stars (doing what blacks do best: being athletic…) but so few black team owners. As long as our black stud is being paid his big bucks by a nice white team owner who makes a whole lot more than him than everything makes sense and the world isn’t upside down.

Rex, I don't get what is so "deeply ingrained" in my psyche. I have never felt that way. If white people really did have those things "ingrained" in them, it would somewhat justify their racist feelings, and that is not acceptable to me.

[Insidious Rex]

Hector, we often have a hypocrisy of conscience between what weve been programmed by society/environment and what logic, intellect and common sense tells us. Never think yourself immune from that dichotomy. Just be ever vigilant. And try to notice the phenomenon as often as you can. For it operates most sinisterly by hiding itself behind our conscious awareness of every day circumstances. Otherwise most of us would balk at the obvious conflict and be plagued by self doubt. And the mind defends against that outcome by nature.

[hectorberlioz]

Sounds more like double-jinxing yourself, Rex.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Rex, I don't get what is so "deeply ingrained" in my psyche. I have never felt that way. If white people really did have those things "ingrained" in them, it would somewhat justify their racist feelings, and that is not acceptable to me.

It's ingrained in all of us. We have an easier time accepting what is familiar and close to us than what is not. That's why Mom's of serial rapists still protect and defend their children when they would never accept such behavior out of anyone else.

If you grow up in a generally white, christian, upper class society, you will inherently trust people according to how many of those social aspects they share with you. You are much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a rich, white, christian than a poor, black, muslim, even if the situation is identical. Just as you are much more likely to believe a friend innocent than a stranger.

This is not to say that any one group should not be held responsible for their actions, but few situations are black and white where guilt is concerned and one has to realize that their own experience colors the way they perceive each and every situation. That's why we try to give the convicted a jury of their peers. Peers meaning those who are from the same general social group as the accused, more or less.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But it seems more likely that there is a class/race issue here that's driving the media rather than some sudden concern for animal welfare.

Yeah, as awful as dog fighting is, this doesn't just seem to be about dog fighting.

[hectorberlioz]

So you guys want it both ways! Michael Vick is evil for dog torture, but at the same time people are racist towards him? My stance was a little more fleshed out, I think.

BJ- I'm sure you would also accept the idea that African-Americans are ingrained with a deep sense of victimhood, then?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you guys want it both ways! Michael Vick is evil for dog torture, but at the same time people are racist towards him? My stance was a little more fleshed out, I think.

BJ- I'm sure you would also accept the idea that African-Americans are ingrained with a deep sense of victimhood, then?

ROFL!

Would that be your "fleshed out" stance then?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BJ- I'm sure you would also accept the idea that African-Americans are ingrained with a deep sense of victimhood, then?

No. I don't make sweeping generalizations like that.

Many blacks think they are victims of their past, but so do many whites.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's ingrained in all of us. We have an easier time accepting what is familiar and close to us than what is not. That's why Mom's of serial rapists still protect and defend their children when they would never accept such behavior out of anyone else.

If you grow up in a generally white, christian, upper class society, you will inherently trust people according to how many of those social aspects they share with you. You are much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a rich, white, christian than a poor, black, muslim, even if the situation is identical. Just as you are much more likely to believe a friend innocent than a stranger.

This is not to say that any one group should not be held responsible for their actions, but few situations are black and white where guilt is concerned and one has to realize that their own experience colors the way they perceive each and every situation. That's why we try to give the convicted a jury of their peers. Peers meaning those who are from the same general social group as the accused, more or less.

Maybe I didn't get it straight then...