most morons pick a pit bull. see vick: they weren't pitting poodles against one another

there are legitimate reasons to get a pit bull other than fighting them

and I would find poodle fights entertaining

Totally understand the point. I'm very hypocritical on this issue.

Vick served his time, so there should be no problem with him playing in the NFL. And he's at least making the appearance of feeling contrite for what he did.

That being said, I can't shake the feeling that he's only doing that because he got caught. I can picture Vick still dog-fighting if he hadn't been caught.

Vick isn't stopping me from rooting for the Eagles. But I just can't get into it as much this year. Maybe it's because of Vick. Maybe CLIFF LEE. I don't know.

But yeah, let he who is without and sin and so forth.

parents should be role models. Athletes should be role models. #$&! you very much sir charles*. All adults should be role models.

I am conflicted about Vick. I'm an animal lover (and eater), but I feel like this is an offense that rates a second chance. I know his sincerity is up for debate, but so far he's making good.


*- I actually have bent many an elbow with Mr. Barkley, and truly like the guy- I feel that with a guardian angel he could have owned this town. But I really disklike that commercial I'm referencing.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:CDC-

it does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

most animal experts agree that it's the dog's treatment and training that lead to bites and aggression- not the breed

My friend has 3 rescue pit bulls. They are not any different then any other dog, except for the fact that in their past they were trained to fight other dogs. They are currently living under his care and as far as my experience with them goes, are no more aggressive than any other dog I've come across.

pacino wrote:we created the problem of pit bulls. they are not cuddly, and were never designed to be. they really shouldn't exist.

obviously not a common opinion, and not a defense of vick. but, if you own a pit bull, i'm suspicious about your reasons because of their history.

my friend's pit bulls are quite cuddly, now that they have been in a loving environment.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:just curious and trying to threadjack, but are you guys vegetarians?

cause really no one who eats meat can say a thing about animal cruelty, including myself

Thats a great point.

I think you have a progressive mind, Housh. And by progressive I mean enlightened. There is a double standard in todays USA society about animals. Some animals you can have as pets and some you can eat. That makes no sense to me. I believe the eating of animals is wrong. I am not a vegetarian though, although I am trying. I have eliminated all meat except chicken. I don't mean to make excuses but when you are brought up on a certain diet it is hard to make changes to it later in life. For example, in southern India most people are vegetarian because that is the way they were raised. When you were raised on meat it is a hard to shake, because I admit it, meat tastes damn good.

TenuredVulture wrote:Outrage over Vick is easy morality--it satisfies a need to condemn others without requiring any behavioral change or introspection on our part. He's not exactly likable in the first place, and it's easy enough to avoid uncomfortable comparisons between dog fighting and meat eating or hunting or horse racing (and you really don't want to know about Tennessee walking horses) because dog fighting is simply beyond the pale.

We won't see similar outrage when an athlete gets picked up for a DUI, because even though such a person has put human lives at risk, the behavior is close to our own and thus condemning it is condemning ourselves.

It is easy morality. However that doesn't change the fact what he did was wrong. I guess the problem is that he picked the wrong crime to commit.

Grotewold wrote:I also wonder why there's little/no outrage over horse racing. What do you think they do to the horses when they can't win anymore, feed them strawberries on a hill

Do people still follow horse racing? I think with more information available regarding the medication of horses and the horrible accidents that happen to then on the track that the main interest in horse racing at this point is of a betting nature.

Of course, I imagine people still tune in for the Kentucky Derby and other major races....but really, people are conditioned to watch THE KENTUCKY DERBY! Other races are short and on at time that offer little competition.

I for one will never watch horse racing again because I really don't want to see a horse break its leg.

I can't believe this many people check out the INTERWEBS Forum

Warszawa wrote:My friend has 3 rescue pit bulls. They are not any different then any other dog, except for the fact that in their past they were trained to fight other dogs. They are currently living under his care and as far as my experience with them goes, are no more aggressive than any other dog I've come across.

Just as those dogs weren't inherently aggressive it could be said that Vick isn't inherently bad either, but was raised in an environment where the cruelties he committed were not looked down upon strongly enough and may even have been encouraged. To reject the idea that he may genuinely have remorse for those acts you may be treating him as something less than those rescue dogs, unworthy of redemption. I don't claim to know if he genuinely regrets what he has done or if he is simply saying the right things to allow himself the chance to play again; but even if he is not truly remorseful, his voice speaking out against dog fighting and animal cruelty in general could go a long way towards changing those environments such as he was raised in. And doing this could end up saving more dogs from the fate those he abused shared.

Basically, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, provided he continues to act as a voice against animal cruelty and dog fighting in particular.

None of this, however, detracts from his ability to play quarterback in the NFL. I am willing to withhold judgment on Vick the man while enjoying the play of Vick the quarterback. I can definitely see where others feel they cannot, and I won't try to convince them otherwise.

Pac--violent breeds of dog change by the decade. It just so happens that now pit bulls are the trendy attack/fight dogs. Before it was rotts or German shepherds or doberman pinschers. If you ban the breeding of pit bulls, something else can and will replace them. It could be poodles if it had to be.

i just can't imagine standing over a defenseless animal and doing those things. it takes a sick person.

Pussies can't play in a little flurry.

TenuredVulture wrote:Outrage over Vick is easy morality--it satisfies a need to condemn others without requiring any behavioral change or introspection on our part. He's not exactly likable in the first place, and it's easy enough to avoid uncomfortable comparisons between dog fighting and meat eating or hunting or horse racing (and you really don't want to know about Tennessee walking horses) because dog fighting is simply beyond the pale.

We won't see similar outrage when an athlete gets picked up for a DUI, because even though such a person has put human lives at risk, the behavior is close to our own and thus condemning it is condemning ourselves.

Add that he makes a disproportionate amount of money of what he should be making for playing a game and I'm on board. I agree that he's a bit of a scapegoat, but he's been a dick his whole college/pro career up until the dog killing thing and then he commits a major crime on top of it...I'm sorry, but what is supposed to stop me from thinking he hasn't changed as a person?

Again, really not looking to get into a free market/capitalism argument, your opinion is probably valid, too, random internet user....

mcare89 wrote:

SK790 wrote:It's not about role models for me, it's about how athletes get special treatment. If anyone of us had a history of drug dealing in college with a felony charge of animal cruelty, how many of us would be able to get a well paying job in our field?

The thing I hate with most Eagles fans drooling over Vick is that these were the same fans calling him overrated/bad/whatever 5-8 years ago with Atlanta

I know most won't agree with me on this, but that's my opinion.

If you were elite in your field, as he is, you could have a chance.

It's not like Vick walked on the red carpet to get back into the league. He came back at a fraction of the money he made before to be a backup QB. He worked hard, and his opportunity came, and he's making the most of it.

When a fraction of the money is a couple hundred thousand the term "fraction of the money" doesn't hold much weight.. It's not like he was making 25K a year struggling to get by, the guy was making a couple hundred grand a year sitting on the sidelines. I think I should shed a tear for that year.

My main problem is that when Vick got convicted of his crime he was thought of as a run of the mill QB who would run. (Don't say that you didn't think this Eagles fans, because I know a majority of Eagles fans thought Vick was extremely overrated/annoying right before he got arrested). He gets hired back after a felon charge, and misdemeanor drug related charge and a ton of rumors/stories that he was a major part of a drug ring in college. Anyone in any field with that kind of history would have been past over by any job, except for NFL QB. That's my problem...

I know nobody will agree with me, but that's what I think. Have fun shooting me down, BIRCHES.

What would make you think he changed as a person?

And nothing in my argument has anything to do with how much he gets paid--he's overpaid as much as any athlete. But that's not Vick's fault. And nothing I posted has anything to do with evaluating his talents as a QB.

I think the initial post in this thread was directed at the willingness of many Eagles fans to now accept Vick's rehabilitation because the Eagles are winning. And there's a lot to that--had Vick not succeeded, there'd be less forgiveness out there. And that's probably true.

A lot of Eagles fans were "I'll never root for that jerk" when the Eagles signed him. There aren't as many of those fans.

so basically you guys are pissed about human nature. and as far as incentive to change, losing 100 million or whatever is a hell of a carrot to drop and spending a couple years in Levenworth is probably a nice little stick.

and trying to compare the average career to the NFL, well, sorry about that. you're welcome to be bitter though

No, I'm pissed that Vick isn't on the Giants.

TenuredVulture wrote:No, I'm pissed that Vick isn't on the Giants.

If he was on the Giants he'd be a worthless dog killer