vick's apology
i'm not one to judge vick's sincerity,
the whole situation just makes me sad
so many young boys look up to him--which is why i'm so glad he pointed out that he needs to "grow up"
good for him, really, if he did "find God" through this, again, as a christian myself, i can not pass judgment on his sincerity, but, you don't have to be a christian to be moral, as, the majority on this board are not, and you all by far, are more moral than many of the people i sit next to sunday mornings.
though, he could truly begin to make a "peace offering" by donating some of his excessive money to a humane society of sorts
forgive is a strange term to use with a person we don't know personally, but, would a monetary donation from him make any of you any more willing to "forgive" the acts he committed/funded?
Wow I was typing this and got a phone call and there have been like 10 replies since... I read them all but I'll just leave my reply as it is/was.
==================
I agree Cephi.
Buying/consuming factory farmed milk, meat, and eggs is the same.
Logically, I can't condemn someone who eats cats or dogs more than I do someone who eats turkey.
Hunters do the same or worse than Vick every day. Because it's a dog and not a deer people (omni's too) are mad. But logically it's the same. That is a major disconnect. I can't be more angry at Vick than I am a typical hunter. And no, I'm not livid with every hunter I see, I can't be. I'm not mad at every person that wears fur, sometimes these people don't know better... instead I'm livid with society that teaches that it's okay to do that. So again, I can't really be enraged at Vick, I'm mad at society. It's not excusable. It's still not okay. But I am less angry with him personally than I am with society in general.
I haven't heard Vick's apology. But to me 'forgiveness' is not available until he shows remorse and makes amends.
*sigh* Monetary compensation would be easy... because he can. And I do think that would at least be something... but I think for him, personally, the best idea, that he would grow the most from would be to make him do community service at an animal shelter or wildpark reserve.
It might be nice if he paid retribution for every dog killer out there... but is that fair?? But maybe changing him as a person, changing his heart, would make more of an impact.
Paying $100,000 to a animal organization would be painful but handing a puppy to a 6 year old would make a difference.
but, you don't have to be a christian to be moral, as, the majority on this board are not, and you all by far, are more moral than many of the people i sit next to sunday mornings.
I'm off topic here but, what a nice thing to say Carmenmichelle... it's nice to hear someone feels that way. Thank you.
I think there is a big difference in what he did, what most hunters do, and most omnis versus the workers in the meat industry.
A lot of hunters (try picturing a native american indian here) respect the animal that they are killing and try to kill it as humanely as possible and are thankful for the food that the animal provides.
Most omnis are very far removed from their food, they are not killing it themselves, nor torturing it. They, for the most part, are very ignorant of what happens in the meat industry and probably wouldn't be able to kill their own food if they had to. Possibly if they were forced to acknowledge what goes on in the meat industry, they would go vegan.
Workers in the meat industry treat animals as "product", abuse the animals and are cruel to them mostly out of non- caring, possibly they are overworked themselves, or sometimes it may be out of a sick personal enjoyment as well, I don't know.
Micheal Vick most definetly tortured the animals just for his own enjoyment. He didn't eat them. He certaintly didn't need the money.
I believe all of them are wrong, but they are not all the same.
I think there is a big difference in what he did, what most hunters do, and most omnis versus the workers in the meat industry.
A lot of hunters (try picturing a native american indian here) respect the animal that they are killing and try to kill it as humanely as possible and are thankful for the food that the animal provides.
Most omnis are very far removed from their food, they are not killing it themselves, nor torturing it. They, for the most part, are very ignorant of what happens in the meat industry and probably wouldn't be able to kill their own food if they had to. Possibly if they were forced to acknowledge what goes on in the meat industry, they would go vegan.
Workers in the meat industry treat animals as "product", abuse the animals and are cruel to them mostly out of non- caring, possibly they are overworked themselves, or sometimes it may be out of a sick personal enjoyment as well, I don't know.
Micheal Vick most definetly tortured the animals just for his own enjoyment. He didn't eat them. He certaintly didn't need the money.
I believe all of them are wrong, but they are not all the same.
Hunters are complicated, and I don't know what to say about them, so I'll just agree with you about them. But I still see no difference between Vick and consuming meat or dairy from factory farms.
I agree that it's different when people are ignorant of the fact that they're causing animal suffering by supporting factory farms. But many people know they are causing animal suffering, and continue to do so anyway. And all omnivores know that the animal has to die to get on their plate; it's just that some of them are unaware that the animal has to suffer its whole life for meat or cheese. It's still wrong to be ignorant -- we have a duty to educate ourselves about our food choices -- but maybe you're right that these ignorant people are not quite as blameworthy as Vick. But as for the people who KNOW they're causing lifelong animal suffering -- and a great many consumers of meat or dairy are this way (certainly all of the many omnivores and vegetarians I know are this way) -- what they're doing is morally the same as what Vick did. They trade animal torture and death for their own pleasure. The "distance" you talk about, without which they would not commit these acts, helps explain their actions, but it seems to me completely morally irrelevant. If Vick paid somebody else to deal with the dogs, and never dealt with them directly himself, would you really think that he was less culpable? I wouldn't.
He doesn't need the money, you're right. But omnivores certainly don't need the taste of a Big Mac any more than Vick needs the extra cash. They're both trivial pleasures and conveniences. They're both torturing animals for enjoyment.
He doesn't need the money, you're right. But omnivores certainly don't need the taste of a Big Mac any more than Vick needs the extra cash. They're both trivial pleasures and conveniences. They're both torturing animals for enjoyment.
You certainly have a point....maybe I just don't want to think of so many people I know in such bad light, including myself since I still occasionallly have dairy. I still think the difference is that people do need to eat and society has taught most of us that eating animal products is ok, perhaps even needed; versus maybe he was raised in an environment where dog fighting was acceptable, but it is certainly not ever needed, and I don't think anyone could argue that what he did wasn't really sick and twisted. This discussion has definetly made me examine a lot of things closer. For that, I thank you. I still don't think it is the same, though, hopefully we can agree to disagree.
He doesn't need the money, you're right. But omnivores certainly don't need the taste of a Big Mac any more than Vick needs the extra cash. They're both trivial pleasures and conveniences. They're both torturing animals for enjoyment.
You certainly have a point....maybe I just don't want to think of so many people I know in such bad light, including myself since I still occasionallly have dairy. I still think the difference is that people do need to eat and society has taught most of us that eating animal products is ok, perhaps even needed; versus maybe he was raised in an environment where dog fighting was acceptable, but it is certainly not ever needed, and I don't think anyone could argue that what he did wasn't really sick and twisted. This discussion has definetly made me examine a lot of things closer. For that, I thank you. I still don't think it is the same, though, hopefully we can agree to disagree.
I think that's a good distinction you make; whereas we are all raised in a culture that says you're supposed to eat meat, none of us, Vick included, was raised in a culture that says you're supposed to fight dogs. Maybe Vick was raised in an environment where it was okay to fight dogs, but that's different. That helps explain why we are more horrified by dogfighting than by meat. (For my part, I have many omnivorous and vegetarian friends, and I am not repulsed by them the way I am by Vick's actions.) But even though it offers that explanation, I guess I would still maintain, it doesn't mean that meat/cheese is any less immoral than dogfighting. It just explains why we react more strongly to one than the other. And maybe it helps mitigate the blame of the people committing the crime; the meat/dairy consumers are confronted with a culture that more or less mandates that they must do this, whereas no one was coercing Vick to fight dogs. So I guess I can see how your point shows that, even though the two acts (dogfighting and meat/dairy consumption) are equally bad, a dogfighter deserves more blame than a meat/dairy consumer.
Pages