Monday, July 20, 2009

Michael Vick

I was just browsing through google news and happened upon an article about why Michael Vick deserves the opportunity to play football again after "serving time" for brutally murdering innocent dogs. This makes me so angry, I'm surprised I got through that first sentence without cursing somewhere along the way. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? I'm just not even sure where to start because there are SO MANY arguments for why Michael Vick should not be allowed back into the NFL and why I will completely boycott it if he is allowed back in. First of all, if it had been humans that he was treating in this manner, he would have been in jail for the rest of his life. Why are the same rights not extended to innocent animals? Why did he only serve a short time in jail and the rest of the time on house arrest? Why? Because some old white guy somewhere along the way decided (probably based on the Bible) that humans are much much more important than other animals (even though humans are one of the few species with knowledge and intent of the harm they are doing) and so killing or harming a human is just not acceptable and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but doing so to an innocent animal, who is much more defenseless than most humans, is only slightly bad and you will recieve not much more than a slap on the wrist.

However, since the law has failed in this case, the NFL should step up and show that their organization does not tolerate such abhorrent acts no matter at whom or what they are directed. Plenty of companies flat out refuse to hire convicted felons of crimes much less violent and grotesque than Vick's, so just because Vick is a somewhat decent football player, he automatically deserves a second chance??? What if he were a child molestor or a rapist? Would he get a chance then? I don't think so. If this was just some guy that worked at your office, would you want him hired back? So why on earth would he get a second chance now? If the NFL decides to hire him back, I certainly hope it's a decision that causes the whole damn business to crash and burn...hard.

The NFL is a sports organization and it's true that the players' purposes are not to serve as role models, but to be good at football. However, in such a popular sport where the players make millions and are considered celebrities, they are going to inevitibly be seen as role models. Does the NFL want an animal murderer representing its name? I certainly wouldn't and I certainly hope they don't.

Clearly, in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of most people, all mistakes are not created equal. Yes, Michael Vick made a mistake in his life, but not a small mistake, he didn't just punch a hooker after she bit his lip, he MURDERED animals on VIDEO, people. It's unforgivable to murder people as it should be when you murder animals. We do not have any more right to life than they do.

I think he should have to register as a convicted dog killer wherever he lives so that his neighbors will know to keep their dogs away from him.

I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that humans are somehow superior to other animals and deserve more justice than the animals do. Personally, I think that the justification that we are superior just because we were lucky enough to have evolved higher reasoning (which lots of people never ever in said situation) is almost as cretinous as Vick's act that these people are defending. There are plenty of players who are just as good as Vick and better who live much more reputable lives. Use these players and let Vick suffer the full consequences of his actions.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should look into the Donte Stallworth case. He is also a pretty good NFL player but he was driving drunk ran over and killed a person and only served a little over 20 days in Jail. Tell me where the justice is in that. Currently he is indefinetly suspended from the NFL but could be reinstated. I hope the NFL doesnt give Vick another chance but there are some idiots who might think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily disagree with your argument against animal cruelty, but I think that it is a position that a person arrives at through 1) thoughtful reasoning and 2) a fair amount of reinforcement from others. I think that it is very probable that he felt he wasn't doing anything morally reprehensible. I think you could easily compare it to a man who raped their wife in the 19th century. I think you have to be more understanding of people who disagree with you views otherwise you aren't much different than a religious extremist. Furthermore, if Vick is genuinely sorry for what he did (I have no idea on this nor am not arguing he is is) I think he could be s great spokesperson. I think your goal should be education (which is how most people learn to tolerate things) and not ruination of those who don't see things the way you did.

Anna Banana said...

Thoughtful reasoning? I would be surprised to learn the Michael Vick was even capable of thoughtful reasoning. Creative reasoning, perhaps, but that I doubt as well. He knew it was wrong; others know it's wrong, otherwise, they wouldn't work so hard to be so secretive about it. And fortunately for all of us, we don't live in the 19th century, therefore we don't compare our current moral standards of those in the 19th century.

So should I be more understanding of human murderers, too? I'm sure that they have justified it to themselves just as Michael Vick has justified murdering these dogs.

Oh, and nice try with comparing me to a religious extremist. Trying to push my buttons, are you? Too bad for you, I didn't take the bait.

At any rate, being the atheist I am, I am well aware that morals are relative and there are no absolute standards, however, the current morals (which I agree with) indicate that such animal cruelty is intolerable.

So you think that people who commit such atrocities as murder, whether it be human or other animal, shouldn't suffer the consequences? Without punishment and threat of punishment, how do you think society would fare?

Julie said...

If Vick did, as Anonymous put it, arrive at his decision to torment animals "through thoughtful reasoning", shouldn't the consequences of his actions be all the more severe??