30 for 30: Michael Vick (3 Viewers)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
7,034
Reaction score
6,384
Online
Sticky Post
Part One airs tonight
=====================

You don’t have to forgive Michael Vick for dogfighting, but ESPN wants you to understand the context.

“Vick,” a two-part “30 for 30” documentary set to air Thursday with the second half premiering the following Thursday, takes a deep dive into the factors that surrounded the former NFL quarterback’s midcareer imprisonment, including race, poverty and sudden stardom and wealth. Among the complexities of his saga are the differing ways communities reacted to his arrest and lengthy sentence, and what to make of his football legacy.

Perhaps the biggest question, though, was raised by the documentary’s director, Stanley Nelson, in a phone interview Wednesday with The Post: “How does something that so many of us see as horribly cruel and torturous, how does anybody not see that?”

“And how, to some people, does this seem like something that’s not wrong?” Nelson added. “So we wanted to examine that.”...........

 

0rion

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
5,354
Reaction score
8,384
Location
Central Ohio
Offline
You, like your kids, probably grew up hunting. Sadly, many people in this country grew up with dog fighting being the norm. And while some forms of hunting are legal in the United States, many people still dont see it as morally different from dog fighting. And what is legality? Are you against dog fighting because it's illegal? Would you be okay with it if the U.S adopted Japan's view on dogfighting? I doubt it. So the legality of it isnt the issue. It's the morality.
I don't spend much time trying to convince people that hunting is natural.....my experience has been you can't convince them just as they're never going to convince me it's not. I would say visit a slaughter house and then spend some time hunting and see which way feels more natural.
 

BoxerJoe

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
3,843
Offline
The holy hunter said Michael Vick was killing dogs because he enjoyed watching them die.
Everything I've read and heard suggests they killed the dogs that weren't fighting well and wasn't going to yield them money.
The "holy hunter" is correct. A witness testified in the federal investigation that Vick would throw family pets into the fighting pit and laugh as he watched the pets get mauled/killed by his fighting dogs.
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
The "holy hunter" is correct. A witness testified in the federal investigation that Vick would throw family pets into the fighting pit and laugh as he watched the pets get mauled/killed by his fighting dogs.
I read about that too. They used bait pets and thought it was funny when they got chewed up. Still doesn't equate to "he killed dogs because he liked to watch them die." Apparently bait pets were used to get the dogs in the mood to fight. As far as they were concerned, all the bloodshed had a specific purpose central to the dog fighting.
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
In case you are actually asking: other predators higher in the food chain, starvation, and disease.
It was rhetorical. It's not the responsibility of humans to control the population of wild animals. I guess it's one of the many things we tell ourselves to justify hunting, e.g. "Without hunters animals would overpopulate." 😏
 

BoxerJoe

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
3,843
Offline
I read about that too. They used bait pets and thought it was funny when they got chewed up. Still doesn't equate to "he killed dogs because he liked to watch them die." Apparently bait pets were used to get the dogs in the mood to fight. As far as they were concerned, all the bloodshed had a specific purpose central to the dog fighting.
Still doesn't equate to "he killed dogs solely because he liked to watch them die."
 

Chuck McGill Esq.

Veteran Starter
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
718
Online
It was rhetorical. It's not the responsibility of humans to control the population of wild animals. I guess it's one of the many things we tell ourselves to justify hunting, e.g. "Without hunters animals would overpopulate." 😏
You are right that it isn’t our job. But without us, animals would overpopulate. That’s a dumb purpose for hunting mind you despite many organizations and governments doing a lot of work to use hunters for that purpose.

I don’t think justification for eating or feeding your family is needed though. Just me though.
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
Still doesn't equate to "he killed dogs solely because he liked to watch them die."
In the doc, Vick was forthcoming about the why. So there's no reason to embellish or speculate. That part surprised me a lot. I didn't think he would be that... talkative. I figured it would be told from the director's POV. But they asked the questions and he answered them. In a very straightforward, no BS kinda way.
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
You are right that it isn’t our job. But without us, animals would overpopulate. That’s a dumb purpose for hunting mind you despite many organizations and governments doing a lot of work to use hunters for that purpose.

I don’t think justification for eating or feeding your family is needed though. Just me though.
Human beings deciding what's considered over-populous as it relates to wild animals is relative (mostly to us wanting to overtake their spaces). I didn't realize governments were leading some of those efforts but it makes sense. We want something, we move in and decide there are too many natives there (be it animals or people) so we declare they are 'overpopulated' and must die. But that's a whole other conversation.
 

BoxerJoe

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
3,843
Offline
In the doc, Vick was forthcoming about the why. So there's no reason to embellish or speculate. That part surprised me a lot. I didn't think he would be that... talkative. I figured it would be told from the director's POV. But they asked the questions and he answered them. In a very straightforward, no BS kinda way.
How is it embellishment or speculation to bring up an eyewitness testimony? Is it your opinion, based on what you read, that Vick never laughed at certain dogs getting mauled/killed?
Vick wasn't initially so forthcoming during the investigation. It wasn't until he got caught lying on a polygraph that he admitted to certain things.
 

Chuck McGill Esq.

Veteran Starter
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
718
Online
Human beings deciding what's considered over-populous as it relates to wild animals is relative (mostly to us wanting to overtake their spaces). I didn't realize governments were leading some of those efforts but it makes sense. We want something, we move in and decide there are too many natives there (be it animals or people) so we declare they are 'overpopulated' and must die. But that's a whole other conversation.
None of this will matter when the aliens consume us all
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
How is it embellishment or speculation to bring up an eyewitness testimony? Is it your opinion, based on what you read, that Vick never laughed at certain dogs getting mauled/killed?
Vick wasn't initially so forthcoming during the investigation. It wasn't until he got caught lying on a polygraph that he admitted to certain things.
I think it's embellishment to say he killed the dogs because he liked to watch them die. The dog-fighting "process" is already ominous enough without inserting additional motives. He was forthcoming IN THE DOC. He talked about how he originally lied to everyone in the beginning. How he thought it would blow over. I just said he thought the bait pets were funny. Why are you acting as if I'm disputing those things?
 

dd

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 2, 2001
Messages
2,736
Reaction score
1,586
Location
Lafayette
Offline
And when he didn’t have to, he paid all his debts that were forgiven in bankruptcy.
 

BoxerJoe

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
3,843
Offline
I think it's embellishment to say he killed the dogs because he liked to watch them die. The dog-fighting "process" is already ominous enough without inserting additional motives. He was forthcoming IN THE DOC. He talked about how he originally lied to everyone in the beginning. How he thought it would blow over. I just said he thought the bait pets were funny. Why are you acting as if I'm disputing those things?
I think it is relevant in discussing where he was mentally to point out that he took enjoyment in the mauling/deaths of certain dogs.
I didn't believe myself to be acting in such a way. It was a simple back-and-forth with us both bringing information and context to the topic at hand. Based off your last reply above and what I just said here, I don't see the need for myself to joust further...at this particular time in the thread anyway.
 

kizzy821

#1 BandWagon Fan
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,718
Reaction score
4,173
Offline
I think it is relevant in discussing where he was mentally to point out that he took enjoyment in the mauling/deaths of certain dogs.
I didn't believe myself to be acting in such a way. It was a simple back-and-forth with us both bringing information and context to the topic at hand. Based off your last reply above and what I just said here, I don't see the need to joust further...at this particular time in the thread anyway.
It's cool. I'm rarely black or white on an issue and always find the grey spaces in between to be much more interesting. Sometimes people mistakenly think I'm arguing for or against an issue when I'm not. I get it.
 

livefromDC

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
9,107
Reaction score
14,767
Age
40
Location
Atlanta, GA
Online
I don't spend much time trying to convince people that hunting is natural.....my experience has been you can't convince them just as they're never going to convince me it's not. I would say visit a slaughter house and then spend some time hunting and see which way feels more natural.
Someone from Japan may say the same of dog fighting. It's natural. Animals do fight in the wild...still. It's not necessary to force dogs to fight, but it's not necessary to hunt to feed your family anymore either. There's inherent moral dilemmas in both, but I digress. You like to participate in one, so you rationalize that one. That's human, no judgment from me there. But let's not pretend it to be anything more than that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom