30 for 30: Michael Vick (2 Viewers)

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
And when he didn’t have to, he paid all his debts that were forgiven in bankruptcy.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I'm watching part two now. This story makes me like Mike Vick more, and Roger Gooddell less -- and the latter development turns out to be quite a surprise for me. I figured Gooddell's level in my estimation was pretty much zero, and I'll be danged if there weren't a few more points left for me to deduct.
 
Comparing hunting to dog fighting is a bit of a stretch. I'm not a hunter and I don't believe in killing animals for sport, but it's hard for me to see how hunting is anything like what Vick did.

There's typically less drowning and electrocution in hunting.
 
Mike Vick was so good it was ridiculous. Vick was the MJ of football. Since Vick entered the league in 2001 Vick vs Saints are 6-6. 2001 to 2006 Vick was extra scary for Falcons...That guy was electric.
 
Last edited:

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

    Back
    Top Bottom