Men vs Culture: Mike Vick

May 19, 2009

Mike Vick

Almost free.

Eat it pussies.

19 sucka ass fools had something to say:

Moon Trampsaid...: Yo, I know you're old Ptera, but you got the wrong blog. This blog didn't even know who Vick was until he let he's dumb cousins run a dog fighting ring on his land.

Still, that said, how much you want to bet Vick has no problem finding a job as QB?; May 19, 2009 2:50 PM
Pteradactuallysaid...: Mike Vick WAS just another athlete. Now he's a hero in the dogs-are-just-another-animal movement. They guy who takes JGW's social-cuteness-convention argument and tells him to shove it up his ass.; May 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Pteradactuallysaid...: Of course no problem. And why should there be one. He served his time for his non-crime. Society owes him, if anything.; May 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Half Turksaid...: So because he throws a skinned pig around we need to ignore the law? Because he entertains us with his football skills we should owe him something? Who the fucks cares, he broke the law and is a rather deplorable human being who thought he could do whatever he wanted because woopty fuckin do he can play football. I don't eat meat and cry when cows die too.; May 20, 2009 6:13 PM
Pteradactuallysaid...: Don't give me that bullshit Half Turk. You may think you can stand on the moral high ground on this one as a vegetarian, and I'll grant you some relative superiority to omnivores on this, but if you're like every other vegetarian I've ever met, you have no problem exploiting animals for any means that aren't food.

More importantly, the "he broke the law" argument is beneath this blog's authors. Be it smoking pot, speeding, not wearing a bike helmet, or draft-dodging -- since when do liberals believe in the absolute right of ever-changing U.S.A law?

Vick broke an arbitrary and stupid law. In this country humans are allowed to use animals for their pleasure. Period and end.

His status as a football player just makes him a higher profile animal exploiter. He's no worse than meat eaters, bull-fighting fans, people who use products developed with animal testing (makeup included), or people with leather shoes. Etc. Etc. Blah blah.; May 20, 2009 8:29 PM
The Advisersaid...: I have to agree with Ptera as far as "etc., ect." goes. But I think "blah blah" is probably overstating your case a bit.; May 20, 2009 8:32 PM
jeremysaid...: I want to know where I can buy a Micheal Vick Commemorative Football so Half Turk and I can throw the ol' dogskin around.; May 21, 2009 4:03 PM
Half Turksaid...: I consider myself a utilitarian vegetarian; I have and will in the future eat meat. For this reason I will never sit on a pulpit and preach. I can eat just fine in Portland not eating meat and doing my part to not contribute to the suffering of animals and the environmental impact it has as my personal choice.The problem I have with cock fighting, dog fighting, camel fighting and bull fighting is the intent. I do not believe as sentient beings we should make money off of purposefully pitting animals against each other solely for the purpose of death for money or entertainment. You will then argue that industry makes animals suffer, which it does. The difference being the intent behind the suffering is different. In industry suffering is a byproduct of poor living conditions with the purpose of an end product for money. In fighting, the intent is suffering and death for that purpose alone. The intent is what I take issue with. The intent in the former is what I personally consider to be more morally sound than the latter. Vick makes his money off of being in the public eye and chose to do so as a professional athlete. He chose to be put in the public realm and is being used as an example like any other person in the entertainment industry so of course he is the next PETA campaign. (PETA is an awful organization BTW). Do you really think animal fighting should be ok in the law?; May 21, 2009 10:25 PM
The Advisersaid...: I wish I could stomach being a situational vegetarian. You have my envy.

As far as intent goes. How do you prove intent? (How do we have 15 upper-middle class contributors to this blog without any lawyers?)

And I can only believe that Vick "chose" to be a pro athlete in the public eye, if you believe that he "chose" to be born a poor black kid in violent and crime-ridden poverty, without prospects for a good education, and without any other exit from the streets than playing football.; May 22, 2009 12:50 AM
Pteradactuallysaid...: I don't agree with your interpretation of intent. The intent is the same - pleasure for humans.

If we're talking about food or shoes, the consumer ignores the death of animals so that they can enjoy how good food makes them feel. You can get by anywhere as a vegetarian, though I would agree that Portland probably makes it easier than many other cities.

As for animal fighting, the consumer ignores the fate of the animals so that they can be entertained. For many fans it is sport, art, beauty and vastly supersedes the joy of culinary delight.

Is it really better that a cow die in 100 McBurgers than in one bullfight? I don't see how. And people involved in the sport will argue its a more HUMANE death, anyway.

Now, I will grant that an element of the animal fighting sport is the visceral reaction to seeing violence and death. To me, this seems naturally human. Humans are consistently interested in violence, fighting, traffic accidents, etc. Our society generally accept it as entertainment...unless cute animals are involved.

Which brings us back to dogs. Because our society chooses not to consume them for food and instead use them for pleasure by locking them indoors all day and breeding them into docile eunuch-like sub-beings. Some argue that societies arbitrary whims of morality justify the punishments doled out. I disagree.

Dogs can be used just like any other animal - for food or sport. We already sacrifice them for our pleasure. Thousands die each day in pounds as the waste of a society that supports a culture where they are valued as pets. If you're a pet owner and derive pleasure out their company you are as guilty as anyone for the pain and death these dogs endure. I'd bet most of them would happily take one last fight for glory in a dog-fighting ring over a 6 month sentance in a miserable "humane" society cage.

The point is not that Mike Vick is a hero, it is that he is utterly normal and human. Anyone who criticizes him is probably a hypocrite and is certainly just as well served pointing their finger at 90% of the rest of the citizens of the world.; May 22, 2009 7:15 AM
Pteradactuallysaid...: Lawyers believe in the infallibility of law and eventually end up believing things like "it only matters what you can prove". They are degenerate beings.; May 22, 2009 7:18 AM
Pteradactuallysaid...: If eating animals is OK, fighting animals is OK. If killing Tuna is OK, killing dogs is OK.; May 22, 2009 7:19 AM
jeremysaid...: the intent behind cramming 1000 cows into a 20 x 40 ft pen waist-deep in poopie is money, not providing food. the intent behind training dogs or roosters to kill other dogs or roosters is also money.

people who train their animals to fight derive satisfaction more so from the fact their animal is a MACHINE than they do watching the other animal die.

michael vick had other options to escape the street, so to say. one of them was to pay attention in school. ja, ghetto culture distracts from the idea and does little to promote it as a way out, but that doesn't fully excuse people from dismissing it out of hand. my own experience teaching in a blighted urban community was: uhhh, kid, that umich rep visiting today is begging the school for 3.0 students he can drop bags of money on, but uh, ja, you're going to be a basketball player even though you can't make JV for a team that hasn't won a PSL game in three years.; May 22, 2009 10:20 AM
Half Turksaid...: Not sure if the Advisers comment was a slight on my non-black and white morals but I don't think anything is black and white. A majority of the charges Vick faced were on illegal gambling which other bloggers would agree that illegal gambling has thrown fights and has corrupted sports before.
The charges were additional because they were about animal abuse.

I still think you speak of intent. If I step on a dog's tail it is different than if I kick a dog because I am angry. The intent is different. I am surprised someone would say that owning animals causes them to suffer as several of the bloggers have pets of their own. I do not think giving a home to shelter animals causes them to suffer more than they would at a shelter or euthanized by PETA. You would argue causing the purposeful abuse of a dog, forcing rape and pitting them against each other is the same as keeping them in the house?

Jeremy-Everyone has a choice. Vick made his millions of dollars by being a celebrity, which is good for him, but he also accepted judgement as he did praise for being in public. If dog fighters only get satisfaction out of training and turing them into machines, why does it have to be violent? There are plenty of options to train animals that doesn't involve fighting. Violence is a large part of animal fights.
Oh on speeding, it will not be too long before some of the members here will be sitting on their porch yelling at teenage speeders because their kids are playing in the neighborhood. It is all relative.; May 22, 2009 12:15 PM
jeremysaid...: illegal is an arbitrary designation. the illegal gambling vick was charged for has nothing to do with throwing games. even if it did, gambling is wagering consequences on the possibility of an outcome. for those of us not in on the fix, the outcome is just as uncertain whether the contest is corrupted or not. for all we know, players on competing teams are both shaving points.

re: intent, again, false equivalency. no one's conflating stepping on a dog's tail with subjecting them to torture. the intent behind industrial meat is to maximize profits, and to maximize profits you subject those animals, for the most part, to needless suffering since it's cheaper to do so. the pig who's had its tail sheered off would most definitely prefer to fight the dipshit pig behind him who nibbles on the nub-left-behind because it hadn't been properly weened.

based on the comments we've left, i'd have to believe yours about vick and choice was supposed to be directed toward our adviser. otherwise, yes, he had a choice: he could've passed on the money and celebrity in exchange for less criticism in much the same way the rest of us can pass on a promotion + raise so that we can loiter in our entry-level positions in order to avoid the increased scrutiny.

i understand you can train animals for things other than fighting. great, seeing-eye dogs. i didn't comment on that; i commented on training dogs to fight. we're not a terribly self-reflective culture; in fact, much of our wealth comes from impulse. but imagine we have a guy who trains dogs to fight for reasons other than "it's fucking dope, yo." i bet you could imagine what economic theories he subsribes to, or what his opinions on foreign policy are, or if there's such a thing as a color other than black or white.; May 22, 2009 12:46 PM
jeremysaid...: whoops, [enter] too soon.

our imaginary, thoughtful dog trainer has a worldview he sees validated every time his dog fucks up someone else's dog. afterward, our friend goes to the bar to talk politics and isn't given to compromise since he's seen his theories in action, and they WORK!; May 22, 2009 12:50 PM
jeremysaid...: intent here doesn't preclude exploitation.

in other words, we've found our next group of mother fuckers to bomb right now.; May 22, 2009 2:23 PM
Jay Gee Whizsaid...: Free Charlie Manson.

Don't hate on the slave trade of the past.

Humans can be used just like any other animal - for food or sport.

What exactly is my social-cuteness-convention argument?; May 26, 2009 8:16 AM
Jay Gee Whizsaid...: "I wish I could stomach being a situational vegetarian. You have my envy."

We are all situational vegetarians, including you, Adviser. Hope you have a lot of envy to spread around.; May 26, 2009 8:57 AM