Jackson Free Press

After a maturation that included a confession, sentencing and then jail time, it seems that Michael Vick will once again be allowed to ply his trade on the gridiron. The life span of a professional athlete is a short one. The grind of constant contact, especially for Vick's chosen position of quarterback, is grueling. Quarterbacks simply don't last long. That's why most teams have three, maybe four of them. Two years away from any sport could spell the end of a career. Especially for those who've played full-time in the NFL.

I am not here to judge. It is not my intention to quantify the seriousness of Vick's crime, his initial lies or his efforts to cover them up. It's not my place to say where crimes against animals rank against those committed against humans. I'll let the pundits do that.

As an African American male, what does concern me, though, is our society's inclination to cast those who have broken laws aside—in some cases, barring them from supporting themselves or their families after they've paid their debt to society.

In Vick's case, the blogosphere has been "en fuego" with opinions from either side. Some say let Vick play, while others believe that he shouldn't be allowed back in the NFL. Some others believe he will come back with diminished skills and in an equally diminished role. Those who disagree with the commissioner's ruling Monday say Vick shouldn't be given the "privilege" of playing in the NFL again.

"Privilege?" Wait a minute, you lost me. Athletes and entertainers make a lot of money—an ungodly amount of money in a many cases. But it is still a "job," a clear exchange of pay for a service. Athletes and entertainers have a time to show up; their contracts outline clearly what their duties are, and if they perform they get a check every week. Just like you and me.

Those jobs are a lot more glamorous than any of ours. Many of us would trade places with them in a heartbeat even though we can't perform anywhere close to those folks. When it's all said and done, these athletes and entertainers have wives, kids, mortgages and families to take care of. Just like you and me. They take their earnings and pay their bills. Just like you and me.

The detractors define "privileged job" as any job better than the one they have. Or, a job in which they actually enjoy what they do. I've been through two-a-days. I've had my body battered on a football field. I've gotten light-headed from practicing in near 100-degree temperatures. I often wished then I could have been sitting in some air-conditioned office playing on a computer.

Michael Vick has paid his debt to society as have many athletes who have gone afoul of the law—as have many African American males who have run afoul of the law.

Vick and others like him have every right to earn a living when they get out of prison. No, not the living that you or I "feel" they deserve, but a living doing whatever it was they were doing when they went in. If that happens to be making millions of bucks hauling the ole pigskin, then so be it. It's his job folks. Deal with it.

And that's the truth ... sho-nuff.

Previous Comments

ID

150307

Comment

I will respectfully agree to disagree. Unfortunately, our sports figures are put up on a pedestal by a lot of people and looked on as role models. Michael Vick is no role model. He fought innocent animals and was convicted and served time for it. This is not a person I hope children will emulate. Yes, I believe in redemption, and I believe in second chances. But I believe he needs to take his second chance in another profession and do something to give back. I personally will not watch or support any NFL team that decides to sign this man as a player. He's done his time, but now he needs to prove he meant that apology.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2009-07-30T14:00:46-06:00

ID

150308

Comment

Kamikaze, I totally agree!

Author

chscza

Date

2009-07-30T14:16:46-06:00

ID

150309

Comment

I agree with you Lady Havoc, this guy needs to crawl back under the rock that he crawled out from under. He is obviously a sociopath with extremely violent tendencies. I wouldn't give him a job cleaning up dog crap from my yard. He has served his time? Puhhlease. He got 23 months, that's a slap on the wrist and he probably wouldn't have gotten that if he hadn't failed drug tests while out on bail and lied about his involvement while refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for his actions. Michael Vick was making millions and he threw it all away to make a few thousand dollars fighting dogs. Why would someone do that? Because He enjoys it that's why. He enjoys watching one animal rip another animal limb from limb. He likes the blood and the violence. He gets his kicks drowning and electrocuting poor defenseless animals because they can't fight up to his standards. I can't even believe people would pay to watch this twisted individual do anything. I think any team that signs him is going to be awash in protests and boycotts from the day they announce their stupid decision to give him "another chance". One thing I disagree with Lady Havoc about is that he should be a role model. He should be held up as an example of what not to do, of what happens when you victimize animals for your own fun and greed.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-30T14:52:51-06:00

ID

150310

Comment

Lady havoc and Wmartin self righteous are we. Im glad God forgives because if it was left up to yall second chances would be out the window. I know people will get mad when i say this vick was wrong but dogs and cats are not on the same level as human beings. So he should play again and stop treating him like a devil and yall are perfect saints.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2009-07-30T15:34:25-06:00

ID

150311

Comment

Vick paid the debt society asked of him. I have no problem with him playing again, if the NFL and a team wants him.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-07-30T15:52:49-06:00

ID

150312

Comment

NewJack, God can forgive Vick even if he isn't allowed to play football (or be a national role model) again. There's a long way between what Vick is and a "perfect saint." He should be held to a higher standard than you're holding him, too. Personally, I believe that men–and star football players–don't have to be violent in their personal lives, and that the good ones aren't. Those who are should not be rewarded in dramatic ways. And I'm sure he could find other ways to pay the light bill.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-07-30T15:53:14-06:00

ID

150313

Comment

Lady Havoc if you indeed believe in redemption and second chances then you will allow to apply in all cases. Even for the ones you are so passionate about that you judge. Regardless our system is set up to rehabilitate, release, and allow those folks to make a living. what better example can you have than a man with the financial means to give back and someone who has done great wrong and can show what redemption is about. Our athletes and entertainers are NOT perfect. no one is. And we need to stop telling our kids that perfect people walk the Earth. You tell them that even when the mighty fall they can get back up. there is a player with cleveland who, after getting drunk at a bar, accidentally killed someone. He's in for less time than Vick got. Explain that? and what price have we put on human life eh? And even HE, who got drunk and ACCIDENTALLY killed someone deserves a chance at redemption and a chance to play again. Plexico Burress, even after being an idiot, deserves to play again. Pete Rose deserves to be in the hall of fame. etc.. etc...there are no perfect people. I am vehemetly against you judging whether or not someone should be able to make money again in society. It may not be what YOU feel he deserves but hey... Bernie Madoff will be in jail for the rest of his natural life and he didnt take anyone's life! And even he would deserve a second chance if he was gettin out!

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2009-07-30T15:54:17-06:00

ID

150314

Comment

LOL... Why don't you just say you don't care what he did, you just want to watch him play football. I don't get mad at your statement, I don't think cats and dogs are on the same level as people either. But I think intentional cruelty to animals, especially on the level at which he practiced it, is a pretty good indicator of a scumbagish individual. The guy isn't remorseful for what he did, he is remorseful that he got caught. As far as second chances, I got no problem giving him a second chance at freedom, at life in general. He should be allowed to get a job and try to pay off the millions or whatever he owes to all his creditors. BUT... I certainly wouldn't hire him because he is a scumbag.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-30T15:58:52-06:00

ID

150315

Comment

Lady Havoc if you indeed believe in redemption and second chances then you will allow to apply in all cases. Kaze, that's not entirely logical. For instance, if someone embezzles money from city government, that person can be forgiven and pay their debt to society, and still not be hired back into that position. Or, put another way, one can forgive a person who wronged them in a relationship, and still not be fool enough to return to that relationship. I see no reason Michael Vick should be put on a pedestal again. He's the one who knocked himself off in the first place. I'd be surprised if the NFL would want him back, but I could be wrong.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-07-30T16:03:13-06:00

ID

150316

Comment

Oh, and WMartin, cruelty to animals is a major indicator of domestic abusers. Even if one doesn't care about helpless animals, it's a sign that should be taken seriously.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-07-30T16:04:21-06:00

ID

150317

Comment

Vick should play he paid his debt over and done with. Im tired of all these PETA people who care about Dogs more than human beings. Ladd what do you mean God can forgive him if he plays again or not, I know GOD can so u are suggesting that shouldn't be allowed to play again. I see no valid points from you or anybody else thats convinces me that Vick should be punished further.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2009-07-30T16:06:19-06:00

ID

150318

Comment

Well hold a chickball for dogs if i am to believe your logic Ladd.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2009-07-30T16:08:41-06:00

ID

150319

Comment

Apparently, you don't, New Jack. Vick is clearly a very violent person, and no role model. And the cause behind the Chick Ball is nothing to get snarky about, whether or not you agree with me about Vick. If we want to stop violence in our society, we've got to do everything possible to stop glorifying it and the people who commit it. Even if you like the way they play football.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-07-30T16:16:51-06:00

ID

150320

Comment

WMartin, "scumbag" huh? Hmmmm. So all guys who have been incarcerated are "scumbags"? And I'd feel a lot better if you said yes. Because we all could be in those shoes just as easy. I know I could. And I think every Black man in America can at least say that. I could leave my desk today. Sober. And kill someone while texting. I could lash out in a fit of anger and strangle a guy at a concert. Etc. Whatever the reason. But as our laws are set, once you pay your debt, you're free to go. Vick will have to show remorse and repent. That's on him to prove he's sorry but not for us to judge what he should or shouldn't be earning.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2009-07-30T16:25:31-06:00

ID

150321

Comment

Oh, and WMartin, cruelty to animals is a major indicator of domestic abusers Amen to that Donna. I was just gonna start citing cases and not only domestic violence but it's common for serial killers and murderers to start off with animals. Something is wrong with this guy and less than 23 months in prison isn't going to cure it. He needs serious psychiatric help.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-30T16:29:05-06:00

ID

150323

Comment

Kaze, nice try. I would be calling myself that if what you said that I said is true. ;-) He is a scumbag for what he did before he got locked up. Not because he got locked up or he's black or anything else. He is a scumbag because he gets off on torturing animals. Maybe you think it's cool, I think it's sickening. How much plainer can I make it? I won't be in his shoes because my dogs won't be tortured and flayed alive by me or my friends for fun.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-30T16:35:01-06:00

ID

150324

Comment

Well WMartin if the guys who sell dope, kill people, rape children, embezzle money,etc are scumbags for what they do BEFORE they get caught and go to jail then point taken

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2009-07-30T16:42:10-06:00

ID

150326

Comment

Because we all could be in those shoes just as easy. I know I could. Give yourself credit, Kaze. You are NO Michael Vick. Although I get your point that you could be incarcerated (unfairly), but WMartin has clarified his point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-07-30T17:07:10-06:00

ID

150327

Comment

He is obviously a sociopath with extremely violent tendencies. I wouldn't give him a job cleaning up dog crap from my yard. Vick is clearly a very violent person, and no role model. I don't agree with either of these statements, except for the role model part. I do agree to an extent that animal abusers or those who partake in animal fighting (even just as spectators) can tend to be violent towards human beings. As far as anything made public, I don't recall Vick ever being in any serious trouble with the law prior to the dogfighting incident (though those around him did). I'd have to research that to confirm it for myself. I'm not really a Michael Vick fan and while not to quantify what he did, where was the outrage when Leonard Little killed a woman while driving drunk when he played for the St. Louis Rams? And what about Dante Stallworth? He also killed a man in Miami while driving drunk. And he only has to serve 30 days in jail!!! Little continued to play afterwards and Stallworth will most likely continue to play once he's released and serves a suspension.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-07-30T18:27:24-06:00

ID

150328

Comment

One big problem with the other cases is intent. All the others seem to be accidental, or while drunk. Vick set out to train the dogs to kill each other. He knew what he was doing, and planned it out methodically. All sports need a code of conduct. Can't behave? Don't play.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-30T18:52:52-06:00

ID

150329

Comment

Assumptions are rampant on this post, oh im defending him because i like how he plays. None of you on here that oppose vick is taking into account that he has served his time. To be honest people i dont care about dogs or cats as much as i do humans, maybe yall love them that much but not me.I will never let a dog lick me in the face,eat off my plate on and on. Please bleeding heart liberals LOL.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2009-07-30T19:11:01-06:00

ID

150330

Comment

I'd let him play, reluctantly, if the decision were up to me--assuming every indication is that he's genuinely repentant. (He should donate 10% of his income to CARA for the rest of his career.) But I don't think it's any great tragedy if the NFL decides otherwise.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-07-30T20:04:15-06:00

ID

150331

Comment

NewJack: I think he should have been in there longer. I shudder to think you have pets.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-30T20:59:51-06:00

ID

150333

Comment

Oh I say let Vick play. He's a football player and now out of jail so I don't see the harm. If a coach or owner wants him on their team fine, but I'm guessing many owners won't want to associate themselves with him and the controversy he'll bring. We don't make other manual laborers submit to some sort of "decency" standard and I don't see why football players should have to.

Author

GLewis

Date

2009-07-30T23:37:24-06:00

ID

150338

Comment

Anybody that enjoys watching dogs fight to the death is a scumbag. Anybody that hangs a dog from a tree because he didn't fight well is a scumbag. Anybody that would hold a dogs head under water until it died is a scumbag. Anybody that would electrocute a dog to death is a scumbag. Anybody that would repeatedly slam a dog on the ground until it died is a scumbag. All of this for gambling and entertainment? He's a f***ing scumbag! I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to work again - I don't care about football anyway. I'm just sayin' he's a scumbag. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin or his celeb status and has everything to do with what I said in the first paragraph.

Author

Tre

Date

2009-07-31T07:58:48-06:00

ID

150341

Comment

Baquan: if there were an award for missing the point you'd have won it hands down. Given how much you defend his actions and have already stated you have no empathy for animals, I've got to wonder about you. You're determined to defend the man's so-called right to play despite the fact he's a liar and a psychopath. Sure, the NFL has no standards and will let him back in, and I'm sure there's a team desperate enough to pick a second-rate QB who's been in jail for two years as someone they'd like to hang their chances on. I simply say the NFL should have standards, because these people are pushed and promoted as heroes. Vick is no hero, he's a coward. Keep it up with the specious analogies. You'll still miss the point.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T08:31:13-06:00

ID

150344

Comment

Baquan: You've lost it. I'm not sure what all the debate is about. Vick has his chance to play, just like you want. What will also happen is that a good portion of the people won't forgive him for his crimes. In the court of public opinion, he'll always be guilty.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T09:40:12-06:00

ID

150346

Comment

You are one of those people, that lives to insult and thinks they have all the right answers, but have gone through life without a rift. ~ Baquan Now, I don't know how well you two know each other but that statement seems very judgmental coming from someone who says we shouldn't be judging. Fortunately, I have no problem judging and personally I agree with Iron. He has been allowed to be signed and as far as I know no team has jumped at the chance, yet. I don't doubt that some team will and they will get a rash of protests as a result. Which I will support (Man, I hope it isn't the Bronco's). Football teams are in the entertainment business and like any big multimillion dollar corporation they have little or no conscience. So all of you who want to see him play will get the opportunity. But at the same time you have to ask yourself, "Is this the kind of guy I want my children to look up to?" If you can answer yes then more power to you.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-31T10:55:07-06:00

ID

150350

Comment

I don't know how you can say I love to write, considering the frequency of my posts on here (almost none, really) but I have to respond to this. No, my children should look up to me, their grandfathers and uncles! They should look up to the people they deal with directly! Michael Vick is an entertainer - he is not the measurement of what my child should consider successful! For my kids, you have Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, W.E.B DuBois, Duke Ellington, Fredrick Douglas, Arthur Ashe, Maynard Jackson, Mark Morial, John H. Johnson, Earl Graves, Medgar Evers - those are examples of leadership that I can use for "MY" children. I don't need rappers, movies stars or athlete's to raise my children or my neices and nephews! When I sit down and talk to my kids, I have to make sure - I am not drinking and driving in front of them! I need to make sure I put them to bed at a proper time, I need to make sure there is groceries in the refrigerator! Michael Vick cannot and will not do that for me! Please read this carefully, because I will only say this once. I AGREE WITH YOU. Parents should be the role models for their children. We certainly try to be for ours. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't always happen like that. What about the recent outcry at the death of Michael Jackson? Several people committed suicide because he died, and they felt like they just could not go on. Many other people are suffering from severe depression because of it. What about the marijuana use of Michael Phelps? Outcry there too, how he was SO perfect in the Olympics, and how he was America's role model, and how far he slipped just because he admitted to using pot. Like it or not, people do look up to these guys, and then can't take it when they fall short. I don't want to see anyone think Michael Vick is cool and want to grow up to be just like him.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2009-07-31T11:22:53-06:00

ID

150351

Comment

and I'm still trying to figure out which side Baquan's arguing. Meh, nevermind. I'm not concerned.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T11:31:28-06:00

ID

150353

Comment

He should have took this deal. "In April 2009, the Albany Firebirds, a minor league team, offered Vick a one-year contract that would pay him $200 a week plus a $50 bonus for a win."- Wiki That might be the best offer he gets..lol

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-07-31T11:34:18-06:00

ID

150356

Comment

I agree with you on all that too, Baquan. Lady Havoc makes the point better than I could in her rebuttal. But as you can tell, this topic is something I am somewhat passionate about it. Agree or disagree I love your passion.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-07-31T12:02:22-06:00

ID

150357

Comment

Oh, wait... I see what he's trying to argue! In his mind, we'd want people to give us a second chance, we should give Vick one. Baquan is thinking Vick has learned his lesson and should be forgiven and hugged back into the NFL. No, Baquan. The fact of the matter is some people will not forgive him. I've said that before. There will be those who will wait and see how he behaves in the future. They will see if he can avoid dogfighting. See if he really will do better. Just because he's done his time, doesn't mean he's learned his lesson. I want to see proof. Give him a chance, he's got one now. Let's see how he does with it.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T12:41:02-06:00

ID

150360

Comment

Baquan: I don't give a hoot about his color. Also, Vick's got his chance. You can't seem to accept that I'm not debating that. What I've tried to say, is that people will judge Vick as a person, based on his future works. How well he does on an NFL team has no bearing on his attitude towards dogs these days.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T13:17:48-06:00

ID

150362

Comment

[quote]But to lose $100 million dollar contract, endorsement deals, business opportunties and 2 years of jail time - for something the average joe does maybe 5 to 6 months of jail time for, community service and then some fines? When you put all that in perspective, you really got to think about what this guy really did lose.[/quote] To be fair, the average joe doesn't lie to the Feds about it either. Vick also knew what he was doing was illegal, and should have known his lifestyle would suffer. I can't muster up any sympathy for anyone who does something to ruin life on easy street.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-07-31T13:38:53-06:00

ID

150382

Comment

Tre is going to sit up here and single this guy and call him scum of all scum - when you have guys in Simpson County, Lafayette County, Rankin County, Warren County, Jackson County doing the kinds of things Mike Vick did on a daily basis - with cock fighting and dog fighting! Mississippi is a reknown dog fighting state. I didn't respond earlier to the question about my diet because it has nothing to do with what I said - no matter how hard you try to spin it. I still say Vick is a f***ing scumbag! So are all of the other scumbags that think cruelty to animals is entertaining. Even the ones in Mississippi. (I'm not sure why you think I was excluding the local scumbags that do the same thing Vick did).

Author

Tre

Date

2009-08-02T22:31:55-06:00

ID

150387

Comment

Baquan: If I had a $100 Mil job, I sure as heck would not be risking it with dogfighting. Vick had to know it was illegal, because when he got caught, he tried lying to the Feds. That's compounding his original crime with another crime. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we're still arguing this old issue.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-03T07:47:44-06:00

ID

150389

Comment

Look, baquan- You are trying too hard to start something with like-minded folks here. Killing animals for food is not the same as killing for entertainment. How can you make that kind of comparison? It simply isn't the same. I eat a steak and have leather shoes, so I shouldn't complain about a football player who kills dogs for entertainment? Does Vick eat the losing dog when the fight is over? Your comparing two different things! And, if you are going to call me out, go back and read what I said. I didn't "single this guy" out as the "scum of all scum," I simply said Michael Vick (the guy that is the topic of this conversation - I didn't single him out) is a scumbag for hanging, drowning, electrocuting, bludgeoning, and fighting dogs to death.

Author

Tre

Date

2009-08-03T09:30:40-06:00

ID

150390

Comment

Guilty pleasures? Really??? Dog fighting is a guilty pleasure? What to do next weekend... I could go to the casino and have a few beers (gambling, alcohol), or I could go watch some dogs fight and finish the loser off by strapping a car battery to his nuts while his head is crammed in a five gallon bucket of water. It's all just "guilty pleasures." I'm done. Rant away. I can't argue with this logic.

Author

Tre

Date

2009-08-03T09:35:27-06:00

ID

150393

Comment

[quote]There is still prostitution, alcohol, gambling, illegal street racing cars (pink slips), drugs, child pornography. Basically, you have something in your life that is a guilty pleasure, that can trip you up![/quote] As stunning as this may sound, Baquan, I don't. I know it's not hard to stay within the law and have a good time. There's tons to do that won't get you busted by the authorities. What bothers me is your opinion that Vick did nothing wrong. And that since everyone must have some illegal habit in their background, none of us can judge Vick and he should never have gone to jail. You simply cannot be convinced that eating a ham sandwich and disapproving of torturing dogs are moral positions one can encompass. Let me reassure you I can eat meat and stand up for the rights of household pets at the same time without straining my mental faculties.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-03T10:28:00-06:00

ID

150394

Comment

baquan, the domesticated:non-domesticated distinction is arbitrary, but nobody runs cow-fighting rings where cows battle each other to the death for entertainment. The cows are killed for food, and ideally they're killed humanely. (Where they are not, this can be addressed via legislation--note what happened in California last year re: battery cages.) But the dogs are tortured to death. It's the difference between executing a prisoner by lethal injection because of a capital murder conviction and a soldier torturing a prisoner to death in Abu Ghraib because he got bored. If one is concerned about contributing to the large-scale slaughter of other sentient beings, there are more options than eating meat normally vs. going vegetarian or vegan. The idea of meatless Fridays has caught on again in the environmental movement--pick a day a week (not necessarily Friday) and don't eat meat on that day. Doing so reduces your contribution to the meat industry by 14%. That is not insignificant, but if you want to make it three or four days a week, or even five days a week, that obviously reduces it even more. I went vegetarian for a year in 2005, have been conscious of my meat intake since then (I haven't had any meat in the past 36 hours, for example), and will most likely go completely vegetarian again eventually, or at least piscatarian (fish do not have neocortices, the capacity to feel emotion as we know it, and even the capacity to feel some of the sensations that we associate with pain; the moral argument against eating fish, though formidable, is not as compelling as the moral argument against eating mammals). Donna (and I am sure she would not mind if I mentioned this) is a longtime vegetarian as well. But even vegetarians, and vegans for that matter, contribute to the meat industry by purchasing products made by companies that kill animals, or that use packagers or advertisers that work with companies that kill animals, etc. So the issue is not one of total complicity vs. total non-complicity. It's a question of degree, and how much we contribute to the meat industry. Verily, verily I say unto you, it is probably quite possible to be a strict vegan who contributes more to the meat industry, i.e. who contributes to the death of more animals, than someone who eats meat one day a week. That is the reality of living in a country where one is surrounded by abbatoirs and intricately-prepared corpses that also happen to be controlled by the same multinational corporations as other industries. (To return to the Donna analogy, she does better on all fronts by not eating meat and by buying local.) None of this has much to do with Michael Vick and the torture of dogs, but neither does your post, so it seems like a good excuse to talk about the ethics of all this. At any rate, no, Virginia, eating a steak is not the same as torturing dogs to death for sport. Do not suggest that it is. That does not help your argument; it just makes you sound depraved (which I know you're not).

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T10:30:55-06:00

ID

150395

Comment

I was trying to hit that point, but I think Tom hit it better.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-03T10:39:02-06:00

ID

150397

Comment

You make a good point. I would if he is genuinely remorseful; my only concern re him playing football again is the possibility that he might be thought of as the football player who arranges dogfights rather than the football player who used to arrange dogfights, and now feels terrible about it. There's a world of difference between the two, and the former really could make dogfighting more acceptable, which wouldn't be good.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T11:40:56-06:00

ID

150398

Comment

Baquan- I'm not a Biblical scholar but in Genesis didn't God tell Noah after the flood that all things were food to him and his decencedents, and eating meat was ok if it did not contain it's life(blood)so eating cooked meat was ok?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-03T11:56:05-06:00

ID

150400

Comment

Okay, there are three food covenants in the Bible: Noachide, Israelite, and Christian. The Noachide covenant says any meat is fine, but it can't contain blood. This excludes, inter alia, blood pudding, blood sausage, and some forms of rare or uncooked meat, depending on how it's prepared (steak tartar and sashimi sometimes contain visible amounts of blood). It applies to the human race pre-Moses. The Israelite covenant includes kosher law. It is the agreement between God and Israel. The other nations (goyim) are not expected to obey it. The Christian covenant, described in Acts 15, essentially resurrects the Noachide covenant by saying that Christians are not obligated to obey kosher law, but should not eat foods containing blood either. Interestingly enough, right-wing folks who condemn homosexuality, which is not specifically mentioned in the teachings of Jesus or in Acts 15, seem to have no problem consuming blood, which is. All of these food commandments are written in a context where not eating meat was a serious problem because alternate sources of protein were hard to find. Easier to do in Asian countries at the time because of rice and soy protein, which is why vegetarianism is more common in Asian religions. There is no biblical proscription on vegetarianism, but it was a austere practice in the Judeo-Christian era and could have scared people away from the faith. The Essenes were nearly vegetarians, though, which is why John the Baptist is described as having weird taste in food. In a context where non-meat sources of protein are available, eating meat would seem to arguably run afoul of Jewish teachings regarding causing unnecessary harm to animals, and would certainly appear to run afoul of the spirit of both faiths. But vegetarianism is obviously not required in the Bible itself.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T12:02:47-06:00

ID

150402

Comment

baquan, the issue for me is not whether the NFL condones dogfighting; the issue is whether Michael Vick does. It would be relatively easy for him to become an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. He may already have done so, for all I know; I don't follow sports very closely.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T12:08:20-06:00

ID

150404

Comment

I understand, but fwiw I'm not talking about him having to win PETA's support. I'm talking about what he does on his own, regardless of who supports him or doesn't. He can't control what PETA does, but he can control what he does, and that's going to affect his image much more than anything PETA (a fairly marginal group) says about what he's done in the past. I think he would win the enthusiastic support of most animal rights groups if he visibly turned over a new leaf and made public commitments to support the humane treatment of animals. Everybody likes a conversion story.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T12:25:34-06:00

ID

150405

Comment

Vick did something wrong, pay a bigger price than some people get for killing another human. He should be allowed to work at his chosen profession.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2009-08-03T12:32:09-06:00

ID

150406

Comment

Goldenae, the NFL is not going to sacrifice the money Vick makes for them to make a symbolic statement about animal rights. No question. I'm talking here about ethics, not the practical issue of whether Vick will be allowed to play; he will, and I think the money guarantees that.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-03T12:40:25-06:00

ID

150420

Comment

I believe Vick should be allowed to play. He served his time and should not have to pay for his crime the rest of his life. If I were a NFL owner in need of a quarterback I would sign Vick in a New YOrk second. The football fans who pay to come to the games and watch on television could care less about PETA. All they want is someone who can help their team win. Vick has proven himself a winner on the football field in the past. If he is put on a team and causes the team to win any PETA members picketing the football stadium will probably get the s__t kicked out of them by the team's fans.

Author

wellington

Date

2009-08-03T19:35:34-06:00

ID

150421

Comment

See, now this is a novel argument. Arguing Vick's a valuable player. He's not, but it's a good approach. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-03T19:52:08-06:00

ID

150422

Comment

Iron- But it is basicaly true, the average rabid fan that supports pro team,goes to every game,who house is a shrine to the local pro team, wears team under-roos, etc could careless if he was a baby killer as long as they were winning they would forgive anything.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-03T20:05:59-06:00

ID

150423

Comment

I view Michael Vick's 23 month sentence as a joke; he should not ever be allowed to play football again. This is a valid penalty for his completely egregious behavior. If people are worried about his family, I'm sure Mr. Vick can get another job to "pay the bills". In reference to NewJackson's post: "I know people will get mad when i say this vick was wrong but dogs and cats are not on the same level as human beings. So he should play again and stop treating him like a devil and yall are perfect saints." I will confine myself to remarking that in the recent past, people of color were not considered human beings (remember 3/5 of a vote?). It was an invalid argument then, and it's still a dumb argument now. ALL life is precious, and should be treated as such. Once it's "OK" to torture dogs because they're just dogs, or "OK" to torture prisoners of war because they are "enemies", it's just a short step from there to being "OK" to torture any other .

Author

Michele1970

Date

2009-08-03T23:10:07-06:00