emoses14 wrote:Typically, you are absolutely right that the killing of an animal (usually domestic cats and dogs) indicates a mentality that would allow for the escalation to the killing of humans. The only issue is that the vast majority of that research draws that link between the animal killing during childhood/adolescence and then human in adulthood. Don't know if Vick killed dogs while he was 15 or younger, but what i do know (w/a fair degree of certainty) is that he has never killed a human. Yes, he is a serial killer of dogs, it is reprehensible, but I do, as I believe everyone does, draw a distinction, a very important one, between animals and humans.
NOW, to correct one thing which is entirely unfair; I absolutely consider what he did is a very big deal. I find those who brush it off as if it was a little oopsie as mental midgets. He absolutely deserved all of the punishment he has received and the vindictivness and negativity from the public. You know damn well that just as there is a stark differene between taking a human life and a canine life, so is there a difference between rubbing paint and killing a canine. The quote marks would have been more appropriate around "complete" (and I believe in a different post i did) rather than the entire phrase.
Then I stand corrected. But I definitely disagree with the broad brush approach to a "one size fits all" distinction between taking a human life and a dog's life. Again, it's about intent ... and it involves degrees, just as there are distinctions made in the area of taking a human life ... from premeditated murder to justifiable homicide, as well as many shades in between. A fit of rage killing is certainly a different scenario than a systematic luring of victims and horrific infliction of terror and mutilation. All of these circumstances are considered when assigning levels of wrongdoing and or psychopathy.
That's why I reject an earlier position that claimed that an accident that claimed a human life was MORE wrong than an intentional act of torturing and killing animals. One might legitimately claim the loss of human life more tragic ... but an intentional act of extreme cruelty will ALWAYS be more wrong than an accident.
emoses14 wrote:You're damn right I don't consider his actions to be evidence of zero morality. I'd say alarming moral depravity, serious moral depravity, an f-ed up moral compass, sure, but I would not compare the man to Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, or Adolf Hitler. Those men exhibited COMPLETE moral depravity. And I am being extreme on purpose. I am sorry that I do not take those actions and use them as a blanket to over the man's entire life and worth and come out determining that he is a sociopath.
Tell me, emoses, where in his actions and treatment of these animals do you see this glimmer of morality that separates him from those who possess zero? Because he hasn't stepped over the line to include inflicting such horror on humans? Could that not be based on lack of opportunity or circumstance rather than a moral and conscious choice not to?
For instance, rather than being a Multi-Millionaire football player .... had he joined the military and been deployed to Iraq ... would you be utterly shocked (knowing what we know now about him) if he were implicated in the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians as have some other soldiers have?
You see, the absence of evidence for his capacity to murder, is not evidence of absence of capacity. Lack of opportunity, or circumstances that would facilitate such behavior could be the primary factor here .. and not an element of Vick's morality that prevented such behavior.
Moreover, I see little value in comparing Vick to the likes of Hitler, just as I do were the comparison be made between Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Does the fact that Mao murdered more people than Hitler make Hitler more redeemable? Of course not .... no more so than to suggest that a person who robs a liquor is less of a thief than one who robs a bank.
Insofar as Vick being a sociopath, I believe he has demonstrated that beyond any doubt whatsoever .. if indeed one understands what a sociopath actually is. And we'll be returning to this point shortly ... but for now, a sociopath lacks the normal human emotions of empathy and compassion that prevents normal people from committing such acts of supreme cruelty as was perpetrated by Vick. These people ...and estimates suggest this condition may affect as much as 10% of the population ... are defined by their inability to feel those normal human emotions, which, by the way, are also the source of one's feelings of remorse.
emoses14 wrote:Yes, really Ray. Despite how ludicrous that reading of the entire sentence was, I'll engage. What you've desribed are not moronic dog lovers. Those are normal dog lovers. Moronic ones are the ones who believe that a pet should have the same legal and civil rights as a human being, that Vick should be locked away for life, or put to death, or put in a rape stand, never allowed to make another dollar that isn't immediately garnised to a dog rescue or humane society (and quite frankly, anyone who puts their dog in a purse to go to the mall).
I just viewed the very inclusion of "Moronic Dog Lover" as a gratuitous insult to those with moral character, in defense of someone without such.
And though it might seem extreme to contemplate the idea that animals have equal rights ... when it comes to extreme treatment, I believe they should enjoy equal protection. I think the act of claiming our human rights so superior, and their rights so inferior by comparison, tends to provide the best evidence against such a claim. The moment we can consciously acknowledge the value of such creatures who demonstrate the multitude of acts of loyalty and defense and of risking their lives to save their human companions as is well documented by dogs ... we might have more solid ground on which to stake that claim. Right now? Such claims of superiority are lacking in evidence.
In other words, these noble creatures demonstrate a level of dedication, loyalty, and unconditional love toward us that demands reciprocity from us in like manner. For those that don't embrace that sentiment ... well, they are far less superior than they believe.
emoses14 wrote:I know that I recognize where my real problem lies, and I stated it. How can you possibly engage my words discussing the issue of moral depravity in one breath, then in the next tell me I missed the point regarding moral depravity? That's precisely the point I'm discussing. Or did you mean I missed the point becaue I dare to have a different take on the issue? IN any event, Ray, this is a second point.
Yes ... in my holier than thou self righteousness, on this point, I declare my take on the matter as the only appropriate response.
emoses14 wrote:Now, unfortunately for us, the question about whether his actions constituted a moral depravity to the level of being so inconsistent with the moral conduct code of the NFL has been asked and answered. As the arbiters of that code, the NFL made the call that in fact it was not. That, in fact, it was not an unforgivable transgression against that conduct policy, thus the privilege of playing in the NFL, is one that Vick gets to continue enjoying. His right to try and earn a living (which really means it is necessarily not right for him to be restricted from doing so), therefore still includes pursuing an NFL career. I happen to agree with that reading. I get it that you don't without considering you to be some crackpot animal lover.
That the NFL decided Vick's conduct was sufficiently punished by the criminal justice system, and that he deserved reinstatement does not prove they are correct in their assessment ... only that they possess the power to make that determination.
I find it totally inconsistent, given how the league might treat a player with a substance issue ... say marijuana .. a victimless crime that has no moral implications whatsoever. This holds true for the criminal justice system as well, with some victimless crimes being punished far more severely than what most would consider far worse crimes of violence.
emoses14 wrote:Why on earth is it so difficult for folks in your position to not see the other side of the coin? The one that says, What he did is disgusting, it is wrong and at the same time recognize that a man can change and oh by the way, isn't it odd that everyone who's had the means to ascertain whether he is in the process of doing so, seem to all agree that he is.
I could ask you the same question, and to be honest, I have a much stronger position, and here's why. As mentioned before, sociopaths lack the ability to experience and feel normal human emotions. This can be problematic for them insofar as functioning invisibly among society, and fitting in. These people "learn" how to act and respond to various stimuli and situations and events by observing others. The demonstrations of concern ... and sorrow ... and affection are mimicked because they aren't capable of the genuine response driven emotions. This is well documented in the scientific/medical literature describing sociopath behavior. But they also have a tendency to overreact and under-react also. And if observed closely, inconsistencies are detectable, to include inadequate displays of emotion when confronted.
So, such a person can "say" they are sorry verbally, and use all of the right words and sound sincere, while their body language doesn't reflect those words ... such as not looking down in a physical demonstration of shame or remorse.
This is what I see with Vick, as well as an inadequate and inappropriate responses verbally, when asked if he's remorseful. As was earlier suggested, he seems far more sorry for the level of pain his actions brought upon himself than for any pain he caused those animals or those who supported him and believed in his declarations of innocence.
emoses14 wrote:Now, here we agree 92%. Everything is right on except Vick is not a sociopath. Sociopaths are incapable of corrective behavior. Again, there's is a COMPLETE lack of moral compass. That isn't Vick. His actions are reprehensible. The man himself is not, the ability to see the difference is called balance.
No ... it's not balance that you describe, it's called rationalization. As far a being a sociopath, there can be no other explanation. Normal people cannot do what he did. Perhaps you aren't familiar enough with what he actually did do that could lead you to your conclusion. This man wasn't simply conducting a dog fighting operation that had dogs killing each other ... he participated in the systematic torture of these animals to create aggression and meanness ... to the point of torturing to death those dogs that refused to fight. Electroshock, drowning, beating ... on and on. A person with even a sliver of humanity couldn't commit these unspeakable atrocities. Some hardened criminals in prison couldn't bring themselves to commit these acts. NO ... sociopath is a minimum requirement for such antisocial behavior, with borderline psychopath not completely out of the question.
emoses14 wrote:As I think I said, this is the biggest problem between you and Kaz (and those aligned with you) and myself (and those aligned with me). None, NOT A SINGLE ONE, of us KNOWS whether they are purely PR motivated or not. That is where our biases come into play. You've no proof that he isn't sincere, its simply your belief and all I have are his words and his actions.
Sure we have cause. This guy was doing this deplorable crap for a long time, and he only stopped because he got caught. And immediately, he lied about it ... lied about his involvement ... then lied about his participation, and he lied to some of the people closest to him, many of whom trusted and believed in his innocence.
Ask Arthur Blank about the credibility of Michael Vick's words and promises, and let me know what he thinks of taking Vick's statements at face value? And not many were were closer to Vick, or more of a supporter and ally than Mr. Blank, and Vick lied repeatedly to him, and apparently well enough for Mr. Blank to stick his neck out in support of him. What a bald faced betrayal he committed against Blank!
Couple all of this with the realization of what he's obviously capable of insofar as merciless treatment of those poor animals ... he deserves no benefit of the doubt when it comes to truthfulness. He's a cold blooded, sociopathic abuser and a freaking liar.
Now, what are your reasons for believing him?
emoses14 wrote:Now, on this you are 100% correct. No argument. Your point 1) is a matter of opinion not a statement of fact; you believe there hasn't been a convincing display of sincere remorse. The substantive part of point 2 is right on as well. That poor woman has to live with the fact that she raised a man who thought it was cool to kill dogs after pitting them against each other in fights to death. You're absolute right that we all have the right to choose whom we continue to hate and whom we choose to forgive.
100% agree.
You're a very well spoken and well written fellow. And you views are not too far off that there isn't hope for you
