Animal Welfare: Do we have any Philadelphia Eagles fans outraged by the Michael Vick signing?

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by fieryone

Again, I'm not excusing steroids. I don't believe they help players become more talented. You have it or you don't.
....
The fact remains that taking steroids isn't okay but it's not nearly as heinous as abusing dogs repeatedly over the course of several years, which was my point in using the comparison.
....

Yes, Vick served his time but should not have been allowed back into the NFL. Maybe not ever, but not this year. He could have played UFL ball and proven himself to be worthy of employment once again.

1. I don't believe I said a thing about steroids making someone more talented. That isn't even relevant.
2. I understood that you think it's worse to abuse dogs than to take steroids. So do I. Thing is, whether someone is a really nice person or what have you is really important if the job you are about to undertake is as a social worker or a preschool teacher, but it's very marginally relevant to the job of football player. On the other hand, players taking steroids does call into question, directly, the job they are doing as football players, while abusing dogs doesn't, and that, whether you like it or not, is the relevant inquiry.
3. Why in the world should there be a difference between the UFL's standards and those of the NFL? Martha Stewart went to the Big House too - does it send a bad message to children everywhere that she went right back to baking cookies and arranging flowers on TV for millions? Or do we only get upset about certain felonies?

[Wheekie]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Why should anything other than being a good football player count when picking a football team? He's not being elected to office, nor is he asking to date your daughter or something, where I could of course see it mattering that he's an ex-felon.

Are you serious!?! You mean it's OK with you to be a despicable human being!?! Your character...what kind of person you are...shows up in everything you do eventually! It's been studied and proven that people with the type of personalities that can abuse and torture animals are the same type of people that go on to be serial killers. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be around that type of person or I wouldn't want them representing me in any way like Philly has him representing them. And even though parents should be role models, we all know how kids look up to sports figures! He's a great person to look up to cause his lack of moral character will show up sooner or later!

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by Wheekie

Are you serious!?! You mean it's OK with you to be a despicable human being!?! Your character...what kind of person you are...shows up in everything you do eventually! It's been studied and proven that people with the type of personalities that can abuse and torture animals are the same type of people that go on to be serial killers. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be around that type of person or I wouldn't want them representing me in any way like Philly has him representing them. And even though parents should be role models, we all know how kids look up to sports figures! He's a great person to look up to cause his lack of moral character will show up sooner or later!

Relax, take some slow, deep, even breaths, LOL.

No, I don't think it's "OK" to be a "despicable human being," and I never said anything of the sort. What I do think is "OK" is for someone to employ someone after that someone has done jail time for doing something despicable.

As for the "serial killer" argument, I don't believe Mr. Vick is apt to be killing anything bigger than a cockroach any time soon, and it doesn't appear the head of the HSUS thinks so, either, and that's good enough for me to let someone employ him. You don't have to "be around" Vick either, and he doesn't represent Philadelphia just because he plays football on a team named for the city. (Last time I checked it was a Mr. Nutter who represents Philadelphia?) There are any number of roles in society people may be in where little kids may look up to them. It simply isn't relevant to the job he has (playing football.)

[juliaaa]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Martha Stewart went to the Big House too - does it send a bad message to children everywhere that she went right back to baking cookies and arranging flowers on TV for millions? Or do we only get upset about certain felonies?

I think I can speak for a lot of people and say that dog abuse/murder/torture is on a completely different level than stock market fraud. I am way more comfortable with her being back in the lime light that I am with Vick.

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Martha Stewart went to the Big House too - does it send a bad message to children everywhere that she went right back to baking cookies and arranging flowers on TV for millions? Or do we only get upset about certain felonies?

Unfortunately, there are double standards. I think when abuse is concerned, then yes, the level of outrage is and should be different.

The UFL isn't the same as the NFL. It's basically the same thing as me taking a demotion at my current job until I have shown that I am deserving of doing my job should I do something unacceptable. If I were to do something that doesn't have a direct impact on my job but shows poorly on the company, I would expect to be disciplined as well.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by juliaaa

I think I can speak for a lot of people and say that dog abuse/murder/torture is on a completely different level than stock market fraud. I am way more comfortable with her being back in the lime light that I am with Vick.

I'm sure you are speaking for a lot of people. A lot of people think that the Bernie Madoffs of the world are on a completely different level than someone like Vick, though. Who gets to decide what's a level of crime that ought to keep someone out of a job as a football player?

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by fieryone

Unfortunately, there are double standards. I think when abuse is concerned, then yes, the level of outrage is and should be different.

The UFL isn't the same as the NFL. It's basically the same thing as me taking a demotion at my current job until I have shown that I am deserving of doing my job should I do something unacceptable. If I were to do something that doesn't have a direct impact on my job but shows poorly on the company, I would expect to be disciplined as well.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here

Yeah, I think that's a double standard. I think saying it's fine for someone to be on a football team just as long as they don't get paid a lot is silly.

The NFL isn't, and shouldn't be, a contest for who's the greatest human being. It's about who are the most outstanding football players. I don't think it showed poorly on the NFL that Vick was a part of it, as unless I'm missing something very major, there's no indication that the NFL endorsed how he behaved, or even knew of it.

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Yeah, I think that's a double standard. I think saying it's fine for someone to be on a football team just as long as they don't get paid a lot is silly.

The NFL isn't, and shouldn't be, a contest for who's the greatest human being. It's about who are the most outstanding football players. I don't think it showed poorly on the NFL that Vick was a part of it, as unless I'm missing something very major, there's no indication that the NFL endorsed how he behaved, or even knew of it.

No, it's not. It's about athletic ability. But unfortunately when you're in the limelight in that way you are (right or wrong) held to a different standard so that things that don't necessarily directly impact your job become a factor. If poor behavior off the field that can cast a negative light on the league wasn't a concern then they wouldn't have such a policy. Or at least have such a policy for show. We just need to look to Pacman Jones to see that the NFL will give a player countless chances.

I don't believe I said that Vick's crime showed poorly on the NFL. What shows poorly on the NFL is them seemingly saying that what he did doesn't matter. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with reinstating him if, as I said before, he was held out for a year. Call it a suspension or whatever you want, I just don't think that "he's suspended until the 6th game...maybe, maybe not" is good enough.

Donte Stallworth is suspended for the year because of his off the field legal troubles that have nothing to do with his job performance, and what he did was an accident. An accident that he admitted to and took responsibility for. Is it different because he accidentally killed a person? If so, why? It doesn't affect his ability to play football.

[CavySpirit]

I don't think it's that they care about people more than animals. It's all about the money. I'm sure the Eagles did a risk assessment and evaluated their projected revenue streams with and without him and determined that the backlash from animal welfarists boycotting their games, products, etc. was less than than the increase in revenue from him being in their company despite that. It's kind of a no brainer decision for them, really. They certainly aren't the boy scouts.

I'm guessing that:

(% of animal welfarists : General population) > (% of animal welfarists : Football fans)

I guess the real issue is that the punishments for crimes against animals are too little.

[AnimalHouse36]

I am outraged at what Micheal Vick has done but how is that any different from the millions of animals slaughtered for food everyday? Why should we put a special light on dogs just because most people have them as pets.

I beleive what Micheal Vick has done is no worse than what many of people on this very site do. They sit down and have a steak.

[diane]

Animal House 36, I have to disagree with you, I admit wholeheartedly that I am not a vegetarian, but he killed fought to the death dogs for pleasure, I do not condone killing for pleasure, if it is for food, but I dont think he was doing it so he could eat

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I beleive what Micheal Vick has done is no worse than what many of people on this very site do. They sit down and have a steak.

I understand what you're saying and I know that those who don't eat meat for animal rights reasons are very passionate about their stance. I find it admirable. But I think that dogs left to violently maul each other to death is a completely different thing than rendering a cow unconscious prior to slaughtering. Yes, in both cases animals die. However I think one is far less humane than the other. Also, I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree with it, but the general population does view companion animals and livestock very differently.

I also agree with Diane that to kill for sport and to kill for food aren't the same. I abhor hunting, but if someone brings the deer home and uses it all then I have less of a problem with it than if he brings it to a taxidermist and keeps it as a trophy.

[blackarrow]

"But unfortunately when you're in the limelight in that way you are (right or wrong) held to a different standard so that things that don't necessarily directly impact your job become a factor."
This seems inconsistent with a number of your posts (and the remainder of this post) in which you suggest that Vick is NOT being held to a different standard, and that he should be. Am I missing something?

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

"But unfortunately when you're in the limelight in that way you are (right or wrong) held to a different standard so that things that don't necessarily directly impact your job become a factor."
This seems inconsistent with a number of your posts (and the remainder of this post) in which you suggest that Vick is NOT being held to a different standard, and that he should be. Am I missing something?

What's inconsistent? Is there something that I'm not conveying clearly? If so I will be more than happy to explain. But as it stands now, I feel like I'm repeating myself.

The general public holds these people in this regard. The NFL apparently doesn't, except for some cases.

So what are your thoughts on Donte Stallworth?

[blackarrow]

I have no thoughts on Donte Stallworth because I've never heard of him.

What's confusing to me is that you're saying "unfortunately. . .you're held to a different standard" when you're in the "limelight" than just athletic ability (emphasis added) yet you also seem to be arguing that they should be held to a different standard than just athletic ability.

There are people of all sorts of professions in the "limelight." If we could only watch actors and athletes and listen to musicians who were people you'd want your kids to emulate in all aspects of their lives, there'd probably be about three different options.

[crazywiggy]

Maybe I have no right to comment not being a sports fan in the slightest, and being a UKer, but here's my two cents....

Pro sportsmen make a living doing a job they love - which is true for very few people. They get fame, publicity, popularity to the point of hero-worship, even various medals and honours - not to mention the vast salaries they demand.

What Vick did was abhorant - this wasn't a case of causing suffering through ignorance, or a one off "sorry, lost my temper". This was systematic abuse and murder. He knew it was cruel. He knew it was illegal. He didn't care, he did it anyway.

His sentence was pitiful - certainly not "justice" for the severity of the crime.

And his reward for his disgusting criminal behaviour is a high profile, high salary contract with a top team.

Sorry to me that is just wrong.

I understand that all convicted criminals need to go out and get jobs after serving their sentence, and rightly so, but why should he get such a fantastic job with all the perks?

Maybe in the future - after finding himself "blacklisted" for a year or two - someone could have given him a second chance. I just think the attitude of "welcome back from jail Mr Vick, here have the contract of a lifetime, congratulations".

Just wanted to add - like it or not celebrities, whether musicians, sports players or whatever ARE rolemodels to young people. I think this incident will only go to prove that crimes like Vick's don't really matter. Nobody really cares. I wonder how many kids will think - "well if its ok for him to do it, and its cool because he does it, then its good enough for me too".

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

What's confusing to me is that you're saying "unfortunately. . .you're held to a different standard" when you're in the "limelight" than just athletic ability (emphasis added) yet you also seem to be arguing that they should be held to a different standard than just athletic ability.

Okay, let's see if I can explain my position a bit better. I say unfortunately (for me) because I don't necessarily think it's right. I don't personally hold celebrities to such a high regard or even care what they do, but a lot of people do. A lot of people out there idolize celebrities down to what they wear. If they didn't then tabloids and such wouldn't be so popular. So my using "we" is just a general collective term. But when you're in the limelight everything you do seems to be public knowledge. Especially now when all we have to do is click on our Yahoo homepages and find out any little thing you'd ever want to know and then some. We form opinions and when people do horrible things, the public wants to feel like justice has been served.

Many people, me included, don't feel like Vick served a long enough sentence. Be that as it may, his sentence has been served. That, I agree with. But then we come back to the part of him being a public figure and the general public having a strong opinion. The only comparison I could think of to this is if I did something outside of work that made the papers and somehow might reflect poorly on my company if they choose to just slap me on the wrist. To be demoted or suspended wouldn't be unheard of. In this case, if he gets the max that could be imposed, he would miss less than half the season.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

I have no thoughts on Donte Stallworth because I've never heard of him.

Donte Stallworth is a football player who, a few months ago, was driving .046 above the legal limit and hit and killed a pedestrian. He immediately took responsibility for it, cooperated with police, and settled with the family. He served less than a month in jail and is on house arrest. He was suspended for the entire 2009 season for this, but it doesn't have anything to do with his job playing football. He cooperated, took responsibility, and it was an accident. Vick lied, denied any involvement or knowledge, did this repeatedly over several years, and might get a 5 game suspension. This is a case of the NFL imposing it's personal conduct policy when it suits them to do so. Do you think that's right?

Originally Posted by blackarrow

There are people of all sorts of professions in the "limelight." If we could only watch actors and athletes and listen to musicians who were people you'd want your kids to emulate in all aspects of their lives, there'd probably be about three different options

This is sad, but true Again, I personally am not especially (I hate to use the word uptight, but I will in this case) uptight. My son is 9 and listens to the same music I do, and I listen to heavy stuff. Most parents that I know would be outraged if they listened to my son's mp3 player due to who he listens to. Of course we use common sense and leave out songs with explicit subject matter or language! He also watches some things that other parents may not allow.

So I admit to being disgusted and outraged at Michael Vick. I do believe that he should have been suspended for longer than he was. If that makes me a hypocrite considering my opinions on other things and celebrities in general, then so be it

[blackarrow]

I'll take issue with the notion of DUI manslaughter being "an accident." Drinking and driving is most definitely an "on purpose," and the manslaughter is a known risk of that. I'm thinking it's pretty shocking that he only spent a month in jail even with the cooperation and the settlement. Perhaps the freshness of the incident played into the NFL's decision to suspend him for longer, I don't know.

Believe me, I think what Vick did was disgusting and outrageous, and I wouldn't have any qualms about him having been suspended for much longer, and I would have liked his jail term to have been longer. I just am not mad at the Eagles that it wasn't.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

I understand that all convicted criminals need to go out and get jobs after serving their sentence, and rightly so, but why should he get such a fantastic job with all the perks?

Maybe in the future - after finding himself "blacklisted" for a year or two - someone could have given him a second chance. I just think the attitude of "welcome back from jail Mr Vick, here have the contract of a lifetime, congratulations".

Just wanted to add - like it or not celebrities, whether musicians, sports players or whatever ARE rolemodels to young people. I think this incident will only go to prove that crimes like Vick's don't really matter. Nobody really cares. I wonder how many kids will think - "well if its ok for him to do it, and its cool because he does it, then its good enough for me too".

But the justice system didn't say that "crimes like Vick's don't really matter." He is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty and served two years in the federal pen for what he did. And now he's engaged in a public service campaign to stop dogfighting. Whether that's because he wants to rehabilitate his image, or whether that's because he's had a change of heart, isn't particularly relevant - the message is getting out.

I don't mind him getting a job as a football player, no matter how good the pay. What I wouldn't want is him getting a job as, say, a day care operator, no matter how poor the pay!

[fieryone]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

I'll take issue with the notion of DUI manslaughter being "an accident." Drinking and driving is most definitely an "on purpose," and the manslaughter is a known risk of that. I'm thinking it's pretty shocking that he only spent a month in jail even with the cooperation and the settlement. Perhaps the freshness of the incident played into the NFL's decision to suspend him for longer, I don't know.

The term accident is obviously not an endorsement or excuse for what happened, but the technical term for what happened since he didn't leave that day saying that he was going to run someone down on purpose.

This has nothing to do with the original issue, but here goes. I listen to a lot of sports radio and watch a lot of ESPN (I'm kind of a nerd that way) and last week I was listening to Eric Kusilias, who is a lawyer turned sports analyst on ESPN radio. He spoke to several lawyers who have or currently practiced Florida law to find out why he got off so easily. He spent 30 days in jail and settled with the family because they couldn't prove that alcohol was the cause of the accident. The victim was jaywalking (which is apparently a significant issue under the Florida law) across a dark road and Stallworth wasn't driving at a high rate of speed. So under the law, they couldn't prove that Stallworth wouldn't have hit him anyway. This never went to trial and the family settled with him because I assume they and the prosecutor didn't think they would win in court due to the law. I am not excusing it, supporting it, or saying that it's okay. Just stating the law as it is in Florida. If you want to read more, here you go NFL Football Player Donte Stallworth and Florida DUI Manslaughter Law

In closing, I don't think it's because it's fresher in their minds. I think it's because Vick's crime resulted in the deaths of "just some dogs". I find that disgusting.