Michael Vick or: Why You Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Dog Fighting

Matty Orchard's picture
Submitted by Matty Orchard on Mon, 2007-09-17 12:48

In April of this year famed American football player, Michael Vick, was accused of helping to orchestrate dog fighting matches over a period of six years. During this six year long enterprise many dogs were reportedly pitted against each other, mauled to death by other dogs or killed by Vick and his associates because they weren’t deemed to be vicious enough for the cruel sport. As I look over the gruesome details of this case I can only ask myself one question…

Who gives a shit?

Inexplicably the answer to that question seems to be the vast majority of the American public. When the charges against Vick hit the news the outcry from the American public was almost unanimous: Michael Vick is a disgrace to his sport and for that matter the human race as a whole, he should never be forgiven for his sadistic torture of helpless animals! As I write this in the eyes of the public Michael Vick is nothing more than, well…a dog.

But why, What is so inherently wrong about dog fighting? We kill animals for fun all the time, ever been fishing? Hunting? Poaching? I haven’t. I’ve never been involved in dog fighting either but I wouldn’t judge anyone who has, that would be hypocritical. Animals aren’t our equals. I want to go on record with that because it is a fact and more and more it seems like we’re forgetting it. Animals were put on this earth for, if nothing else, to be used for our amusement. Want proof, look at this:


Point proven.

I can’t stand animal rights activists, who act as if animals are better than us,

‘If dogs had control over us they wouldn’t make us fight each other for sport!’

No they wouldn’t. They would eat their own feces and run around in circles for hours trying to catch their tales in their mouths instead. Dog’s are stupid like that, probably the primary reason why they don’t have control over us and never will. The minute my dog comprehends the concept of fighting animals for the purpose of gambling or comprehends the concept of gambling in any way, I’m telling him to move out and get a job. Any animal that bright shouldn’t be dependant on a human. My dog isn’t my equal until he can play black jack, until then I own him and I’ll do with my property whatever I damn well please. Incidentally that doesn’t involve fighting him but I take no vanity from that.

And that’s another thing, why are people so incensed over the whole gambling aspect? I always read that in opinion pieces or see that on Fox or CNN. People keep putting this strange indignant emphasis on the gambling part of the dog fights as if it’s the cherry on top,

‘He made dogs maul and kill each other for the purpose of gambling!

As opposed to what, making dogs maul and kill each other just to watch them die? I would have thought the gambling aspect would make it a lot better. Its one thing to be cruel to animals for the sake of being cruel, quite another if you’re just trying to make an honest buck. You might go as far as to say that Michael Vick should be commended. Where some pro athletes are content with just playing ball and living the fast and loose celebrity lifestyle, Vick chose to be industrious, to seek greener pastures. You see a monster; I see a visionary and a budding young entrepreneur. Think I’m pushing it? Fuck yourself.

It’s very easy to Imagine these dogs as cute harmless puppies but the fact of the matter is they weren’t fighting poodles because that would be pointless. They were fighting pit bulls, naturally vicious dogs. It’s best they fight each other than roam the streets attacking citizens or worse yet be adopted by some compassionate family only to gouge the eyes out of an innocent toddler as soon as the parents leave the room for a minute to sip merlot and congratulate themselves on what animal loving do gooders they are.

According to organizations like PETA modern society has a problem with animal cruelty, I have to concur. Modern society does indeed have a problem with animal cruelty, we’re against it.


( categories: )

God owns your soul?!?!

Elijah's picture

God owns your soul?!?! Puzzled ...ummmmm...??

In the eye of the beholder

dinther's picture

"Let your emotion rule" 

So yeah we all agree that dragging a dog behind the car at full speed is cruel it serves no purpose unless you are sweeping the drive that way. Dogs have those loving and trusting eyes and are fluffy how could you possibly.... How about a cat ? Personally I hate cats so I find this idea slightly less offensive. Too cruel too? Why? They think they own the place and piss on your bed given the chance. Ah yes, the are fluffy. Kids! they are not fluffy. Oops I forgot. Let's slide down the ladder a bit. Uh....been running over possums lately? Is that cruel to kill pests? Ever hit a bird by accident? Did you stop to go back to help it out of it's misery? bumble bees?

If animals can be a persons property then that person can do what he likes with it. The cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. Farmers make such decisions about their animals all the time and often deal with matters in ways that appear cruel to me. That is hardly a basis for moral decisions is it?

Ha, Matty!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wasn't thinking of welfare bludgers. I was thinking of treasonists re Iraq—a far lower breed. No cat would fall that low.

On the contrary Matty, they

Lance's picture

On the contrary Matty, they would all be self sufficient survivalists not to mention registered sex offenders too.

Yes, but!

Matty Orchard's picture

"I regard animals far more highly than I do most humans currently."

That's only because animals don't have the mental capacity to be as irritating as certain humans. If you gave cat's the intelligence of a standard human they would be demanding all sorts of state welfare...lazy buggers

For what it's worth, Mark ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... I'm the same as you. And I regard animals far more highly than I do most humans currently. But we are not emotionalists. Rights are what they are. Animals don't have them. And if you violate the rights of an animal-abuser, you must take the consequences. I would. Smiling

Name and shame all you want,

Mark Hubbard's picture

Name and shame all you want, but mistreatment of animals (except where the animal is someone's property) ought not to be subject to any legal sanction whatsoever.

Yes. Absolutely uncontentious. It's a very easy issue.

I do not support legal sanctions in these cases, let me clear that up.

But for me it is also important to state that I am prepared to let my emotion rule, on the day, and if/when I witness vicarious cruelty to an animal, I'm happy to take the perpetrator actively to task to end the suffering of the animal. I consider that humane, and I think little of people who would not do the same. So yes, this issue is not complicated Lindsay, but Vick and his ilk are creeps, and I hope he rots (albeit not in a jail, which is not appropriate - and it would be pointless me publishing what I think would be appropriate for such people).

 

 

Thanks Linz

Matty Orchard's picture

Very concise.

The purpose of the law ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is to uphold rights. Animals don't have 'em. End of story. Laws exist to protect people from people, not animals from people or people from animals.

Name and shame all you want, but mistreatment of animals (except where the animal is someone's property) ought not to be subject to any legal sanction whatsoever.

My original response...

Matty Orchard's picture

My original response was whimsical at best, I went in circles for a minute there so I'll re clarify my position on animal cruelty/dog fighting

Personally: I find it creepy, wouldn't go to a dog fight.

Politically: Yes I am essentially advocating the freedom to organize dog fights. I think jail time is particularly harsh but quite frankly I think it may as well be legal. I don't think legalizing it would cause much problems, it would still be frowned upon by society and animal rights advocacy groups would hound (heh.) anyone who openly practiced it but as far as what you should have the freedom to do, yes dog fighting is fair game. I think the word torture is a tad too much as well. Dog fighting is essentially placing bets on nature, you put two pit bulls together and they're going to fight. I've seen pit bulls and trust me fighting is what they're made for.

If you want to frown upon it, OK. It is a creepy way to gamble I admit and I agree with you if you think it's classless. But I think the idea of the government punishing people for the way they treat animals is creepy too.

If you can put a hook through a fish's mouth and then ever so compassionately shove a spike through it's brain then you can organize a dog fight.

Matty - From what I have

reed's picture

Matty -
From what I have seen the US has harsher penalties than NZ for everything so the harshness doesn't surprise me.

Ok, you're not advocating animal torture but you think this penalty is too harsh... in your opinion what would be a suitable punishment?

BTW: Your fishing experience is different from mine - any time I've been fishing everyone has either knocked their fish on the head or put a spike into its brain straight after catching it.

Reed...

Matty Orchard's picture

Personally advocating it? No. I'm exaggerating to make a point. It shouldn't be punishable by jail time. No one has really stopped to remind themselves that these were just dogs. A 5 year maximum (or a one year minimum for that matter) seems mighty steep to me.

And I've seen a fish with a hook through its mouth writhing around on a boat deck before, I didn't catch the effort to minimize suffering.

Matt - When people are

reed's picture

Matt -
When people are fishing, hunting and farming they usually try to minimise the animals suffering.

With the dog fights they are intentionally causing the animals to suffer.

You are advocating the freedom to torture animals, is that what you really want?

Ha, ok understood.

Matty Orchard's picture

I'm personally not one to beat animals so I shouldn't be getting beaten by you any time soon Eye

Matty

Mark Hubbard's picture

Agree with you one hundred percent. There's not an argument I can raise against what you have said, and I know I'm all over the shop on this.

PS: But if I see you seriously mis-treating an animal, I'll thump you Smiling True.

Mark...

Matty Orchard's picture

All of what you said is fine but Vick could serve 5 years in prison and will probably get 1 year. All emotional responses aside is it really fitting to treat dog fighting as a capital offense while fishing, hunting and farming are all completely legal? I mean really, a year???

Shit. Okay then, in the

Mark Hubbard's picture

Shit. Okay then, in the interests of being 'true to oneself', I shall broadcast the glaring and blaring Libertarian inconsistency I seem to have, and have no desire to 'get over'.

/Libertarian inconsistency blind spot on ...

I love animals and will not abide cruelty to them. Whenever I see anyone being cruel to an animal, then they have six foot two and fifteen stone ten worth of human being to deal with, and bugger the non-initiation of force.

I won't stand for it. Vick's a creep, I hope he rots.

/Libertarian inconsistency blind spot off, back to basic premises, but no apologies.

 

Well written. How about the TAB

dinther's picture

I had to laugh when you mentioned the gambling effect. With the Rugby World cub on at the moment I can't help but wonder why it is OK to bet via the TAB on modern galiator All Blacks fighting it out in a stadium while it is not OK to bet on a few dogs fighting.

I find dog fighting disgusting but that is why I don't go to see it. 

Claudia

Matty Orchard's picture

I don't wanna sound gay or nothing but I must say I like your taste in men.

Haha Matty :-)

Olivia's picture

That Michael Vick sounds like my type of man!

For god's sake, Muslims stone people for disagreeing with them (and lesser crimes) - yet the West concentrates its focus on animal rights?? Despicable.

Cheers, Mitch!

Matty Orchard's picture

Glad you liked it!

Brilliant!

Mitch's picture

"It’s best they fight each other than roam the streets attacking citizens or worse yet be adopted by some compassionate family only to gouge the eyes out of an innocent toddler as soon as the parents leave the room for a minute to sip merlot and congratulate themselves on what animal loving do gooders they are."

Excellent!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.