11/21/24
August 13, 2009
Eagles Sign Michael Vick to Two-Year Deal: Quarterback Michael Vick has signed a two-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles. The former No. 1 draft pick, once the highest paid player in the NFL, can begin practicing with the team immediately and play its final two preseason games.
Yeah, I agree it's time to move on. That being said, he is definitely going to hear all kinds of crap everywhere he goes, and there will be pickets by animal rights groups, but the team got a talented player. Now when McNabb either comes up lame, or suffers his usual second-half swoon, the Eagles will have an interesting option to consider.
posted by dyams at 09:21 PM on August 13, 2009
Did anyone see this coming? My mind had not even explored the possibility that Vick would join my Eagles...
posted by cl at 09:26 PM on August 13, 2009
I wasn't thinking Eagles at all. Is the die hard Jaworski fan club gonna let him wear #7?
He should pick a different number anyway. Get off to a fresh start.
Good news for Vick - he won't have to go play in Philly as an opponent. The fans would be on him but good.
I can't see Vick playing under center as a lefty spelling McNabb or whatever. All the OL assignments would get bounced around, etc. Too much complication.
Maybe Reid envisions a highly versatile option offense with a nucleus of McNabb, Vick and Westbrook. McNabb was once pretty versatile and Westbrook may still be if they haven't overworked him the last couple of years.
That laminated play chart that Reid sometimes keeps tucked into his slender waist - that thing is going to have to go to a page 2 or beyond if they design a new package with Vick in the mix.
Maybe Vick is there mainly to get the attention and heat off of McNabb, so Donovan can just get down to business without a lot of distractions.
The main thing I keep wondering is: had anyone even worked Vick out? Does anyone even know what his skills are at this point?
I thought the Broncos should have signed him and maybe would have if Bowlen wasn't the owner. I can't picture Bowlen wanting Vick on the roster.
posted by beaverboard at 09:44 PM on August 13, 2009
cl, I have to agree, but the Eagles ... my beloved Eagles? Will I catch some serious flak at the office tomorrow!
posted by jjzucal at 11:10 PM on August 13, 2009
If Vick is smart (and by all available evidence he is not) he's spent the last two years doing sit-ups and push-ups. He'll need to work on his timing and speed, but I don't doubt he can come back and be effective. I'm glad to see him get a chance to play. I can't imagine the kind of pressure he must be under. If he can channel it into performance on the field, we'll be seeing some amazing stuff in the highlight reel.
Of course, as a Falcons fan, the emergence of Matty Ice and the steady hand Coach Smith has brought to the team make it a helluva lot easier to be forgiving of Vick in 2009 than I was in 2007.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:12 PM on August 13, 2009
The Eagles signed Terrell Owens, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise they'd take a chance on another high-talent, high-controversy player. I can see them using him like Cordell Stewart and sending him in as a wideout for some plays. Have they ever tried the wildcat?
posted by rcade at 08:34 AM on August 14, 2009
Yes, they ran some wildcat formations last year with DeSean Jackson at QB.
posted by 86 at 08:39 AM on August 14, 2009
This is a relatively cheap deal for a lot of potential talent. If nothing else is accomplished, it'll push McNabb to be on his game for 16 weeks.
posted by dfleming at 09:16 AM on August 14, 2009
Is the die hard Jaworski fan club gonna let him wear #7?
I think Jaworski was about to have a cow, on-air, when it was announced. Based on his reaction I would bet HE would picket to prevent him from using his number.
He'll need to work on his timing and speed
As Steve Young pointed out, Vick's passing was never much about timing and accuracy to begin with. So maybe he won't be too far away from getting back to where he was before.
This is a relatively cheap deal for a lot of potential talent.
potentially $10 mill over 2 years isn't exactly cheap. Especially for someone who hasn't played football in 2 years.
posted by bdaddy at 09:43 AM on August 14, 2009
potentially $10 mill over 2 years isn't exactly cheap. Especially for someone who hasn't played football in 2 years.
QBs like Jim Sorgi, Charlie Frye, Andrew Walter and Damon Huard make more than Vick is going to make this year. Vick never sees close to $10 million unless he shows he is worth it by playing well. Next year is not guaranteed money. So, if he plays super well, the Eagles get a bargain. If he doesn't play well, they didn't pay him much to find out.
posted by bperk at 09:58 AM on August 14, 2009
I'll admit it.... I love this. Unlike the T.O. deal, this one doesn't have much potential for failure. The Eagles already had one of the most creative teams in football. I'm excited to see how they'll use this undeniable playmaker.
posted by DudeDykstra at 10:14 AM on August 14, 2009
The Eagles signed Terrell Owens, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise they'd take a chance on another high-talent, high-controversy player.
I get what you're saying, but can we just lump together these two people?
A) loudmouth B) Convicted serial animal murderer who killed for his own enjoyment and profit
I'm no TO backer, but isn't it just a weensie bit unfair to Owens?
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:22 AM on August 14, 2009
The comparison is unfair to Owens. I was thinking more of how management approaches potential deals like this. Some teams are happy to bring on controversial players (like Dallas, sadly), and others are completely risk averse (like the Jags). Regardless of the controversy.
posted by rcade at 10:45 AM on August 14, 2009
I can't see the Iggles looking at Vick as anything more than a 3rd string QB behind McNabb and Kolb. His most useful option on this team or any other is as a running back or reciever. I know he wants to be a starting QG in the NFL but he just doesn't have what it takes to competently play that position. I doubt those skills improved during his incarceration unless we missed a really cool game of football between the convicts and the guards. Mean Machine!
posted by THX-1138 at 10:58 AM on August 14, 2009
His sentence was a joke. He hasn't "paid" for what he did and he should only be elgible for cage fighting where he can truly experience what he put those dogs through.
posted by sandskater at 10:59 AM on August 14, 2009
I can't see the Iggles looking at Vick as anything more than a 3rd string QB behind McNabb and Kolb.
For now maybe but isn't Kolb hurt? It might either be an ACL tear of a sprained MCL. If it's the latter, Kolb should be back playing in a week.
His sentence was a joke. He hasn't "paid" for what he did...
I'd like to see you go to a maximum security prison and have someone tell you that you haven't paid for your crime. Regardless what people may or may not think, Vick has served his time and paid his dues to society. That doesn't mean that he should been reinstated by the NFL but the man did go to jail and served the time that was handed to him by the court of law and so now, he should be able to continue with his career.
posted by BornIcon at 11:06 AM on August 14, 2009
potentially $10 mill over 2 years isn't exactly cheap. Especially for someone who hasn't played football in 2 years.
Well, if you factor in the fact that:
1) Year one has a base 1.6m, with performance incentives. If he performs, doesn't his value to the team rise too? Seems like a fair deal for a guy who's on a second chance. 2) Year two is not guaranteed. If he has spent the last two years watching his skills degrade, they can cut him and be done with it.
The only way they pay him $10m over the next two years is if he performs at a high level. I think everyone in Philadelphia would be happy to pay $10m to watch Vick play at a high level and wouldn't mind paying 1.6m if he turns out to be a bust.
posted by dfleming at 11:14 AM on August 14, 2009
I think the message this sends to McNabb can't be to comforting. No matter what this guy does, Philly is always looking to replace him in the guise of backing him up. I want to see Vick in the backfield with McNabb, what running and passing options that would open up.
posted by Atheist at 11:39 AM on August 14, 2009
...and so now, he should be able to continue with his career.
It's pretty rare for a convicted felon to have the opportunity to just continue his career where he left off.
posted by dusted at 11:57 AM on August 14, 2009
By McNabb's account, he's the one who lobbied for Vick to join the team. He's known Vick since he was a senior in high school and says he's been a mentor to him. Say what you will about how Eagles fans treat their perennial playoff quarterback, but I don't see any scenario where Vick threatens to start while McNabb is able to play. But don't let any of that get in the way of a good ol' media-generated controversy.
posted by cl at 11:57 AM on August 14, 2009
It's pretty rare for a convicted felon to have the opportunity to just continue his career where he left off.
It's rare that a felon has enough financial upside to be worth the risk to a company. I mean, there are plenty of white collar people who return from prison sentences for fraud who return to a life managing securities and index funds.
Vick doesn't compare the the average felon because his skills are way, way more valuable.
posted by dfleming at 12:07 PM on August 14, 2009
It's pretty rare for a convicted felon to have the opportunity to just continue his career where he left off.
sad, but true. mainly because self-righteous people never allow them the chance to forget they once made a mistake.
posted by irunfromclones at 01:24 PM on August 14, 2009
I know he wants to be a starting QG in the NFL but he just doesn't have what it takes to competently play that position.
There was never a year where Vick was one of the worst QBs in the league. Have you seen some of these starting QBs? He may not have lived up to his draft position, but he can play the position. I can't remember a year when I wouldn't have swapped the QB the Bucs had for him.
posted by bperk at 02:12 PM on August 14, 2009
Well lets see I can hire anybody and I am given the choice between a convicted criminal and a person who has never been convicted of a crime. mmmm not choosing the criminal makes me self righteous?
In the case of Vick he absoutely should have a chance to play. He served his time so why not. On the other hand teams also have the choice not to hire him based on his past. In the end I am glad Philly is giving him a chance. Not because I like him or think he is a good QB, but because it will add an interesting scenario for this season. Not to mention I hate Philly, so this just makes one more good reason to root for them to finish in last place in the division. They are a decent team (not a superbowl contender this year) but this is just another reason why they are what they are. They choose players for the top leadership position that are not known for making good decisions. Vick made bad decisions on the field and bad decisions in life. I doubt that part of his personality will change.
posted by Atheist at 02:14 PM on August 14, 2009
"but I don't see any scenario where Vick threatens to start while McNabb is able to play"
Here is the scenario, McNabb has a couple of crappy games, the fans start yelling for Vick.
Here is another, McNabb gets hurt AGAIN, out for one or two games and Vick comes in and looks good. BYE BYE McNabb
In either scenario I fail to see how this does not undermine McNabbs play, confidence or morale. Sure he says he supported the aquisition of Vick but frankly what else can he say. There is very long history of Philly not expressing full confidence in McNabb's security as the starter. He has been pulled before for very little. McNabb has had a lot of practice putting on a happy face while inside he must be really pissed and upset.
posted by Atheist at 02:23 PM on August 14, 2009
I can't remember a year when I wouldn't have swapped the QB the Bucs had for him.
I was curious about this, so I looked it up year by year. The only one that's close was in 2002, when Brad Johnson was 10-3-0 as Bucs starter with 3049 passing yards, 22 touchdowns and 6 interceptions and Vick was 8-6-1 with 2936 passing yards, 16 touchdowns, 8 interceptions, 777 rushing yards and 8 rushing touchdowns. Otherwise, Vick was better than Brian Griese, Chris Simms and Bruce Gradkowski in the same years.
posted by rcade at 02:27 PM on August 14, 2009
Isn't this an upgrade from McNabb?
posted by The_Special_Juan at 02:27 PM on August 14, 2009
In either scenario I fail to see how this does not undermine McNabbs play, confidence or morale.
It's not like McNabb has ever had the total confidence of Eagles fans or management. He's been playing with an anvil over his head almost his entire time in Philly. How is life with Vick any different?
posted by rcade at 02:28 PM on August 14, 2009
Vick's presence in the NFL is a stain on its integrity. As far as his prison sentence, courts often mete out sentences that are not represenative of the seriousness of the crime. Anyone who can form a mental image of Vick swinging a dog on chain over his head to slam it on cement and still cheer for his success on the football field takes the "winning is the only thing" attitude to a new level.
posted by sandskater at 03:40 PM on August 14, 2009
It's not like McNabb has ever had the total confidence of Eagles fans or management.
I will never be able to figure that out. What do they not like about the guy? When he retires and he they have to go through a large number of busts before they find another QB, maybe McNabb will get his due.
posted by bperk at 03:44 PM on August 14, 2009
Vick's presence in the NFL is a stain on its integrity.
Hee hee, someone used NFL and integrity in the same sentence.
posted by tommybiden at 04:31 PM on August 14, 2009
Here is the scenario, McNabb has a couple of crappy games, the fans start yelling for Vick. Here is another, McNabb gets hurt AGAIN, out for one or two games and Vick comes in and looks good. BYE BYE McNabb. In either scenario I fail to see how this does not undermine McNabbs play, confidence or morale.
But here's the thing: all of this has happened repeatedly in the recent past, but McNabb and the Eagles are still going strong. A certain idiotic and vocal subset of Eagle fans have been calling for McNabb's backup, whomever it is at the time, since the Super Bowl loss. When McNabb tore his ACL in 2006 and Garcia lit it up, plenty of fans wanted the team to resign him. Fortunately, the front office has pretty much ignored the fans' idiocy 100%.
Sure he says he supported the aquisition of Vick but frankly what else can he say.
He didn't only say he supported it, he said basically that he requested it. It was not a boilerplate "I'll support X if it's good for the team" kind of response.
There is very long history of Philly not expressing full confidence in McNabb's security as the starter.
Fans, yes. Team, no.
He has been pulled before for very little.
He was benched once, last year, after the horrible tie in Cincy and looking bad in the subsequent game in Baltimore. I mean c'mon, Reid has shown pretty conclusively that McNabb has nothing to worry about as long as he's able to play. Reid's ass has been on the fire as long as McNabb's, so it's not like he's sensitive to fan criticism either.
McNabb has had a lot of practice putting on a happy face while inside he must be really pissed and upset.
Psychoanalysis from afar.
posted by cl at 04:47 PM on August 14, 2009
CL - I agree with what you are saying and I am psychoanalyzing from afar.
"Reid has shown pretty conclusively that McNabb has nothing to worry about as long as he's able to play" but you should have added PLAY WELL.
As I said earlier and in another thread. I believe Vick should have the opportunity to play from a legal standpoint if a team wants him. Being the Eagle hating fan I am, if he has to go to a team, I am glad it is the Eagles. I do think this speaks volumes about the Eagle organization. Why on earth would you take Vick for the sake of a bargain. Must be desperation. I does not send a good message as to the integrity of your team or players.
Getting your kicks watching dogs tear each other apart, willingly electrocuting, smashing, murdering or torturing a living thing is more than a momentary lapse in judgement or mistake, it's incredibly insightful as to the character of the individual involved. This is someone I personally would not be interested in seeing have any success. I do not doubt that Mr. Vick is sincerely sorry he got caught, and I am sure he is sorry for what he has done as it relates to his career and family, and he has paid a resonable price for his actions, but his actions show a deeply rooted sadistic cruelty that is an obvious character flaw.
A team that hires Michael Vick is not giving a decent person a second chance they are giving a sadistic, cruel and immoral person an opportunity they do not deserve. A personality like this on your team is a cancer far worse than the pouty, egotistical, disruptive TO disease. TO may have been bad for Philly but they have not seen anything yet.
posted by Atheist at 05:09 PM on August 14, 2009
Not to defend Vick's brutality to dogs, but --
Unless you're a vegetarian, or better a vegan, then you really have no "moral" leg to stand on. What is done to cows and pigs, also mammals, is way beyond what Vick did to dogs. Indeed, people make fortunes from it. And most of you eat it. No jail time, no career-altering penalties.
Meat eaters and leather wearers are selective. We're hypocrites. At least Vick went to prison for his abuse. The rest of us only get slower and fatter.
posted by afl-aba at 08:08 PM on August 14, 2009
There's a huge difference between indirectly causing cruelty to animals by eating meat and directly causing cruelty to animals for sport. I'm not saying there's no moral component to the decision to eat meat, but they're different things. Consumers cause any number of harmful things to happen through our consumption practices. The evils of factory farming are just one of them.
posted by rcade at 08:13 PM on August 14, 2009
Does the animal know of this huge difference, or care?
posted by cl at 09:22 PM on August 14, 2009
It's pretty disingenuous to compare ignorance or indifference to the conditions of feed animals to wanton cruelty for sport. I, as a carnivore (incisors, eyes mounted at the front of my head) have a body designed for hunting and eating meat. The unfortunate conditions on many of this country's feed lots and slaughter houses do, indeed, cause the animals harm. I do not, however, relish or delight in that harm. Those animals feed people, and if you know a better, kinder way to keep 350 million Americans fed, by all means, pipe up with a suggestion. Other carnivorous animals kill, and their prey probably doesn't like it, but to call a mountain lion or eagle immoral is simply asinine.
Does the animal know of this huge difference, or care?
It's not about the animal knowing the difference. It's about the intentions of the person. Do you feel that feeding people somehow is the moral equivalent of torturing an animal for sport? If you can't see the difference, I think you've got some issues.
posted by tahoemoj at 09:50 PM on August 14, 2009
Does the animal know of this huge difference, or care?
No. And the cow doesn't know it has been made into a football either. Making cows into footballs is no better than Michael Vick starting a cow-fighting business and killing the cows that don't perform well in the cow-a-gon.
posted by rcade at 09:51 PM on August 14, 2009
Hey, over there! Sports!
Apologies for the provocative comment.
posted by cl at 10:21 PM on August 14, 2009
What about the poor vegetables !
How do we know they can't feel?
It could just be in a manner we don't understand.
Stop the senseless slaughter of plants !
posted by tommybiden at 10:21 PM on August 14, 2009
This guy should not be playing professional football... This guy should not be getting paid more than minimum wage... This guy should be working at Taco Bell...
Or...fair is fair. How about we electrocute, beat and/or drown him if he doesn't win the game?
posted by StarFucker at 03:36 AM on August 15, 2009
The human capacity for learning is pretty great, right up there with remorse; it may lag behind judgment, but that cuts both ways, and gets better with age or time served. I like to think people can learn from their errors, and I believe that regret and remorse are better teachers than the judgment of others. None of this is guaranteed -- it's entirely possible Vick doesn't feel a shred of remorse for what he did to those dogs, but knowing how much time and energy the NFL (and the USA as a whole) spends on its athletes he probably does -- I'd like to believe this is turnout day for him, though. I'll hold my cynicism until he does it again.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:40 AM on August 15, 2009
"The unfortunate conditions on many of this country's feed lots and slaughter houses do, indeed, cause the animals harm. I do not, however, relish or delight in that harm."
But you take advantage of those conditions, which are as bad if not worse than what Vick did to those dogs. At least Vick looked his victims in the eye. If you killed your own meat, then you might have a point.
"Those animals feed people, and if you know a better, kinder way to keep 350 million Americans fed, by all means, pipe up with a suggestion."
There are numerous alternatives to the present system, some of which are employed at local levels. The problem is, most Americans are lazy and conditioned to eat fast food and processed crap. If anything, they're overfed, as a walk through a suburban mall will quickly show.
"Other carnivorous animals kill, and their prey probably doesn't like it, but to call a mountain lion or eagle immoral is simply asinine."
I spoke only of humans, specifically Americans. You can mention every creature on earth, and it doesn't diminish the point that Americans support and enjoy mass cruelty to animals as a matter of practice. Bashing Vick is largely hypocrisy and selective outrage, features that Americans are quite comfortable with.
posted by afl-aba at 11:48 AM on August 15, 2009
Humans, not just Americans. Hypocrisy and selective outrage are parts of the human condition. Which includes all of us.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:09 PM on August 15, 2009
But you take advantage of those conditions, which are as bad if not worse than what Vick did to those dogs.
Not even close. You seem to equate a resignation toward some of life's necessary evils to a sadistic joy in the pain and suffering of creatures for sport. If you can't see the problem with that argument, I'm not prone to humoring your perspective. I can only assume that your smug attitude comes from a position of relative moral superiority. You don't eat meat, you don't wear leather, you don't watch football or baseball (involving leather-wrapped balls), you don't do anything that in any way subjects animals to less than ideal (i.e. natural) conditions.
I'm not saying I'm proud of the way feed animals are treated, but to say that one who eats meat or wears leather "has no moral leg to stand on" when condemning a man who tortured dogs for sport is nothing short of ridiculous.
p.s. Do you keep pets?
posted by tahoemoj at 12:38 PM on August 15, 2009
You seem to equate a resignation toward some of life's necessary evils to a sadistic joy in the pain and suffering of creatures for sport. If you can't see the problem with that argument, I'm not prone to humoring your perspective.
I think that those who tolerate slaughterhouse conditions for intelligent mammals before eating or wearing them are actually worse. They're indifferent to or comfortable with mass suffering. Vick was sadistic and cruel, but at least he looked his victims in the eyes.
I can only assume that your smug attitude comes from a position of relative moral superiority. You don't eat meat, you don't wear leather, you don't watch football or baseball (involving leather-wrapped balls), you don't do anything that in any way subjects animals to less than ideal (i.e. natural) conditions.
Oh please. As I said in my first post: "Meat eaters and leather wearers are selective. We're hypocrites. At least Vick went to prison for his abuse. The rest of us only get slower and fatter."
I watch most sports. I eat meat. I wear leather. I'm part of the hypocrisy. It's you who sounds smug and morally superior.
I'm not saying I'm proud of the way feed animals are treated, but to say that one who eats meat or wears leather "has no moral leg to stand on" when condemning a man who tortured dogs for sport is nothing short of ridiculous.
It's selective outrage. A lot of people have a hard time reconciling that, so they create safe categories where their behavior isn't so bad. And yes, this includes me.
p.s. Do you keep pets?
A dog and a cat.
posted by afl-aba at 01:10 PM on August 15, 2009
I guess that my issue then is the hyperbolic moral black-and-white of your argument. When boiled down to its essence, it seems to me that basically, you're saying that ignorance or indifference to suffering is equal to or worse than deliberate cruelty and sadism for sport. I just don't see how that can be reconciled at all. It's selective outrage only because I choose to "select" the sadistic perpetrator to condemn rather than the vast majority of Americans who eat steak.
I may very much agree with you that certain conditions should be addressed, but the way you made your point just didn't equate. Yes, I recognize that conditions on feed lots are pretty bad, and that Americans should be made aware of those conditions. But to tell people that eating meat is "as bad if not worse" than running a dog fighting ring for sport, systematically torturing animals for fun, is an argument that will normally get you pushed to the fringe.
Buying clothing without looking into the conditions under which it was made, in my opinion, is not as morally reprehensible as running a sweatshop full of malnourished children. Your argument, however, would put someone who bought clothing from Cathy Lee in a moral position inferior to that of the sweatshop owner, simply because the third world prick "looked those children in the eye" as he beat them. Inverting the moral blameworthiness in a situation might be a great device for shock value, but it doesn't hold water in a rational discussion.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:37 PM on August 15, 2009
Vick also signed an exclusive deal to star with Donovan McNabb's mother in commercials for Chunky Soup's new Alpo line.
posted by texpat at 02:02 PM on August 15, 2009
In other news,Philadelphia Eagles announce they have signed Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme as public relations director.
posted by texpat at 02:13 PM on August 15, 2009
I guess that my issue then is the hyperbolic moral black-and-white of your argument
But my argument isn't "moral" or at all black and white. I acknowledge the complications and contradictions of what I'm stressing. I simply rebel against the notion that somehow Michael Vick is the worst person ever for his cruelty and crimes -- which he paid for.
I was raised with dogs. The idea of torturing them makes me sick. But I also try to acknowledge that torture takes many forms, some of which please me (when I'm eating filet mignon), and some of which I don't consider at all.
And the sweatshop angle is a good one. Here again people make choices. We live in a brutal world. If trying to expand one's thoughts about it makes me "fringe," so be it. The American mainstream ain't looking too healthy these days, anyway.
posted by afl-aba at 02:15 PM on August 15, 2009
I simply rebel against the notion that somehow Michael Vick is the worst person ever for his cruelty and crimes -- which he paid for.
What you said originally was that we're worse than Vick: "What is done to cows and pigs, also mammals, is way beyond what Vick did to dogs." By your standard, any form of animal cruelty can be rationalized because people eat meat from factory farms. Vick probably used the same kind of excuse when he was torturing and killing dogs for his own amusement.
If you are so sensitized to this issue that you wallow in guilt over what you eat, why do you then defend cruelty to animals for sport? It doesn't make sense. If you really care about animals, you should be deeply offended by what he did.
posted by rcade at 02:31 PM on August 15, 2009
If you are so sensitized to this issue that you wallow in guilt over what you eat, why do you then defend cruelty to animals for sport? It doesn't make sense. If you really care about animals, you should be deeply offended by what he did.
I've made that very clear. Follow my thread.
I was raised with dogs. The idea of torturing them makes me sick.
Did you miss this sentiment by me?
posted by afl-aba at 02:51 PM on August 15, 2009
I read what you wrote. I just think it's self-contradictory. You hate meat-eaters but eat meat. You defend Michael Vick but torturing dogs makes you sick.
posted by rcade at 05:45 PM on August 15, 2009
I don't want to just jump in and speak for anyone else, but I think part of afl-aba's point is that his position is indeed self-contradictory, and that anyone else's position, under honest examination, is self-contradictory, too.
I understand being offended at charges of hypocrisy (somehow that part of the human condition is a grave insult, I guess everyone aspires to self-righteousness), but willfully misreading afl-aba's comments will never change the fact that he actually never professed hatred for meat-eaters, and that his "defense" of Michael Vick actually condemned Vick's actions as cruel. It may be convenient to your sense of right and wrong to argue with words you put in someone else's mouth, but it's really fool's handball against a wall of your own invention; that's a lonely, and phony, game.
posted by Hugh Janus at 07:55 PM on August 15, 2009
If you think his position was meant to be self-contradictory, and I think his position is self-contradictory, I don't see how I could be accused of willfully misreading him.
The fact that he's a meat eater doesn't mean he can't hate them (and himself) for doing it.
posted by rcade at 10:15 PM on August 15, 2009
I made it clear that I think you're willfully misreading afl-aba's stance on meat-eaters as hate, creating a false dichotomy, and arguing against a figment of your own creation. Now it appears you're cherry-picking through my comment and eluding my point. I have to wonder what's next.
I think one can disagree without discrediting someone. Then again I probably just need to relax, have another beer, come back, take my own advice, and not hit post.
posted by Hugh Janus at 03:16 AM on August 16, 2009
Wait, wait... If i understand Alfalfa's posts, he is saying that i'm a coward because i ate a burger without looking in the cow's eyes, but Vick is stand up guy for killing dogs for fun because he "looked at his victim in the eye"...did i get that right?
posted by StarFucker at 05:13 AM on August 16, 2009
If i understand Alfalfa's posts, he is saying that i'm a coward because i ate a burger without looking in the cow's eyes, but Vick is stand up guy for killing dogs for fun because he "looked at his victim in the eye"...did i get that right?
Umm . . . no.
posted by afl-aba at 08:34 AM on August 16, 2009
I understand your point, Hugh. I understand his point, too. I am not an imbecile. I just see the comments "at least Vick went to prison for his abuse" and "Vick was sadistic and cruel, but at least he looked his victims in the eyes" as self-loathing hate, while you choose to put a different word on it. There aren't many meat-eaters, I'd imagine, who would view their actions as making themselves comparable to Vick. Nor would they say he's less cruel, somehow, because he looked the animals he was torturing and killing in the eyes.
Afl-Aba just wants to feel bad about eating meat and turn that into collective guilt for the rest of us. That's fine, but I still don't see how that makes Vick's actions any less bad than they were otherwise.
posted by rcade at 10:15 AM on August 16, 2009
Afl-Aba just wants to feel bad about eating meat and turn that into collective guilt for the rest of us.
Not true. I enjoy eating meat, even though I know where it comes from. And I'm not in the collective guilt business, either. I merely made my points, and you and others responded. That's all.
posted by afl-aba at 11:55 AM on August 16, 2009
I guess the word "hate" means different things to different people. "Hate" (along with "imbecile") is not a word I put lightly into others' mouths. That's pretty much all I'm saying. Thanks for your clarification.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:13 PM on August 16, 2009
I was raised with dogs. Since everyone seems to be taking everyone else's comments slightly out of context, I took that to be mean you were raised WITH the dogs, as opposed to raised with pets as part of your childhood experience. Maybe that explains your feelings, maybe not.
As to the farming system (worldwide, not just in the US) there are good farms, and poor ones. Some treat the animals better than others. We all make choices on much of it we'll tolerate. I don't eat veal because I know what that entails, however, I love a good steak. My daughter is a vegetarian, but opted for leather seats on her new car. Hypocritical to be sure. Gotta go get the brat's on the grill.
posted by dviking at 01:57 PM on August 16, 2009
I was raised by dogs, and we all hate Michael Vick.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:42 PM on August 16, 2009
I was raised by dogs, and we all hate Michael Vick.
Even the (B)eagles ?
posted by tommybiden at 06:21 PM on August 16, 2009
Where did this thread go? To shit I assume.
posted by BornIcon at 09:19 AM on August 17, 2009
After watching Vick on 60 minutes last night, I was not convinced he is a changed individual. He said everything the "VICK TEAM" of lawyers and PR people told him to say. Sure he realizes he blew it, he blew a lot of money, his reputation, discraced his family and proved exactly that he was a punk and did not deserve the faith Arthur Blank placed in him. He says he is sorry, he is now working with the Humane Society to stop dog fighting, but somehow I just don't buy it.
It is easy to be desensitized to the cruelty of dog fighting by your upbringing. It may also be possible to justify euthinizing dogs who cannot be cared for or as breeders say "cull" dogs that should not perpetuate the breed. Vick willingly participated in the torture murder of dogs for fun. A dog that doesn't fight may need to have it's life ended in the eyes of the dimented dog fighter, but when you take pleasure in creating a horrific death for that animal it goes way beyond dog fighting. This is a tell tale sign of sociopathic behavior. Jeffery Dahmer and many other murderers begin with the killing of animals for fun. When a person has the capacity for that kind of hands on cruelty, you can't just say "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, or I regret my actions" and expect it to be OK. This dude is a major ass, and frankly he should have his balls wired to an electric shock machine and everytime he throws an incomplete pass or losses a game the Eagles owner should press a button and shock the crap out of him.
posted by Atheist at 12:56 PM on August 17, 2009
Now it appears that the Eagles are thinking as I suggested. In an article out today McNabb states we should not be surprised to see them both on the field together. Like I said earlier in this post. Putting Vick in the backfield behind McNabb at QB could rally create some interesting offensive possibilities. He even implies that he could act as another tight end etc.
As a backfield runner/passer Vick's talents could really open up a whole new offensive dimension.
Of course that is until both of them get hurt.
How will the league deal with the fact that a team might essentially have two QBs? Will the rules in place to protect the QBs from injury have to be applied to both or eliminated altogether since both guys will be a potential passer, runner, blocker or receiver?
posted by Atheist at 01:11 PM on August 17, 2009
Sure he realizes he blew it, he blew a lot of money, his reputation, discraced his family and proved exactly that he was a punk and did not deserve the faith Arthur Blank placed in him. He says he is sorry, he is now working with the Humane Society to stop dog fighting, but somehow I just don't buy it.
We can all sit back and make assumptions about Mike Vick and his progress to become a better human being but all that aside, we should allow this young man to piece his life & career back together and hope that this can be a learning experiance for him. During his press conference when he was introduced as a Philadelphia Eagle, he said all of the right things, making no excuse for his actions and behaviour. What made me think that he realizes now what he did was truly wrong was when he said that people can try to excuse what he did because of where he came from and because of the environment he grew up in but that he won't be using that as an excuse and will accept full responsibility for his behaviour.
Not saying that I either believe him or not but it's not up to me or any of us to judge. Vick is the one that has to live with this for the rest of his life like a scarlet letter.
Vick willingly participated in the torture murder of dogs for fun
I've heard this quote from people about Vick killing dogs for "fun" before and although he admitted to the killing of dogs, I wouldn't necessarily say that he had "fun" doing so but I really don't know one way or another. Where exactly did he ever say that he had "fun" killing these dogs or is that meerly speculation because of the crime?
posted by BornIcon at 02:14 PM on August 17, 2009
He says he is sorry, he is now working with the Humane Society to stop dog fighting, but somehow I just don't buy it.
I don't think you are his target audience, Atheist. Based on your comments in this thread, I doubt Vick could have said anything you would believe. You think he is sadistic, cruel and immoral. I think he is hoping to reach people who believe it is possible that he can be rehabilitated and learn his lesson. I thought he was sincere. He didn't make any excuses for himself. He took full responsibility and admitted that he could have stopped it at anytime.
This weekend I saw this guy's house who had at least 50 animals on display. He was wealthy and liked to travel the world on hunting excursions. He had a monkey, a lioness, a grizzly bear, lots of birds, lots of deer and elk among other things. It made me think of Vick because this was clearly just killing for sport or fun. I found it pretty disturbing, but it was perfectly legal. Go figure.
posted by bperk at 03:35 PM on August 17, 2009
Where exactly did he ever say that he had "fun" killing these dogs or is that meerly speculation because of the crime?
Working on a necessity defense?
posted by tahoemoj at 03:45 PM on August 17, 2009
Working on a necessity defense?
No, looking for an answer to my question which no one has provided an answer to. I've heard people make the comment about how Vick had "fun" killing these dogs and I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Here's the link to where he said that it was fun to kill these dogs" because I just haven't seen or heard that but it doesn't mean that it's not true, it could be.
The Vick situation is pretty much done and over with IMO, since now it's more about football than anything. Vick and the Eagles organization will deal with the protesters and the anti-Vick sentiments around the country as they come. Although I'm a Cowboys fan, I do still hope that Vick can resurrect his career...hopefully it won't be in a Eagles uniform after this season.
posted by BornIcon at 09:19 AM on August 18, 2009
I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Here's the link to where he said that it was fun to kill these dogs" because I just haven't seen or heard that but it doesn't mean that it's not true, it could be.
There is no other explanation for killing the dogs in the gruesome ways they chose to do so. If killing dogs is a necessary part of a dogfighting operation, drowning, hanging, slamming them to the ground are certainly not.
posted by bperk at 09:46 AM on August 18, 2009
And all of those things I'm in agreement with. The killing of dogs is a horrible crime, I'm assuming that we can all agree on that(?), but the question I brought up was the fact that people keep saying that when these dogs were killed, Mike Vick was having "fun" doing so and I don't buy that. I just want someone to show me where exactly was it proved that Vick was having "fun" killing these dogs because if it's not true, why is it being said as if it's actual facts?
posted by BornIcon at 11:34 AM on August 18, 2009
Actually in the 60 minutes interview when asked why he did it, his answer was basically that is was fun and exciting and he thought it was no big deal. He even recounted a story about how the cops sort of turned the other cheek to it when he was a kid. Considering the fact that his advisors have coached him on what not to say, I think it is very safe to say he enjoyed it..
Frankly, he is blessed with athletic talent most will never know, but in the 60 minutes interview he comes across as a not too bright individual, who is reciting a script devised by a team of professionals to resurect his job and public image. He reminds me of every convict during a parole hearing that says exactly what they have been told the decision makers want to hear. He is pretending to be something he is not. What he is, is a moronic street punk that had too much money, and not enough good sense to make the most of the opportunities he was given. He even admitted to being lazy and not putting much effort into being a better football player. Geez if this guy had any work ethic he could have been a lot better. That is scary although very insightful.
posted by Atheist at 11:45 AM on August 18, 2009
Actually in the 60 minutes interview when asked why he did it, his answer was basically that is was fun and exciting and he thought it was no big deal
I saw that interview and when he said that, he wasn't talking about the killing of the dogs, he was talking about dogfighting in general. When the killings of these animals were brought up, he said that he was "hurt" by what he did and that he cried when he was in jail.
He is pretending to be something he is not
Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe he is remorseful for his actions, maybe he has learned from his decisions (because to say what he did was a mistake is ridiculous since I don't know of any mistake that lasts for 6 years). I can only speak for myself but I generally give people enough rope to hang themselves with and I tend to forgive, I just won't forget.
posted by BornIcon at 11:53 AM on August 18, 2009
You're splitting hairs. If he was fighting dogs for sport (i.e. he didn't need the money), he was doing it for amusement. So if he was killing dogs in pursuit of that avocation, as many dog fighters do, it's fair to say he did it for fun. Whether or not he ever said that word.
posted by rcade at 12:21 PM on August 18, 2009
It's still a valid question. I've heard Vick say that he enjoyed the competition that came along with dogfighting but when the killing of dogs was brought up by James Brown in the 60 minutes interview, he mentioned as to how he's "hurt" by his actions and that it's fair to say that he had "no morals" when it came to killing these animals.
posted by BornIcon at 01:19 PM on August 18, 2009
No, it's a way to change the discussion from the question you don't want to debate to one you do.
posted by yerfatma at 02:08 PM on August 18, 2009
IMO, it's a valid question which is why I bothered asking it. I do have to ask: Why did you decide to enter in this discussion now when you added nothing to it since it began?
posted by BornIcon at 03:35 PM on August 18, 2009
Maybe he was out walking his dog ?
posted by tommybiden at 06:29 PM on August 18, 2009
It's more of an amble in this heat. She lays down a lot. But who wants to pick nits by debating between walk, amble, constitutional, et cetera?
posted by yerfatma at 09:40 PM on August 18, 2009
Sashay ?
posted by tommybiden at 10:23 PM on August 18, 2009
I've always liked to gallivant. It's how I roll.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:10 AM on August 19, 2009
I've always been partial to sauntering.
posted by BornIcon at 10:40 AM on August 19, 2009
Well, I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog - and still think fans across the nation should greet him with choruses of 'Who Let The Dogs Out' for the rest of his career - but I'm glad that he'll be playing. What he did was awful, but he's served his sentence and should be able to move on.