Oh, Mike Vick, you ol' dog

[Milo Meningocele]

I'm sorry...were you arguing for or against my point? I think you just inadvertently did a fantastic job of backing me up. Never having personally seen a dogfight, I still know that it is wrong on every level. But Portis has actually been around them and doesn't see a problem...how is he not an ignorant asshat?

You may take it for granted that cruelty to animals is wrong. But let's look further at the comments of Senor Asshat. Because, as every good fan of Shakespeare knows, truth comes from the mouths of fools.

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not," Portis said. "But it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Portis said dog fighting is a "prevalent" part of life.

Portis, a native of Laurel, Mississippi, added: "I know a lot of back roads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it. But they're not bothering those people because those people are not big names. I'm sure there's some police got some dogs that are fighting them, some judges got dogs and everything else."

The sad truth is, as despicable as dog fighting may be, it isn't a rare occurrence, especially in poorer areas. So instead of naively saying "how could anyone do this?" I personally think a better question is "How can this viewed as acceptable behavior by so many people?" Portis and Vick both seem to have the view that these animals as property, not pets. Our dominant culture has a very benevolent view of animals, but this isn't universally true. EatSleepJeep gave another good example of animal cruelty being acceptable by society in bullfighting. I'm really surprised that the media has been so focused on Vick and hasn't done much to address the larger issue of dog fighting in general.

Wow, you really seem to like the word "naive". And I never said, "how could anyone do this?". But I do think that anyone who engages in such activity is either not so bright or incredibly cruel. Your statement, "You may take it for granted that cruelty to animals is wrong" speaks for itself, and your other points are kind of all over the map, so I don't really see the benefit in keeping up this conversation with you in particular.

[Jamikel]

Wow, you really seem to like the word "naive". And I never said, "how could anyone do this?". But I do think that anyone who engages in such activity is either not so bright or incredibly cruel. Your statement, "You may take it for granted that cruelty to animals is wrong" speaks for itself, and your other points are kind of all over the map, so I don't really see the benefit in keeping up this conversation with you in particular.

1. Sorry to put words in your mouth.

2. I agree that it's very cruel and despicable. But people can do some pretty stupid and cruel things if they're conditioned to think that it's acceptable. Which is why I think that the deeper issue is not just that one person is being cruel but that it can actually be seen as acceptable in certain communities.

3. I really need to work on phrasing myself better.

[Hauglid13]

Okay so I have a lot of thought going on about this, I'm sure most of you will agree but hey that's why it's freedom of speech right? Anyways though, Mike Vick needs to be treated like any other U.S. civilan for this, and this could certainly mean prison, and the dogs being given over to the animal care or whatnot. I read that Vick didn't know what was going on, or how he would find out from his family. Well truth be told, HE is renting out the house to his family. So by all means he has the right to know what is going on in there, and it's no excuse that he didn't know. He should have known if his family was involved in that stuff not to rent out the house with that size.

Like said on ESPN, there was a guy with an unknown face or whatnot that helps catch the dog fighters that has seen Mike at plenty of dog fights, so it's irrelevant to say he isn't involved. Why would someone claim to have seen him so many times, and then putting up a wager of $5,000 a fight sounds like Mike. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, if I was the president of the NFL I would have banned Mike Vick for allowing such a thing to go on in his house. It's pathetic for a man to allow something like this go on!

[Gothamite]

Like said on ESPN, there was a guy with an unknown face or whatnot that helps catch the dog fighters that has seen Mike at plenty of dog fights, so it's irrelevant to say he isn't involved. Why would someone claim to have seen him so many times, and then putting up a wager of $5,000 a fight sounds like Mike. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, if I was the president of the NFL I would have banned Mike Vick for allowing such a thing to go on in his house. It's pathetic for a man to allow something like this go on!

I don't think you mean "irrelevant." Of course it's relevant, whether he knew or not that it was going on.

Personally, I wouldn't hold the man responsible for what happens at a house he owns when he isn't there any more than I would hold a landlord responsible for the illegal acts of tenants about which he was not aware.

This, though... if this source is correct, and Vick not only knew about the dogfighting but was an active participant, then you're right. Goddell needs to ban him outright.

I don't think I could support a lifetime ban on principle. Those should be reserved for crooks like Pete Rose, who damage the sport itself and not just the reputation of those who play it. I would support a five-year or ten-year ban, which would essentially be the same thing.