• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Michael Vick: The problem of forgiveness and intrinsic value [W:251]

During the summer, my two cats are content to sleep on the deck chairs, and watch the raccoons steal their dry food left on the deck from their evening feeding. Come 3 or 4 in the morning, it's time to exercise and run laps around the deck on the outside of the house, commonly referred to as 'a herd of elephants.' At that point I rise, go downstairs, and they allow me to pet and feed them.

Winter time, they are firmly ensconced close to the wood burner in the basement, with lofty perches on top of the washer, dryer or upright freezer. I provide old bed pillows for their comfort. Other than the occasional venture upstairs, they are pleased to dine in the basement.
 
Hypersonic said:
Given dominion? By whom? God? Aliens? I would say humans assert dominance through agriculture and an ability to monopolize land and creatures. As for the latter portion of your sentence it seems illogical. You say animals have a right to relatively live natural lives, then in my response to my statement that dolphins have rights, you switch back and say we extend rights because we have dominion. Then you say the person doesn't have the right to torture.

If a person does not have the right to torture a dog that means that rights for a dog to NOT be tortured were extended to them. See how that works?
Click to expand...
Well, not the aliens.
 
There is to much to read this entire thread, though I did read most of it. I apologize if I'm rehashing statements already made....

The difference between intentionality fighting animals and testing on them is is that one is sheerly entertainment, the other is done to, in the aggregate, reduce suffering. No life was ever saved watching animals kill each other. While testing medicine and medical procedures can. One can be seen as senseless death while the other can be viewed as a sacrifice for a greater good.

A laboratory tester on the other hand can justify his/ her actions by engaging in a little pragmatic calculus. The suffering endured by animals that are used for testing will be more than offset by the suffering prevented by potentially millions of people over time.

We can take these arguments to the extreme....Is it ok to kill bugs? What about rats, mice, moles ect?

The answer is that generally speaking people value creatures based on how we perceive they experience the world. Plants are alive, but no one gives a second thought about mowing the lawn, but what if tomorrow we learned that grass felt pain? Would that change things?

Our perception of animals and their experience is, imo, tied to the traits that we see in animals that we can relate to. Dogs and the way they **** their heads to one side looking curiously, or cats and their love of laying on a blanket in the sun. These are concepts we can relate to and we project our own thoughts feelings and emotions onto these creatures. Pigs do not, generally speaking, endear themselves to us, where dogs do.

What MV did was wrong, but what really bothers me is that, for whatever reason, he lacked the necessary empathy to comprehend the suffering that he was causing and worse still that that lack of empathy was replaced with enjoyment. This is to say nothing about the incredible stupidity that he showed thinking that he wouldn't get caught and that much of the public would hate him for what he did.
 
Last edited:
As an addendum to the post above....

Here is a question for those that think that there is no justification for harming an animal.

If you found yourself in a situation where had to choose between your 10 year old from losing his leg, or your dog from loosing it's life, what would you choose?

If you choose the dog, please tell me how you'd explain that to your child....
 
csbrown28 said:
As an addendum to the post above....

Here is a question for those that think that there is no justification for harming an animal.

If you found yourself in a situation where had to choose between your 10 year old from losing his leg, or your dog from loosing it's life, what would you choose?

If you choose the dog, please tell me how you'd explain that to your child....
Click to expand...

You can't get a prosthetic dog?
 
Ah, complicated. I am against scientific testing on animals, wearing leather (although I do still wear leather shoes, not having found a good alternative for these old feet, and there being a dearth of business-appropriate non-leather shoes I can afford), the running of the bulls, and the other animal cruelty activities you mentioned.

I don't think that Vick is not forgiven by society. It's that his actions are not washed away by the payment of his debt to society. We may forgive someone who harms us, but we may not forget, and will certainly never regard that person in the same way again. Nor should we. When a person does something cruel to man's best friend, or any animal, over a long period of time, giving it thought and making money on it...that sets him apart from others forever. He has set himself apart. Society has not done that TO him.

It would be foolish to forget that someone has done something so cruel. The cruel activities speak volumes of the character of the person. Doesn't mean he can't be forgiven.

But if some people are inconsistent in their views on animal cruelty, and other things....I look at it this way: At least they are trying. It is always a good thing to care about other living things. I am a semi-vegetarian. People have pointed out to me how inconsistent it is for me not to eat most meats, but still eat poultry. I know this. It is true...news flash: I am not perfect, but at least I'm trying. It's like trying to live a healthy lifestyle. A lot of people try but fall short. But at least they try.

(BTW, I think plenty have forgiven him totally, and maybe didn't see the big deal, to begin with. He's famous. He's rich. He's invited to parties, I'm sure. I'm also sure he's still popular, because he's rich adn famous.)
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack said:
Ah, complicated. I am against scientific testing on animals, wearing leather (although I do still wear leather shoes, not having found a good alternative for these old feet, and there being a dearth of business-appropriate non-leather shoes I can afford), the running of the bulls, and the other animal cruelty activities you mentioned.

I don't think that Vick is not forgiven by society. It's that his actions are not washed away by the payment of his debt to society. We may forgive someone who harms us, but we may not forget, and will certainly never regard that person in the same way again. Nor should we. When a person does something cruel to man's best friend, or any animal, over a long period of time, giving it thought and making money on it...that sets him apart from others forever. He has set himself apart. Society has not done that TO him.

It would be foolish to forget that someone has done something so cruel. The cruel activities speak volumes of the character of the person. Doesn't mean he can't be forgiven.

But if some people are inconsistent in their views on animal cruelty, and other things....I look at it this way: At least they are trying. It is always a good thing to care about other living things. I am a semi-vegetarian. People have pointed out to me how inconsistent it is for me not to eat most meats, but still eat poultry. I know this. It is true...news flash: I am not perfect, but at least I'm trying. It's like trying to live a healthy lifestyle. A lot of people try but fall short. But at least they try.

(BTW, I think plenty have forgiven him totally, and maybe didn't see the big deal, to begin with. He's famous. He's rich. He's invited to parties, I'm sure. I'm also sure he's still popular, because he's rich adn famous.)
Click to expand...

Before I say what I'm about to say, understand that I'm not defending what Vick did, I'm just curious. Would it matter if he had come to realize that what he did was wrong? Do you think it matters if he was truly remorseful for what he had done. I guess what I'm asking is, is there any way you could forgive a person for committing acts like vick did?
 
csbrown28 said:
Before I say what I'm about to say, understand that I'm not defending what Vick did, I'm just curious. Would it matter if he had come to realize that what he did was wrong? Do you think it matters if he was truly remorseful for what he had done. I guess what I'm asking is, is there any way you could forgive a person for committing acts like vick did?
Click to expand...

Would you trust a child abuser if they said, "I'm sorry." and let them adopt a child?
 
csbrown28 said:
Why answer the question with a question?
Click to expand...

Indeed. :lol:


I guess it was too subtle for you. People who exhibit antisocial and depraved behavior can't be fixed. I don't care how many times they say they are sorry, they have something missing upstairs and they don't deserve to be in charge of living things.
 
Thorgasm said:
Indeed. :lol:


I guess it was too subtle for you. People who exhibit antisocial and depraved behavior can't be fixed. I don't care how many times they say they are sorry, they have something missing upstairs and they don't deserve to be in charge of living things.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree, however having said that, there is a big difference in believing someone can be rehabilitated, and offering them privileges reserved for the most responsible among the population. So the answer to your followup question is no. If he were to ask me why, I would remind him that, even though he appeared to be remorseful for what he had done, that he cannot undo what he did and that refusing to allow him (Vick) to adopt was an everlasting consequence of his actions.
 
csbrown28 said:
Before I say what I'm about to say, understand that I'm not defending what Vick did, I'm just curious. Would it matter if he had come to realize that what he did was wrong? Do you think it matters if he was truly remorseful for what he had done. I guess what I'm asking is, is there any way you could forgive a person for committing acts like vick did?
Click to expand...

Remorse matters, to me. But it's always hard to know if remorse is real or not. Many criminals cry in court after being found guilty, speaking of how sorry they are. It is noteworthy that they were not crying and speaking of sorrow BEFORE they were judged by society and put away.

It also matters that what Vick did was not a one-time passion violent act. What Vick did was something he thought about and did for years, for money. He did it in secret, knowing it was criminal He witnessed the cruelty on many occasions and was fully aware of the suffering of the dogs. Yet..he continued for years. That is very different from losing your temper and kicking a dog once. The long term cruelty shows a person's inner character, what they are made of at their core. Not many people have the heartlessness to do what he did. He set himself apart from normal people. That lasts forever. Remorse, forgiveness....all this matters. But all that does not remove what he did. It does not remove the suffering of the dogs, the fact that some died, and that some will never be normal or happy. It's a miracle that many have been rehabilitated, though, thanks to some caring organizations and people.

Let's put it this way. If someone had abused YOU for years, and esp if they made money on it, seeing you suffering, bitten and bleeding, raped and chained, starved, abused...then after the person was arrested, convicted, and served a bit of time....THEN said he was sorry...would that put you at square one with that person? Would you be with that person as if those actions had never taken place? Of course not. That is impossible. What happened, happened, and like a rock thrown into a pool....the ripples from those actions were created. The rock cannot be un-thrown. Forgive, if you want. But you cannot forget. That is impossible.

It is said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If Vick really had caring and concern for animals in his heart, he never would have done what he did. I think what happened after his conviction is that he was treated like scum temporarily by those he cares about, and that shocked him into wanting to act like a normal person and be considered normal, again. It is not caring for animals that is at the heart of his behavior.
 
JumpinJack said:
Remorse matters, to me. But it's always hard to know if remorse is real or not. Many criminals cry in court after being found guilty, speaking of how sorry they are. It is noteworthy that they were not crying and speaking of sorrow BEFORE they were judged by society and put away.

It also matters that what Vick did was not a one-time passion violent act. What Vick did was something he thought about and did for years, for money. He did it in secret, knowing it was criminal He witnessed the cruelty on many occasions and was fully aware of the suffering of the dogs. Yet..he continued for years. That is very different from losing your temper and kicking a dog once. The long term cruelty shows a person's inner character, what they are made of at their core. Not many people have the heartlessness to do what he did. He set himself apart from normal people. That lasts forever. Remorse, forgiveness....all this matters. But all that does not remove what he did. It does not remove the suffering of the dogs, the fact that some died, and that some will never be normal or happy. It's a miracle that many have been rehabilitated, though, thanks to some caring organizations and people.

Let's put it this way. If someone had abused YOU for years, and esp if they made money on it, seeing you suffering, bitten and bleeding, raped and chained, starved, abused...then after the person was arrested, convicted, and served a bit of time....THEN said he was sorry...would that put you at square one with that person? Would you be with that person as if those actions had never taken place? Of course not. That is impossible. What happened, happened, and like a rock thrown into a pool....the ripples from those actions were created. The rock cannot be un-thrown. Forgive, if you want. But you cannot forget. That is impossible.

It is said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If Vick really had caring and concern for animals in his heart, he never would have done what he did. I think what happened after his conviction is that he was treated like scum temporarily by those he cares about, and that shocked him into wanting to act like a normal person and be considered normal, again. It is not caring for animals that is at the heart of his behavior.
Click to expand...

Certainly actions speak louder than words. I haven't really followed what Vick has done since his release, but my guess is he's not made any epic attempts to atone for his sins. For the record I agree with most all of what you said. I just think it's possible for a person to objectify other sentient creatures, be it people or animals and commit cruel acts, not because they enjoy harming other living things, but because they don't see the objects of their harm as creatures that experience pain and have feelings. Perhaps they were taught this behavior.....

Children that grow up on farms and witness the beheading of animals learn to accept what's being done and deal with it much differently then those that don't grow up in these environments (this I know from experience having witnessed and been an active part of, beheading a turkey for Thanksgiving having grown up on the streets of Boston). I never, ever saw anything like that. I was shocked at the event, but even more shocked at the lack of shock from the other children and adults in attendance. Now I don't mean to compare killing of animals for food and the fighting of dogs as entertainment as equal, but just trying to point out that objectification is a natural defense mechanism that can be utilized in ways that society deems unacceptable, and rightly so!

Now having said that, anyone that lacks empathy to the point that they can objectify another living creature the way Vick did, is a potential threat to civil society. I guess my question is, can a person be shown the harm they've done and suddenly come to an honest realization of what they have done?

I think it's possible, it was just a question meant to provoke a thoughtful response. For me, as I said, I think it's possible, but the follow up, and the more complicated part as you alluded to is, how do you tell the genuine people from those that change behavior simply to save their own arses.....If you figure that out, let me know :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom