ESPN runs controversial picture of a white Michael Vick

ESPN is under fire Thursday for creating and publishing the Photoshopped image above of Michael Vick(notes) with a white face to accompany a column in ESPN The Magazine entitled "What if Michael Vick were white?"

After immediate backlash to the image, which was also posted on ESPN's website, editors replaced the online picture with a regular photograph of Vick. The website then reversed course and, as of 2:30 p.m. ET on Thursday, had restored the original, controversial image to the top of the online story.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/ESPN-runs-controversial-picture-of-a-white-Micha?urn=nfl-wp5866
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this story needs a facepalm

I'm so sick and freaking tired of the race card. Quit fucking blaming other people for your poor decisions and take responsibility for your lives.

Michael Vick makes an ugly white guy

JonM229 wrote:

Michael Vick makes an ugly white guy

Fixed!



Fuck Michael Vick. I will always hate him for what he did to those poor dogs. Shit like that is borderline serial killer in nature. Something mentally wrong and disturbed with that douche.

I'm sick of hearing how he's such a great comeback story and has overcome all of this adversity. The guy should have been shunned from the NFL for life for what he did. I posed the question somewhere else before. If Vick had returned to the NFL after prison and laid a giant egg as a QB, would everyone have been so forgiving and supportive of him then?

Just because he can throw a football (surprisingly better than he did before prison) doesn't make him a saint-worthy hero after doing something like what Vick did. He's still a monster in my eyes. No amount of TD passes, rushing yards, or trophies will ever change my opinion of him or what he did.

Buddha Bus wrote:

JonM229 wrote:

Michael Vick makes an ugly white guy

Fixed!



Fuck Michael Vick. I will always hate him for what he did to those poor dogs. Shit like that is borderline serial killer in nature. Something mentally wrong and disturbed with that douche.

I'm sick of hearing how he's such a great comeback story and has overcome all of this adversity. The guy should have been shunned from the NFL for life for what he did. I posed the question somewhere else before. If Vick had returned to the NFL after prison and laid a giant egg as a QB, would everyone have been so forgiving and supportive of him then?

Just because he can throw a football (surprisingly better than he did before prison) doesn't make him a saint-worthy hero after doing something like what Vick did. He's still a monster in my eyes. No amount of TD passes, rushing yards, or trophies will ever change my opinion of him or what he did.

Buddha Bus wrote:

JonM229 wrote:

Michael Vick makes an ugly white guy

Fixed!



Fuck Michael Vick. I will always hate him for what he did to those poor dogs. Shit like that is borderline serial killer in nature. Something mentally wrong and disturbed with that douche.

I'm sick of hearing how he's such a great comeback story and has overcome all of this adversity. The guy should have been shunned from the NFL for life for what he did. I posed the question somewhere else before. If Vick had returned to the NFL after prison and laid a giant egg as a QB, would everyone have been so forgiving and supportive of him then?

Just because he can throw a football (surprisingly better than he did before prison) doesn't make him a saint-worthy hero after doing something like what Vick did. He's still a monster in my eyes. No amount of TD passes, rushing yards, or trophies will ever change my opinion of him or what he did.

Just to play devil's advocate, there are a lot of people who think the same way about Ben and his run-ins. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I do believe that people deserve a second chance.

stlrtruck wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

JonM229 wrote:

Michael Vick makes an ugly white guy

Fixed!



Fuck Michael Vick. I will always hate him for what he did to those poor dogs. Shit like that is borderline serial killer in nature. Something mentally wrong and disturbed with that douche.

I'm sick of hearing how he's such a great comeback story and has overcome all of this adversity. The guy should have been shunned from the NFL for life for what he did. I posed the question somewhere else before. If Vick had returned to the NFL after prison and laid a giant egg as a QB, would everyone have been so forgiving and supportive of him then?

Just because he can throw a football (surprisingly better than he did before prison) doesn't make him a saint-worthy hero after doing something like what Vick did. He's still a monster in my eyes. No amount of TD passes, rushing yards, or trophies will ever change my opinion of him or what he did.

Just to play devil's advocate, there are a lot of people who think the same way about Ben and his run-ins. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I do believe that people deserve a second chance.

Vick= convicted

Ben= not convicted (or even charged for that matter)

What Vick did was just horrible and heinous in my eyes... second chance be damned. Someone who tortures and kills a living being, much less SEVERAL living beings, has no business being in civilized society.

I believe in second chances too, but to an extent. He went to prison for this terrible crime (a few crimes, in fact) and shouldn't be guaranteed a second shot at playing professional football for millions of dollars. He can go flip burgers at Wendy's for his "second chance" or go work at a homeless shelter helping people. We wouldn't be given our old jobs back if it were us that had committed those crimes. Why should Vick be given his back?

I also would feel the same way about Ben if he had been convicted of rape. A crime of that nature should be punished accordingly and that includes losing your previous livelihood. He should face the same consequences as everyone else for that type of thing... even if he IS white .

I'm sick of watching rich and famous people be given special treatment that we as normal citizens would NEVER receive. They should be held to at least the same standard as everyone else regardless of race, wealth, fame, or how many championships they can bring to a city.

damn buddha 2 rep points in the same thread

Maybe if Ben had been charged, convicted, and later embraced after returning to the NFL, then ESPN would run an article asking "What if Ben were black?"

JonM229 wrote:

Maybe if Ben had been charged, convicted, and later embraced after returning to the NFL, then ESPN would run an article asking "What if Ben were black?"

Rep points are flowing aplenty!

What a stupid decision on they're part.

I've tried to stay away from this thread, but I failed.

I certainly understand everyone's hatred for Vick ... but seriously, come on. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't molest any children. He most definitely deserves a second chance.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument ... he was involved in the the abuse and killing of dogs. So let's put him right up there with Hitler.

I find what he did despicable, and I love dogs just as much as the next person. But to me, it's a cultural thing. We criticize cultures that kill and eat dogs, yet we see nothing wrong with killing and eating animals like deer and rabbits. Are dogs more cute and worthy of compassion than deer and rabbits? And as far as the abuse argument, all of you who hate Vick ... do you eat hamburgers? Are you aware of what goes on in slaughter houses? And what about people who engage in cock fighting? They don't seem to generate the same kind of hatred as people who engage in dog fighting. I guess chickens just aren't as cute and lovable as dogs.

There seems to be a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.

I think what Vick did was wrong, but let's keep it in perspective. He served his time and deserves a second chance.

As far as the white/black thing, I hate when people try to bring race into everything. I'm not even going to comment on it ... it's not worthy of a comment.

Wallace108 wrote:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument ... he was involved in the the abuse and killing of dogs. So let's put him right up there with Hitler.

I'm pretty sure Hitler was a fan of dogs, which means Vick is worse than Hitler.

Wallace108 wrote:

I've tried to stay away from this thread, but I failed.

I certainly understand everyone's hatred for Vick ... but seriously, come on. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't molest any children. He most definitely deserves a second chance.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument ... he was involved in the the abuse and killing of dogs. So let's put him right up there with Hitler.

I find what he did despicable, and I love dogs just as much as the next person. But to me, it's a cultural thing. We criticize cultures that kill and eat dogs, yet we see nothing wrong with killing and eating animals like deer and rabbits. Are dogs more cute and worthy of compassion than deer and rabbits? And as far as the abuse argument, all of you who hate Vick ... do you eat hamburgers? Are you aware of what goes on in slaughter houses? And what about people who engage in cock fighting? They don't seem to generate the same kind of hatred as people who engage in dog fighting. I guess chickens just aren't as cute and lovable as dogs.

There seems to be a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.

I think what Vick did was wrong, but let's keep it in perspective. He served his time and deserves a second chance.

As far as the white/black thing, I hate when people try to bring race into everything. I'm not even going to comment on it ... it's not worthy of a comment.

Last I checked we don't torture, electrocute, strangle and beat our cows to death. I would be equally against that type of behavior in the harvesting of our livestock. It should be done humanely as possible.

It's not just the killing (which is bad enough in and of itself), but the WAY these animals were treated and killed. There is something wrong with the mind of a person who is capable of doing such things. I don't buy the whole culture argument either. I think cockfighting is just as barbaric and unacceptable and I challenge you to find one person on here who would find that acceptable or entertaining. I also despise bullfighting and any other "sport" that abuses animals, even including horse racing.

What Vick did was terrible in many different ways. He amassed these poor animals and mistreated them into becoming killing machines, forced them to inhumanely fight for their lives, starved, beat, tortured and killed them when he was finished with them. The cultural thing is bullshit because he went to great lengths to try to hide his activities proving he knew it was wrong/illegal. I may be able to buy that argument (minimally) to some extent if he were some backwoods hillbilly that lived his whole life in an area that condoned and participated in this kind of heinous activity and didn't get to experience other walks of life, but Vick was/is a world traveled man and NFL superstar who has been able to see a much broader range of societal acceptance of such activities. you can't convince me in any way, shape or form that he didn't know that it was viewed as not only illegal, but morally, socially and humanely unacceptable by the vast majority of society.

There is a large difference, IMHO, between killing animals as humanely as possible for food or sustenance and what Michael Vick was engaging in purely for "sport". And before you even mention it, I also don't agree with sport hunting for trophies. It just isn't something I find to be indicative or becoming of a civilized society in general.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

I've tried to stay away from this thread, but I failed.

I certainly understand everyone's hatred for Vick ... but seriously, come on. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't molest any children. He most definitely deserves a second chance.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument ... he was involved in the the abuse and killing of dogs. So let's put him right up there with Hitler.

I find what he did despicable, and I love dogs just as much as the next person. But to me, it's a cultural thing. We criticize cultures that kill and eat dogs, yet we see nothing wrong with killing and eating animals like deer and rabbits. Are dogs more cute and worthy of compassion than deer and rabbits? And as far as the abuse argument, all of you who hate Vick ... do you eat hamburgers? Are you aware of what goes on in slaughter houses? And what about people who engage in cock fighting? They don't seem to generate the same kind of hatred as people who engage in dog fighting. I guess chickens just aren't as cute and lovable as dogs.

There seems to be a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.

I think what Vick did was wrong, but let's keep it in perspective. He served his time and deserves a second chance.

As far as the white/black thing, I hate when people try to bring race into everything. I'm not even going to comment on it ... it's not worthy of a comment.

Last I checked we don't torture, electrocute, strangle and beat our cows to death. I would be equally against that type of behavior in the harvesting of our livestock. It should be done humanely as possible.

It's not just the killing (which is bad enough in and of itself), but the WAY these animals were treated and killed. There is something wrong with the mind of a person who is capable of doing such things. I don't buy the whole culture argument either. I think cockfighting is just as barbaric and unacceptable and I challenge you to find one person on here who would find that acceptable or entertaining. I also despise bullfighting and any other "sport" that abuses animals, even including horse racing.

What Vick did was terrible in many different ways. He amassed these poor animals and mistreated them into becoming killing machines, forced them to inhumanely fight for their lives, starved, beat, tortured and killed them when he was finished with them. The cultural thing is bullshit because he went to great lengths to try to hide his activities proving he knew it was wrong/illegal. I may be able to buy that argument (minimally) to some extent if he were some backwoods hillbilly that lived his whole life in an area that condoned and participated in this kind of heinous activity and didn't get to experience other walks of life, but Vick was/is a world traveled man and NFL superstar who has been able to see a much broader range of societal acceptance of such activities. you can't convince me in any way, shape or form that he didn't know that it was viewed as not only illegal, but morally, socially and humanely unacceptable by the vast majority of society.

There is a large difference, IMHO, between killing animals as humanely as possible for food or sustenance and what Michael Vick was engaging in purely for "sport". And before you even mention it, I also don't agree with sport hunting for trophies. It just isn't something I find to be indicative or becoming of a civilized society in general.

Well, you're certainly consistent in your beliefs, and I respect that. So I feel your hatred for Vick is justified. But you know as well as I do that a lot of people who hate Vick also engage in some of those other activities.

I disagree though on the cultural argument. You're right that he knew what he was doing was wrong. It's unacceptable in our culture because of the status given to dogs. But other cultures don't give the same status to dogs, and our culture doesn't give the same status to other animals. And even within our own culture, there's a difference. In some segments of the African-American community, dog fighting is acceptable. They don't view it the same way most of us do.

[quote="Wallace108"]

Buddha Bus wrote:

Well, you're certainly consistent in your beliefs, and I respect that. So I feel your hatred for Vick is justified. But you know as well as I do that a lot of people who hate Vick also engage in some of those other activities.

I disagree though on the cultural argument. You're right that he knew what he was doing was wrong. It's unacceptable in our culture because of the status given to dogs. But other cultures don't give the same status to dogs, and our culture doesn't give the same status to other animals. And even within our own culture, there's a difference. In some segments of the African-American community, dog fighting is acceptable. They don't view it the same way most of us do.

So if I grew up in a subcultural that was illegal in our country and committed this crime and was caught red-handed doing it, I should just be slapped on the wrist, told not to do it again, and absolved of the ramifications, even though I knew it wasn't socially acceptable or legal, because it was just a part of my "culture"? Seems like people just trying to pick and choose what they want to follow to me.

[quote="Buddha Bus"]

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Well, you're certainly consistent in your beliefs, and I respect that. So I feel your hatred for Vick is justified. But you know as well as I do that a lot of people who hate Vick also engage in some of those other activities.

I disagree though on the cultural argument. You're right that he knew what he was doing was wrong. It's unacceptable in our culture because of the status given to dogs. But other cultures don't give the same status to dogs, and our culture doesn't give the same status to other animals. And even within our own culture, there's a difference. In some segments of the African-American community, dog fighting is acceptable. They don't view it the same way most of us do.

So if I grew up in a subcultural that was illegal in our country and committed this crime and was caught red-handed doing it, I should just be slapped on the wrist, told not to do it again, and absolved of the ramifications, even though I knew it wasn't socially acceptable or legal, because it was just a part of my "culture"? Seems like people just trying to pick and choose what they want to follow to me.

So I trust that you're opposed to marijuana and would never think of doing it since it's illegal.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I don't believe this argument, but I understand how some people could believe it and find dog fighting acceptable.

Humans fight naturally. We see it all the time. We've always had boxing, and now we have MMA. In MMA, fighters train and then are put in a cage where they fight. Sure, they don't fight to the death, but people have been killed, even in boxing.

Likewise, dogs fight naturally. So if you train them to fight, how is that any more barbaric than MMA?

A lot of people find MMA totally barbaric and oppose it. But I know you and many others find it perfectly acceptable.

[quote="Wallace108"]

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Buddha Bus wrote:

Well, you're certainly consistent in your beliefs, and I respect that. So I feel your hatred for Vick is justified. But you know as well as I do that a lot of people who hate Vick also engage in some of those other activities.

I disagree though on the cultural argument. You're right that he knew what he was doing was wrong. It's unacceptable in our culture because of the status given to dogs. But other cultures don't give the same status to dogs, and our culture doesn't give the same status to other animals. And even within our own culture, there's a difference. In some segments of the African-American community, dog fighting is acceptable. They don't view it the same way most of us do.

So if I grew up in a subcultural that was illegal in our country and committed this crime and was caught red-handed doing it, I should just be slapped on the wrist, told not to do it again, and absolved of the ramifications, even though I knew it wasn't socially acceptable or legal, because it was just a part of my "culture"? Seems like people just trying to pick and choose what they want to follow to me.

So I trust that you're opposed to marijuana and would never think of doing it since it's illegal.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I don't believe this argument, but I understand how some people could believe it and find dog fighting acceptable.

Humans fight naturally. We see it all the time. We've always had boxing, and now we have MMA. In MMA, fighters train and then are put in a cage where they fight. Sure, they don't fight to the death, but people have been killed, even in boxing.

Likewise, dogs fight naturally. So if you train them to fight, how is that any more barbaric than MMA?

A lot of people find MMA totally barbaric and oppose it. But I know you and many others find it perfectly acceptable.

The difference between MMA/boxing and dog fighting is that the MMA/boxers are willing competitors of there own freewill, dogs are forced into it. They have no choice. MMA/boxing is also not to the death as you stated as well. There is a world of difference to me. If you willfully choose to do it, and it's not illegal, why not? The consequences lie primarily with the willful participant.

As far as the marijuana argument, no one is directly harmed by this activity other than (possibly) the smoker. It isn't really the same argument. It still goes back to my 2 basic fundamental rules of what should be allowed/legal: 1) adult consent and 2) not harming other people or their rights.

Like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree there are obvious differences between MMA and dog fighting. But I still think how they're viewed is based on our perceptions rather than a universal rightness or wrongness.

You said you're OK with the killing of animals as long as it's done humanely or for food. But our culture has put such a great value on dogs, more so than any other animal, and you can't kill dogs for food. That's the point I'm trying to make ... it's acceptable to kill deer for food, but not dogs.

I mentioned slaughterhouses. Is this considered humane?

Quote :

MAMMALS
Animals in slaughterhouses can smell, hear, and often see the slaughter of those before them.

As the animals struggle, they’re often abused by frustrated workers, who are under constant pressure to keep the lines moving at rapid speeds.

Federal law requires mammals (other than rabbits) be stunned prior to slaughter (exempting ritual slaughter). Typically, electric current is used to induce a heart attack and/or seizure; or a captive bolt gun is used to deliver a blow to the skull or shoot a rod into the animal’s brain.

It’s not uncommon for an animal to suffer one or two failed stuns. In the case of a failed electrical stun, an animal may be paralyzed without losing sensibility. Unconscious animals whose necks are not cut soon enough may regain their senses after being hung on the bleed rail.

BIRDS
Over 95 percent of U.S. land animals killed for food are birds, yet there is no federal law requiring they be handled humanely. To facilitate automated slaughter, birds are usually immobilized via electrical stunning. Hanging in shackles, the birds’ heads are passed through an electrified water bath.

It is not known whether this renders them unconscious, and the potential for birds suffering severely painful pre-stun shocks is difficult to eliminate. Each year, several hundred thousand chickens and turkeys reach the scalding tanks alive.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/slaughterhouses.html

Those of us who eat hamburgers or who enjoy our Thanksgiving day turkey are supporting the cruelty that is inflicted on these animals. In some people's eyes, we're no better than Michael Vick.

Wallace108 wrote:

Like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree there are obvious differences between MMA and dog fighting. But I still think how they're viewed is based on our perceptions rather than a universal rightness or wrongness.

You said you're OK with the killing of animals as long as it's done humanely or for food. But our culture has put such a great value on dogs, more so than any other animal, and you can't kill dogs for food. That's the point I'm trying to make ... it's acceptable to kill deer for food, but not dogs.

I mentioned slaughterhouses. Is this considered humane?

Quote :

MAMMALS
Animals in slaughterhouses can smell, hear, and often see the slaughter of those before them.

As the animals struggle, they’re often abused by frustrated workers, who are under constant pressure to keep the lines moving at rapid speeds.

Federal law requires mammals (other than rabbits) be stunned prior to slaughter (exempting ritual slaughter). Typically, electric current is used to induce a heart attack and/or seizure; or a captive bolt gun is used to deliver a blow to the skull or shoot a rod into the animal’s brain.

It’s not uncommon for an animal to suffer one or two failed stuns. In the case of a failed electrical stun, an animal may be paralyzed without losing sensibility. Unconscious animals whose necks are not cut soon enough may regain their senses after being hung on the bleed rail.

BIRDS
Over 95 percent of U.S. land animals killed for food are birds, yet there is no federal law requiring they be handled humanely. To facilitate automated slaughter, birds are usually immobilized via electrical stunning. Hanging in shackles, the birds’ heads are passed through an electrified water bath.

It is not known whether this renders them unconscious, and the potential for birds suffering severely painful pre-stun shocks is difficult to eliminate. Each year, several hundred thousand chickens and turkeys reach the scalding tanks alive.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/slaughterhouses.html

Those of us who eat hamburgers or who enjoy our Thanksgiving day turkey are supporting the cruelty that is inflicted on these animals. In some people's eyes, we're no better than Michael Vick.

You or I don't personally inflict any harm on these animals. That's the difference. I would also say that the consensus majority of our country's society would not agree with the statement that we are no better than Vick. I would also say that if the roles were reversed in that scenario, that the majority would definitely say that Vick's actual crime is much worse than us consuming animals for sustenance.

I don't advocate the mistreatment of any animal regardless if it's a human, dog, monkey, dolphin or piece of livestock. It's just not civilized to feel it's OK to intentionally torture and brutally kill other living things in inhumane ways. The instances you sight are generally not intentional, but unintended occurrences. You can find anomalies in almost any industrialized process. It doesn't mean it was intentional or the norm. Vick meant to do what he did for his own personal amusement... nothing else. That's sick.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree there are obvious differences between MMA and dog fighting. But I still think how they're viewed is based on our perceptions rather than a universal rightness or wrongness.

You said you're OK with the killing of animals as long as it's done humanely or for food. But our culture has put such a great value on dogs, more so than any other animal, and you can't kill dogs for food. That's the point I'm trying to make ... it's acceptable to kill deer for food, but not dogs.

I mentioned slaughterhouses. Is this considered humane?

Quote :

MAMMALS
Animals in slaughterhouses can smell, hear, and often see the slaughter of those before them.

As the animals struggle, they’re often abused by frustrated workers, who are under constant pressure to keep the lines moving at rapid speeds.

Federal law requires mammals (other than rabbits) be stunned prior to slaughter (exempting ritual slaughter). Typically, electric current is used to induce a heart attack and/or seizure; or a captive bolt gun is used to deliver a blow to the skull or shoot a rod into the animal’s brain.

It’s not uncommon for an animal to suffer one or two failed stuns. In the case of a failed electrical stun, an animal may be paralyzed without losing sensibility. Unconscious animals whose necks are not cut soon enough may regain their senses after being hung on the bleed rail.

BIRDS
Over 95 percent of U.S. land animals killed for food are birds, yet there is no federal law requiring they be handled humanely. To facilitate automated slaughter, birds are usually immobilized via electrical stunning. Hanging in shackles, the birds’ heads are passed through an electrified water bath.

It is not known whether this renders them unconscious, and the potential for birds suffering severely painful pre-stun shocks is difficult to eliminate. Each year, several hundred thousand chickens and turkeys reach the scalding tanks alive.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/slaughterhouses.html

Those of us who eat hamburgers or who enjoy our Thanksgiving day turkey are supporting the cruelty that is inflicted on these animals. In some people's eyes, we're no better than Michael Vick.

You or I don't personally inflict any harm on these animals. That's the difference. I would also say that the consensus majority of our country's society would not agree with the statement that we are no better than Vick. I would also say that if the roles were reversed in that scenario, that the majority would definitely say that Vick's actual crime is much worse than us consuming animals for sustenance.

I don't advocate the mistreatment of any animal regardless if it's a human, dog, monkey, dolphin or piece of livestock. It's just not civilized to feel it's OK to intentionally torture and brutally kill other living things in inhumane ways. The instances you sight are generally not intentional, but unintended occurrences. You can find anomalies in almost any industrialized process. It doesn't mean it was intentional or the norm. Vick meant to do what he did for his own personal amusement... nothing else. That's sick.

"The instances you sight are generally not intentional, but unintended occurrences."

I'm not jumping into the argument here, but that is not true. Many of these mega farms and such absolutely do not care about the treatment of their animals. It's all about profit profit profit. Birds seem to be the worst. Even if they are killed in a humane way, which is rare, they live all their lives in a cramped little shack with hundreds of other birds living in their own feces. People get paid to walk through those shacks looking for dead birds because so many of them die before they can even be killed for food.

It's pathetic.

Buddha Bus wrote:

You or I don't personally inflict any harm on these animals. That's the difference.

True. But we're accomplices because we consume them. If we didn't, there wouldn't be a market for it, and slaughterhouses would go out of business.

Buddha Bus wrote:

I would also say that the consensus majority of our country's society would not agree with the statement that we are no better than Vick.

Correct. And there was also a time when the majority of our society felt that blacks weren't equal to whites. Just because the majority felt that way, did that make it right?

Buddha Bus wrote:

I don't advocate the mistreatment of any animal regardless if it's a human, dog, monkey, dolphin or piece of livestock. It's just not civilized to feel it's OK to intentionally torture and brutally kill other living things in inhumane ways. The instances you sight are generally not intentional, but unintended occurrences. You can find anomalies in almost any industrialized process. It doesn't mean it was intentional or the norm.

But what happens in slaughterhouses IS inhumane. And you do advocate it by continuing to consume their products.

Buddha Bus wrote:

Vick meant to do what he did for his own personal amusement... nothing else. That's sick.

I don't disagree. But that's our view. And other people have other views.

mcg24 wrote:

I'm not jumping into the argument here, but that is not true. Many of these mega farms and such absolutely do not care about the treatment of their animals. It's all about profit profit profit. Birds seem to be the worst. Even if they are killed in a humane way, which is rare, they live all their lives in a cramped little shack with hundreds of other birds living in their own feces. People get paid to walk through those shacks looking for dead birds because so many of them die before they can even be killed for food.

It's pathetic.

Exactly. It's easy to criticize people like Vick and think that they're monsters. But we have to take a good look at what's going on in slaughterhouses. Could the animals be killed in a more humane way? Yeah, but it wouldn't be as cost effective. So as long as we continue to consume animals processed in slaughterhouses, we're creating a market that makes sure that that activity continues. So although we're not directly involved in what happens to those animals, our consumption makes sure that it happens. We're kind of like a mobster who orders a hit. Although we didn't pull the trigger ... we're still responsible for the killing.