I don't care if he plays for the Eagles, if the Packers had signed him I would miss football while he was playing. I'm glad my team doesn't usually take chances with scumbags just because they have talent.
The Packers have had some losers, all teams have. Usually when they find out then that player is kicked to the curb.
I just can't believe the Eagles were the team that chose dollars over character.
What really bothers me is all the great talented guys out there that won't even get a first chance, even though they deserve it and haven't ever done anything wrong.
If we disallowed all athletes who committed criminal acts to re-enter the league, we'd have a 5-team league.
As for the NFL aiding and abetting Vick, that is just moronic. I could hold you equally responsible for paying money to watch an NFL game, since your $ ultimately goes to the players, aiding them in their illegal pursuits.
<< <i>No. He brutally tortured dozens of dogs to death. He didn't just gamble on dog fighting. He participated in horrific an absolutely inhumane acts. I hope the Eagles go 0-16. This is just my opinion. It is a free market....for now. >>
You're right, what he did was a dispicable, abhorible, and just plain sick. All that being said, no human lost his/her life. Dwayne Goodrich, Dante Stallworth, Leonard Little all ended a human being's life. One is currently playing and one will probably play next year. Joseph "Joby" Wood, Demont Matthews, Susan Gutweiler, and Mario Reyes's families will never, ever see them again and their lives were all cut short because of the irresponibility of some big time athlete who had too much to drink. While you can make the arguement that Vick knew what he was doing while the crime was going on, drunk driving has horrible consequences that everyone knows about before you get behind that wheel.
As a dog owner myself, Michael Vick could have personally exterminated every dog in the world and it wouldn't be is half as bad as what those three ex-Vols did when they took 4 human lifes between them, IMHO. Leonard Little also doesn't seem to get the message either since he has been pulled over after his DUI Manslaughter and got another DUI.....
We all deserve 2nd chances, but if you kill another human, not only am I done with you, I think the NFL should be done with you, and I you should be done with the world....obviously those last 2 don't happen.
All that being said I don't want Vick in the NFL and I'm glad he didn't go to the Cowboys. That's one circus we don't need.
Personally I don't think anyone is owed anything. Its the things you do and how you live that earn you opportunities. Vick did something that I consider unforgivable- I'm not God and I don't have to forgive anything- I don't believe he paid his debt to society by sitting in prison. To be honest with you I think his punishment should have been to be tied down in a dog fighting pit and let a few trained dogs loose on him.
Of course I'm also the type of person that believes a good way to lower crime rates is to match the punishment with the crime- you kill someone we throw a rope over a tree... you rape someone its castration time with no sedatives and a dull blade.
PS I don't think that those mentioned earlier in the thread that have the DUI manslaugher charges etc should play either but because a mistake was made and those players are let in to play shouldn't mean that its just an automatic that Vick should play. Thats me and my thoughts don't matter too much because I neither own a team nor am in a leadership role in the league.
I love the smell of commerce in the morning! - Jason Lee, "Mallrats"
While A&A poorly states the semi-novel legal theory, as I noted yesterday, ANY prospective misconduct by the new employee that damages a third-party will almost DEFINITELY bring litigation to his new employer.
That does NOT mean such action will be successful, ONLY that it will be brought.
There are LOTS of negligent hiring and vicarious liability claims contemplated each day, in the USA.
There are sundry subsequent expansions of
(1991 the Supreme Court of Virginia decided a case, Sayles v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,242 Va. 328, 410 S.E.2d 632).
An employer is liable for harm done by the employee within the scope of employment, whether the act was accidental or reckless. The employer is even responsible for intentional wrongs if they are committed, at least in part, on the employer's behalf.
Based on the NFL's "Personal Conduct Policy," - and presumably that of the Eagles - employees are essentially "working" 24/7. Their role as ambassadors of the organizations is not severable when the game ends and they head off to do "personal appearances."
The Vick-haters can be expected to be particularly "militant" and taunting. The first time Vick takes a swing at one of the "protesters," in ANY venue, the NFL and the Eagles will have an opportunity to further test the limits of the laws' view of vicarious liability and negligent hiring.
The success/failure of such claims is not really the issue. That such claims will be made against a sport that is seen by many as nothing but a gang of criminal-thug RollerBallers, is a PR nightmare/disaster that did NOT have to happen.
The recent hiring by the Eagles could even lead to actions being brought by other TEAMS against that employer. It can be argued that the Eagles actions have served to defame the entire league. (Keep in mind that SOME of the teams were "not interested" in hiring the guy BECAUSE they knew he was likely to damage the ENTIRE NFL-biznez.)
The sponsors will have the "final word," and if it goes down like I suspect it might, the new-hire is not likely to see much playing time.
There is a limit to the harm that sponsors are willing to endure. Each day, more and more activists will make a run at their targets.
It will be interesting to learn whether the Eagles solicit state/federal tax credits for hiring their "disadvanatged" QB.
While the potential credits are relatively small - under $20K in the aggregate - it might be an "unpopular" concept that PUBLIC MONEY is available to hire this bird.
Qualify for state and federal tax credits:
You may be able to save money on your income taxes by hiring someone from one of the following groups who has traditionally faced significant barriers to employment.
What everybody seems to be missing is that from here on out, the animal rights groups are going to be using Vick to spread their word. Jeffrey Lurie (Eagles owner) is a HUGE animal rights guy (as is Andy Reid) and they even cut a 6th round draft choice who was charged with animal cruelty. It's clear that they are not only going to use Vick as a weapon on the field, but also as a PR tool for animal rights. Whether Vick is sorry, paid his debt, etc..., is irrelevant. If something big can come from this, I could personally care less if the guy "doesn't get what he deserves". His case alone has done wonders for bringing to light the dog fighting issues in this country, and countless abused pit bulls have been adopted because it's become the en vogue thing to do.
Animal rights issues aside, Vick makes this offense very dangerous. The could run some type of modified wild cat- with Vick, McNabb, Westbrook and Desean Jackson (and Maclin if he's any good), who exactly are you going to double team? Every play is a homerun threat, and they have 3 or 4 players that can outrun everybody on most defenses.
Since my moral compass is busy with my own REAL life, I really have no dog in this fight. It is academically interesting to me, though.
...............
Re: Stallworth
It is probably good not to make the terrible an ally of the evil.
I view Stallworth as another rich punk who bought some justice and will soon be telling folks he "paid his dues."
The constant cite of comparative scum to mitigate the bad acts of other bad guys is VERY close to an offer of "justification." The tactic is one of the few that Vick can rely upon to work for him with MANY fans, though.
BUT, the FACTS of the two cases are totally different.
Stallworth behaved as a drunken-dirtbag and killed somebody. While he may have been a serial drunk-driver, we don't have lots of proof on that issue.
We DO KNOW that Vick "serially" sponsored/financed/participated in the torture of animals. It is not unreasonable to suspect that if he had not been "accidentally" discovered to be a lawbreaker, he would STILL be engaging in the "conspiracy" that sent him to prison.
IF Stallworth were to do ANYTHING like he was "punished" for again, he would need sunshine piped into his cell forever. So far, we only KNOW he made "one mistake."
Vick, OTOH, made hundreds of "mistakes," tried for months to lie his way out of the mess, and then spent his fortune to buy some "justice" and the arguably-bogus right to say he "paid his dues."
There are no doubt doable PR spins/fixes that Vick's gang can use to rehab him. The fact that the "NFL is populated by other criminals," is prolly not the best defense of his - or anyone's - reformed character.
........................
It is also important to note that, in the Stallworth case, the family of the dead man "supported" the punishment."
Prosecutors OFTEN go with the wishes/interests of a victim's family.
In this case, the victim's family was paid MILLIONS in damages, which they would have had to fight over for years - and may have lost - if an omnibus settlement had not been reached.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
"...but also as a PR tool for animal rights. Whether Vick is sorry, paid his debt, etc..., is irrelevant. If something big can come from this, I could personally care less if the guy "doesn't get what he deserves"..."
///////////////////////////////////////
Ditto, from me.
But, it is complicated by lots of emotional responses that are simply NOT going to go away.
The ASPCA and the Humane Society US have now received THOUSANDS of protest letters/emails from contributors who are pist that the orgs are being "used by Vick to promote his fake rehab."
.......
Vick was caught breaking the law, by accident. He did not "turn himself in and offer to repent." Penance brought by mandate will always be suspect.
......
If we looked at an organization that helps victims of child rape and saw them using a "reformed child rapist" to further the org's goals, we prolly would not applaud it much.
If some kids see Vick and buy his current message, that IS a good thing. MOST adults are not likely to listen to anything he has to say about animal abuse; nice if I am wrong, but I doubt it.
////////
EDIT ADD:
I am thinking that Vick has a good/valuable message, but it is being framed wrong and pitched wrong.
He should be talking to kids who think "crime pays."
"Get caught breaking the law and you will lose everything," coming from Vick is a powerful message. Even his detractors could live with it.
"I was sneaking around torturing animals and got caught by accident, AND realized that harming animals is wrong," is just a weak message; even if it was "sincere."
Reformed drunks and druggies give good deterent-testimonials because they talk about dumb stuff they did to their own bodies. The testimony of a "reformed animal torturer" can just, maybe, never ring true.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Yes, there will be negative press, there will be Eagles fans that will boycott, the preseason, however, there will ALWAYS be fans of Vick for what he can do on the field. What can we expect from convicted felons? It's ok for them to work at "McDonalds" where we take our young children to eat and play? It's ok for them to work as a "janitor" where our kids go to school? I wouldn't expect a convicted criminal who previously had a great career to get the same job, but I would expect them to learn from their mistakes and go through the rest of their life understanding that. It may be bad press at first, but the Eagles owner made a decision and is going to capitalize on it in more ways than one. Lastly, I know there are Vick fans out there as I can't seem to finish my 2001 SP Authentic set for under $200.
The NFL has a right to hire whoever they like. It is interesting, in the end all he did was kill some dogs. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone, he didn't beat his wife or girlfriend, he didn't beat the crap out of some dude at a bar, he didn't hang with a posse that shot and killed someone and then lied to try and protect his boys. He committed a crime, got caught and paid a price. For some it obviously wasn't a significant enough price. I've had dogs my whole life but people need a little perspective. What he did was deplorable. However if he had run a rooster fighting ring would threads like this even exist? Of course not, people are overly sentimental when it comes to pets and your vet and the pet industry thank you for that. Those that argue he should have 'told the truth' from the beginning get real. Who when faced with the end of everything they have would stand up and say I am guilty take away everything I have, put me in bankruptcy and throw me in jail for 18 months? The history of prosecution shows that not many have. Apparently no one on these boards has gotten themselves into a situation where things spiraled out of control. No one knows how he went from watching dog fights to running a dog fighting ring and participating in killing dogs that didn't fight well enough. As with most things it was probably a slippery slope and his moral compass slowly degraded.
Basically, my thoughts were to go ahead and reinstate Vick the Dick into the NFL, and then have faith that nobody in their right minds would actually hire him. I guess my faith was misplaced.
Someone mentioned he could be a "PR tool"? Personally, I think PR fool would be more like it.
<< <i>The NFL has a right to hire whoever they like. It is interesting, in the end all he did was kill some dogs. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone, he didn't beat his wife or girlfriend, he didn't beat the crap out of some dude at a bar, he didn't hang with a posse that shot and killed someone and then lied to try and protect his boys. He committed a crime, got caught and paid a price. For some it obviously wasn't a significant enough price. I've had dogs my whole life but people need a little perspective. What he did was deplorable. However if he had run a rooster fighting ring would threads like this even exist? Of course not, people are overly sentimental when it comes to pets and your vet and the pet industry thank you for that. Those that argue he should have 'told the truth' from the beginning get real. Who when faced with the end of everything they have would stand up and say I am guilty take away everything I have, put me in bankruptcy and throw me in jail for 18 months? The history of prosecution shows that not many have. Apparently no one on these boards has gotten themselves into a situation where things spiraled out of control. No one knows how he went from watching dog fights to running a dog fighting ring and participating in killing dogs that didn't fight well enough. As with most things it was probably a slippery slope and his moral compass slowly degraded.
Robb >>
I can't argue with what you're saying but I would be careful about generalizing.
Just because people have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean they're being self righteous - cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals (dogs, roosters or whatever) and that fact that not one human was sacrificed is really irrelevant and argumentative.
I agree that sometimes people (including myself) may run down a slippery slope but we - also - have to be careful not to run down the slippery slope of rationalization - because in the end, both are potentially destructive.
Comments
The Packers have had some losers, all teams have. Usually when they find out then that player is kicked to the curb.
I just can't believe the Eagles were the team that chose dollars over character.
What really bothers me is all the great talented guys out there that won't even get a first chance, even though they deserve it and haven't ever done anything wrong.
As for the NFL aiding and abetting Vick, that is just moronic. I could hold you equally responsible for paying money to watch an NFL game, since your $ ultimately goes to the players, aiding them in their illegal pursuits.
<< <i>No. He brutally tortured dozens of dogs to death. He didn't just gamble on dog fighting. He participated in horrific an absolutely inhumane acts. I hope the Eagles go 0-16. This is just my opinion. It is a free market....for now. >>
You're right, what he did was a dispicable, abhorible, and just plain sick. All that being said, no human lost his/her life. Dwayne Goodrich, Dante Stallworth, Leonard Little all ended a human being's life. One is currently playing and one will probably play next year. Joseph "Joby" Wood, Demont Matthews, Susan Gutweiler, and Mario Reyes's families will never, ever see them again and their lives were all cut short because of the irresponibility of some big time athlete who had too much to drink. While you can make the arguement that Vick knew what he was doing while the crime was going on, drunk driving has horrible consequences that everyone knows about before you get behind that wheel.
As a dog owner myself, Michael Vick could have personally exterminated every dog in the world and it wouldn't be is half as bad as what those three ex-Vols did when they took 4 human lifes between them, IMHO. Leonard Little also doesn't seem to get the message either since he has been pulled over after his DUI Manslaughter and got another DUI.....
We all deserve 2nd chances, but if you kill another human, not only am I done with you, I think the NFL should be done with you, and I you should be done with the world....obviously those last 2 don't happen.
All that being said I don't want Vick in the NFL and I'm glad he didn't go to the Cowboys. That's one circus we don't need.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
I doubt there is a rule that restricts convicted felons from the NFL.
Commish ought to read this again
WTB- Jim Thome PSA 10's
Personally I don't think anyone is owed anything. Its the things you do and how you live that earn you opportunities. Vick did something that I consider unforgivable- I'm not God and I don't have to forgive anything- I don't believe he paid his debt to society by sitting in prison. To be honest with you I think his punishment should have been to be tied down in a dog fighting pit and let a few trained dogs loose on him.
Of course I'm also the type of person that believes a good way to lower crime rates is to match the punishment with the crime- you kill someone we throw a rope over a tree... you rape someone its castration time with no sedatives and a dull blade.
PS I don't think that those mentioned earlier in the thread that have the DUI manslaugher charges etc should play either but because a mistake was made and those players are let in to play shouldn't mean that its just an automatic that Vick should play. Thats me and my thoughts don't matter too much because I neither own a team nor am in a leadership role in the league.
- Jason Lee, "Mallrats"
at least there will be something extra to talk about this year besides Brady's knee.
it is a business after all.
/////////////////
While A&A poorly states the semi-novel legal theory, as I noted yesterday,
ANY prospective misconduct by the new employee that damages a third-party
will almost DEFINITELY bring litigation to his new employer.
That does NOT mean such action will be successful, ONLY that it will be brought.
There are LOTS of negligent hiring and vicarious liability claims contemplated each
day, in the USA.
There are sundry subsequent expansions of
(1991 the Supreme Court of Virginia decided a case, Sayles v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,242 Va. 328, 410 S.E.2d 632).
An employer is liable for harm done by the employee within the scope of employment, whether the act
was accidental or reckless. The employer is even responsible for intentional wrongs if they are committed,
at least in part, on the employer's behalf.
Based on the NFL's "Personal Conduct Policy," - and presumably that of the Eagles - employees are
essentially "working" 24/7. Their role as ambassadors of the organizations is not severable when the
game ends and they head off to do "personal appearances."
The Vick-haters can be expected to be particularly "militant" and taunting.
The first time Vick takes a swing at one of the "protesters," in ANY venue,
the NFL and the Eagles will have an opportunity to further test the limits
of the laws' view of vicarious liability and negligent hiring.
The success/failure of such claims is not really the issue. That such claims
will be made against a sport that is seen by many as nothing but a gang
of criminal-thug RollerBallers, is a PR nightmare/disaster that did NOT have
to happen.
The recent hiring by the Eagles could even lead to actions being brought
by other TEAMS against that employer. It can be argued that the Eagles
actions have served to defame the entire league. (Keep in mind that
SOME of the teams were "not interested" in hiring the guy BECAUSE
they knew he was likely to damage the ENTIRE NFL-biznez.)
The sponsors will have the "final word," and if it goes down like I suspect
it might, the new-hire is not likely to see much playing time.
There is a limit to the harm that sponsors are willing to endure. Each day,
more and more activists will make a run at their targets.
goog petition sites
sack
..............
It will be interesting to learn whether the Eagles solicit state/federal
tax credits for hiring their "disadvanatged" QB.
While the potential credits are relatively small - under $20K in the
aggregate - it might be an "unpopular" concept that PUBLIC MONEY
is available to hire this bird.
Qualify for state and federal tax credits:
You may be able to save money on your income taxes by hiring someone
from one of the following groups who has traditionally faced significant
barriers to employment.
An ex-felon who:
Was released within the last year.
OR
Is participating in a work-release program.
Fed form 8850
Fed form 5584
............................................................................
Due to the Andy Reid and Tony Dungy connections, LDS is going to be sucked deeply into
the current controversy. In my view, that is unfortunate.
ldsliving
deseretnews
Prolly just a matter of time before the new employee announces
his "conversion."
The Mormons I spoke with this morning, ALL hope the guy finds
God someplace else.
..................
<< <i>props to the NFL Marketing Wheel.
it is a business after all. >>
On front of NFL.com's shop page one hour after he signed -
<< <i>
sack
.................. >>
Where's "sackstallworth.com"?
Animal rights issues aside, Vick makes this offense very dangerous. The could run some type of modified wild cat- with Vick, McNabb, Westbrook and Desean Jackson (and Maclin if he's any good), who exactly are you going to double team? Every play is a homerun threat, and they have 3 or 4 players that can outrun everybody on most defenses.
<< <i>
<< <i>
sack
.................. >>
Where's "sackstallworth.com"? >>
///////////////////////////
Disclaimer:
Since my moral compass is busy with my own REAL life, I
really have no dog in this fight. It is academically interesting
to me, though.
...............
Re: Stallworth
It is probably good not to make the terrible an ally of the evil.
I view Stallworth as another rich punk who bought some justice
and will soon be telling folks he "paid his dues."
The constant cite of comparative scum to mitigate the bad acts
of other bad guys is VERY close to an offer of "justification." The
tactic is one of the few that Vick can rely upon to work for him
with MANY fans, though.
BUT, the FACTS of the two cases are totally different.
Stallworth behaved as a drunken-dirtbag and killed somebody.
While he may have been a serial drunk-driver, we don't have
lots of proof on that issue.
We DO KNOW that Vick "serially" sponsored/financed/participated
in the torture of animals. It is not unreasonable to suspect that
if he had not been "accidentally" discovered to be a lawbreaker,
he would STILL be engaging in the "conspiracy" that sent him to
prison.
IF Stallworth were to do ANYTHING like he was "punished" for
again, he would need sunshine piped into his cell forever. So
far, we only KNOW he made "one mistake."
Vick, OTOH, made hundreds of "mistakes," tried for months to lie
his way out of the mess, and then spent his fortune to buy some
"justice" and the arguably-bogus right to say he "paid his dues."
There are no doubt doable PR spins/fixes that Vick's gang
can use to rehab him. The fact that the "NFL is populated
by other criminals," is prolly not the best defense of his -
or anyone's - reformed character.
........................
It is also important to note that, in the Stallworth case, the
family of the dead man "supported" the punishment."
Prosecutors OFTEN go with the wishes/interests of a victim's family.
In this case, the victim's family was paid MILLIONS in damages, which
they would have had to fight over for years - and may have lost - if
an omnibus settlement had not been reached.
///////////////////////////////////////
Ditto, from me.
But, it is complicated by lots of emotional responses that
are simply NOT going to go away.
The ASPCA and the Humane Society US have now received
THOUSANDS of protest letters/emails from contributors who
are pist that the orgs are being "used by Vick to promote his
fake rehab."
.......
Vick was caught breaking the law, by accident. He did not
"turn himself in and offer to repent." Penance brought by
mandate will always be suspect.
......
If we looked at an organization that helps victims of child rape
and saw them using a "reformed child rapist" to further the
org's goals, we prolly would not applaud it much.
If some kids see Vick and buy his current message, that IS a
good thing. MOST adults are not likely to listen to anything
he has to say about animal abuse; nice if I am wrong, but
I doubt it.
////////
EDIT ADD:
I am thinking that Vick has a good/valuable message, but
it is being framed wrong and pitched wrong.
He should be talking to kids who think "crime pays."
"Get caught breaking the law and you will lose everything,"
coming from Vick is a powerful message. Even his detractors
could live with it.
"I was sneaking around torturing animals and got caught
by accident, AND realized that harming animals is wrong,"
is just a weak message; even if it was "sincere."
Reformed drunks and druggies give good deterent-testimonials
because they talk about dumb stuff they did to their own bodies.
The testimony of a "reformed animal torturer" can just, maybe,
never ring true.
It is interesting, in the end all he did was kill some dogs. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone, he didn't beat his wife or girlfriend, he didn't beat the crap out of some dude at a bar, he didn't hang with a posse that shot and killed someone and then lied to try and protect his boys. He committed a crime, got caught and paid a price. For some it obviously wasn't a significant enough price.
I've had dogs my whole life but people need a little perspective. What he did was deplorable. However if he had run a rooster fighting ring would threads like this even exist? Of course not, people are overly sentimental when it comes to pets and your vet and the pet industry thank you for that.
Those that argue he should have 'told the truth' from the beginning get real. Who when faced with the end of everything they have would stand up and say I am guilty take away everything I have, put me in bankruptcy and throw me in jail for 18 months? The history of prosecution shows that not many have.
Apparently no one on these boards has gotten themselves into a situation where things spiraled out of control. No one knows how he went from watching dog fights to running a dog fighting ring and participating in killing dogs that didn't fight well enough. As with most things it was probably a slippery slope and his moral compass slowly degraded.
Robb
Someone mentioned he could be a "PR tool"? Personally, I think PR fool would be more like it.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings
<< <i>The NFL has a right to hire whoever they like.
It is interesting, in the end all he did was kill some dogs. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't rape anyone, he didn't beat his wife or girlfriend, he didn't beat the crap out of some dude at a bar, he didn't hang with a posse that shot and killed someone and then lied to try and protect his boys. He committed a crime, got caught and paid a price. For some it obviously wasn't a significant enough price.
I've had dogs my whole life but people need a little perspective. What he did was deplorable. However if he had run a rooster fighting ring would threads like this even exist? Of course not, people are overly sentimental when it comes to pets and your vet and the pet industry thank you for that.
Those that argue he should have 'told the truth' from the beginning get real. Who when faced with the end of everything they have would stand up and say I am guilty take away everything I have, put me in bankruptcy and throw me in jail for 18 months? The history of prosecution shows that not many have.
Apparently no one on these boards has gotten themselves into a situation where things spiraled out of control. No one knows how he went from watching dog fights to running a dog fighting ring and participating in killing dogs that didn't fight well enough. As with most things it was probably a slippery slope and his moral compass slowly degraded.
Robb >>
I can't argue with what you're saying but I would be careful about generalizing.
Just because people have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean they're being self righteous - cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals (dogs, roosters or whatever) and that fact that not one human was sacrificed is really irrelevant and argumentative.
I agree that sometimes people (including myself) may run down a slippery slope but we - also - have to be careful not to run down the slippery slope of rationalization - because in the end, both are potentially destructive.
Good input.
mike
"... Hummmmmmmmm, Michael Vick, who was he? I don't know but he sure tastes great! ..."
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971