You are here: Home » General » Shorter American Society: Dogs>Women
If it’s news that Michael Vick owns a dog again, is it also news whenever serial rapist Ben Roethlisberger talks to a woman?
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Does Romney own a dog, and if so, is its name “Roofus”?
If Roethlisberger talks to a woman, does he nickname her “Roofie”?
The Roofus, the Roofus, the Roofus on fire!
We don’t need no water, let the car wind put it out!
Put up a debate thread.
I wanna fight people here instead of on another site.
you’re lucky. I am guessing Dr. Dick had the maple syrup ready to go
I knew Dr. Dick was a socialist, but I didn’t realize he was a Canadian. Maybe even French-Canadian!
Hey, do you suppose our pancake-loving troll is responsible for The Great Maple Syrup Heist? It would be irresponsible not to speculate …
I know it’s churlish to point this out, but Ben R was never actually charged with a crime while Vick was convicted of multiple felonies and spent a fair amount of time in prison.
Tomato – tomahto.
Yes, we only condemn convicted criminals for their immoral acts. Nobody would ever get upset at, say, a famous movie director who raped a girl but was never convicted of the crime, right?
So we’re cool with Rapistberger then. Rape away, good quarterback! Rape away! Just don’t get convicted.
Bit of a difference there, as Polanski not only admitted to raping the girl, but actually sort of bragged about it and said that anyone who condemned him for it was just jealous.
Also, too, Polanski actually pled guilty, but skipped out before sentencing.
Well Republicans claim Obama is a traitor, but he wasn’t convicted, but if the law doesn’t make a difference to you hate away.
You’re just going to end up just like them. Even if you think you know the truth, obviously it wasn’t beyond reasonable doubt for some people.
His “family” owns a dog. I doubt he personally will be around much to care for said dog. Mistreating “pets” wasn’t what he got in trouble with. If this was average person who would be taking care of the dog, I would find it much more troubling. OTOH, I don’t think we can keep a dog from his whole immediate family.
Ben, who is playing now btw, is more likely to be in position to mistreat women. Why hasn’t there been any playoff threads other than a potshot at Jeter? Isn’t one of you guys a Reds fan? Well, okay …
Also, I’m going to need some more clarification about the title. Sometimes, I wish Charli Carpenter was still around.
Come on. A former rapist talking to a woman is not equivalent to a former dog fight ring honcho owning a dog.
Admittedly, it’s not as bad as Roethlisberger owning a woman, and Vick talking to a dog.
“American Society” is a pretty broad group to be damned all to hell by a single article on sports website.
Troll food for white people who still want their racism. What’s been amazing post-Obama is how much effort some white people put into creating pretexts for their open racism. I mean, more than welfare queen myths, but these elaborate, practically world-view-ish conspiracy beliefs. From Birthers to Jack Welch’s paranoid fantasies. Got nuthin’ on traditional race war fantasies such people used to have back in the eighties.
I barely paid attention. It’s grief to pay attention since we all know what the comments are going to be about. As it is, following the Eagles means FOLES for *every* *single* *bad* *play* that Vick does. By people who gives a whole lot more of a damn about a white QB than they do about a winning team. I don’t need more grief.
I love my dog and I wouldn’t piss on Vick if he was burning in the street. You don’t treat animals like that. I don’t care that he’s black, I care that he is a prick.
Did I say word one about not caring for dogs? Did I, somehow, somewhere, valorize dogfighting? No? Well, now, do you think your comment was appropriate or relevant?
Check your company. Plenty of the people on your side doesn’t give a shit about the dogs. They’re just happy to have a reason to hate. Why, if you introduced them to a puppy mill owner, they’d be all rapturous about what a great capitalist the guy is.
So, at this point, NOBODY CARES ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU LOVE DOGS.
And you know, it may very well actually be one of his kids that wanted one. Did the kid do something to not ever have any dogs?
That man should never be allowed to own a dog again. He is a fucking monster. And you are to for wanting to sweep it all under the rug.
So what you are saying is that because Michael Vick developed an immoral, violent relationship with dogs, his children should be forbidden from developing a healthy relationship with dogs. I guess his kids have been born into the dog-fighting caste.
Nah, you know what caste his kids are.
That was over the line. Fuck you for implying I am racist because I think an asshole who killed and mutilated dozens of dogs for FUN shouldn’t be allowed to own one.
Seriously. Fuck you.
Vick is a piece of shit who got off easy. Anyone who defends him or plays down his depravity simply does not comprehend what running a dog fighting ring entails. My hatred for the man has nothing to do with his race.
Fuck him and fuck Ben Roethlisberger too.
I don’t think that’s called for. I find MPAVictoria’s comments to be irrational, but not indicative of racism.
I do. At the very least, that anger is the product of a racist society. It’s what makes it so easy for MPAVictoria to call me a monster. For what? “Sweeping it under a rug.” Now, I take no offense from being called a monster, since it was an rhectorical flail under emotional duress.
However, she can take offense at being called a sympathizer to racists. Full vituperation.
Know what Njorl? She *is* being racist, despite your peacemaking attempt at dimunitizing her rhetoric. I don’t particularly care whether or not she’s raising the Confederate Battle Flag. I do care that she behaves akin to other white people who are, indeed, very, very racist.
Because, face it–The fact that Vick paid his debt to society means nothing to her. The fact that Vick has spoken out against dogfighting means nothing to her. That Vick has had to start all over again means nothing to her. That his kid? Doesn’t deserve dogs so long as Vick is around.
That sense of deserved everlasting punishment, like there’s a mark of Cain on his forehead. With so much more energy and emotion than actual people-murdering and raping. That’s a characteristic of racists, man. Including the *demand* that people can’t call them racist, despite what they say or do.
Anyways, since people seems to be unaware of this fact. Ben Roethlisberger is married to Ashley Harlan, got the first kid incoming.
Shah8, no offense, but you need to adjust your meds. I mean, what’s your point? Since many racists who hate Vick use his dog torture conviction as a pretext, any person who genuinely hates Vick irrespective of race because he tortured, mutilated and murdered numerous innocent animals is really just a closeted racist?
“It’s what makes it so easy for MPAVictoria to call me a monster. For what? “Sweeping it under a rug.” Now, I take no offense from being called a monster, since it was an rhectorical flail under emotional duress.”
One you spelled rhetorical wrong. Two, the difference between my comment and yours is mine has a basis in what you actually wrote. Yours is nothing but projection.
“The fact that Vick paid his debt to society means nothing to her.”
He served 23 months. 23 months. Let us look at what the man actually did. He personally profited off the torture of dogs. He personally killed, though electrocution or hanging, dogs that didn’t “fight” well enough for the crowd. He did both of these things on many occasions over a long period of time.
23 months is a joke.
“The fact that Vick has spoken out against dogfighting means nothing to her.”
Of course it means nothing. He did it because he had to restart his career. There is no proof of remorse.
“that Vick has had to start all over again means nothing to her.”
Ha! Yes everyone pity the multimillionaire who abuses dogs.
“That his kid? Doesn’t deserve dogs so long as Vick is around.”
See my previous post regarding drunk drivers and cars. Also are you against preventing anybody from owning an animal if that prevention might affect someone else? What if it was my habit to oh, I don’t know, hang dogs by their necks while they slowly strangled to death but my kid wants a dog. Should I be allowed to have one?
“With so much more energy and emotion than actual people-murdering and raping.”
Citation needed you pile of shit.
“Ben Roethlisberger is married to Ashley Harlan, got the first kid incoming.”
He is an asshole who should be in jail as well. What is your point?
What’s with shutdown attempts using ableist slurs?
Perhaps because some people want to maintain a non-ludicrous ability to tell other people who and what they can have, and to love.
Because, yes, it’s totally alright to hate Michael Vick personally because he killed half dead dogs in inhumane fashion from the fight rings he funded. It’s not exactly wrong to think that’s despicable. Thing is, people can tell when that agenda is broader than condemning his actions and personally shunning him. The no-punishment-is-good-enough generally is a tell. So are the sentiments that others should suffer for their association for Vick, after he paid his dues in an open and societally approved way.
The issue has always been that Vick has a job that many white people think he isn’t eligible for, and gin up pretext after pretext to be outraged. Same with the President. Birtherism, that utterly amoral and shameless attempt at a Benghazi controversy. That he dares to take inspiration from black people, and talk to them–that was a “controversy”, too.
There will always be white people who have an unjustly expansive concept of safe space to say “uppity uppity uppity…” in however many disguised ways that is the fashion of the day.
What would be proof of remorse?
it’s totally alright to hate Michael Vick personally because he killed half dead dogs in inhumane fashion from the fight rings he funded.
You are clueless if you think that that is all that Michael Vick did, and you have betrayed your ignorance to the cruelty involved in running a professional dog fighting ring. Take a few minutes and research the topic.
I honestly don’t know. Now let me ask you a question. Was 23 months in prison an appropriate punishment?
/And just so you know I could not care less about football. I watch about one game a year and could name maybe 5 active NFL players.
Just noticed your “ableist slurs” comment. I’m a Giants fan. Your an Eagles fan. Enough said. :)
MPAVictoria, doesn’t your lack of any defined terms of remorse means that you believe that Vick is irredeemable? Moreover, would you not consider that an immoral attitude worthy of kudos from a Vengeance Demon out of Buffy?
As for sentencing–at the time, there was no specific Federal laws against dog-fighting, and in many, if not most states, penalties tended to be light, and not enforced anyways. Vick’s prosecution has always felt rather arbitrary to many people–much in the same way that the Mann Act and other little used laws was used in an arbitrary fashion against blacks. However the disgust with his actions black people may have, it has always been colored by the fact that had he been white…well, Roethlisberger didn’t face charges mostly because massive pressure was put on his victim not to press charges. Do read the police report, though.
So I, personally, have complex emotions about his sentence–regardless of how unfair the sentencing was in context to how such crimes are usually handled, I do not want dogfighting to be legal or decriminalized. So my instinct to let things be, as far as sentences are concerned. I have no idea what the fair sentence is, and given that I think everyone should face the same penalties, regardless of class, gender, or race…
Perhaps the best judge is the prison sentence of the next dude to be convicted of fighting dogs?
Sherm, I probably am more informed about this case than you are. In general, I’m probably quite a bit more aware of the nature of animal abuse in the US than you are. If you want to prove otherwise, I suggest more specificity in describing how I am wrong.
Shah8, its interesting that while you are quick to dispute my presumption that you know little about professional dog fighting rings, it was you who started this argument by presuming that others are racists for doing nothing more than expressing their hatred for a person who has admittedly tortured and murdered innocent animals. And while you had no basis whatsoever for your allegations of racism, your statement that Vick simply killed some half dead dogs which had lost fights served as a sufficient basis from my statement that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If you are 1/10th as well-informed as you claim, you must know that these rings involve a lot more abuse than simply pairing the dogs for fights and killing the half-dead losers.
Sherm, I think you’ll have to better than that. Perhaps you should “study it out”.
Do you feel 23 months is a reasonable amount of time to spend in jail for what Vick did? Yes or no?
I think that 23 months is sufficient for his crimes. Not because there is any sliding scale in the sky that sez it’s right, but because that’s what the ultimate product of the justice system came up with. Otherwise, I have no idea how to calculate a dog’s suffering and death into units of Vick’s suffering. I’m not Hammurabi, and I’m not God, and I have no civil or theological basis for any judgment of that nature.
Now that I’ve answered your redirect, MPAVictoria, how ’bout you answer the question of whether Vick is irredeemable or not?
I am not God or Jesus Christ shah8. I am not compelled to ever forgive him. I won’t be forgiving Jeffery Dahmer or Bush the Lesser anytime soon either. As I said earlier in the thread, the man should never be allowed to own animals again. Full stop.
Back to you. So you are fine with 23 months because that is what the justice system, in all its wisdom, decided? Does that mean I can assume that you are fine with the harsher sentences handed down for crack cocaine than powdered because that is what the justice system decided? Interesting position to take shah8. Seems pretty racist though.
…his children should be forbidden from developing a healthy relationship with dogs. I guess his kids have been born into the dog-fighting caste.
Vick was not allowed to own a dog during his probation period and his children were duly deprived during that time. I think it would have been appropriate to ban him from owning a dog, period, but that was the decision and it was a reasonable one.
There are other animals families keep as pets. If he’s now allowed to own a dog then he’s free to exercise that right, but that doesn’t mean people have to like it. I still think he could express more empathy for the creatures he exploited, tormented, and killed but there is no reason not to take his statements at face value when he says this dog will be fine.
And serial drunk drivers with kids should be allowed to keep their license because their kids might need a ride somewhere.
Is it wrong that every time I hear his name, I hear “Rapistberger” instead of Roethlisberger? I know he wasn’t actually convicted and all, but still…..
Ray Lewis also killed a guy
If I may, as a human, offer a rational counter to the OP, shorn of the emotion and identity politics that unfortunately characterize most of these discussions.
(1) While what Vick did is objectively despicable, I don’t believe it rises to the level of a crime. More of an error of judgment. I see that nobody is exhorting the dogs in question to take responsibility for their part in this affair. It’s a shame that self-proclaimed progressive people feel comfortable robbing non-humans of their agency like this. Did they not also make a choice that has consequences?
(2) How, if a dog has agreed to fight in the past without coercion, can a human know that they are coercing that same dog to fight later? Is there any physical evidence that the dogs resisted, fought back? Sadly, this is a he said / they said case, and we have a duty to withhold judgment until a jury has decided.
(3) Do you white knights have any idea what something like this is going to do to Michael Vick? The dogs experienced a few moments of discomfort, but they hardly seem traumatized. In my day, a so-called illegal dogfight was called exciting (alternatively, some dogs fight easy / some dogs know what they’re doing).
I have no doubt that for merely voicing these iconoclastic opinions, I will be censored and be branded a human-hater. In the words of Voltaire, I assume the right to fight for the fighting of dogfights, even if that ends in my death or maybe the dogs’. QED.
Sorry, an animal-hater. I’ve seen too many good human lives ruined by too many lying dogs that I sometimes make these mistakes. Did I mention that the dogs probably just regret agreeing to fight? Also, if they didn’t want to be starved to death and beaten on a regular basis, they probably should have worn a more modest collar. Humans have needs, and are biologically wired to want dogs to fight. It is up to the dogs to voice their objections, because humans are very simple and have a one-track mind and are in need of doggy-style nurturing. &c.
Well, it would sure be news if Roethlisberger *owned* a woman. Dogs have no legal rights and usually little or no practical ability to escape an abuser; which certainly *can* be true for human abuse victims, but isn’t necessarily, particularly for casual conduct like just talking to someone.
It is interesting to say dogs have “no legal rights.” They can’t be mistreated in certain ways without the person in question being liable for criminal or civil penalty. Some might say this gives them some sort of “right” of protection in various ways.
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Who are we?
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Switch to our mobile site