That's the same sort of logic that leads people to say "its not surprising that someone who pierces their flesh with needles or gets tattooed is a masochist with low self esteem."
Also, there has been a lot of talk that Vick, if he is allowed to play, is going to get his ass handed to him by the many, many dog-loving football players out there.

Deion Sanders....what a piece of shit for defending this fuck. Sharing equal shame is Nike which took FOREVER to give Vick the boot. Any casual investigation by the Fortune 500 giant months ago would have revealed that Vick was up to his neck in illegal dog fighting, and thereby gave good cause to suspend the endorsement contract. This whole Vick dogfighting thing has been swirling around in the sports press for months, and it's obvious Nike was waiting in the wings to see if it would all blow over...sorry guys...it didn't just go away. Typical bad corporate ethics by Nike Corp. in my book.

So now you just gave Vick a great defense. He can argue that all the pitbulls that were fighting against each other were all vicious zombie type dogs. Wow. Not Guilty

Actually, in Wolfenstein 3D they were plain ole' dogs.

Nazi dogs, mind you.

-TM

Thank God I never played it. I didn't have an x box at that point.

wolfenstein 3d was originally for DOS.

PETA's stance isn't that people shouldn't have pets. PETA is anti-breeding and pro-adoption, a position as "extreme" as the ASPCA and Humane Society.

I know that Penn & Teller show is funny and clever, but sometimes they lie too. Don't believe everything you watch on TV.

I'd be more willing to bet on the people indicted alongside Vick trying to roll over on him - I'd bet none of them are a Greg Anderson.

Though I do sort of hope Vick rolls over and the dog fighting business is like the big time drug business - snitches get killed. Regardless, I'm sure he'd have to name enough people with intimate ties to the NFL for a plea deal that his career would be over.

Anybody else get pissed off everytime they see the picture at the top of this story?

And I should have read the news earlier: one of the co-defendants is already taking a plea deal.

tether him to a car axel, starve him, electrocute him, then turn the dogs loose on him.

Alright... I've read the seven pages of posts and the multiple arguments being espoused here remind me of a similar string of logic that has never, ever made sense to me...

As a vegetarian I find it perplexing, to say the least, when a carnie decries the mistreatment of dogs/cats/greyhounds/horses/etc., when, for their next meal, an animal will be killed and, before that, mistreated to some extent. Now, I am well aware that in most instances these animals weren't tortured in the same 7th circle of hell manner as Vick's best friends were, but they are treated far from humanely.

One counter-point to what I just said would be, "Well, Mr. King Mob, you must understand that the social mores that we agree to abide by merely by living in our society tacitly state that some animals are OK to eat and mistreat while others are not." To this I say, "Fair enough. *But*, I have to applaud the various cultures who eat pig, cow and chicken alongside dog, cat and horse... At least their acceptable food animal logic is consistent." If it's ok to treat food animals poorly, then it's ok to treat non food animals similarly.

Of course I don't think it's ok to treat any animals poorly, and that includes not eating them, fer crissake. But if you're gonna eat a hamburger, you might as well do it in between your kick ass pit bull throw-down and your cock fight cage match.

Get the fuck over yourself. Why? Because it's the society we were raised in.

You're logic is laughable. You know why I eat hamburger? Because I don't have to kill it. Civilization over the years has made advancements that allow people to be fed by others. It allows them to do other work, like build bridges and what not.

And if you can't see the difference between letting someone else to kill animals for your nourishment and raping them and killing them for sport - or for not performing as a bred killer - then you are an idiot.

Well, FTR, I won't call you an idiot, but I will refer you to my original post where I clearly acknowledge the difference between Vick's brand of love for animals and the treatment food animals receive. I equate them not in degree, but simply in the facts that they are mistreated through their lives and then killed.

If I have your point right, it's acceptable to commission dirty work being done for you but inexcusable to do the dirty work yourself? If that's on point, then believe me when I say that your logic is as amusing to me as mine is to you. Where do we go from there?

I'm sure there are other rationales, but the best one I can come up with for killing animals for food is simply *that you can.* Take the Darwin stance and rock it. We're on top; fuck every other species. That's vastly more logical than a defense of I don't do the killing, therefore it's acceptable to me.

FTR- I'm less interested in having a shouting match with you than I am having a good exchange. I said these things in earnest; not to raise a ruckus.

A statement you quickly contradict in your following paragraphs.

Yes, it is amusing logic. I don't kill dogs for fun. I do eat meat. It is hilarious that I see a difference between the two.

As usual, people like you do little for your cause. Congratulations on being superior to most other humans.