i know better than to ask this.. but you are joking right?
Ohh i can't wait for this to degenerate into some asinine argument that the reason people are outraged is that we are all evil racist white hypocrites. so stupid.

Dog fighting is a felony, Charles. It is also incredibly stupid. Let's train dogs to fight each other to the death. Let's lay money on it. Woo hoo. Hey, maybe if we weren't doing this, the surviving dog (most likely a Pit Bull) won't move on to attack someone when the owner isn't watching. If we aren't waiting for one of them to die--hey!--that's two! This is fun.

Let's train all animals to fight and kill each other. It's noble. Any gentlemen in their right mind would approve of this. Why is everybody so pissed off that we're doing this? Jeez Louis! This is America. What the fuck does animal cruelty mean?

Once again... in your effort to seem complex you have over-simplified.

I can only hope you're being an idiot to start a conversation and not just because being an idiot comes naturally to you.

It is not natural at all. It is not like football at all. Shame on you, I really hope you don't have a dog.

poe, you must understand, sometimes i put up a post to learn, not to fight, or even to provoke. i really want to know what the fuss is all about. and i'm not of a fixed mind. i modify my opinions all the time.

Not only was Vick involved in dog fighting, a felony, he tortured and killed the dogs in gruesome ways that didn't perform well...dousing in water and electrocuting for example, drowning and hanging. This guy is a sick fuck. Pretty straightforward Charles.

Charles, you downplay the allegations considerably when you write that Vick "likes to watch" dogs fight each others. He is being prosecuted for far more than being a dog fighting "fan."

Charles, do you mean, you put up this post to learn the facts of the case? Or, to learn why people are so outraged about the facts?

Because, the facts are pretty, well, outrageous, so I don't understand how you could think they are merely something to be unhappy about. I didn't even know who Michael Vick was, and I couldn't imagine anybody actually doing what he is accused of.

Dog fighting is awful enough, but the details of the executions that #6 referenced are really shocking. To me, it was the stuff of pre-serial killers.

It wasn't just the dogfighting that pissed people off. It was the rape stands (frame to strap a bitch into so that the males could mount her, because both dogs were so aggressive towards other dogs), the electrocution (dog lost fight, man douses dog with water and pokes it with a live bare wire), death by dropping (dog loses fight, man picks up dog and throws it to the ground repeatedly until it dies), etc.

Most people (maybe I'm generalizing here) are against animal cruelty. The idea that the guy the NFL picked to be the new face of football is also alleged to have run a dogfighting kennel and paid tens of thousands of dollars to people whose dogs beat his is sad. That this guy sanctioned actions that, if directed at kids would have ended up as an "every child needs a mother and a father" slog post, is repellent. That Nike hasn't cancelled their contract with him yet, but merely held off on releasing his new shoe is sad.

That Vick is convinced he'll come out of this as well-loved as ever is laughable.

To address the root... why people are against Dog Fighting in general....

Training these dogs to fight creates weapons. Those dogs are no longer safe to have in society. They could injure or kill the next person they come in contact with. Sure, they might be controlled by their owner, but if that owner sells them to an unaware buyer, or just abandons them somewhere, they've released a trained killing machine into society. That's one objection people have... their safety is jeopardized by dog fighting.

The next results from the first. How do you end the threat these trained killing machines pose? You either have to kill them yourself or you have to make sure that they are safely contained in a way that means they will not harm themselves or others (animals or people). People object to this because it means killing a creature because of what it was forced to become... the dog did not wish to be trained that way, it was its owner that did that, but we're punishing the dog, killing the dog for what it was made into. Or you're locking that dog away in a cage until it dies. Still punishing the dog for its owner's stupidity.

Next, people object to the training methods that go into Dog Fighting training. The animals are beaten, brutalized, and made to be more vicious than they would normally be. They're often starved and thrown at other, similarly trained, dogs to fight and try to kill each other. People hear about that and imagine what it would be like if their dog, current or former, were treated that way. To many Americans the dog is man's best friend, the extra member of the family, a companion. Dogs are not working beasts in most American households. So, people see the idea of Dog Fighting and the training those dogs are put through, in the lens of their own dogs, their own family.

People object to Dog Fighting for a number of reasons, no matter the race or creed of the person doing it. Most people will object to any kind of mistreatment of dogs or cats. They're home animals, they're friends, they're family.

it's simple. dogs don't fight like that naturally. they play fight. they establish dominance. but they don't fight each other to the death. dogs are pack animals.

the sick thing is that they are being raised and bred to kill each other. those that aren't good at it are either used as bait for the fighters, or they are killed. usually, they are just shot, but vick and his friends thought it would be more entertaining to beat them, electrocute them, throw them against the ground, etc.

and, as it was stated above, it is a felony.

the public outcry you seek to understand stems from the visceral nature of the crime and how easily people can relate to it, being dog owners or knowing dog owners. the iraq war ought to elicit the same level, if not a greater reaction, yes; but that is beside the point. the fact is that americans respond very strongly to cruelty towards their pets, which although morally inconsistent, is still a valid emotional and rational reaction to a rather horrible thing.

additionally, equating the violence in the sport of football with the brutality inherent in dog fighting is very narrow minded. every major american sport involves violence of some sort or another, but the violence is never forced on unwilling competitors and it is never intended to be fatal. dog fighting is anathema to everything actual sports are meant to stand for.

Charles, I'll invite you to watch Crackers and Leroy fight at the TK building. Then we'll go online and look at some pictures of maimed pitbulls. You'll see the difference pretty quickly, I think.

charles, you ignorant slut.

People are so pissed off precisely because of Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo both offend our moral sensibilities, but at the same time make some of us feel safer and as though action is being taken. Those people in particular have transferred their anger over the abuse of humans to the abuse of animals, since there's absolutely no moral ambiguity.

And when dogs fight, it's not to harm but to establish a pack order.

People have a lot of affection for their dogs. So when they read this: "According to the 18-page indictment, the dog-fighting ring executed underperforming dogs by drowning, hanging and other brutal means," and the less circumspect descriptions already provided by other commenters here, they get angry.

That said, I've been waiting for someone to point out the racial aspect of the story: at least on TV news, all the Vick defenders are black and the anti-Vick protesters are white. What to make of that?

Issues of the law aside (where it seems pretty likely that Vick did things which are illegal and for which he can be punished), is it a necessary precondition to be a respectable human being that one has any regard whatsoever for dogs? If Vick and his dogfighting cohorts of various cultural backgrounds believe that dogs have no moral standing and can be used in any way their owners desire without regard for canine pain and suffering, does that make them detestable people, or just people who disagree about whether it's ok to hurt dogs?

Lord knows it's legal and acceptable to commit horrifying cruelties to other species. Why is electrocuting a dog different than allowing a fox to be ripped to pieces by hounds, or forcefeeding and strangling a goose, or harpooning a whale and rending its flesh while it's still breathing? Those latter things are all disliked widely, but are acceptable behaviors to humans to engage in without facing criminal charges or universal condemnation. But an attitude that it's ok to engage in cruelty to dogs for frivilous entertainment or economic activity is behavior that gets compared to that of serial killers of humans?
Vick will probably pay a steep price for what he did, but this is only because dogs are afforded a semi-human moral status among most people in the US, which other animals do not enjoy.

Answer me this: Why now?

Vick has been investigated numerous times in his career for allegations of drug trafficking, theft, and even knowingly transmitting an STD to his former ex.

Even with all this, the endorsements came in, the road games sold out, the shoes and jerseys sold. Why was all this ignored before? Do we consider these actions as just business as usual for the black athlete?

so ol'jb, are you arguing that dogs should be demoted from their familial state, or that other animals should get a moral promotion?

the one fundamental difference between dogs and all of the other animal examples given is that dogs are pets, and thus an integral part of society. rational? sort of. consistent? no. but the moral inconsistency of americans is neither surprising nor an adequate excuse for depraved behavior.

@15

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to kill off all banners just to continue viewing Slog (no clue as to why, anyone?).

Also, I just had to retype this entire fucking thing because apparently I'm a spammer for linking to more than one of your posts. So now I'll rush it.

I understand that, but only sometimes. I find it hard to believe that you could not pursue these reasons in your mind. I'm not joking. I have no understanding as to how you could not piece these things together. You may not be from America, but you've lived here long before I was even born. How can you not possibly understand our culture yet? How could you not possibly understand why we do not think it's a good idea to turn your head when your kid is getting his ass kicked? How could you not understand why we would not want to encourage any type of violence in animals? You spend so much of your time thinking things through for yourself, I see that, and I respect that. But when I don't, it's on a topic that is so incredibly established among society?

I'm not attacking you because I think I'm smarter than you. I know I'm not. Especially when it comes to literature and what-have-you. I'm attacking you because it blows my mind that you have so much knowledge (and contempt) for our culture, our society, how America operates--and don't get me wrong, that's okay. It's your opinion, I may or may not disagree with it, whatever--and yet you turn around and show how ignorant and truly blind you are to the simplest (yet essential) elements of our society by making these posts.

Really, Charles. You "have tried and failed" to understand what our problem with dog fighting is? If you really could not find it in you to understand our reasoning, then I apologize for my blatant attack. Why would you post this if you did? I don't know. Like I've said, I really, really, really have some hard times understanding you. I'll try to remain understanding and less jerkish [sic] next time around, or, if I can't pull that off, I won't comment. Fair?

Mr. Poe, please continue commenting reguardless... it saves me time and effort. :-)

**Ignore ref to #15, accidently types a 1**

#20 was meant for Charles, not Gitai. Though that is most likely obvious, I just had to make the correction.

*Typed. Jesus fuck.

Mr. Poe, maybe this type of post is just a device by Charles to express contempt for American culture. "I don't understand this" maybe means "I think it is ridiculous that...". Not sure, but it's certainly possible.

douglas,
I own three cats, and if someone harmed my animals, I might very well risk jail time to retaliate, because I value them so strongly as companions, and I respect them as independant beings. At the same time, there are people who engage in vivisection on other cats as their profession. Maybe they do this for a good reason, like life-saving drug testing, or maybe they do it for a less defensible reason, like measuring how damaging a new cosmetic product is to mucous membranes by rubbing chemical relaxers in the cats' eyes. Should I, or should the state, seek retribution on either of these people for harming a type of animal that I personally care for, whether the harm to the animal is justified in some way or not?

I don't know the answer to that question. I personally think what Vick did to his dogs is stomach-turning. I also can't stand the thought of cat vivisection. On the other hand, I've killed animals myself as part of widely practiced recreational activities (birds, fish), in ways that many other people might find objectionable, similar to how cat vivisectionists do things that I find objectionable. And of course, similar to how Vick does things to dogs that many people find intolerable.

So should we protect all animals or eliminate protections for all animals? I sadly don't have a good answer to your question. But I would simply observe that the disturbing things that Vick has done to dogs really aren't so far removed from a lot of other human-animal interactions that are not thought of as reprehensible.

I agree wholeheartedly with the strong responses to Charles about the evil nature of dog fighting and the acts Vick is accused of. I'm a little less confused then some people because I have known wonderful kind people from other cultures who were seemingly incapable of identifying with the joys and sufferings of an animal, despite that they would never be cruel to one.

On the other hand, there is a streak of racism running through the media's relations with this story.

I was particularly troubled when I saw a Lewis Black bit on Jon Stewart's Daily Show equating Vick and Barry Bonds and a group of other black athletes notorious for silly antics rather than brutal crimes.

Charles:
Regarding Abu Graib, Rumsfeld, and George Bush, our national media simply will not let the widespread disgust build to the emotional intensity it would if we had independent media. I was tempted to say coporate media or something. But look at the Stranger and the effort it makes de-emotionalize the news with a cool urban cynicism and a sort of sneer at those whose outrage is too intense about any but select group of identified topics.

Plus, I can criticize Michael Vick without having to process mentally and emotionally that I paid for it, unlike Abu Graib and the whole Iraq war crime.

Charles isn't defending dog fighting. He's asking why it's a big deal all of a sudden now that Michael Vick has been accused of it. It's an excellent question.

Dog fighting has been around for centuries. In recent years there have been tons of busts in the South and Southwest. None of these cases have attracted ANY attention from the likes of Nancy Grace. Not even the one a few years ago with the crime ring in Arizona that was stealing family pets to train the fighting dogs against. But all of a sudden with Michael Vick it's a huge outcry -- and it is HUGE, I've seen Vick discussions explode across all kinds of web forums and blogs. People are foaming at the mouth. They're weren't before. Why is that?

I think it's because big mean black men who are elevated to a position of wealth and privilege for their sports prowess are expected to behave in certain ways that prove they are tamed animals. Michael Vick is a "bad nigger", and that violates something far deeper in the American psyche than dog fighting ever did.

If the dog fighter was a white athlete, or even a "good nigger" black athlete, the outcry would be much less; just another blip on the parade of sports criminals.

If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: why were you not outraged by dog fighting the day BEFORE Vick was arrested? It was just as prevalent, and just as vile, then. Why Vick?

@20

I do have to agree wth Charles that this issue has to be seen trough specific cultural lenses to make sense. In general, the cultural values of affection towards, emotional attachment to an the defense of pets is a western phenomena or more precisley, directly related to soceital wealth. The richer the society, the more vigilant it will be in promoting and protecting animal rights.

Very ofen, from a third world perspetive, the western love of animals seems almost perverse, like when conservationists risk their lives to protect endangered elephants but are amibvalent about the poverty or safety of the villagers that live with these elephants.

It was not a rarirty to see white colonial masters treating their pets way better than they did their African laborers, in fact it was standard practicce that white farmers would ride in the front cab of a pick up truck with their dogs while farm hands were battered by the elements in the back.

These are just a few examples of why Peta's militant fight for animal rights may seem odd to some people.

I think it's because big mean black men who are elevated to a position of wealth and privilege for their sports prowess are expected to behave in certain ways that prove they are tamed animals. Michael Vick is a "bad nigger"...If the dog fighter was a white athlete, or even a "good nigger" black athlete, the outcry would be much less; just another blip on the parade of sports criminals.

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. If it had been Peyton Manning, people would be just as outraged. It's disgusting, it was outrageous before and it's outrageous now. Sure it's getting more attention with his legal troubles; that's not surprising. It doesn't mean people were alright with it before.

Fnarf,

"...asking why it's a big deal all of a sudden now..."

That can be used on pretty much every one of our country's current dilemmas. So, why is homosexual marriage all of the sudden a big deal now? Why is Global Warming? Why is insider trading such a big deal now? Why should we care about either? We never did in the past. What's the real reason this is such a big issue now?!

Asking 'why' on topics like these is not in the least bit a display of an excellent question. It's a display of ignorance and reluctance to accepting that the issue is finally being taken care of. We should be happy these are now being brought to the table. Shouldn't we?

Charles,you are trying to make a situation fit a predetermined thesis you have. ie that the outrage over the slow killing of dogs is somehow racially motivated. The guy would be an asshole if he was white, green or purple with pink stripes.

But looking at sports, hell, if football players fought to the death on the field every Sunday tearing the opposing team limb for limb (litterally) hell, I would start to watch football!!

@27 - I've always been against dog fighting, but really didn't understand what a huge industry it is. Anytime a famous person is linked with crime, or just unsavory practices there will naturally be more of an outcry. We put our celebrities on a pedestal. And we learn more about whatever they're involved in than we would if it was just some shmoe.

That said, I never heard of Michael Vick until this story broke, and didn't see a picture of him until last week. I agree that there are cultural issues that play into the story, but I was just as outraged about the dog fighting when I thought he was white (and the fact that I assumed he was white before knowng anything about him is another subject altogether...).

No. The outrage over Vick is intense, and personal. It's not about the dogs; nobody gives a shit about the dogs, whether they say otherwise or not. There are zillions of dogs being horribly mistreated RIGHT NOW, thousands of miles away from Michael Vick, and no one is uttering a peep about them.

There have been dog-fighting stories in the news for decades, at a low level. What is it about Michael Vick that brings the extremes of outrage NOW?

Half the population of the country is debating on what the best way to execute Vick would be. My kook relatives are forwarding me irate calls to action. No one is talking about the abuse of the dogs; they're focused exclusively on the abuse they'd like to deliver to Michael Vick.

I'll ask you again: where was your outrage in 2004, when the pet-stealing ring in Arizona, for dog fighters, was exposed?

This is definitely a class, and possibly race, issue. Dog fighting is considered to be pretty much the lowest of the low behavior of the underclass. Until now, I've certainly never heard of anyone in the middle or upper classes engaging in it.

By refusing to give up dog fighting, even as his wealth precluded any need for it, Vick sent a message that he enjoys abusing animals, that he doesn't give a fuck what other rich people think of him, and that he likely cares more about the good opinion of his friends from the 'hood.

So, you have a trifecta of hatred for the nouveau riche who don't know how to behave, hatred for America's underclass, and hatred of abject brutality towards housepets.

Vick is a goner.

It's not about the dogs; nobody gives a shit about the dogs, whether they say otherwise or not. There are zillions of dogs being horribly mistreated RIGHT NOW, thousands of miles away from Michael Vick, and no one is uttering a peep about them...I'll ask you again: where was your outrage in 2004, when the pet-stealing ring in Arizona, for dog fighters, was exposed?

This is ridiculous, Fnarf. You really don't believe people are capable of feeling passionate about animal welfare? And the fact that dog-fighting wasn't dominating everybody's discussions the past ten years means that nobody cared about it before?

The dog lovers are sure flipping the fuck out for obvious reasons, as if these all weren't vicious attack dogs.

And Gabriel @ 35 completely missed Fnarf's point. Fnarf's point is that the dog fighting ring is a means to the end of the media labeling Ron Mexico a dirty criminal that's A Poster Child Of What Is Wrong With Sports Today.

Answer the question, Gabriel: WHY wasn't there a national outcry about dog fighting in 2004? Not that long ago.

Some people are passionate about animal welfare. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the great mass of the American public, which DOESN'T give a shit about animal welfare -- the proofs of this are legion -- but DOES get hyper-alarmed when a large, professionally violent black man gets caught being an asshole.

"I'll ask you again: where was your outrage in 2004, when the pet-stealing ring in Arizona, for dog fighters, was exposed?"

I was in College. Studying. Most of my knowledge of news at that time was based on Drudge Report (was still in the closet), so needless to say, I was exposed to many dog-fighting reports. From famous people? Not that I recall. But here's what I can give you on Vick, which you should already know:

If not convicted: "If he's not given a fair shot, I won't be a season ticket holder," This will be the popular reasoning for the outcome.

If convicted: "The outrage over Vick is intense, and personal. It's not about the dogs; nobody gives a shit about the dogs, whether they say otherwise or not. There are zillions of dogs being horribly mistreated RIGHT NOW, thousands of miles away from Michael Vick, and no one is uttering a peep about them.

There have been dog-fighting stories in the news for decades, at a low level. What is it about Michael Vick that brings the extremes of outrage NOW?

Half the population of the country is debating on what the best way to execute Vick would be. My kook relatives are forwarding me irate calls to action. No one is talking about the abuse of the dogs; they're focused exclusively on the abuse they'd like to deliver to Michael Vick.

I'll ask you again: where was your outrage in 2004, when the pet-stealing ring in Arizona, for dog fighters, was exposed?" This will be the popular reasoning for the outcome.

Either way, nobody will be satisfied, and I will be left scratching my head wondering why more thought has been put into complaining--about race, reputation, fame, and the timing of the all-of-the-sudden decision to blow up this crime all over every news channel--rather than establishing once and for all that this is not acceptable, and whether you are rich or poor, black or white, this will not be tolerated.

Then I'll say this at a bar over some drinks with some friends and I'll be attacked with bullshit like:

"Dude, do you know how many dog fights go on every day?! Why aren't they getting busted?! Cause they're in the ghetto!!"

"It was racism. Plain and simple, Poe."

"It was because he was famous. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON that this was such a big deal."

"If (insert famous white athlete) was doing it, nobody would give a shit."

Me: But didn't you just say, uh, also because he was famous?

"JJEAH, but that's not the case, IS IT?!!"

Joy. Can't wait.

Fnarf, maybe you need to choose your words more carefully. First you claim that no one cares about the dogs no matter what they say, then you admit that some people indeed are passionate about these issues. That was the crux of my argument: that there is legitimate reason to be outraged.

And the fact that a particular incident has channeled a lot of anger doesn't mean the anger didn't exist before in a less collective way. Things have a habit of reaching a boiling point or a moment of clarity about the nature of the problem.

Having said all this, I don't watch American television so maybe there are some people making racist comments about Vick and I'm just not seeing those comments.

fnarf is completely right -- to a point. anytime a [insert race here] does something wrong, people who are racist against that race will use it as an unjustified excuse to feel superior to that race. some of these is overt, some of it might be subconscious.

but i agree more with mr poe. this guy is famous, and we expect more of him. i didn't really have a big reaction to the vick story, but i didn't even hear of the arizona one. i'm sure my reaction would have been the same: it's unfortunate and wrong. the more famous the antagonist, the bigger the story, the greater the attention.

was this family in arizona famous? rich? were they even white? (i'd be willing to guess no, maybe, and yes.)

we are outraged and want Vick to be punished because in western society we are all sinners and deserve punishment. Animals (certain animals) are without sin and, therefore, deserve sympathy.

It doesn't have anything to do with "racist comments". And my words are chosen with extreme care; it is you who is apparently unable to absorb them. You are in essence arguing that you are the only person who exists, and since you've been outraged for a long time, statements or questions about the bulk of the American population are meaningless. They are not.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question: why now, over Vick? If you think a racially-inspired point of view can only manifest itself in "racist comments", you're crazy. It's the ATTENTION that's racially motivated.

I can't believe anyone seriously doubts this, or seriously believes that the commission of horrible crimes is part of the service that prominent black athletes are expected to provide. Our outrage is part of our pleasure.

Various comments remind me of this moment of initial response from Redskins RB Clinton Portis when the allegations first came up.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=77aw9dG7tis

Dan, it's time to show Charles the door.

fnarf -- why not because he's the most famous person caught so far?

as i said, some of the outrage is racially motivated (even subconsciously). how could it not be? but the majority? i'm not sure the majority is/was.

but then again, i haven't been watching coverage of this -- since i wasn't that outraged. i'm not sure what that says about me, not that personal anecdotes have any place in such a discussion anyway.

Fnarf, I see that you think I don't understand your point entirely, or not at all. Have you seen mine? You're waiting for an answer as to why there is such a large hype over 'why now, over vick?' when I am not. There will be and can be no consensus in this comment thread for the actual reason as to why. There are many, and we can hold countless arguments/rebuttals for them. My point is that dog fighting is wrong. It is a felony. It has been wrong for quite some time now. Whether it has anything to do with race, fame, or riches, it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong, and you're not addressing that. Racially-inspired point of views can manifest themselves everywhere. Our country has been super good at doing that lately. I'm slightly confused by what your "It's the ATTENTION that's racially motivated" was supposed to accomplish. Call me stupid, call me dumb, but help me out here. I do not doubt any reasons for the attention on Vick and this issue. Like I've said, you could throw any of his traits up and we could tear it to bits. Your point is not in the least bit absolute.

Fnarf, your comment @42 is hilarious and falls well, well below your usual standard. You haven't actually responded to or refuted my points and just keep reiterating the same thing. I hear what you're saying, you're just dead wrong. And your comment about me thinking I'm the only one who exists shows that you haven't read a word I wrote.

And are you channeling Jonah Goldberg here:

And my words are chosen with extreme care; it is you who is apparently unable to absorb them.

Take a nap, Fnarf

Charles,

Have you found all of the answers you were looking for? Are you learning? How can we be sure you're not of a fixed mind if you never respond, reply, acknowledge, or debate? I'm sure you have better things to do, but with posts like these, wouldn't it be better to establish your change in opinion with us all? Without doing that, we simply build up all of your thoughts (posts) that we think are absurd and cite them the next time we run into one of these. You're kind of depositing posts in increments of zero.

Mr. Poe, I don't get your point, because it (post 38) is buried in an avalanche of confusing verbiage that appears to be an unsuccessful attempt at quote-and-reply. I honestly can't make heads or tails of it. Your most recent post doesn't have any paragraphs, so I can't read it either.

Gabriel, I will be happy to address your points, as soon as you make some.

Any posts that suggest that I support dog fighting or don't care about animals will be ignored, or that I think Michael Vick isn't a walking bag of shit. That's not the issue here at all. Really, now, you're going to have to try harder than that.

Infrequent is still the only person who has answered my question. I'm still waiting on the rest of you.

It might interest you to know that dog fighting traditionally was the "sport of kings" practiced not by human trash in dusty corners of the South but by the wealthy and prestigious leaders of society.

Fnarf, I'll make it easier on you since you clearly didn't read my comments. Start here:

And the fact that a particular incident has channeled a lot of anger doesn't mean the anger didn't exist before in a less collective way. Things have a habit of reaching a boiling point or a moment of clarity about the nature of the problem.

You could learn a thing or two about constructive conversation. Repeating the same thing in a testy manner without backing up your points gets tiresome quickly. And you indisputably made some ridiculous assertions, e.g. that no one involved cares about the animals no matter what they say, and refusing to take that back makes you look foolish. If you don't express yourself carefully, you should expect to be criticized.

Fnarf,

My html tag for the quote did not work correctly on #38. Sorry you couldn't bother to look beyond that. I'm sorry for not supplying any paragraphs in my #46 post. I'm also sorry that your reply (#50, first paragraph) was what it is: nothing.

Thanks for displaying how much of a benighted bitch you are. I'll go ahead and ignore all of your comments from this point on. Clearly you have no interest in discussing any points other than or added to your own.

You're above me. Go you.

@34

On the money.

Poe, i'm with fnarf on this one.

God, whooooooooooooooooooooooooo cares. Can we go back to Lindsey Lohan stories?

Charles,

Way to explain why Fnarf's 'point' is the only thing you agree with. Way to explain why any number of other points in this thread (Sally Struthers Lawnchair, Ben, Julie, Jessica, Phelix, konstantConsumer, douglas, Gitai, Mark, ol'jb, JMilwaukee, mirror, Deeply Depressed, etc) are either wrong or irrelevent...for whatever the reason(s) you made this post. You're simply with Fnarf, and his little precious point.

It's really simple...

FE-LO-NY

poe, compared to the other points, fnarf seems closer to the truth. this vick business is not just about cruelty to dogs. that's what fnarf is saying, and that's what i believe.

Alrighty then.

It's not a race thing, it's a class thing. And dog fighting is yes ilegal, yes inhumane, yes brutal. But it's fricken classless! It's as colorblind as the damned dogs but it's classless! This is just as much white trash as it is urban. All the low lives in the deep south were going to the bad newz kennelz dog fights regardless of color.

What offends me about the authors initial post was he is drawing comparissons between the violent nature of dog fighting and the violent nature of football, and I'm offended by that. I love football, I think ... it's just playing hard. The whole fun and games until someone gets hurt. There are TWO major issues surrounding football right now. One, the thugs that are given a shot at fame and fortune can't seem to stay out of trouble with the law. And two, the quality of life of players after football. I never really get the feeling that their are many blatant head hunters out there, and as a fan I would hope that their weren't. A lot of time money and research is going into understanding concussions and how to minimize their effects! Better retirement benifits!
As for a dog fight, the loosing dog isn't even given the dignity of living to fight another day. Hell even gladiators got better treatment than that! As a football fan, you want to see your team play well, a great game, and you want to see your players (both sides) come back to the field healthy every sunday and retire well for their years of service, but that's just me.

Classless.

Americans love dogs and hate fucking apes like Vick that abuse them. Pretty simple even for a race-bating, pseudo-intellectual like you.

I agree with OR Matt, Dan. There is no comparison between football and dogfighting. One is a safe, often enjoyable way to relieve aggression, and one is killing in a massively brutal and sickening way. I am disappointed that your disdain of football would lead you to make this sort of tasteless and hurtful comparison. I am not like Vick because I like and pay for football

Your oversimplification does not force readers to understand your dislike of football; it leads to a sense of your callousness towards animals and real violence. Be a little more careful next time before you spout out whatever drivel you think will get a response.

charles, name one other celeb that has ever been caught dog fighting. im sorry that the biggest one so far happens to be black.

should we find a white celeb that dogfights just for the sake of equality?

I don't know what it's like to be black and looking at white mainstream media, but it becomes more and more clear that whatever problems that plague black america, I have no ability to change or control or make better. if one black american finds coverage of a black celeb football player racist, there is nothing that could be black, negative, covered, and not considered racist.

which hurts black people more than whitey.

bellevue -- that's just not true. you usually have somewhat defendable positions, so i'm surprised.

it's not a story existing that makes it racist when it is "black, negative, covered". it's how the story is covered, and the reaction to it. isn't charles just saying the reaction, or rather, over-reaction by the public and then the media an example of racism?

i firmly believe some of it is racially motivated. but not all. and not most. most is just because the perpetrater is so famous. a hick in arizona fights dogs. stupid hick. who cares? bust them and get on with life -- it's probably not a widespread problem anyway. a rich and famous celebrity fights dogs? hello? people are defending him? maybe this is a bigger problem them we thought...