Home > Politics, News & Issues > News > People in the News
Michael Vick: Is he a criminal for promoting dog fighting?
Results so far:
| Yes | 89% | 1297 votes | Total: 1455 votes | |
| No | 11% | 158 votes |
Yes
by Lucius Trae
Created on: April 01, 2010
The practice of dog fighting is brutal and inhumane. The dogs are mistreated to train them for fighting, and the fighting itself is obviously brutal. The dogs often die as a result. Furthermore, it serves as an arena for violent individuals to meet together, socialize, and increase their adrenaline. It's a detriment to the humanity of an individual for them to be watching a sport that involves non-consenting animals being encouraged to brutalize one another.
The "two wrongs make a right fallacy" is commonplace in modern society. A child is punished for eating too many cookies and complains that "somebody else did it too so I shouldn't be punished."
The fact that other unacceptable behaviors occur is hardly a justification for doing nothing to stop dog fighting. The solution is to punish all the offenders. If we can't convict everyone who is guilty, we can't let all the criminals go now, can we?
Furthermore, issues involving humans fighting are slightly different. There are arguments on both sides of issues like war, ultimate fighting and boxing. It's a bit off-topic so I won't address my opinions on those issues.
However, the difference between humans and dogs is consent. We criticize child soldiers because for reasons such as their inability to comprehend the situation, their lack of capacity to perform the tasks, etc.
Dogs, similarly, lack the ability to consent. Obviously, the dogs we see today aren't naturally wild, but they certainly aren't intrinsically prone to killing one another. Pit Bulls are a bit more aggressive than other dogs, but they wouldn't sign up for dog fights if they understood what was occurring.
And by the way, the more dangerous human combat becomes the fewer volunteers you get. Soldiers and fighters take risks, but they are certainly well protected by rules, armor, and other circumstances.
When people think of animal rights, they think of PETA. There are hundreds of different animal rights groups, and there are groups far more radical than PETA. Animal rights activists are usually non-violent, but this is not true of all of them. When legal means of stopping harm to animals exist, these groups try to use them.
If the government actually decriminalized dog fighting, there will be social conflicts that will waste the resources of the police department. And quite frankly, I think people who don't consider themselves animal-rights activists would end up in legal trouble.
Ordinary citizens shouldn't have to incur legal repercussions because the government fails to criminalize immoral activities. Dog fighting is absolutely unacceptable. Even if someone believes, "it's a cultural difference," that doesn't excuse it. We're in "this" culture.
When people hear about the practice, it "deeply bothers them." If we went to another country and disrespected their customs, we would be criticized. Why are we being told to disrespect our own customs?
To summarize, I've presented a variety of arguments to try and convince both sides of the fence. If I'm fortunate enough to convince one person dog fighting is unacceptable, I'll be quite happy.
Personally, I think it's unethical because of what it does to the dogs rather than as a result of a cultural context. But given people have different perspectives, I think it's important to remember that dog fighting is undesirable from multiple points of view.
Learn more about this author, Lucius Trae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Hamlet Pericles
Created on: September 14, 2007 Last Updated: July 12, 2008
The simple definition of a criminal states the following: somebody who has committed a crime and somebody acting illegally. Yes, Michael Vick did commit a crime, for he acted illegally by promoting dog fighting. Dog fighting does represent an act of animal cruelty; there is no other way to put it. However, he does not fit the motif of a criminal, especially in regard to dog fighting.
Reading so many articles by sports sites and listening to major news channels, it is apparent that many people think he's a bad guy and the law should make an example of him. The consensus by many is clear: he is a criminal and should be given the maximum sentence. If those who argue that Vick is a criminal evaluated this issue objectively - concerning all acts of animal cruelty through the sport of animal fighting/killing - they would realize that Vick's situation isn't so different (e.g., hunters).
Don't people realize that animal cruelty occurs every single day? Don't people realize that animal killing is legal and a sport in some states? Don't people understand that hunters take joy in killing defenseless animals constantly? With that understood, why aren't hunters considered criminals? They are acting in the same behavior as Vick - but much deplorable. Vick admitted to killing a few dogs, but when one really thinks about it, hunters have killed thousands of animals during their lifetime. In fact, one hunter alone may account for over a hundred of kills or even more. Isn't that more disturbing than Vick's promoting and possible killings?
To further this argument, one issue of importance will be addressed: wildlife agencies (in conjunction with hunters).
Wildlife agencies are obligated to protect wildlife and ensure their safety, but they do quite the opposite - because wildlife agencies issue hunting licenses. It is not for certain if these hunting licenses generate most of their revenues, but one should assume that the selling of hunting licenses are advantageous to their income due to the amount of hunters that are out there. Wildlife agencies argue that hunting animals in parks and forests is crucial to maintain the population and stop the overpopulation.
First of all, doesn't nature have a way of controlling overpopulation? Secondly, why are we, humans, trying to control the number of animals with the act of killing them? If bears, deer, or whatever animal that it may be are overpopulating the wild and not interfering with human life, then what's the problem?
Moreover, if they are not a nuisance to people and break into people's home, then it should not be an issue. It should only be an issue when wild animals go beyond their boundaries and break into homes and attack people; that act of bad behavior should warrant killing them. Other than that, it is uncalled for. God gives us dominion over animals for food, not just to kill them for pleasure and without any provocation. That's outright animal cruelty. Vick promoted dog fighting monetarily and wildlife agencies promote hunters by selling hunting licenses, both situations constitute an act of animal cruelty.
More disturbing is the fact that hunting is considered a legal sport in some states. Hunters kill not for food - but for amusement. If that is not sick and cruel, then what is? Moreover and more outrageous is the killing of bears and/or deer and decapitating the head and turning it into a trophy, displaying it in their house. Killing a bear or a deer may seem to be nothing major, but what about the outcome?
For example, if one bear is killed and that bear happens to be a mother of three cubs. What will happen to those cubs? They would most likely die or be killed by another wild animal. As a result, the one mother bear that was killed accounts for four bears being killed. Vick may have killed a few dogs, but the actions of hunters (account for way more killings) have a more prolong effect with only one slaughter. And some people argue that hunting is a sport.
Those who hold such belief may have a different interpretation of what sport means, because the general meaning of sport is a competition between two persons of two groups, competing fairly. How is killing an unarmed and defenseless animal competing fairly and a sport? Dog fighting is more of a sport than hunting because it involves two dogs, rather than a human competing against species. It ought to be called unjust target practice, because that's what it really is. If bears (or any animals) had guns, camouflage gears, and binoculars to level the battle and counter the hunters, then it would be a sport.
Before anybody criticizes Vick for promoting dog fighting, people really need to think objectively - rather than subjectively - and look at the situation from many angles. It is amazing how some in the media (especially animal groups) take the time and dehumanize the man for something that happens with wildlife agencies and is legal in some states. It was even reported that some said that Vick should be banned for life from the NFL. That's almost laughable and plain fatuous to even suggest such nonsense.
There is no difference from what Vick did and what wildlife agencies/hunters do. Vick promoted dog fighting without a doubt; likewise, wildlife agencies promote the slaughter of animals and continue to do so by providing licenses for hunters. Those who think that Vick's charges will deter others from participating in dog fighting are mistaken; it will continue to take place.
In all, in no way should anybody support/promote dog fighting, nor support cruelty to animals. There is no denying that Vick participated in a foolish pastime and committed animal cruelty, but HE IS NOT A CRIMINAL. If Vick is considered a criminal for his actions, then wildlife agencies, hunters, and animal shelters that euthanize healthy dogs and cats (to control congestion) should be considered criminals as well.
Learn more about this author, Hamlet Pericles.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley