Warning! REAl Morality discussed here = Q. About Vick

[OCinBuffalo]

I have a 2 part question:

 

1. We are constantly being told that we need to accept, or at least tolerate, other cultures, ideas, etc. In fact, it is often stated, if not implied, that NOT being tolerant = you are immoral. Michale Vick saw his first dog fight at 7 yrs old. Dog Fighting was indeed a part of his culture. This presents a dilemma: if we are supposed to be tolerant of "alternative culture", shouldn't we therefore be tolerant of dog fighting? Let's also remember there is a long history of rooster fighting in Latin American culture as well, shouldn't we be tolerant of that?

 

2. If your answer to #1 is no, or better no f'ing way, then what are you basing that on? How do you define what is tolerable? Let's say its some standard like: we don't tolerate cultures/the parts of a culutre that support destructive behavior. How does that square with things like: most rap lyrics? or, glorification of "keeping it real" rather than going to school and getting an eduction? The continued risky behavior of not using condoms/sharing of needles re: spreading HIV? All of that is also destructive behavior. So, what do you base your "tolerance standard" on?

[Fastback]

Quick answer- We only need to accept other cultures when it's politically correct/expedient. Look, I love my (2) dogs as much as the next guy, but if I were Korean, I'd most likely love them on my dinner plate.

 

When I was stationed in Japan I ate basashi which is raw horse meat or horse sashimi. It's pretty damn good actually and I ate it on numerous occasions. I'd probably get thrown in jail here if I were to butcher a horse for dinner.

 

As far as Mike Vick's transgressions, I'm over it. He did the time, let the man move on with his life. I personally don't subscribe to the 'thug' life and culture he seems to follow, but if he can win football games and stay out of further legal trouble, then the Bill's should sign him.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Oh good , Vick thread # 1000. How would butchering a animal [any animal, I don't care what it is] for human consumption as food compare with organizing vicious dog fights for your perverse pleasure?

[RkFast]

Jim...you missed the whole point.

 

One culture's "perverse" is another's "mainstream"

[LeviF]

From my standpoint, the problem arises when you start causing nontrivial harm to animals that can feel pain. It's one thing if you kill dogs quickly (as painlessly as possible) and eat them. It's completely another to have them fight each other until one is crippled/dead.

[John Adams]

From my standpoint, the problem arises when you start causing nontrivial harm to animals that can feel pain. It's one thing if you kill dogs quickly (as painlessly as possible) and eat them. It's completely another to have them fight each other until one is crippled/dead.

 

And torturing them. And providing rape stands so certain dogs are forced to breed. Vick is a monster and you're right: There is a scale of animal treatment. On that scale, Vick is at the farthest end. Though sex-with-animals is arguably more disgusting, what Vick did is much more cruel.

[KD in CA]

The idea of respecting or tolerating all cultures is utter nonsense. The mob is a 'culture'. So is genital mutilation of girls in Africa. So was slavery. Are those cultures to be respected/tolerated?

 

Certain people/cultures are barbaric and will continue to be so. Where do you draw the line? Well, because everybody would put it in a different place, the line (hopefully) becomes what the majority of people think is appropriate and reasonable. Thus, excusing Vick for dogfighting as part of his culture may work in some barbaric, 3d world sh--hole, but not in the US (where coincidentally, you can make millions of dollars throwing a football around).

 

As for Vick himself, he paid his debt so there's no reason he shouldn't be allowed to live his life.