Comments on: Did Whoopi Goldberg defend Michael Vick?

By: Halley

Halley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:10:01 +0000

I beleive that maybe she was not giving Vick and excuse. But for her to say that it is normal in the south just goes to prove that she does not know the south anymore. I have lived in the south for 6 years. I have 5 beautiful dogs 2 of which are pitbulls. I am very much involved in trying to get this dog, cock fighting to stop. And when she says things like this it upsets me for the fact that she does not know the true problem. But she does not have to worry about that now does she….

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:19:47 +0000

I doubt you give a rat’s behind about animals. And you likely don’t care much about people, either, or you’d realize that animal abuse is close tied to violence about people. Study after study confirms this link.

It’s not an either-or situation, by the way. You are allowed to care about animals AND people.

By: Thomas Rutherford

Thomas Rutherford — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:26:50 +0000

It’s a shame that crimes against people, say manslaughter or rape, do not get the kind of response you pet rights activists have had to Vick. He would have been better off killing someone while driving drunk, or date-raping a woman, as far as your sense of proportion, and the law’s, goes. This is a twisted loss of value for human life, replaced by relative overblown concern for animals. Sorry, I love animals, but must disagree.

By: Alexandra Fiona Dixon

Alexandra Fiona Dixon — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:06:53 +0000

Yes, she was explaining, not condoning. She could have gone on to say, maybe that’s something people should work to CHANGE in the South, or in the black culture, or whatever culture she thinks fosters that attitude toward “dogs as sport.” She didn’t suggest that, did she? A public service announcement from her might make a difference.

Another thing she got wrong is this - she said Michael Vick didn’t realize that dogfighting wasn’t culturally acceptable, until he had this “lightbulb” moment and realized it.

You think he didn’t already know? Of course he knew most people thought it was unacceptable, even in the South - or he wouldn’t have hidden it so carefully. Did the owner of the Atlanta Falcons know he was fighting dogs? Did Nike know? Hay-ull no - he was smart enough to know it was a dirty, nasty, cruel, illegal activity, and he needed to hide it.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:03:19 +0000

I live in the deep south and believe me, there are MANY people who know better than to fight and torture dogs. Yes, there are the twisted few who participate in this mostly for financial gain. We even have pitbull rescue, owned and operated by native southerners, to save these dogs and work to eliminate this horrendous practice. This also is practiced in many other areas of the country, not just the south. These comments are another form of “south bashing”.

By: mina

mina — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:32:55 +0000

I do not care if you are from south and east or wherever else abusing and killing animals is cruel. And excuse ” o well he grew up in a wrong neighborhood” well guess what, at the time he was doing this he was not in that neighborhood anymore. and why would a man that makes 120 million dollars be fighting dogs?
For his own sadistic pleasure. He is a sick man.

By: jewelcatz

jewelcatz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:52:39 +0000

Anyone that tries to “explain” or “defend” Michael Vick’s behavior by stating that “he is simply a victim of a specific culture or up-bringing” seems to forget one very important fact that has been well documented when it comes to those who participate in blood sport.

Dog Fighting is against the law!!!! Every single person that is involved in this God-awful barbaric activity knows it it against the law. That is why they call it the underground world of dog fighting because 99.99% of the people involved try to keep everything hidden from the public. That is why law enforcement has such a tough time tyring catch these criminals, because everything is on the “hush hush”.

Ignorance will never be accepted as an excuse in a court of law. Vick knew darn well that what he was doing was illegal. He knew it was a crime. He is an adult and he knew that what he was doing, he was breaking the law! I don’t care where he grew up, he knows that what he was doing was a crime. End of story!

By: Christie Keith

Christie Keith — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:47:52 +0000

The ONLY reason to apply sweeping generalities and reasons from society at large on to individual criminals is to lessen their guilt and punishment.

I don’t agree. By understanding how certain things come to be, you can often design interventions for OTHERS so they don’t happen in the future. I believe that asking “why” and “how” is a very valuable question about all anti-social and unacceptable behavior, not to exonerate the person in front of you, but to determine if there are things you can learn from him or her that might keep this from happening again with someone else.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:01:34 +0000

Shadepuppy -

I didn’t call you a teenager. I said your argument is like a common one made by teenagers. Wanting to know “why” not to inform the situation, but to lessen the punishment. If you prefer, it’s just like a Sr. Vice President reporting to the CEO about poor job performance using “let me explain” to lessen the punishment by casting blame elsewhere.

In all your years as a counselor, what percent of your patients have you recommended for harsher punishment vs. more lenient punishment when the facts were colored by knowing them better? I know I’d lean towards letting people off since I don’t think I could maintain impartiality.

Asking “why” too much is often a means of changing blame from the criminal and shifting it to nebulous “society” or “culture.” Don’t blame the victims, blame the society that made them that way!! This is losing impartiality.

Asking “why” about Vick is like Nancy Kerrigan yelling “why why why why?” when her knee was battered with a club. The answer is obvious. She was better than Tonya and Tonya wanted to win.

Vick is a cracker/redneck/ghetto idiot who enjoys the carnal pleasure eeked out of watching dogs hurt each other. Bloodsport has always had its followers and I myself enjoy watching boxing and mixed martial arts. At least there, the fighters are acting in their own free will.

And free will is the answer to your question. People do things because they are free to do them and because they derive pleasure from them. Vick liked it. That’s why he did it. His blackness didn’t make him do it. His southernness didn’t make him do it. His culture didn’t make him do it. He made the free will choice to do it. And nothing is more condescending that thinking that we are just victims of our race, our ethnicity, or the culture around us.

To let Vick off or in any way lessen his punishment because he is black or a southerner or a hick and dog fighting is supposedly accepted by any and all of those groups is equally as racist and bigoted as condemning him as an individual for the supposed crimes of those groups. ISMs cut both ways. Individuals being treated differently because of their group membership. Racism. Limiting his punishment is just as racist as limiting his opportunity. If you said he shouldn’t be a quarterback because he is black, you’re clearly racist. But you’re also racist if you say that he should not get the full punishment because he is black.

Nothing more need be understood about Vick and dog fighting vis-a-vis his sentence or his punishment.

If you’d like to find out any answers to ‘why’ questions, they should be directed at dogfighting in general, not at Vick in specific, and the answers to those questions inform action against dog fighting in general, not Vick in specific.

It’s immoral, it’s illegal, and it’s cruel. I don’t care if his PRIEST and his MOTHER told him to do it. I don’t care if it’s his CULTURE.

None of those matter on the specific. And as a counselor, you deal with specific people. If you were to work as a legislator, then I’d want you to ask all those questions and find solutions.

But none of that applies to the specific case of Vick. The ONLY reason to apply sweeping generalities and reasons from society at large on to individual criminals is to lessen their guilt and punishment.

By: Roberta

Roberta — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 04:28:11 +0000

I disagree with Whoopi Goldberg’s assertion that Vick’s disregard for animal welfare stemmed from his geographic roots although his upbringing may have played a part in his actions—if he had not left his home area behind. Vick’s family lived in public housing. Since pets were not allowed in most public housing projects until just a few years ago, It’s entirely possible that the only people he knew who kept dogs used them for dogfighting. Nevertheless, Vick left the projects nine years before that indictment came down. He attended Virginia Tech before he went to Atlanta to play for the Falcons. Surely, he had to learn during those nine years that most people think of their dogs as part of the family. Surely, he had to have learned that dogfighting and attendant cruelty were not acceptable to the vast majority of people in a civilized society. He knew he was breaking the law or he would not have hid his “hobby” or lied about it until lying was no longer possible. It is mind boggling that someone so talented and appreciated would spend the entire tenure of his very lucrative employment funding and operating a particularly repulsive and sadistic, large scale, interstate, illegal gambling venture.