What if Michael Vick was white? - ESPN reaches for new lows...

Yes, I've written rapists, murders, and child molesters. I wrote Vick about a year ago. I don't like repeating myself, so I don't want to get into this spin-off debate. Here's a link to the column I did for the National Sports Journalism Center -- after a Scott Price SI piece on Vick...http://bit.ly/ekZVhZ...

To save you time....I read Vick's words of "apology" and "remorse" and ended my column with this graf:

"That said, I confess that Vick's words leave me cold. Like his lightning-bolt performances, they do nothing for me. There is no fun in watching him, no thrill, nothing. It's as if the laundry, an Eagles jersey, number 7, as empty as its owner's soul, moved by itself. Whatever the 7 did, I saw it and didn't care. That's the oddest feeling, to just not give a damn. Michael Vick is dead to me."

 

I actually once posted such a picture and got in really big trouble.

 

Interesting reply. Don't mean to be too snarky, but you do know a few of us don't have cross-referenced archives of your past nuggets, right? If you say you are "sitting out" a debate, I take that to mean that you have historically "sat out" on that subject.

Anyway, thank you for clearing that up.

 

Yes, and they were on the beach.

Thanks for putting that image back in my head. No, really, thanks.

 

I meant I would "sit out" the current thread's debate on the use of the what-if-he-was-white question.
And I thought I was simply answering your question about "distaste" by finding the column I had done.

 

What if Vick was one of us, just a slob like one of us?

 

Good to know, and yeah dude, all's good on this end. I'd do some of that searching, but I'd rather do something else more fun. Like stop this stupid puppy from tearing up the apartment. Seriously, what were we thinking, getting a half-Jack Russell, half-pit bull?

 

Several people on this post are allowing their emotional attachment to dogs cloud their logic. First of all, "sociopath" isn't even an actual scientific diagnosis -- it's a broad designation that is defined in different terms by different people. Second, you can't discredit Vick's alleged societal predispositions by arguing that he is a sociopath, because the word "sociopath" means a person who does not adhere to societal norms, or one who engages in behavior that is deemed "anti-social." Vick's cruelty toward animals was very much a social behavior. Like it or not, dog-fighting is an acceptable social activity in many poor urban neighborhoods, much like a controlled hunt is an acceptable social activity in many middle-to-upper class white neighborhoods. Not to get too far off track, but if you gave a deer the option of being trapped on a ranch with strategically-placed food supplies and hunters with high-powered rifles and the option of being trapped in a ring with another deer that he can fight against for survival, guess which option the deer is probably going to choose, and therefore which option we can probably deem more "humane"?

Are hunters who engage in these controlled hunts for sport considered "sociopaths?"

Was never a fan of Vick's. Still have plenty of doubts about the sincerity of his supposed "turnaround."

That said, I find it hard to believe that anybody who dismisses the effect of environment on a guy like Vick has spent much time around environments much different from their own. In the environment in which Vick was raised, dog-fighting is not seen as amoral. Sure, it's against the law. But so is smoking marijuana. I'm not equating the two, except to say that just because somebody knowingly violates the law doesn't mean that he is knowingly engaging in amoral behavior, which is what an earlier poster suggested.

Regard for animals is largely dependent on culture. The way Americans treat their cattle is far different from the way Hindu Indians treat their cattle. Does that make our food industry amoral? Dog-fighting was a popular sport amongst the ancient Japanese samurai. Were they amoral? Were they sociopaths?

The "sociopath" is the person who tortures an animal for the sheer sake of torturing it. Not because he derives pleasure from it, but because he does not understand what difference it makes. He is incapable of understanding the ramifications of his actions. He is the kid who sets a cat on fire just because he can. It is difficult to argue that Vick engaged in dog-fighting just because he could. In the culture Vick grew up in, dog-fighting was a social behavior that was viewed as a sport, as a way to make money, as a way to establish dominance, as a way to elevate adrenaline and social standing. If you refuse to believe that, then I suggest you spend some time in that culture. Because it is reality. It just is.

That doesn't mean that Vick isn't a "sociopath" any more than it means he is. Same goes for participation in a controlled hunt.

If you look at Vick's history before his dogfighting charges, there are several incidents that suggest he was not a "good" person by any culture's definition. Which is why discussions like this are so discouraging, because few people on either side of the argument seem to grasp reality. Just because Mike Vick paid his legal debt to society does not mean that he is any better of a person than the day he was arrested. Just because he does charity work does not mean he is now a charitable person. Just because he says the right words doesn't mean he believes in them.

Here is where Toure's piece falls short. The ability to withstand legal punishment and return to peak athletic performance is not "heroic." It is an impressive feat of physical perseverance and psychological perseverance. Nothing more.

Heroism is the display of physical perseverance and psychological perseverance during a conscious effort to contribute to the greater good. Vick did not choose to trade football for Leavenworth as part of some holy quest to show the public the ramifications that can result from the making of poor decisions or the lowering of oneself to the culture around him. The real hero is the kid from the 'hood who elevated himself above it's culture despite the pressure to do otherwise, whether that kid went on to become an NFL quarterback or a blue-collar worker.

Mike Vick committed a crime. He got caught. He served the punishment that our criminal code perscribed. He did not choose to do any of those. Maybe he really is a shining example of an individual's ability to reform. Maybe he really does understand why dog-fighting is not considered an acceptable behavior by the society in which he makes his living. Maybe he finally realizes that instead of dog-fighting, he could have been using the respect people have for his immense physical talent to improve the culture in which he was raised. Or maybe he is only interested in his individual welfare/prosperity.

The only legitimate debate is whether Vick is a public figure worthy of respect and/or emulation. And the great irony of the current debate is that his decision to engage in dogfighting only distracts from the legitimate one. You can doubt Vick's sincerity, or you can believe in his sincerity without forgiving him his past. What you cannot do is conclusively state that he lacks the ability, or the right, to reform.

To deny that is to deny thousands of years of human enlightenment: a person or group of people realize the inadequacy of the values of their culture and adopt new values that create a more civilized culture. For decades, the culture in the American South was one in which blacks were considered to be inferior to whites. That did not excuse a child raised in the Jim Crow era from any racist attitudes that he or she harbored as an adult. But it also did not disqualify that adult from ever achieving a personal transformation through the acknlowedgment of the flaws of the culture in which he or she was raised. Take the Biblical story of Paul, who was raised in a culture in which the slaying of Christians was deemed socially acceptable and who happily made the activity part of his daily leisure until a chance encounter instilled in him a realization of the error of his ways.

To state unequivocally that Vick does not possess the potential for a similar transformation is to doubt the very essence of our supposed humanity. If our species does not possess the ability to change who we are based on the lessons that we learn from the decisions that we make, then we are no different from the pitbulls who prompted this discussion. But if you acknowledge that a human like Vick has the unique ability to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" and therefore must take responsibility for deciding between the two, then you have to acknowledge that such a being has the ability to change his notions of each.

The thing is, none of us are in a position to accurately judge whether Vick has experienced true enlightenment. You can only decide whether to root for him or not.

 

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

- Mahatma Gandhi

 

What dmurph003 said.

 

I'm glad the other guy is around to tell us what the only legitimate debate is.