Why I’m Confused About Michael Vick
Vick Speaking Against Dogfighting
The last time I attempted satire, with my new way of veganism, VBM (Vegan Between Meals), mocking, of course, Mark Bittman’s VB6 (Vegan Before 6), I was not met with unanimous appreciation. I was very tempted to give it another go with this, but I don’t want to be confusing or otherwise annoying to our treasured readers. Plus, I think my snarky days are over. Something about my upcoming 44th birthday, in addition to motherhood, makes me feel like that’s no longer appropriate.
Let’s deconstruct . . .
As we all know, Michael Vick engaged in illegal behavior with his dogfighting operation and the killing of dogs. And we’re all understandably repulsed by that behavior. However, as we’ve all discussed since 2007, perhaps killing dogs and having someone kill pigs for you aren’t all that different. And perhaps those who wear the skin of cows might want to refrain from casting aspersions on those who fight and kill dogs.
As a vegan and animal rights advocate, I must state that to the animals–dogs, pigs, cows, whomever–it makes no difference who is doing the killing or who is paying. None of the details matter except one: somebody’s getting killed. So from that angle the situation is clear. Michael Vick = everyone else responsible for the death of sentient nonhumans.
However, and I’ve addressed this before, there is a difference between killing someone and paying someone to do it for you. I’m not interested in a discussion of the legal system–I’m referring to what it takes for a person to electrocute a dog or insert a blade into a bull for fun. That’s a special kind of . . . someone I don’t want anywhere near my daughter. But even though that’s the case, what’s also true is that there are former hunters, ranchers and dogfighters. And trainers of dolphins. And killers of dolphins. Just as there are former omnivores, there are people who for whatever reason once behaved badly toward nonhuman animals, realized that they were wrong and changed their behavior. They changed who they are. People really do change.
I know nothing of Michael Vick personally, but I have seen the angry tweets and posts by people shocked that he might be allowed to own a dog after his three years of judge-imposed nonownership of dogs is over. Why such animosity toward Vick, though? Would the same people feel comfortable allowing Howard Lyman or Harold Brown to adopt a cow? Why are omnivores–even ranchers and farmers–allowed to go vegan and applauded for that decision (as they should be, particularly considering all of the resistance from their subculture as well as the mainstream), yet Michael Vick can never, ever redeem himself? Is it because he was caught, so his conversion was forced upon him rather than it coming from his own conscience? Was three years too little time? Is it because Vick is working with HSUS and Wayne Pacelle thinks he might be rehabilitated and deserve a second chance?
Is it because he didn’t go vegan, but if he did he would then be forgiven? Is going vegan the only path to redemption for someone who abused and killed animals with his or her own hands? Is veganism the only acceptable response to any usage of animals for you? Do people who breed and train horses and profit from their natural talent and love of running get any imaginary points for ceasing that behavior, or must they go vegan in order for you to give them any credit?
What say you, readers?
–Photo from Wayne Pacelle’s blog: A Humane Nation
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
It’s not that I can’t see your point, however, factoring in our society’s beliefs, willfully killing animals called “pets” horrifies more people than does the killing of cows, pigs or chickens. Only a small percentage of the folks involved in animal rescue are vegetarian/vegan in my experience. The same holds true for people who consider themselves environmentalists.
My biggest problems with Vick are 1) the cold-hearted manner in which many of the dogs were killed. Check out one of the latest posts on Bad Rap’s blog here: http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/file-this-one-in-your-have-you-been.html and 2) I haven’t read any quotes from Vick that indicate he is remorseful about the dogs themselves. Like this quote from his interview on the Dan Patrick radio program: “I would have continued to put my life in jeopardy.” His concern and remorse seem to be for what HE has lost, not the horrors he committed. Of course, if he broke down and cried, I’m not sure those would be real tears he was shedding over the dogs. From accounts that I’ve read, he and his friends seemed to enjoy torturing dogs to death. I think he’s mentally ill and cannot be cured. Much like a pedophile, there is no rehabilitation possible. But, this is just my opinion.
For me, I don’t believe he is a changed man, and that is because he changed only after being caught. While I empathize with a lot of things, I can’t do it with somebody that engages in willful cruelty and actually enjoys it – so I have difficulty believing that whatever piece of his brain is broken, has suddenly fixed itself (again, by being caught?).
I also do not trust Wayne Pacelle, nor HSUS’ motivations, so their endorsement doesn’t have much meaning for me.
It reminds me of the scenario (maybe it was from a movie) where the killer suddenly has the tables turned, has a gun held on HIM with the impending loss of his life, and suddenly turns into a crying mess, pleading, begging, promising that he will change. He is very convincing, even able to invoke sympathy from the viewer – as LONG as the gun is on him. When he suddenly regains control 0f the gun and knows that he is no longer in danger, his tears vanish and he then proceeds to kill his victim. They were crocodile tears. That is my feeling about Michael Vick. I feel that he is probably a sociopath and even if he became vegan I would still be skeptical.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this, too.
In general, I recognize that people change. I did when I went vegan. Did I torture dogs before? No. But I still did some pretty awful things even though they were much more socially acceptable. I think, for example, of all the things I did while fishing as a kid and I am truly sorry for the pain I caused others. And I look around, too, at the vegans who were hunters, ranchers, and so on. They give me hope. Seeing as so few of us were raised to be vegans, we should keep that in mind when we start feeling judgmental.
As for Vick, I don’t really know him or what he is now capable of. I do wish he would learn that animals aren’t ours to exploit. As he’s not a vegan, it seems pretty obvious that he hasn’t — though he’s got plenty of company in that. It strikes me all the more when he and others talk about what having a dog could do for *him*. And that is, sadly, the talk of so many self-proclaimed “animal lovers”, people who often care more about what animals do for them rather than what they could do for the animals.
Ideally, he and everyone else would be vegan and only rescue animals, never buy or breed them, and we’d all keep these animals for their sakes until domestic animals had all lived out their lives. But, for now, there are animals dying in shelters and I have to ask myself what guardian/owner is good enough to spare them being killed. And the truth is, I don’t know. I truly don’t know.
As for HSUS, it would be nice if they’d talk more about what we can do for animals instead of what animals can do for us, but then this is the same HSUS that supports “humane” meat and other forms of animal exploitation.
Good questions, Mary.
I don’t think anyone is irredeemable. But your post made me think of child abusers. Whether just or not, whether merciful or not, society considers pedophiles unable to be rehabilitated. That’s why, when child rapists come out of prison, if they ever do, they’re not allowed to live within certain distances of schools, they must keep the judicial system apprised of their current address, and there’s a public registry with their name and address listed.
As we know, Suffolk County, NY, recently passed a bill mandating an animal abuse registry for offenders. And there is legislation in the works there that would bar anyone on the registry from buying or adopting a pet from a shelter, pet shop or breeder. If Michael Vick’s Surry County, Virginia, had a similar law, surely he and others convicted of dog-fighting in that jurisdiction would not be allowed to “own” dogs ever again, right? They would have to move to another county if they were bent on buying or adopting a dog.
For me, what’s important is not so much whether Michael Vick or any other felon who is convicted for victimizing animals is ever considered reformed, reliable, and ready (according to a judge, a psychologist, or a clergyman) to be a guardian of a dog, but whether it is responsible of society and fair to dogs everywhere to potentially endanger another voiceless, defenseless creature. We as a society would never do that to human children. So why would we do it to canine children?
Yet … I’m not going to rule out the possibility that Vick will eventually be permitted to adopt a dog, will build a respectful, loving, trusting relationship with that dog, will even develop a passion for stopping dog-fighting (without the self-promoting help of HSUS), and will make a bigger impact on ending that evil industry than anyone else in the history of the “sport.” Stranger things have happened.
This alleged satire is sick.
It’s not alleged satire, “name.” If you read the post carefully, you’d see that Mary opted to refrain from satire. And by “sick,” do you mean the good kind or the bad kind? Because there are two meanings of “sick” these days, as you probably know. :-)
Sadist sociopaths turning vegan for show is not something I wish to concern myself with. Enough with the focus on these useless people.
I think you do not understand what the terms sadist and sociopath mean. But you sure do have vitriol down pat!
Although I admit that I feel sometimes as if Vick isn’t given credit for his alleged rehabilitation because racism is a factor, from the little bit that I know of him he seems insincere and that’s what bothers me.
It also bothers me that HSUS is convinced that Vick can be rehabilitated but the dogs he tortured could not. That’s not Vick’s issue necessarily but another mark against HSUS.
Comparing Harold Brown to Vick is also inappropriate, I think, because Brown has gone from killing animals to advocating for all animals; he has not done so for profit or PR but to help animals, and I think this, again is where my issues with Vick come in. Not knowing the guy I can’t speak with certainty, of course, and I could be severely misjudging him, but again, from what I’ve seen he doesn’t strike me as sincere in his concern for dogs and that’s why his rehabilitation seems like a sham. It’s PR, like it seems to be for so many idiot celebrities who claim veganism and then eat cheese and publicly admit it in order to not seem “rigid and icy” like all of us non-celebrity vegans; like those who swear of wearing fur and then decide it’s okay; like those who have always thought wearing fur is fine — I just don’t trust that most celebrities are altruistic, and most of them have shown that when it comes to animals, they care more about their images than about those who suffer.
I share the irritation with non-vegans’ condemnation of Vick, but I also share many people’s skepticism about how soon and under what circumstances, if any, he should be entrusted with the care of animals.
And I respectfully but strongly disagree with the comparison between Vick’s situation and that of the likes of Harold and Howard. For me, intent here matters, significantly. Whereas now-animal-advocates such as Harold and Howard and Cheri and Virgil and many others participated in the exploiting & killing of animals as well, they did so not because they enjoyed directly and got pleasure specifically from the suffering of animals. People in this category may cringe at the fact that they once considered what they did just necessary, part of how things are, and that they sincerely felt like they cared about or even loved the animals whose exploitation and killing they were a part of, but I think most did. And to me, that is worlds different from what Vick did–I can’t put ex-farmers of this type in the same category as someone who took sadistic pleasure from the suffering, whose very goal in what he did with animals–pitting them against each other to fight to death–was that suffering, and who did the beyond-the-pale things he did to those dogs; there was not even a pretense of or attempt at “humane” in how he treated them and how he killed them–quite the opposite.
Allowing for the fact that someone can change, that someone should be able to grow and make amends and carry on with his life is one thing, but entrusting someone who did what Vick did with the very life of an animal–an animal who would be privately, behind closed doors completely dependent on him, an animal who by his or her very nature may sometimes make messes, frustrate emotions, not do exactly what the humans hanging around want or understand–that is something I can’t say I’m comfortable with. Might he be truly changed, truly remorseful, and a great potential caregiver? Maybe. But I don’t think we know that (or can know that?) for sure. And like others, I’ve failed to see much convincing (if any) remorse or emotion about the dogs in his statements and interviews. Maybe I’ve also missed some recent developments; I don’t know. But if the decision is made to place a vulnerable animal in Vick’s care, it is that animal whom we are placing at risk, not ourselves.
There are situations in which we acknowledge a person’s capacity for change, in which we can see the good and loving parts of them, in which we want that person to be able to carry on a fulfilling, mostly normal life, but still place restrictions on what they can or can’t do, in order to err on the side of protecting their potential victims, should we (or the perpetrator) be wrong about the perpetrator’s rehabilitation. We don’t let people who have sadistically, brutally sexually abused children run day cares after they’ve served time and/or been rehabilitated, and I see more similarities to that sort of situation here than to the cases of the former farmers mentioned.
Simply put, there is huge difference between forgiving Vick and allowing him to own animals. You could forgive a pedophile, but do you want him around your daughter?
The objection to comparisons to Howard Lyman and Harold Brown are precisely the reason I don’t agree completely that “We are all Michael Vick.” If what matters to the animals is their lives and those lives are being taken, to them, we *are* all Michael Vick. Your intent doesn’t matter to the animals. Enjoyment, upbringing, tradition, none of that matters. That’s part of why we don’t buy into the humane myth. Your intent does matter, however, matter to other *people* and how they perceive you, and that’s what’s in play here.
The comparison to former farmers and ranchers is that they all used animals and then changed, and now even speak out against what they used to do. That is what happened, though as we both say, doing what Vick did (or a bullfighter, etc…) takes a certain something inside a person that’s disturbing.
Vick appears to not be doing a good job of convincing many people that he has changed. I can’t say either way, as not everyone shows remorse the same way. I tend to be stoic and that is often interpreted as indifference. Harold Brown is probably the most genuinely sorry person most of us will ever see, but that doesn’t mean Vick isn’t remorseful.
Part of me wonders, like Connie, if it this isn’t about dogs and the speciesism at work when we value them more than other sentient nonhumans.
“I can’t say either way, as not everyone shows remorse the same way”: Good point, Mary.
To clarify my perhaps-not-well-articulated earlier point, I absolutely agree that our intent doesn’t matter to the animals we have harmed or are harming, of course. I meant to pose the argument that intent matters in terms of what people might do in the future, in terms of what they’re capable of, maybe. It’s like you said–”I’m referring to what it takes for a person to electrocute a dog or insert a blade into a bull for fun. That’s a special kind of . . . someone I don’t want anywhere near my daughter.”
It’s the harming-for-fun part (and not even just harming, but actively torturing and sadistically killing) that troubles me most when we’re talking about possibly putting animals in that person’s care again. For me, if a person’s actual intent when he or she was causing animals harm wasn’t cruelty, wasn’t torture-for-fun–if the person never consciously got kicks from inflicting egregious suffering–he or she is someone I’m much more likely to trust with care of animals in the future after a turnaround. I can’t personally put that same kind of caregiving trust in someone who derived conscious pleasure from suffering specifically. I also wouldn’t want someone who used to, for sport, gleefully drop-kick and rip off the body parts of chickens in a shed or a slaughterhouse to later get to keep chickens in his home. Volunteer at a sanctuary? Sure. Live his life? Sure. Be privately, directly, personally responsible for chickens’ well-being behind closed doors? Uhn-uh.
Ditto, Stephanie.
But Stephanie, we can’t allow our moral schizophrenia to overdetermine our conclusions here.
Yes, “we” generally value “pet” animals higher than farmed animals. However, in certain contexts, that valuation doesn’t hold and even “pet” animals are reduced to things, below things even. (some) Farmers aren’t consciously cruel, even though their practices are obviously cruel, because animals are sentient property to be exploited. Because dogs, in some contexts, are, too, perhaps we can come to a similar conclusion about dog fighters?
And so practices like electrocuting a dog, while horrendous, and seemingly an act of conscious cruelty *because* of our general moral schizophrenia (that is, a pig I get, but not a dog in our culture), might lack the intent that you are ascribing to it. That is, like the ex-farmer, perhaps Vick was so thoroughly implicated in a context that made his actions typical.
Therefore, if we are going to concede that ex-farmers can “change,” then similarly, given the right circumstances, Vick can, too. His “intent” when killing and abusing those dogs, in other words, is as understandable as the ex-farmers “intent” when he killed and abused animals.
Harold has devoted the rest of his life to bring public awareness to why all animal agriculture is a system of speciesist oppression and to help society make the connection to farm animals so we recognize them as individuals. As Mary mentioned, Harold is perhaps one of the most remorseful, haunted individuals you may ever meet. He’s also one of the most humble men with a great gentle spirit. What’s the difference between him and Vick? Actions. Harold doesn’t partner with a dubious animal-exploiting corporation such as the HSUS in what appears to be a standard public relations stunt to shift public perception of his image and in the long term financially benefit him. This is not to say Michael Vick can’t change. I hope he does. Of course, right now, only Michael Vick knows what is in his own heart.
The troubling aspect about Gary Francione’s approach to morality is that he places the burden of guilt on a non-vegan society. He holds non-vegans more accountable than agribusiness itself. I understand his perspective but disagree. It’s also much easier to attack non-vegans rather than agribusiness. In doing so, he has often inadvertently helped agribusiness preserve its status quo.
RE: what you said about GLF, I don’t mean to go off subject too much, but I think this is an interesting issue you’ve brought up.
He definitely doesn’t give agribusiness a free ride. He’s had some very strong words about people like Temple Grandin.
However, I think the focus on us individuals is important. There has been a lot of blame put on agribusiness by animal welfare and animal rights groups already. And I’m not saying that is undeserved. But it seems sometimes that people expect progress to come from on top, that businesses are going to solve things (or that if we can just protest, sabotage, etc. the businesses that they’ll disappear). Their “solution” is largely humane-certified animal products or further hiding the truth.
But, by focusing on individuals, we can get people to hopefully start to realize that they have the power. Not only can they choose to become vegan, regardless of what businesses do, but by going vegan we as a group change business. Supply follows demand, largely. That’s not to say that agribusiness hasn’t done a good job of encourage demand for animal products, but we still have more control over what we buy than they do — and as a group, even the future of their businesses.
Our individual power is immediate and considerable. I agree with what you said about personal responsibility. Gary Francione continuously speaks against the immorality of non-vegans and against direct action to liberate animals. That’s his personal choice. I only view it as counterproductive. It aids the exploiters. He seems to value civility and compliance with current law more than the lives of animals. Civility that allows exploiters to kill animals is not peace. It’s complicity. This isn’t to say he doesn’t care about animals but that he too is prey to social norms and his own moral schizophrenia.
Off on another tangent: that the ALF is forced to break the law to rescue animals from certain harm and death proves we have laws that are wrong–not that those women and men are wrong. All I’m saying is if I didn’t support direct action as I do, I’d refrain from actively disparaging it. I would not be a pawn for the exploiters. No U.S. law recognizes animals are individuals with a right to pursue their own interests. Only with a complete replacement of the paradigm we live under will there be actual change for animals. Social decorum and antiquated laws must be sacrificed if a person wants a vegan world. It’s a small sacrifice.
I must say that I have a problem with diagnosing anyone, and for several years I’ve been very uncomfortable with the analogy to pedophiles in animal rights and welfare discussion.
Pedophiles have a compulsion. They often know they are doing something wrong/have a drive that is inappropriate. (This does not include cultures where it is the norm to, say, offer your 10-year old girl for marriage to a 30-year old man. Whole other discussion.)
Many young men who pit dogs against one another grew up in a subculture that includes a definition of love for a dog that does not preclude putting that dog in a ring with another and watching that dog get shredded. They respect the winners and love them even more as they win. Of course, this is all very twisted, and not every young male who grows up in this environment fights dogs. What I’m interested in, from a psychological point of view, is whether you can grow up, let’s say in a bullfighting culture, enjoy it, participate in it and *find nothing wrong with it,* and then have a change of heart due to education. In other words, is there a mental health issue necessarily? Can we say someone is a sociopath because they fight dogs and that there is no cure for that person? We can definitely say they are ignorant, but can we say they are ill?
I have not read or seen any evidence that dogfighting is a compulsion, but maybe I’m missing something. If there is no evidence, I don’t think that comparing abusers of animals with pedophiles is productive.
“What I’m interested in, from a psychological point of view, is whether you can grow up, let’s say in a bullfighting culture, enjoy it, participate in it and *find nothing wrong with it,* and then have a change of heart due to education. In other words, is there a mental health issue necessarily? Can we say someone is a sociopath because they fight dogs and that there is no cure for that person? We can definitely say they are ignorant, but can we say they are ill?”
Obviously people can grow up in such a culture and change — unfortunately this is not the norm, because any society’s/culture’s beliefs and traditions are so strong and ingrained most people don’t even think to question them — otherwise Steve Hindi would still be hunting and Harold Brown would still be killing cows. But based on a previous post written here regarding vegan education and how it’s not enough to convince people to become or remain vegan, I would say it’s less education and some kind of ethical awakening that causes people to see that animals do suffer despite what their traditions or cultures might say.
Again, I don’t know a lot about the Vick issues, but I do not see him as changing for altruistic reasons. I don’t know whether this constitutes sociopathy, but in his case, based on what has been shown/written, I would say yes, it does constitute some kind of, if not mental illness, then at least some sort of ethical deficiency. I would suggest that maybe, considering the questions and comments posed here, it is not possible to paint every dog fighter with the same brush (much as I would like to and be tempted to); nor every butcher, every animal slaughterer, every puppy mill owner, etc. The Steve Hindis prove there is hope, but I just can’t see it in Michael Vick. He just strikes me as insincere and self-serving (as do most celebrities; so perhaps that is my bias)
I’m not sure if this is the kind of research you are looking for but for what it’s worth-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13dogfighting-t.html
While it doesn’t seem as if dog fighting itself is a compulsion other forms of cruelty seem to be.
Or at least they seem to be a sign of mental and/or emotional ill health. And it does seem that people can recover, however I don’t know if MV is trying to recover or not.
I think the thing with Vick is not just the dog fighting but the sadistic delight he took in torturing dogs to death, including family pets.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_lifestyle_animal/2008/11/witness-michael.html
Perhaps to me it’s a matter of degree, yes it’s cruel to kill an animal simply because it’s ‘yummy’ or something but it’s a whole other ,worse degree of cruelty to torture it to death simply for the ‘fun’ of it.
Sticky and sad subject.
Thanks, Vida, for sharing that NYT article. I hadn’t seen it previously.
Another comparison that came to mind as I was reading everyone’s comments was between hunting and dog-fighting. I find both abhorrent, however, not every individual involved in either takes them to the “extreme”. By that I mean, a delight in the suffering, blood, and death of the nonhuman animal that is killed. What pushed me into the “no hope for Vick” camp was something that Donna of Bad Rap wrote awhile ago. She participated in the evaluation of the dogs and Bad Rap took many to place in homes. She went to the Vick property and over a year later was still haunted by the physical evidence she saw in his swimming pool – deep scratch marks on the inside edges of the pool from dogs’ nails as they tried to escape from the pool. Vick and others would attach leads to the dogs’ ears and the other ends to a battery and throw the dogs, alive, into the swimming pool to be electrocuted to death. That’s not dog-fighting. That’s not sport. That’s not a pretense of a humane death. That’s, pure and simple, sadism to a horrible degree. That’s entertainment at the struggle and immense suffering of another. I not only worry about the well-being of a dog he may adopt, but also the well-being of his girlfriend/wife and future children.
I understand your points, Connie. Vick brutally tortured and killed dogs with his own hands, and apparently did so with glee and that is disgusting. I guess I like to think that that’s in the past for Vick. And that with the amount and types of intervention and education he has had, which by the way as far as I know is unprecendented and no other dogfighters have been fortunate enough to have been exposed, humiliated, convicted, sentenced and educated/schooled/tutored the way he has, he might be able to understand just how wrong he was and change.
But I’m definitely hearing and seeing throughout the animal-loving community that few are convinced of his sincerity.
@Vida,
I like that article as it points out what we might know but the mainstream might not–the connection between acts of violence toward animals and those toward humans and the “practicing” component. Delight with hurting someone is definitely a tough concept to deal with. It’s so alien to most of us.
Plus there’s empathy again . . . And treating pets well. I encourage everyone to read, and try not to be upset over all of the references to individuals as “it.” I love that Richard Davidson is included (from the Mind and Life Institute, where he currently researches the effects of meditation on the brain and focuses on compassion). The article certainly doesn’t bode well for young people exposed to or participating in cruelty–unchecked–at a young age.
It is a sad subject indeed that there are even people who harm others for the fun of it.
It seems to me that as a *political* matter, the more we criticize Vick, the worse we look.
We are A) “preaching to the choir” when it comes to “pet” animal defense: to the persuaded, perhaps a majority, that is, Vick wasn’t punished enough, and he isn’t rehabilitated, and they already believe that.
But B), while we know that Vick wasn’t properly punished, *he received the only punishment he was ever going to get*. And it was a more severe punishment than any other dog fighter has received. And, moreover, he is (feigning probably) remorseful and “campaigning” against dog fighting. To those skeptical of us (the “animal rights” movement) to begin with, then, Vick *was* punished and yet we continue to talk about it. And this looks racist? petty? and so on.
We should move on.
@Alex,
As for moving on, oddly enough, I wrote this post because I didn’t understand why animal people were harping on this and I do indeed think we should move on.