What Michael Vick won't be

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

Matty and JR really nailed their answers, but my thing is the logical fallacies that are becoming normal even in rational debate. I am just asking you to look at the logic in your post. You make several points that are, at best, stretches of logic.
1:if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind.

You are comparing a single instance of murder, to multiple and repeated brutalization of animals. A reasonable comparison would have been a person brutally murdering for enjoyment multiple people. These are known as serial killers and if caught end up in solitary confinement for life (often shortened).
(I also don't think murderers, if paroled, really have a "good" rep. Doubt they walk down the street getting offered million dollar contracts at their preferred profession)

2:So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person.
This is the logic that got me. Vick was punished for brutalizing animals (and more correctly like Matty said, interstate gambling). you gave one incident that shows a man who immediately regretted his actions, humbled himself, and had other mitigating circumstances; and made a huge logic step that somehow you had proven Vick's punishment was "beyond normal limits".


With as dependent as our society is becoming on web facts and individual opinions, I think HS's ought to have serious training in Critical Thinking skills.