ryansutter.net

May I suggest PF Flyers (new balance)

wow i just typed a mile long comment that disappeared. again i will try. well written Ryan. and again i agree and yet disagree for various reasonings. such as i wish i could meet the man face to face and ask him..."why in the world would you do this when you had the world by the testicles?...what caused you to do this terrible deed to theses inncoent creatures? (oops sorry as this word "creature" would denote that this beautiful animal was created and i know that your newfound beliefs would refute this statement with the expanation as to how this animal "just happened as a freak accident of nature" so i apologize beforehand for my limited knowledge in this area) ILY.

maybe he (michael vick) would answer by tearing my head off and feeding me to starved dogs with his nephilum-like bodily structure (oops i chose the word because it means "fellers" or "bullies who enjoy knocking down others", sorry didnt mean to sound like religion again), or maybe he would cry and say that he felt terrible for making such an evil mistake as this and that he wanted to die, or maybe he would fall on his knees before his god and beg for forgiveness for his sin (oops there's the "god" thing again, sorry), ILY Ryan.

does anybody deserve a second chance? did he ever do something wrong prior to this? maybe a third chance or 100th, who knows, lol. maybe we could take this to the other end of the spectrum as some believe that it is a race issue and he being of the offspring of canaanites it is in his dna, but since neither of us are racists we would never agree with this form of thought and would toss it out as with an old pair of worn out shoes. but then we dont have his life so we never would know what caused this without being his shrink or minister (again, sorry for the religious connotation).

i apologize for my limited abilities in sentence structure as my brain was never allowed to evolve to the heights of your intellect as we are alike in goodness of heart and yet different in intellect and common sense. such as... two pots of clay vessels used for two different situations as well as many similar situations. some uses may be more honorable than others in use but both are being used. i always wondered in my heart why i was always used as a spitoon while others (like michael vick) were used as a flower pot. and of course i came to the conclusion that the potter had his reasons that of course i was not in the control of, as i was merely the pot (oops there i go again forgetting that there was nobdy who formed the pot as it just happened to molecularily[my word that my lower form of intellect chose or created] appear out of nowhere into this form for this purpose), wow i am glad that i feel like some people's toilet in a limited amount of uses as a spitoon is bad enough, but then so was jesus as the bible points out as he was forced to carry all the crap and spit of all the people away as the "scapegoat" into the wilderness(sorry again as maybe he didnt exist as you now believe, and up until recently i had no idea where the word "scapegoat" was derived. and only those who read the "literature" of the bible would understand this as the rest of the people have not all been exposed to this falacy viewpoint as you now believe), ILY Ryan

wow how did i wander so far from the actual subject of michael vick and the shoes? anyway would i buy the shoes? to answer this i dont really know. why? because as stated earlier i was never allowed "the first chance" that he was afforded and therefor i buy only the shoes that i can afford to pay for (why do i all of the sudden feel like andy roony here?). and quite frankly i would buy ten pairs of comfortable leather shoes for twelve or thirteen dollars each before paying the ridiculous price that these shoes being discussed cost (sorry as leather is also from animals who many times were tortured to death through electical shocks and other cruelties perpetrated by evil influenced individuals [oops this could be a suggestion that an evil force is behind evils being done within the shoe and clothing industry as a whole and no punn intended because i truly love you ryan]. our differences are many, yet few, while our hearts motivation remains the same).

sorry for the many possible english language mistakes that may exist here, i use the common sense afforded me with my limited intellect. ok so now teach me this computer blogging stuff it must be a common sense thing that even i with my limited intelectual mind capacity could understand, lol

A quick FYI, Lucky, I am not offended in any way by references to God, the Bible or religion. No need for apologies. I don't think the Bible is history, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with references to it. :-) Peace...

cool, anyway i sincerely hope all goes well with you. sorry but even if you figure out who i am please keep it to yourself as i dont need the unecessary hassles from some people and i think you know what i mean as people in general are cruel. fyi i have been to your house to visit you a few times but you were not at home. and for me to do this is unique in the least as i only visit people i feel i can trust....:D

It seems if Nike were to sign this guy up it would be because they carefully weighed out the cost/benefit. It would be a reflection of Nike's market and public sentiment more than it would be of Nike, the entity.

The CEO of the company I work for has written for the CATO institute speaking out against government subsidies. He's very idealistic on the subject, but our company bought a solar panel company, built it up, and made a killing by spinning it off all the while taking full advantage of all the subsidies associated with it.

Nike is a public company and business is business. They would be failing their investors if they took some idealistic track over increasing their value. (Of course, this idea does not apply if it's the company that is making the unethical choices - defrauding, polluting, animal testing, etc.)

That's why I like the boycott idea and, even more so, blogging it. Good post. If Nike is actually considering this, you and your fellow bloggers/twitterers are helping them make their decision.

Admittedly, I'm only interested in this as a fellow Chuck T type of guy, but: "Nike just re-signed Michael Vick" (whoever Michael Vick is) seems to contradict the news trend: http://news.google.com/news/more?ncl=d1YU1UZpBX...

Which isn't to say Nike isn't boycott-worthy for all sorts of other reasons. I was thinking of buying a pair of No Sweat high-tops, but sadly they seem to be going out of business.

If it turns out the case is that Vick does not actually have an endorsement deal with Nike, then, I will rescind my boycott. I'll keep my eye out on this one.

As for the Humane Society, well, boycotting them would actually have the opposite effect (pro-animal) of that intended. Where the NFL is concerned, I am more conflicted. If the Vikings had signed Vick, I would have boycotted them, even skipping the Superbowl if they won it with him on-board. The Eagles are the team that signed him, however. Does that mean I boycott the entire NFL? I don't think so. I think that legally, as employers, they may have had to allow him the chance to work again if one of the teams wished to sign him. The league is basically the government for the teams and I can understand that they may have felt the need to keep to the "he served his time, he deserves a second chance" precedent for future players. I wish they hadn't, but just because they laid the groundwork does not mean anybody needed to sign him. The teams themselves are the franchises, the businesses, and it is the team that signs the player, not the league. So, I hold the Eagles responsible, not the league. Like I said, had it been the Vikings, I would absolutely boycott the team.

Yeah, I concede that the Humane Society bit was kinda snarky. While I don't share your enthusiasm for this issue, I agree with your point. Being a professional (idolized) athlete should be a privilege. As an American institution, it's disappointing that the NFL's code of conduct would tolerate his return. I'm not as cut-and-dry on his worthiness of forgiveness, but certain actions should absolutely burn some bridges of opportunity. If our society doesn't even trust him with a fire arm now that he's a felon, why should he be allowed to return to a high profile position of glory and fortune?

You know, the funny part is that I don't care that he's a felon. Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg by accident and will do the same amount of jail time that Vick did and be a felon and I don't see any reason the guy should be kept out of the league. He is mostly guilty of being an idiot, and that is clearly something we just have to tolerate from our professional athletes (anybody remember Gus Frerotte injurying himself by headbutting a wall?). Sure, his actions potentially endangered others, but again, people endanger each other through stupidity every day. Hard to single him out. Vick, though, his actions don't show him to be an idiot, or just somebody with a bad temper, they show him to be a premeditated sadist who enjoys the pain and suffering of animals and who gets off on personally inflicting it. I don't particularly care what a person like that says or does in the media or the public eye, I will never believe that an adult who is capable of enjoying such a thing is anything but a mentally deranged individual who is fundamentally broken and an extremely dangerous person to place in a position of respect or admiration.

I appreciate your passion on the issue, but with all due respect, "I will never believe" is where you lose me. I personally think that statement can never be rationalized. Unchecked indignation is *always* the enemy of reason, regardless of how correct or seemingly justified your basis may be.

Warranted though your anger may be, asserting an unwillingness to consider anything that might change or even soften your emotions is a decision to not be rational.

I may be wrong. This is just how I see it, but I'm totally open to refutation.

I will willingly and freely admit that it boils down to the fact that I will personally never believe in or trust that individual. They may be sincere, I may be wrong, and if I am wrong, so be it. There is no way to know. I am simply saying I won't personally believe it and nothing Michael Vick can ever say or do can make me believe it.

The reason I feel that way is that I believe that there are fundamental concepts of empathy towards other beings that need to be wired into your brain at a very early age in order for a person to develop a conscience or moral sense. I am convinced that if these pathways aren't laid down in the developing mind, they are difficult or impossible to lay down later in life. A sociopath or psychopath is a person who never developed this empathy and is incapable of empathy for the suffering of another being or a person who enjoys that suffering. Torturing animals is a classic sign of a psychopath and nearly all serial killers began by doing exactly that. I am not Michael Vick, so I don't know what he really feels, but I his actions strongly indicate that his fundamental capacity for empathy (and therefore true remorse) is either non-existent or so weak as to be irrelevant. If he had a basic capacity for empathy, he would have been incapable of doing what he did in the first place. I consider the nature of his crime to be diagnostic of a person who is lacking the emotional underpinnings necessary for morality, conscience, remorse, or sincerity because that is what a sadist or psychopath lacks, and his actions appear to me to be those of a sadist or psychopath. So, I believe that whatever he is saying or doing right now is calculated, intentional, motivated by others telling him that this is what he must do. I don't believe he has the capacity to understand why what he did was wrong. Again, I do not claim to be correct here, only that there isn't anything I can think of that he could do to convince me otherwise.

I don't think Michael Vick should be in jail for the rest of his life, but I don't know what society should do with psychopaths. I know they shouldn't be glorified. Nobody would sign Jeffrey Dahmer or Charlie Manson to a shoe contract. I don't think that the fact that dogs were involved instead of humans makes Vick's crime any less heinous than Dahmers or Mansons. The enjoyment of torture, blood, cruelty, violence and suffering is the crime. The fact that our society doesn't grant the same protections to dogs as to humans changes the legal aspects of it but not the fundamental underlying problem. What do we do with people who lack empathy and enjoy killing and torturing? Sometimes we make them vice-president, sometimes we put them in jail, it all depends on where they channel their sadism. I only know that once I know that about a person, I want as much distance between myself and that person as possible.

Time to boycott the Humane Society then. :-P (or even the NFL.)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-streeter16-...

I understand your anger and frustration. The excuses for his behavior are thin and paltry compared to the animal suffering caused. But I also think he's in a unique position to tear down some of the BS glamor that has grown up around the vulgar practice of dogfighting.