When the Michael Vick dog fighting story broke a few days ago, my first reaction was to recoil. What kind of a sicko trains his dog to kill other dogs, and then kills his own dog if it's not vicious enough?
Since that first day, though, I keep thinking, "No, really. What kind of sicko would that be?"
He's not in it for the money, obviously. The guy is a multimillionaire, and getting richer with every pass. He doesn't need to do it to satisfy his competitive urges. Presumably he's getting those needs met on the football field.
Where in a person's upbringing or socialization or value system (have I hit them all?) would make anyone think that it would be a fun hobby to take a housepet and train it to fight to the death?
Could you imagine Cuppy and MelonKiwi locked in a death battle?? Uhhh...hmmm...no. Although now that I think of it, I may have to ask Lori to photoshop a picture of the Cuppy vs. Melon Smackdown.
But...I digress, as usual. Clearly Michael Vick doesn't engage in this "hobby" alone, so there must be a sizeable group of people who find dogfighting to be a viable entertainment option.
Hmmm...I wonder if their mothers know. Because that's the real test of morally ambiguous behavior. If you're doing something that you wouldn't want your mother to know you're doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it.