Column on Michael Vick mixed apples, oranges
Regarding Allen Johnson's column (Sept. 2) on Michael Vick:
His "bottom line" that "outrage from the rest of us rings more than a bit hollow" was not appropriate, nor was it supported by the incidents cited. Every incident involving abuse incites moral outrage. However, the time and depth of emotion correlates with the perceived level of atrocity and the ability to affect outcome.
Regarding perceived atrocity, how could "outrage" for torturing dogs to death, bankrolling gambling and dogfighting be compared with that expressed for "other sports and entertainment figures who have skirted the law"?
This is the "apples versus oranges" game. How could drowning, hanging, beating, electrocuting and savagely fighting any animal be compared with possible outcomes?
Most people are fed up with the countless times the elite have not faced consequences for chosen acts (we would be fired from our job without "financial perks" and prosecuted "to the extent of the law" for lesser offenses).
People would be ecstatic if we ever truly began to have "justice for all."
Charles Taylor
Greensboro
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Justice for all has been a myth for along time. Part of the difficulty in responding to your other question is that not all life is valued the same: not all human life is valued the same; human, animal and plant life are valued differently as well; for some context is important.
Posted on September 8, 2007 8:05 AM