Yes, you most certainly may request that posting, but I won't write it, because I have no intention of leveling that charge.
Since we're invoking "logic", I would hope we can all agree that the vilification of one crime does not absolve others.
I think we can agree on that, though I don't quite get your rationale for extending the argument out that far. We're commenting on one Michael Vick, and his one signature crime.
When this story first made the news, I wanted to see Michael Vick ruined for life, for what he did. His behavior and handling of the issue from that point forward was a complete surprise to me.
I had expected for him to evade, dissemble, and generally attempt to shift blame for what occurred onto others, but he didn't. He took his lumps, paid the price, and weathered every sling and arrow that came his way. He appears to have truly recognized the horror he perpetrated against those defenseless animals, and seems genuinely remorseful about it.
I'm not sure whether what I feel is forgiveness for him, but it's at least a withdrawal of complete condemnation.
Fair enough. My view is that I have no reason to believe that Mr. Vick's public persona is in any way a true representation of his character. He is paid handsomely to perform in a public spectacle. It is clear that without public repentance, he would not be allowed to continue to do so.
My assessment may not be fair to him (obviously if he is a changed man), but that is one of the consequences of such egregious behavior. Again, I do not oppose his earning a living, but will be hard pressed to re-evaluate his character.