27
   

Some idiots actually think the NFL is wrong for giving Vick a 2nd chance.

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 04:01 am
@Merry Andrew,
You was the one who claimed it is unfair that a public figure who earn a large percent of his or her income being a public figure had the public looking at him or her when they break the law more then the average sob and that is silly as it go along with the money.

Second your average wage earner would more then likely still be in prison not yet concern over earning a living.

He or she will have problems with job background checks for the rest of their lifetimes also.

So why are you so concern about Vick ability to earn a few million more dollars playing football? and is it fair or not?

Are you also concern that background checks keep a large percent of the average law breakers from anything but low wage jobs?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 05:21 am
Vick killed dogs who didn't perform well with his own two hands by repeatedly slamming them into the ground until their bones were broken and they died. I doubt someone capable of such a thing can be reformed. I will certainly not give money to any business he's associated with.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 05:51 am
@Brandon9000,
AGREE 5000 percent you have to be a very sick person deep down in the core of your very soul to do the things that Vick had done.

And it amaze me this crying about the poor or not so poor man future being limited because of his own actions!

Not one damn dime out of my pocket directly or indirectly is going to him.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 06:07 am
Yeah, I'm one of the idiots who thinks the NFL is wrong for choosing to associate with him.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 06:51 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

That is our right not to allow a dime of our money to go to pay Vick salary is it not?

Yes, it is your right to not allow a dime of your money to go to pay Vick's salary, just as it is the right of other Americans to move on.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 06:56 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

A poor SOB does not have the lawyers Vick have and could or would as a result likely ended up with a longer term the Vick but you have no problem with it being fair that a poor person is not on the whole going to get as good a treatment by the legal system do you? Is that fair?

In this particular case, I think the opposite is true. If Vick wasn't a celebrity, he would have got six months of probation.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:40 am
@engineer,
Agreed, but only just until recently has punishment through heavy fines and possible jail sentences been stiffened. In fact, it is precisely the infamy and notoriety of this case that has prompted lawmakers to move to increase the punishment. Sadly, the job of consistant enforcement and prosecution is not yet done.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:18 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

BillRM wrote:

A poor SOB does not have the lawyers Vick have and could or would as a result likely ended up with a longer term the Vick but you have no problem with it being fair that a poor person is not on the whole going to get as good a treatment by the legal system do you? Is that fair?

In this particular case, I think the opposite is true. If Vick wasn't a celebrity, he would have got six months of probation.

Do you think that six months of probation is an appropriate sentence for killing dogs by slamming thier bodies into the floor until they're dead because they didn't perform well? I'm not sure what sort of person believes that aggravated animal cruelty doesn't warrant jail time.
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:38 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Vick killed dogs who didn't perform well with his own two hands by repeatedly slamming them into the ground until their bones were broken and they died. I doubt someone capable of such a thing can be reformed. I will certainly not give money to any business he's associated with.


Really. In China, there are many people who breed dogs so they can chop them up and eat them. I'm sure they don't care how the dogs are treated as they're filleting them. Right here in America we make chickens sit in their own feces all day long and throughout most of their miserable lives in little cages until we're ready to chop their heads off and eat them. We feed cows and pigs the remnants of other dead cows and pigs to fatten them up for our dinner.

How do you know what Vick's early life was like? Maybe the people he hung around with taught him early about the dog-fighting life. Maybe he just learned through his environment. That may not matter in regard to how you feel about his crime, but to consider him non-redeemable because dogs are cute and beloved in our society seems a bit melodramatic.

I wonder how the NFL would have reacted and how people would feel if he were a Chinese guy and he was eating them.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:53 am
@kickycan,
Brandon is not being inconsistent here.

By boycotting the NFL... Brandon is not only refusing to "pay the salary" of Michael Vick. He is also not paying one dime to any of the hundreds of players (and thousands of other employees) in the NFL who eat hamburgers or wear leather shoes.

Its all good to him.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:12 am
IF there is a problem, it isn't the NFL, it's the justice system, vick was sentenced, served 18 months of a 23 month term (pretty impressive for a criminal, especially a celeb), by the law he paid his due, if people have a problem with him going back to work, perhaps they need to picket the courts and not the football stadiums
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:13 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Do you think that six months of probation is an appropriate sentence for killing dogs by slamming thier bodies into the floor until they're dead because they didn't perform well?


What method of killing would make a sentence of six months on probation an appropriate sentence to you? If he had euthanized the non-performers by giving them a shot that gently "put them to sleep," made a nice stew out of them and stood on a corner every sunday feeding it to hungry homeless people would you be okay with six-months of probation?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:16 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Vick killed dogs who didn't perform well with his own two hands by repeatedly slamming them into the ground until their bones were broken and they died. I doubt someone capable of such a thing can be reformed. I will certainly not give money to any business he's associated with.


Really. In China, there are many people who breed dogs so they can chop them up and eat them. I'm sure they don't care how the dogs are treated as they're filleting them. Right here in America we make chickens sit in their own feces all day long and throughout most of their miserable lives in little cages until we're ready to chop their heads off and eat them. We feed cows and pigs the remnants of other dead cows and pigs to fatten them up for our dinner.

How do you know what Vick's early life was like? Maybe the people he hung around with taught him early about the dog-fighting life. Maybe he just learned through his environment. That may not matter in regard to how you feel about his crime, but to consider him non-redeemable because dogs are cute and beloved in our society seems a bit melodramatic.

I wonder how the NFL would have reacted and how people would feel if he were a Chinese guy and he was eating them.

Mentioning that other terrible things happen in the world doesn't make the terrible things he did better.

For any bad person you care to mention, you can also describe how he got to be bad. So what? I'm not going to excuse a bank robber because he had a bad childhoodn and I'm not going to excuse a person who kills dogs in an incredibly cruel way because they didn't perform well on the basis of his childhood.

One can hardly imagine a crueler thing to do to animals than slamming them repeatedly into the ground until their bones break and their organs rupture and they expire. I take it then, that your universal answer to accusations of aggravated animal cruelty is that people in China eat dogs?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:17 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Brandon is not being inconsistent here.

By boycotting the NFL... Brandon is not only refusing to "pay the salary" of Michael Vick. He is also not paying one dime to any of the hundreds of players (and thousands of other employees) in the NFL who eat hamburgers or wear leather shoes.

Its all good to him.

Straw man. I'm refusing to give someone money because he did something bad. Saying that I don't distinguish Vick's acts from eating hamburger or wearing leather is merely lying. If you cannot distinguish between what Vick did and wearing leather, then I pity you.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:20 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Do you think that six months of probation is an appropriate sentence for killing dogs by slamming thier bodies into the floor until they're dead because they didn't perform well?


What method of killing would make a sentence of six months on probation an appropriate sentence to you? If he had euthanized the non-performers by giving them a shot that gently "put them to sleep," made a nice stew out of them and stood on a corner every sunday feeding it to hungry homeless people would you be okay with six-months of probation?

I know for sure that what he actually did do was beyond the threshold for getting jail time. I don't have to state my position to you on lots of different levels of cruelty which don't apply to him. I say that aggravated animal cruelty deserves jail time. Do you agree or disagree?
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:51 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Do you think that six months of probation is an appropriate sentence for killing dogs by slamming thier bodies into the floor until they're dead because they didn't perform well?


What method of killing would make a sentence of six months on probation an appropriate sentence to you? If he had euthanized the non-performers by giving them a shot that gently "put them to sleep," made a nice stew out of them and stood on a corner every sunday feeding it to hungry homeless people would you be okay with six-months of probation?

I know for sure that what he actually did do was beyond the threshold for getting jail time. I don't have to state my position to you on lots of different levels of cruelty which don't apply to him. I say that aggravated animal cruelty deserves jail time. Do you agree or disagree?


First of all, is it a proven fact that he personally did those things exactly as you say he did? Not arguing, just not exactly up on all the exact details of his crimes. I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Second, I'm not arguing that what he did wasn't bad. I'm saying it doesn't mean he's an irredeemable soul, which is what it sounds like to me that you're saying.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:56 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
First of all, is it a proven fact that he personally did those things exactly as you say he did? Not arguing, just not exactly up on all the exact details of his crimes. I'd like to see some evidence for this.


Google it. It's ugly.

Watch an episode of Dogtown, where they work with some of the dogs they were able to rescue from him. It's ugly.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:00 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:


Straw man. I'm refusing to give someone money because he did something bad. Saying that I don't distinguish Vick's acts from eating hamburger or wearing leather is merely lying. If you cannot distinguish between what Vick did and wearing leather, then I pity you.


I wasn't claiming a comparison between Vick's acts and eating a hamburger. Rather, I was making a comparison between the effects (or relevance) of your threatened protest and the efforts of PETA.

I think you are being silly (this has nothing to do with the sins of Mr. Vick).

kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:01 am
@ehBeth,
I'll google later. Gotta go to a barbecue now. Enjoy the day, everyone!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:04 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:


Straw man. I'm refusing to give someone money because he did something bad. Saying that I don't distinguish Vick's acts from eating hamburger or wearing leather is merely lying. If you cannot distinguish between what Vick did and wearing leather, then I pity you.


I wasn't claiming a comparison between Vick's acts and eating a hamburger. Rather, I was making a comparison between the effects (or relevance) of your threatened protest and the efforts of PETA.

I think you are being silly (this has nothing to do with the sins of Mr. Vick).



Great. Tell me how it's silly to boycott (not that I am likely to attend a game anyway) the business efforts of a person who did absolutely horrible, cruel things to animals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 03:12:31