27
   

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

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:06 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

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.

Yes, it's a fact that he executed them by slamming them into the floor until they expired. He also electrocuted one.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m7d28-Dog-killer-Michael-Vick-will-join-other-felons-in-the-NFL
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:29 am
This lust for vengeance doesn't even help dogs at all.

Here you have a gift from heaven-- a penitent sinner, with a great storyline, in a highly public role. What could possibly be better for any cause against dog fighting.

If your goal was to help end dog fighting (which I think we all agree is a cruel and immoral practice) why wouldn't you latch on to this story (other than base hatred and the primal need to punish transgressors)?

If you really care about dogs-- then damn it... make this guy a spokesperson. If you force him into obscurity he does no good to you (other than the smug satisfaction that someone you don't like is suffering).

No... keep him in the position where this issue- stopping dog fighting- is what defines his career. You have the perfect spokesperson-- a gift that I sure would like to have with my political causes. It just doesn't make sense.

Why let your lust for vengeance ruin one of the best opportunities to address the issue one could imagine?

Human nature is impossible to understand some times.



Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:09 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

This lust for vengeance doesn't even help dogs at all.

Here you have a gift from heaven-- a penitent sinner, with a great storyline, in a highly public role. What could possibly be better for any cause against dog fighting.

If your goal was to help end dog fighting (which I think we all agree is a cruel and immoral practice) why wouldn't you latch on to this story (other than base hatred and the primal need to punish transgressors)?

If you really care about dogs-- then damn it... make this guy a spokesperson. If you force him into obscurity he does no good to you (other than the smug satisfaction that someone you don't like is suffering).

No... keep him in the position where this issue- stopping dog fighting- is what defines his career. You have the perfect spokesperson-- a gift that I sure would like to have with my political causes. It just doesn't make sense.

Why let your lust for vengeance ruin one of the best opportunities to address the issue one could imagine?

Human nature is impossible to understand some times.

First of all, we have no evidence that he's repentant except that he says so and does the PR things, both of which he has an overwhelming self-interest in doing, even if he isn't at all repentant. Secondly, I don't believe that an adult who displays this extraordinary level of cruelty is likely to be able to change and become a decent person. Thirdly, I believe that the punishment he received was too little. And finally, it's utterly ludicrous for you to suggest that it's unreasonable to boycott someone I consider evil.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:38 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
First of all, we have no evidence that he's repentant except that he says so and does the PR things, both of which he has an overwhelming self-interest in doing, even if he isn't at all repentant.


I believe he is truly repentant-- but who cares. His ability to be a great spokesman against dog fighting-- a role that quite possibly will save dogs-- doesn't depend on whether he is truly repentant.


Quote:
Secondly, I don't believe that an adult who displays this extraordinary level of cruelty is likely to be able to change and become a decent person.

Thirdly, I believe that the punishment he received was too little.


You have the right to your own beliefs.

That you think that human beings are incapable of redemption makes sense considering your lust for vengeance.

Quote:
And finally, it's utterly ludicrous for you to suggest that it's unreasonable to boycott someone I consider evil.


I think it is silly. I think it is wrong-headed. I think it appeals to the basest parts of human nature; vengeance and hatred. And, I think it is counter-productive.

But I never suggested it is "unreasonable".
echi
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 01:10 pm
It’s ridiculous that most people have a problem with dog fighting. A dog is no greater than a pig.
ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 01:25 pm
@echi,
I would have a problem with pig fighting too.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 02:03 pm
@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? I'm not sure what sort of person believes that aggravated animal cruelty doesn't warrant jail time.

No, but that's not the point. This crime has traditionally been treated more leniently than others and Vick probably got worse than someone else would have with less press attention.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:07 pm
@ebrown p,
Why? People eat pigs.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:30 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
First of all, we have no evidence that he's repentant except that he says so and does the PR things, both of which he has an overwhelming self-interest in doing, even if he isn't at all repentant.


I believe he is truly repentant-- but who cares. His ability to be a great spokesman against dog fighting-- a role that quite possibly will save dogs-- doesn't depend on whether he is truly repentant.

Sorry, I'm not very fond of the idea of having an extremely cruel person, who murders animals with his bare hands as an anti-animal cruelty spokesman.


ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
Secondly, I don't believe that an adult who displays this extraordinary level of cruelty is likely to be able to change and become a decent person.

Thirdly, I believe that the punishment he received was too little.


You have the right to your own beliefs.

That you think that human beings are incapable of redemption makes sense considering your lust for vengeance.

I don't think that all human beings are incapable of redemption any time, but I do think that someone so sociopathic as to murder animals in monstrous ways who have committed no offense has a poor chance of recovery. I wonder if maybe the difference between us is that you don't give a crap about the animals except on some abstract level.

ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
And finally, it's utterly ludicrous for you to suggest that it's unreasonable to boycott someone I consider evil.


I think it is silly. I think it is wrong-headed. I think it appeals to the basest parts of human nature; vengeance and hatred. And, I think it is counter-productive.

But I never suggested it is "unreasonable".

What's silly about not wanting to do business with people who commit acts of despicable evil?
0 Replies
 
m99
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:54 pm
@kickycan,
ya it is wrong
0 Replies
 
m99
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 03:57 pm
@kickycan,
do u even have an i dea of wat vick did?:
first he took some dogs shocked them with jumper cables then stuck there heads under water rit before they drowned then got ripped appart by his own dogs. and laughing the hole time this was going on
the guy is an ass i mean a complete ass.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 04:14 pm
@kickycan,
This one is a pure race relations snafu. Early on I saw an interview with several of the black players on the Redskins including the running back Clinton Portis and a couple of them came right out and said that pit-bull fighting was a normal every-day thing in inner city neighborhoods and they were having a hard time figuring out what the fuss was about.

This one in fact goes all the way back to the days of Chicken George, the main difference being that middle class people have a harder time feeling sorry for roosters than for dogs. It would be reasonable to expect blacks to have middle class attitudes and values if they'd ever been OWNED by middle class people; in the world we actually live in, they were owned by the rich and to some extent that still governs their attitudes and values.



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:32 pm
@djjd62,
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
So by your thinking if a sexual child abuser had gotten out of prison he should also be welcome back to the NFL as he had pay his dues?

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:01 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
So by your thinking if a sexual child abuser had gotten out of prison he should also be welcome back to the NFL as he had pay his dues?


I don't think that there are any states that allow sexual criminals to pay in full, they are forever on sex offender lists and denied a bunch of normal citizenship rights, are forever making steep payments to the collective. We have thrown away redemption out of fear, and we are thus greatly impoverished.

Allowing Vick to play was the right move, although it was late in coming.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 02:37 am
@hawkeye10,
Ok how about some other crime that show a low moral and sick outlook on life my friend?

Let see someone who had rob a bank and cripple a guard in such a manner in so doing that the guard will never be the same.

Had he pay his due and should be allow to play in the NFL once more after being release?

Second is it wrong to do background checks on possible employees and not hire such people in almost all walks are of life? Should we forbid doing background checks on people in the future as they had pay there due theory?

No Vick is a sick sob and should not be allow to be in the entertainment industry in my opinion.

And once more there is no way that I will allow one thin dime of my income to go to this man.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 11:07 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Ok how about some other crime that show a low moral and sick outlook on life my friend?


Crime is related to bad acts, morality and mental sickness has nothing to do with it. If you want to address such things then you employ the mental health establishment. Oh, but wait, if you did that you would first need to find the individual insane wouldn't you!! So I see, we castigated the Soviet Union when they pulled that **** so we feel better about ourselves by making a mockery of the law by using the law too punish morality that we don't like. Great defendenders of freedom and individual rights we are not.
Quote:
No Vick is a sick sob and should not be allow to be in the entertainment industry in my opinion.

And once more there is no way that I will allow one thin dime of my income to go to this man.


That is your right, to not support Vick. It is not your right to forbid him from trying to make a living once he has paid is debt to society.
Green Witch
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 11:25 am
Don't know if this was mentioned (all the yelling on this thread got too much for me), but I think a percentage of his earnings should be donated to groups like the SPCA or a pitbull rescue group. It's like when a killer writes a book the profits go to the victims. Mr. Vick should not be denied a way to support himself, but he should make restitution to his victims for as long as he is able.

The defense that behavior is somehow acceptable because it is a part of his culture is no better than saying honor killings are acceptable because they are cultural a norm for some people. Right and wrong is often just right and wrong.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 12:09 pm
@Green Witch,
More moral absolutism?... nah, let's not go there.

This is a legal question...the punishment and the restitution should be well defined (according to our social values) by our legislature.

Once these consequences have been met... the NFL should treat him like any other employee.

If you think Mr. Vick's punishment wasn't harsh enough, you should be speaking with your legislators (not with the NFL).

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 01:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
That is your right, to not support Vick. It is not your right to forbid him from trying to make a living once he has paid is debt to society.
0 Replies
---------------------------------------------------------
It is however the right of the NFL to do so and they should had done so in my opinion and that is the issue here.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 01:03 pm
@ebrown p,
Once these consequences have been met... the NFL should treat him like any other employee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong that is why most businesses do background checks.
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 10:26:45