Micheal Dick
- Thread starter rep_pot
- Start date
No...
...it didn't. We just don't agree. I don't agree that
Mongrel4u said:
...it didn't. We just don't agree. I don't agree that
- Killing a dog deserves any more consequences than Michael Vick has already (and potentially will) suffer (jail time, loss of tens of millions of dollars, personal reputation forever tainted, career possibly lost forever)
- Nor do I agree that that NFL owners should make business decisions based on the appeasement of a vocal minority many of whom would not indulge in their product in any event
- Nor do I think that there are some great social risk in Michael returning to the public eye that could result in children (or even one child) suffering negative consequences.
Ok, since we disagree with each others' basic premises, let me flip the script while using the same argument.
Is it better to send the following message to children: if you make a mistake, you must pay for it for the rest of your life?
No second chances, no taking circumstances into consideration, no possibility of rehabilitation, redemption and reconciliation...
Is that the morality we want our children to learn?
If so, that is a sadder world than one in which an idiotic convicted dog-fighter - one who has served more jail time (and lost more money) than virtually anyone else convicted of the same crime - can play football again.
Is it better to send the following message to children: if you make a mistake, you must pay for it for the rest of your life?
No second chances, no taking circumstances into consideration, no possibility of rehabilitation, redemption and reconciliation...
Is that the morality we want our children to learn?
If so, that is a sadder world than one in which an idiotic convicted dog-fighter - one who has served more jail time (and lost more money) than virtually anyone else convicted of the same crime - can play football again.
Some things you may have to pay for for the rest of your life Captain....and not everything offers a second chance, redemption..... thats reality....so yeah... I'll tell my kids to bear that in mind when making a judgement call....saying "i'm sorry" doesnt wipe the slate clean in all cases.Captain Fantastic said:
So what are you going to tell your kids? "Hey just do whatever the hell you want...so long as you are prepared to pay the dues for it everything will be back to normal afterwords...like it never even happened" - Gimme a break
I know people who think like that... they are the ones that habitually fuck up in life; the ones that never think things through and hurt a shit load of people and cause all kinds of damage in the process of their retarded antics...and its one thing right after the other...it never ends with them.
Premeditated murder. Violent rape. Terrorism causing bodily harm. Those are unforgiveable crimes.
But an offense that's a misdemeanour in many jurisdictions is one that should carry a lifetime ban, even after one has served significant jail time, lost $100 million and ruined his reputation? Also keep in mind, this was Vick's first offence.
Again, I find it interesting that the punishment in Michael Vick's case far exceeds practically any other in any sport. The only greater miscarriages of arbitrary "justice" meted out by professional sports leagues were some of the Black Sox (Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver) and Latrell Sprewell.
This whole exercise is just one big P.R. move by the NFL, based on pressure from special interest groups.
The lesson of course: the bigger they are, the harder they fall... and the bigger skin on the wall.
But an offense that's a misdemeanour in many jurisdictions is one that should carry a lifetime ban, even after one has served significant jail time, lost $100 million and ruined his reputation? Also keep in mind, this was Vick's first offence.
Again, I find it interesting that the punishment in Michael Vick's case far exceeds practically any other in any sport. The only greater miscarriages of arbitrary "justice" meted out by professional sports leagues were some of the Black Sox (Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver) and Latrell Sprewell.
This whole exercise is just one big P.R. move by the NFL, based on pressure from special interest groups.
The lesson of course: the bigger they are, the harder they fall... and the bigger skin on the wall.
Let me preface by saying that I love animals. I have a cat at home and I'd never do anything to hurt an animal and certainly find anyone that does to be abhorrent.
Philosophical question for those that are willing. For those that disagree with what Vick did, would you be more/less/equally disgusted in his actions if dogfighting was NOT a crime?
Philosophical question for those that are willing. For those that disagree with what Vick did, would you be more/less/equally disgusted in his actions if dogfighting was NOT a crime?
To tell you the truth, the dog fighting really didn't bother me that much. When I heard he choked a dog himself. That gave me the he-bee-ge-bees.
That's an easy one, because morals are not set by politicians whom make laws, morally cruelty to any living thing is abhorrent to me and it shows what the person is made up of. How different is it to strangle a dog to death with your hands and strangling a person to death with your hands?ckupets04 said:
How different is it...
...to swat a fly, then murder a human?
Let me say that YES...it is abhorrent to think that someone could kill an animal with their bare hands, or to watch two of them rip each other to shreds.
But - I am just BAFFLED by those of you who don't seem to think there is a line between humans and animals.
Tell me then...how do you decide where that line is? If dogs are above the demarcation...what about cows? Pigs? Do you eat meat?
What about birds...do you eat chicken?
What about fish? Do you eat fish? Do you fish?
Is the line drawn reptiles? I mean...we all hate snakes, right?
Or is it drawn at insects?
I just do not understand how you people equate dogs to people. I just don't.
big dogie said:
...to swat a fly, then murder a human?
Let me say that YES...it is abhorrent to think that someone could kill an animal with their bare hands, or to watch two of them rip each other to shreds.
But - I am just BAFFLED by those of you who don't seem to think there is a line between humans and animals.
Tell me then...how do you decide where that line is? If dogs are above the demarcation...what about cows? Pigs? Do you eat meat?
What about birds...do you eat chicken?
What about fish? Do you eat fish? Do you fish?
Is the line drawn reptiles? I mean...we all hate snakes, right?
Or is it drawn at insects?
I just do not understand how you people equate dogs to people. I just don't.
You didn't....
"How different is it to strangle a dog to death with your hands and strangling a person to death with your hands?"
Big Doggie did.
You are holding on too tight dude.
Mongrel4u said:
Who is equating dogs to Humans??? just because you are disgusted by what MV did that means that there is no line between dogs and humans? Show me where I wrote that.
"How different is it to strangle a dog to death with your hands and strangling a person to death with your hands?"
Big Doggie did.
You are holding on too tight dude.
Yes I eat meat and fish. I just don't beat the fish to death for profit first. That's the difference. Yes I know cattle are killed for meat. Many have been charged with cruelty in slaughter houses. If you find cruelty to be a part of what you do, you are a sick individual. I am not some PETA person. I don't see where cruelty to defenseless things can ever be wiped from the slate. Yes, he was charged and will do his time. Then he can get out and go to work for the humane society. But I won't justify his return to millions of dollars because he can throw a football. By the way, I love sports. I don't think anyone in sports should be put on a pedestal because of talent. Don King committed a heinous crime. Should be in prison for life. That doesn't justify this.
Even though there is a "line" between humans and animals....MLAM said:
The way I interpret Big Doggie's quote is in the way of capability...and in that sense I agree with him.
IMHO I think it takes a seriously fucked up individual to do what MV did. If you can do that to an animal for shits and giggles something is wrong with your head and you dont have much further to go before you are capable of doing the same to humans....you may actually already be there.
Thats how many psychopath killers get started...they start with animals and then "graduate" to humans...and it doesnt take long at all
For those that said they would be equally disgusted in Vick had dog fighting not been a crime, I ask are you equally disgusted in Kerry Collins since he hunts deer (which I"m assuming is NOT a crime)?
I only ask because I recently heard that Kerry hunts deer and it just made me think as to why my initial reaction to this was different than my initial reaction I had with Vick. Perhaps, the brutality of Vicks methods? Electrocution, hanging, drowning etc. My reaction to Vick was far more negative than it is for Collins. But when I think about it, Collins is still killing innocent animals too. Is there a difference between what Vick did and what Collins does? For some reason Kerry Collins actions doesnt disgust me as much as Vicks does, but shouldnt it?
I only ask because I recently heard that Kerry hunts deer and it just made me think as to why my initial reaction to this was different than my initial reaction I had with Vick. Perhaps, the brutality of Vicks methods? Electrocution, hanging, drowning etc. My reaction to Vick was far more negative than it is for Collins. But when I think about it, Collins is still killing innocent animals too. Is there a difference between what Vick did and what Collins does? For some reason Kerry Collins actions doesnt disgust me as much as Vicks does, but shouldnt it?
My thoughts exactly. I find it curious why there isnt as much a backlash against Collins or other players in the league that hunt like Brian Urlacher or Keith Brooking. perhaps because its legal people just grow to accept it.lawyerman said:I believe that killing animals for under performing or hunting for "sport" is ludricious. Unfortunately, hunting is legal.
I would certainly say that Vicks methods were more brutal though. Vicks methods were tantamount to torture. And even though hunters may kill animals, I'm not sure they torture them and let them suffer before they die. But then again I know very little about hunting animals. So I guess in that sense Vicks acts could be deemed more heinous.
I think you're making a rather large assumption and a huge leap in logic.rep_pot said:
There are people who enjoy bull fighting, cock fighting, "insect wars" and yes, dog fighting that are otherwise healthy, normal members of society.
I'm not saying it's right, but some people hold animals to a lesser regard than humans, sometimes cruelly so. They often justify this viewpoint with the whole biblical "man has dominion over animals" and twist it to their illogical and sometimes sadistic viewpoint. It's similar to religious fundamentalists of all shapes, sizes and colours...
Yes it lacks empathy. Yes it blows. But it is a belief system, so we cannot easily dismiss it...
Anyway, back to the original point of this thread. My question in this discussion is still the same:
Why is Michael Vick ostensibly being held to a different, somewhat arbitrary set of standards than anyone else in sports and in life?
