|
Post by crowschmo on Sept 2, 2009 20:06:31 GMT -5
Sure, I know he's already been given a second chance. But, what do you, the readers think? I vote vicious, wild dogs. I think he should get a taste of his own medicine. He's only "sorry" because he got caught. If he hadn't, I think he'd still be involved in the dog fighting thing. There was a special on some time ago on the progress of some of the rescued dogs. One of the females would flinch and whine everytime someone made a quick move, thinking she was going to be hit. I couldn't even watch it. His second chance should have been having to get a job working with animals, to rehabilitate and rescue them, and to train them to work with people to see that they add so much to alot of people's lives, see that they have feelings and personalities as well as people - not a job where he's making millions of dollars and can go back to being a selfish jerk. It's like, in this society, if you're famous you get excused from acting like a decent human being. What's your vote?
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Sept 2, 2009 20:56:49 GMT -5
First, I'm not a sports fan.
Second, I tend not to believe in the idea of people regretting their actions. If someone claims that he or she is "sorry" for for his or her actions, I tend to believe that that person is only "sorry" that he or she got caught or got punished for it.
Third, I was reminded on an article I saw in Playboy which contained a small note contrasting positive role model black athletes with negative role model black athletes. The positive role models included Alonzo Mourning, Magic Johnson, Warrick Dunn, and Shaquille O'Neal, while the negaive role models included Michael Vick, Eddie Griffin, Tank Johnson, and Jamaal Tinsley.
Fourth, I don't believe that the tolerance in bad behavior of celebrities is something that is exclusive to fans of sports.
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Sept 3, 2009 11:59:32 GMT -5
I wouldn't even care if his rehabilitation was sincere, I'd still despise him and any team that hired him. It makes me sick to think of these bastards torturing dogs that only want to please them and would never even think of trying to get away. His second chance should have been having to get a job working with animals, to rehabilitate and rescue them, and to train them to work with people to see that they add so much to alot of people's lives, see that they have feelings and personalities as well as people Good idea. Long term second chance.
|
|
|
Post by Weirdo Writer on Sept 3, 2009 12:42:53 GMT -5
His second chance should have been having to get a job working with animals, to rehabilitate and rescue them, and to train them to work with people to see that they add so much to alot of people's lives, see that they have feelings and personalities as well as people - not a job where he's making millions of dollars and can go back to being a selfish jerk. This.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 4, 2009 3:15:37 GMT -5
While I think what he did was horrible. He served his time and as any other human being in this Country, is now free to try and rebuild his life and career.
Plus I kind of worry that one day I'll do something incredibly stupid... and that when I need my 2nd chance, karma will bitch slap me for never giving anyone else a break. So yeah, go Michael Vick, try to learn from this and be a better human and while your trying to fix your career. Think beyond the scope of throwing a dumb ball around and do something important with that second chance.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 4, 2009 8:32:20 GMT -5
While I think what he did was horrible. He served his time and as any other human being in this Country, is now free to try and rebuild his life and career. Plus I kind of worry that one day I'll do something incredibly stupid... and that when I need my 2nd chance, karma will bitch slap me for never giving anyone else a break. So yeah, go Michael Vick, try to learn from this and be a better human and while your trying to fix your career. Think beyond the scope of throwing a dumb ball around and do something important with that second chance. I'm with you on that. The weird pop culture backlash against Vick seems a touch irrational to me. If you're that outraged by dog fighting, write your congressman to get the penalties increased. But the strange public outcry because the media decided to start reporting on him again is no reason to punish the guy even more. Besides, I think the publicity he brought to dog fighting has already done a lot to make people more aware of the problem and the penalties. As far as a "public service message," he probably did as much as he'll ever do by being famous and getting caught.
|
|
|
Post by reaperg on Sept 4, 2009 9:45:19 GMT -5
I do hope he's learned his lesson and that he's a better man now. But I'm a dog person, and I still hate him.
Still, if he had to play anywhere, it would have to be Philadelphia. The Broad Street Bullies, booing Santa at a Phillies game, the original ECW -- it's his kind of sports town.
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Sept 4, 2009 12:39:37 GMT -5
The weird pop culture backlash against Vick seems a touch irrational to me. If you're that outraged by dog fighting, write your congressman. I don't know, mummi, maybe you didn't hear about the things they did to the dogs, or maybe you're playing the devil's advocate again, but the least problem I have with what they did was dog fighting. I'm disgusted by that, but it's nothing compared to the dog TORTURING they did (as I mentioned in my post). If you find it an "irrational weird pop culture backlash" to despise someone for electrocuting to death his dog, for fun, a dog that, if it was like every other dog I've ever known, would do anything for his master with the faith of a child, or for slamming the dogs to the ground until they were dead, then I guess this is just another example of how far apart we are in... well, just about everything.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 4, 2009 13:09:26 GMT -5
My point was that we had all the outrage when he got arrested. They had a trial, and he went to jail. So why do we have renewed outrage that the Eagles offered him a job?
Do we now have to act shocked and outraged that someone would offer the dude a job after he served his sentence? I'm not saying you can't be horrified by the actions. But the way a number of fans (and members of the press) seem to think it's a reasonable question whether someone can continue to have a life after serving their punishment strikes me as irrational. I mean, anyone has a right to hate the dude for being heartless and cruel. But is there really anything that wrong with someone trying to continue to rebuild their career after getting out of jail? Granted, he has a very public job that tends to put people on a pedestal. But it's still his job.
Personally, I doubt that he's a much better person or has "learned his lesson." He's probably just much more aware that he can get caught if he does awful things. But the Vick question has been whether he deserves to play quarterback again after what he's done, not whether we have to like him. To me, the answer is an obvious yes since, otherwise, you're suggesting that once someone commits a crime, is convicted, and does their time in jail, they should continue to be punished once they get out and, conceivably, without end. That to me seems unjust.
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Sept 4, 2009 14:20:46 GMT -5
If you don't see the difference between being allowed to get on with your life after serving your time for acts so despicable, compared to being a superstar with a stadium full of 80,000 people cheering for you and a million more watching you on tv then it's like I said: we're just different. But if the people cheer, they cheer, I guess. Personally, I hope they boo him off the field.
(Besides, in the long run a running quarterback is always a bad idea.)
*edit* And the argument that football is his vocation and that's why he should be allowed back may hold up to cold logic, but that's it. If a politician lies or embezzles or calls his dog to him and shoots it through the skull for fun and calls the maid to clean the blood and teeth off the floor, after he has served his time I'm not going to vote for him, and if he even has the gall to run again I'm going to sound off, just like this.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 4, 2009 16:27:09 GMT -5
*edit* And the argument that football is his vocation and that's why he should be allowed back may hold up to cold logic, but that's it. If a politician lies or embezzles or calls his dog to him and shoots it through the skull for fun and calls the maid to clean the blood and teeth off the floor, after he has served his time I'm not going to vote for him, and if he even has the gall to run again I'm going to sound off, just like this. That's my point. A politician ought to be a good person who has a history of being an upstanding person. They only get their jobs by being someone you would hopefully like and respect. But an athlete is different. Sure, we give a bunch of lip service to the whole "role model" thing, but that's bunk. It's nice when it happens, but football players? Their job is to brutalize other people under regulated conditions. They're modern-day gladiators. Whether or not they have character has nothing to do with their abilities. (And if, as I heard someone suggest once, that a quarterback has to be a "team leader" and someone everyone can respect, well, maybe. But that's a practical decision that some coach will have to decide. It doesn't matter to the audience one bit, except insofar as they're effective.) My point was that we're not electing the dude to public office or asking whether he should get an award for good citizenship. We're asking whether he can get paid to run and throw a ball and hit other burly dudes. I think what lies behind a lot of it is that people don't want him to get paid what a high profile NFL player gets paid. They don't like the idea that someone can do something awful, go to jail, and still be prosperous afterward. They want him to eat humble pie for the rest of his life. But, like I said before, that's just wanting to extend punishment informally after he's been punished formally. And that's unjust. The idea that he shouldn't be allowed to do what he did before, even if it turns him into a fabulously rich man, is vindictive, not moral. The NFL could just decide that they don't want felons playing their game. And that'd be fine because it's a private business. But there's no general moral principle I can think of that suggests that, because a guy treated dogs in a horrific manner, he shouldn't be allowed to play football after he gets out of jail. Maybe that is "cold logic," but the opposite seems to me a touch more frightening: we convict you and send you to jail. That's your formal punishment for which you had a trial and were found guilty. But when you get out, we'll refuse to let you live a normal life. And there will be no trial, nor any appeal. We'll just let public opinion control your life however it feels, no matter how much you eventually end up having to pay.
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Sept 4, 2009 21:09:34 GMT -5
Celebrities' and rich people's "punishments" seem to always be slaps on the wrists, though. An average person probably would have had to do more time. And the privileged seem to tend to go back to being jerks, lessons unlearned, back to being adored and showered with money and adulation. This culture just makes me sick.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Sept 4, 2009 22:26:05 GMT -5
In short: I love animals (kitties especially). I loath what he did with all my heart. But I agree with Mumms. Does that makes me cold, or not enough of an animal lover? I don't know, maybe - but this...
..is well stated and echoes my own feelings on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Sept 7, 2009 10:18:47 GMT -5
I consider myself an animal lover. We have three cats. I am also a long suffering Eagles fan. Back to the days of Roman Gabriel.
Michael Vick did his time. He didn't receive a life sentence. I feel he has earned this opportunity. Regardless of how it turns out for him, either as a person and as a football player, he should be allowed to try to turn around his life. I wish him luck.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Sept 7, 2009 10:50:59 GMT -5
I suppose a few users here made some points that I didn't think of. From a technical legal standpoint, Vick has paid his debt to society. I suppose it's hard to feel he has because we personally were not there to administer the punishment or because we don't feel that the punishment fits the crime, but to take it out on Vick would not solve the real problem of animal abuse and would be punishing Vick beyond the rule of law.
I myself also need to remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Personally, I don't believe him to be a better person, but I do strongly believe he will never engage in anything involving animal abuse for the rest of his life. So, in that sense, I believe him to be "rehabilitated" and he need no longer be under the spotlight. Like I said, I'm not a sports fan, and whether he plays football or not does not change my opinion of the sport.
|
|